• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

Big Tom said:
I wish you were kidding me, but sadly your not. You belive its normal to have man on man relations? Same sex marriages? I don't.
Click to expand...

What you think is normal is not what matters. What does matter is that the people who always claim they want government to leave them alone and not tell them what to do want to gell Gays what they can and cannot do.

What else do you want government to tell you to do?
 
jakiejakester said:
What you think is normal is not what matters. What does matter is that the people who always claim they want government to leave them alone and not tell them what to do want to gell Gays what they can and cannot do.

What else do you want government to tell you to do?
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. Those who pretend to scream the loudest about wanting small government are the ones that argue for Huge government involvement in the social arena.
 
disneydude said:
EXACTLY. Those who pretend to scream the loudest about wanting small government are the ones that argue for Huge government involvement in the social arena.
Click to expand...

And the ones screaming for Government involvement in everything don't want it in their bedroom....what's the difference?
 
mac said:
And the ones screaming for Government involvement in everything don't want it in their bedroom....what's the difference?
Click to expand...

I think you might be confusing freedom of choice with what you seem to be calling "huge government." If you choose not to marry someone of your sex that is OK with me. If you choose to prevent someone from the right to marry that is not the same thing. Why anyone cares so much what two consenting adults want to marry to the point that you prevent it seems bizarre to me.

What are you afraid will happen if two people get married? It's not like heterosexual marriage is the model for eternal harmony? If half the marriages in America end in divorce now how is that a positive reflection on the "sanctity" of marriage?
 
jakiejakester said:
I think you might be confusing freedom of choice with what you seem to be calling "huge government." If you choose not to marry someone of your sex that is OK with me. If you choose to prevent someone from the right to marry that is not the same thing. Why anyone cares so much what two consenting adults want to marry to the point that you prevent it seems bizarre to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing anything, and I didn't say anything about "huge government". I oppose it because it is wrong.

What are you afraid will happen if two people get married? It's not like heterosexual marriage is the model for eternal harmony? If half the marriages in America end in divorce now how is that a positive reflection on the "sanctity" of marriage?
Click to expand...

I'm not afraid of anything. I simple oppose the idea that homosexuals are equally eligible to get married.
 
mac said:
I'm not confusing anything, and I didn't say anything about "huge government". I oppose it because it is wrong.



I'm not afraid of anything. I simple oppose the idea that homosexuals are equally eligible to get married.
Click to expand...
Why? How does it affect your life? Why would you want to deny anyone the same rights that you enjoy simply based on sexual preference? Who cares what someone does in their personal life?

What will happen to you when Gay marriage becomes legal (it's inevitable)?

Do you also oppose inter-racial marriage? Should that be illegal too? I'm not suggesting that you do but the same logic one uses to believe that any man and woman should be allowed to get married regardless of their race should apply to sexual preference, it's the same thing.
 
mac said:
I'm not confusing anything, and I didn't say anything about "huge government". I oppose it because it is wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, you think it is wrong and therefore deny others the same rights you enjoy.


I'm not afraid of anything. I simple oppose the idea that homosexuals are equally eligible to get married.
Click to expand...
This "eligibility" you speak of is not for you to decide.

I just decided you're not equally eligible to go within 1 mile of where I live, on account of me feeling like it. That's fair, right?
 
OK not bothering to read 71 pages of replies, I have to say....

That is a piss poor article to as any kind of stand on the matter. Why didn't it pass? Was it because of a fundamental issues with SSM? Did some politician finally grow some balls and say, "I'm not allowing a bill that has some financial rider that has nothing to to with the main bill to come up for a vote"? Did some clerk dot a t and cross an i and the red tape police kicked it back?

If you are going to post an article, then post one with some real information in it not a blurb that's shorter than a TV newscast sound bite!
 
iamitter said:
Well, you think it is wrong and therefore deny others the same rights you enjoy.
Click to expand...

No, I personally do not deny others supposed rights, The rule of law does.

This "eligibility" you speak of is not for you to decide.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, it's for the courts to decide.

I just decided you're not equally eligible to go within 1 mile of where I live, on account of me feeling like it. That's fair, right?[/QUOTE]
 
mac said:
No, I personally do not deny others supposed rights, The rule of law does.
Click to expand...
The law applies equally to all people. I remember that being a mildly important issue back in the day.

I can't wait for it to go to the SC. There's no good legal argument you can make.
 
I support gay marriage being legal, but there is no Constitutional basis for forcing it to be legal and forcing states to recognize gay marriage.
 
mac said:
I'm talking about how things would interact with our learning experiences that push us to heterosexuality...if it is a learned behavior. The urge to procreate, in my mind, would push someone towards a lifestyle that more easily supports that. Our species reproduces sexually...requiring a male and a female to do it.
Click to expand...

When I asked you before what about heterosexuality is biology, you said "procreation". Now you are discussing procretation as a learned behavior. mac... you can't play both sides of the street. If you are stating that procreation is the biological component of heterosexuality, I will argue that. If you are saying that it is a learned component of heterosexuality, I will argue THAT. Can't pick and choose depending on my rebuttal.

The sensations generated leading up to and during intercourse are designed to be stimulated by heterosexual, penis to vagina, intercourse.
Click to expand...

Really? Can I have a quote from the designer on this?

To stimulate these same sensations outside of normal intercourse, actions must be taken to "artificially" stimulate these areas. Sexual activities other than penis to vagina intercourse do this in manners I like to think of as varying from the norm. Such activities are normal out to a certain "range" and then become less or abnormal. (I fully understand that this last bit is my own theory)
Click to expand...

Yes, it is your own theory and deals with teh word "normal" which is as problematic as the word "natural". None of this, however, addresses my point about the biological component that is exclusive to heterosexuality.

Also, the male and female body are designed to fit together for sexual reproduction. The male body is not designed to fit the male body for intercourse, likewise with females. In fact, the anus is the most dangerous place on the human body to "explore". The delicacy of the skin of the anus combined with the lack of natural production of lubrication and the heightened levels of bacterias makes anal sex a down right risky venture.
Click to expand...


Firstly, again, I need a quote from the designer that justifies your position on this. Secondly, sexual reproduction is not the only reason for sexual intercourse. Thirdly, you are talking about sexual behaviors... behaviors that are also performed by heterosexuals, so equating anal sex to homosexuals is irrelevant, both because it is a behavior, not an orientation and because it is not exclusive to gays. And lastly, I already posted that procreation is a separate issue from sexual orientation.

Understanding my point of view relies on an acceptance of "normal intercourse". Many are unwilling to accept that idea, but if the type of intercourse our bodies are designed to engage in is not the basis for this, then there simply is no basis and it relies solely on opinion.
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view. I do not accept it because of all the reasons I have outlined.
 
digsbe said:
I support gay marriage being legal, but there is no Constitutional basis for forcing it to be legal and forcing states to recognize gay marriage.
Click to expand...

There's no constitutional basis for it to be illegal actually. The 14th amendment is quite clear. This shouldn't even be an issue - whether or not someone thinks what others do or feel is icky is not grounds to deny them equal rights.
 
It comes down to conformity to traditional norms and teleological reasoning of the design of human sexual function.

These are acceptable opinions in regards to opposing homosexuality. Albeit, they are weak. Norms are constantly changing and humans engage in all sorts of sexual behaviors that do not serve the purpose of procreation, such as oral sex and masturbation.

However, an individual who claims a conservative political orientation is interested in maintaining a status quo, and thus by definition is resistant to changes in societal norms or to behaviors which deviate from the "natural" design.

Given that I value individuality, personal freedom, and fairness, I will never understand this value of homogenizing human behavior to a group or religious expectation in the interest of "purity" or "sacredness". Religious beliefs are certainly interesting and live up to Marx's claim that they are the "opiate of the masses". They seem useful in creating a group cohesion similar to the eusocial order of some animals, highly organized and respective to a hierarchy.

As such, what it ultimately comes down to is that I do not respect an authority that the conformists do respect. In the case of Christians, it is typically the Biblical God.

It's strange, but you really can compare conservative Christians to the drones of ant colonies or bee hives. They follow a respective order, they have an established role with specific duties, and their ultimate purpose it to serve the Queen, the highest authority, who they are suppose to follow with absolute faith. Any bee or ant that does not follow the Queen, or does not live within the order of the colony or hive, or behaves in a way that is contrary to the established norms, is considered a sinner. Nonconformity is the greatest sin, it is an act of pride or temptation.

I can see why Ayn Rand is considered by some to be the mother of the new conservative tradition. She valued nonconformity, enlightened self interest, and individual expression. Her breed of conservatism is in direct contrast to the religious breed.

Lots of interesting thoughts.
 
Last edited:
iamitter said:
There's no constitutional basis for it to be illegal actually. The 14th amendment is quite clear. This shouldn't even be an issue - whether or not someone thinks what others do or feel is icky is not grounds to deny them equal rights.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is silent when it comes to things like marriage. It doesn't go pro or con and leaves it up to the states. The Equal Rights Amendment was something that would have forced gay marriage to be legal Constitutionally. The amendment made it illegal to discriminate between men and women and that everyone of every gender should be equal. However, opponents brought up valid points that under the amendment it would be unconstitutional to ban men in women's bathrooms and visa versa. It would also force women to sign up for the selective service because it would be unequal for men to be the only ones that have to. If that amendment had passed then yes, gay marriage would be Constitutionally legal (as it would make it illegal to prevent a woman from being defined as a husband and a male being allowed to be defined as a wife). I agree that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into their own marriage contracts with each other, however the Constitution doesn't force it, it's silent regarding the issue. The amendment that would have forced it to be discrimination failed to be ratified.
 
To Mac: If homosexuality is truly a choice and therefore SSM should not be covered under equal protection (as it seems your argument has become) would you endeavor to prove it by choosing to be gay for a day?

It doesn't mean you have to have sex with a man or anything, but simply choose to find men attractive and women entirely unappealing.

If you do this, then you will prove your case. If you attempt this and fail, that would be substantial evidence that you are incorrect. Don't worry, afterward you can choose to be heterosexual again, as if homosexuality is a choice, then so must heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc. etc.
 
Also, as someone who has seen firsthand the horrors gay students go through (my father taught a guy who was beaten into a coma for being gay) why do they not simply choose to be straight, as it would make their lives vastly easier.

The closest thing to this that I know of is a guy who went to my high school that was gay but highly religious, so chose not to act on his homosexual urges. I found out a few months ago that he committed suicide during his freshman year of college. I guess he sure was dumb for not choosing to be straight, huh?
 
mac said:
And the ones screaming for Government involvement in everything don't want it in their bedroom....what's the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference is that we aren't the ones claiming to be "conservative"
 
iamitter said:
The law applies equally to all people. I remember that being a mildly important issue back in the day.

I can't wait for it to go to the SC. There's no good legal argument you can make.
Click to expand...

It does, but the law can group individuals and identify individuals that specific laws do or do not apply too.
 
mac said:
It does, but the law can group individuals and identify individuals that specific laws do or do not apply too.
Click to expand...

The only reason that the law would exclude same-sex relationships would be because of certain interpretations of the Bible. Interpretations of the Bible are a not a reasonable foundation for deciding law in such a secular society.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
When I asked you before what about heterosexuality is biology, you said "procreation". Now you are discussing procretation as a learned behavior. mac... you can't play both sides of the street. If you are stating that procreation is the biological component of heterosexuality, I will argue that. If you are saying that it is a learned component of heterosexuality, I will argue THAT. Can't pick and choose depending on my rebuttal.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what's going on here CC. You asked me of I though heterosexuality was a learned behavior. What I said was I think it could be and if it were, these are the things that would probably affect it.

Really? Can I have a quote from the designer on this?
Click to expand...

:). Listen, most discussions of sexual intercourse from a clinical perspective, outside the homo/hetero context will tell you this. Why does it not apply in this context?

Yes, it is your own theory and deals with teh word "normal" which is as problematic as the word "natural". None of this, however, addresses my point about the biological component that is exclusive to heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

The biological component is procreation+anatomy.

Firstly, again, I need a quote from the designer that justifies your position on this. Secondly, sexual reproduction is not the only reason for sexual intercourse. Thirdly, you are talking about sexual behaviors... behaviors that are also performed by heterosexuals, so equating anal sex to homosexuals is irrelevant, both because it is a behavior, not an orientation and because it is not exclusive to gays. And lastly, I already posted that procreation is a separate issue from sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it is exclusive to homosexuals. What I said was that is was dangerous, and it seems less natural as a primary method of sexual activity than vaginal intercourse. To me That could be a reason to lean toward heterosexuality.

I understand your point of view. I do not accept it because of all the reasons I have outlined.
Click to expand...

I don't think you do understand, to be honest, but thank you for being gracious.
 
mac said:
:). Listen, most discussions of sexual intercourse from a clinical perspective, outside the homo/hetero context will tell you this. Why does it not apply in this context?

The biological component is procreation+anatomy.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile the anatomical reality of the prostate with your views?
 
TheBook said:
To Mac: If homosexuality is truly a choice and therefore SSM should not be covered under equal protection (as it seems your argument has become) would you endeavor to prove it by choosing to be gay for a day?

It doesn't mean you have to have sex with a man or anything, but simply choose to find men attractive and women entirely unappealing.

If you do this, then you will prove your case. If you attempt this and fail, that would be substantial evidence that you are incorrect. Don't worry, afterward you can choose to be heterosexual again, as if homosexuality is a choice, then so must heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

You're not really understanding choice, in this context. It's not s imple choice to follow a lifestyle, it's a choice that takes years to make and as such once a lifestyle is chosen and lived for some time, it's generally not a simple choice to change.

I do know both hetero and homosexuals who have "switched" for the sake of experimentation though. I haven't personally but I think their example is enough to prove your premise wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom