• 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.

mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... doesn't seem that way. But if heterosexuality could be a learned behavior for several reasons, those reasons would have the same impact on homosexuality. You still haven't shown a distinction, with the exception of procreation... which is a completely separate issue and does not apply, and anatomy, which is related to a sexual act, not the orientation... and therefore does not apply.



:). 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?
Click to expand...

Because you use the word "design" as an absolute. I am challenging you on the absolute.



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

And I have already demonstrated how neither of these things apply.



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.
Click to expand...

mac... again, we are talking about behavior, behavior that can be done by anyone in any context. You cannot make a direct correlation, here, which is why this part of your argument doesn't apply.



I don't think you do understand, to be honest, but thank you for being gracious.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure I do. I've read nearly every post you've made on this topic in this and the other thread. When you discuss that your objections to homosexuality are moral/religious, I have no argument with you. In fact, I have a lot of respect for you saying that. But when you attempt to present that or other aspects of the argument in a logical sense, though I understand what you are doing, not only do I disagee, but I can demonstrate how/why you are wrong. If I were you, I'd stick to the moral/religious position.
 
I am amazed every time a thread on Gay rights or anything Gay comes up because the interest never seems to lighten up.

By now it has to be obvious to everyone that neither side is ever going to give an inch and all possible arguments have been said and re-said a thousand times, making this either the perfect example of doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. In other words crazy.

Or somewhere out there is a very crowed bunch of closets.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Hmmm... doesn't seem that way. But if heterosexuality could be a learned behavior for several reasons, those reasons would have the same impact on homosexuality. You still haven't shown a distinction, with the exception of procreation... which is a completely separate issue and does not apply, and anatomy, which is related to a sexual act, not the orientation... and therefore does not apply.
Click to expand...

Well, the funny thing is that I don't really believe that heterosexuality is a learned behavior. I believe it to be the outcome of the normal course of a humans development. I believe the opposite to be true with homosexuality. I believe it to be a choice, perhaps sub-conscious, made possible by various learned personality traits.

[quote[Because you use the word "design" as an absolute. I am challenging you on the absolute.[/quote]

Regardless, in the course of it's normal operation, the vagina accommodates the penis. The same cannot be true of the Anus. Ignore the biological/anatomical truth of that all you like.

And I have already demonstrated how neither of these things apply.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have, at best you've out argued me. The rules of debate are not rules of life though.

mac... again, we are talking about behavior, behavior that can be done by anyone in any context. You cannot make a direct correlation, here, which is why this part of your argument doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the natures of behaviors commonly conducted by persons of a certain orientation. How those behaviors affect affinity with an orientation, I believe, very much do affect the development of the orientation.

No, I'm pretty sure I do. I've read nearly every post you've made on this topic in this and the other thread. When you discuss that your objections to homosexuality are moral/religious, I have no argument with you. In fact, I have a lot of respect for you saying that. But when you attempt to present that or other aspects of the argument in a logical sense, though I understand what you are doing, not only do I disagee, but I can demonstrate how/why you are wrong. If I were you, I'd stick to the moral/religious position.
Click to expand...

I disagree that you do. I think you are used to arguing the issue with folks that believe "God Said No", and have no further argument. Well, part of my argument is God said no, a significant part, I'll concede. I take that and look at homosexuality from as open a perspective as I can manage, and look at the available evidence surrounding the issue. The things I have said make perfect sense to me, although applying the arguments to heterosexuality is new for me. I'm exploring that, I hadn't approached the issue from that direction. Nevertheless, everything available (including available studies) indicates to me that Heterosexuality is natural, and homosexuality is unnatural. Another difference between me and many you may have argued with is that I don't think this alone makes people good or bad. As far as I'm concerned, there are ten sins, and a few variants. Though shalt not cornhole your neighbor is not on the list. That means it's a rule, not a sin. I've broken a few rules myself.

I've begun to ramble so I'll try to sum up....being gay doesn't make you someone I fear, dislike, distrust, abhor, etc, etc. I believe everyone has the right to do whatever they like to each other in privacy, even if it is immoral/illegal/weird. I also believe that wanting to do those things doesn't necessarily put you in a group deserving the right of marriage. Just because a few folks want something to be accepted and natural, doesn't make it accepted and natural.
 
Councilman said:
By now it has to be obvious to everyone that neither side is ever going to give an inch and all possible arguments have been said and re-said a thousand times, making this either the perfect example of doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. In other words crazy.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but people have been posting that exact same observation on this forum for years before you joined. Additionally, folks have been pointing it out, like I just did, for just as long.

Welcome to the cycle :peace
 
Councilman said:
I am amazed every time a thread on Gay rights or anything Gay comes up because the interest never seems to lighten up.

By now it has to be obvious to everyone that neither side is ever going to give an inch and all possible arguments have been said and re-said a thousand times, making this either the perfect example of doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. In other words crazy.

Or somewhere out there is a very crowed bunch of closets.
Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out that we don't generally expect a different result. Those of us who've been here for a while pretty much know what's going to happen just by reading the thread title.

Folks like myself are looking for new ways to look at the issue, which necessarily requires us to rehash old material with every new comer who thinks they have a fresh take; when in fact they don't.

Also, we're not always looking for the same result in every thread, nor does the same result, out of a menu of predicable results, always occur. In one thread I might be looking just to shut the OP down, while engaging a couple other posted and perhaps trolling 1 or 2 without getting points. In another thread, I might simply be lazy or drunk and I'm just ****ing around. Still another thread may have some new law leading to an interesting discussion of legal theory.

Debate rarely changes anyone's mind, whether you're a participant or in the audience, and so we don't expect it to. You're correct in assuming I'm not likely to ever see the condition which will change my mind, because that condition is when SSM is primarily about the family, which isn't going to happen. I'm not big into identity politics and so by default I'm not a big supporter of SSM.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Debate rarely changes anyone's mind, whether you're a participant or in the audience.
Click to expand...

This fact saddens me, as debate has changed my mind on a few topics several times (prime examples being abortion, assisted suicide and gun rights) and I feel that both sides of an argument are better for it, as long as the debate is done properly.

I think the bigger issue is that so few people have a comprehensive understanding as to how debate should properly work and give it little value.
 
TheBook said:
This fact saddens me, as debate has changed my mind on a few topics several times (prime examples being abortion, assisted suicide and gun rights) and I feel that both sides of an argument are better for it, as long as the debate is done properly.

I think the bigger issue is that so few people have a comprehensive understanding as to how debate should properly work and give it little value.
Click to expand...

More-so, few people even care to have a comprehensive understanding, of any topic. They just want to go on with their lives.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are failing to include the SCOTUS's levels of scrutiny within this argument. The SCOTUS has said that it is not that the 14th means that everyone has to be treated the same in every instance, just that when they are treated differently by the government there has to be reasons why they are being treated differently that are varying levels of the government's interest and within the interest of the people.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

And, although the Constitution does not mention marriage specifically, it did state in the ninth that rights did not necessarily have to be mentioned in the Constitution to be considered rights, since it would have been exhausting and next to impossible for the writers to do this. They went with those rights that they felt were most important and set up the SCOTUS to decide on the rest. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th went further to ensure that people were treated equally and fairly by both the federal government and state governments. It is the court's responsibility to balance whose right is more important in cases where rights conflict or might be viewed as conflicting, including SSM. And the SCOTUS has ruled at least twice now that marriage is a right. With those rulings, that means that state's must have some state interest (should be an important interest since the discrimination involves sex/gender, but should at least show that it is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest) in denying a marriage contract to two men or two women. So far, no argument for anti-SSM has provided a rational relationship between denying SSM and a legitimate state interest. ALL the arguments fail in one way or another to show how denying SSM actually serves a legitimate state interest and fail big time when it comes to showing how it could possibly serve an important state interest.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Well it's not conservatives either, so I guess that means no one's really doing that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is....so-called conservatives speak out of both sides of their mouth...they advocate for small government and yet they seek for huge government involvement into the most intimate details of people's lives.
 
disneydude said:
Absolutely it is....so-called conservatives speak out of both sides of their mouth...they advocate for small government and yet they seek for huge government involvement into the most intimate details of people's lives.
Click to expand...

In the pursuit of small government, one is required to oppose SSM, as SSM is the expansion of government; unconstitutionally so when children are not present.
 
theplaydrive said:
I was actually going to include them/the Koran, but I was just like...too lazy.
Click to expand...

Allowing SSM is a religious stance, as well...unless you're discounting Buddhists and wiccans.
 
Jerry said:
Allowing SSM is a religious stance, as well...unless you're discounting Buddhists and wiccans.
Click to expand...

It can be a religious stance, but most people who support in this country see it as a secular stance (i.e. keep you're morality out of my bedroom).
 
Jerry said:
In the pursuit of small government, one is required to oppose SSM, as SSM is the expansion of government; unconstitutionally so when children are not present.
Click to expand...

This only makes sense if, in the pursuit of small government, one is also required to oppose opposite sex marriage.
 
theplaydrive said:
It can be a religious stance, but most people who support in this country see it as a secular stance (i.e. keep you're morality out of my bedroom).
Click to expand...

Yeah, wouldn't want to be thought of as a conformist....gasp.
 
mac said:
Yeah, wouldn't want to be thought of as a conformist....gasp.
Click to expand...

There's nothing negative about being a conformist...you were the one who got all hot and bothered when CT called you one.
 
theplaydrive said:
It can be a religious stance, but most people who support in this country see it as a secular stance (i.e. keep you're morality out of my bedroom).
Click to expand...

If you keep your bedroom out of my courthouse.
 
theplaydrive said:
There's nothing negative about being a conformist...you were the one who got all hot and bothered when CT called you one.
Click to expand...

That's because he meant it as an insult. You had no problem percieving my jokes as insults....hypocrite much?
 
mac said:
That's because he meant it as an insult. You had no problem percieving my jokes as insults....hypocrite much?
Click to expand...

That was your perception. As I said before, I don't consider calling someone a conformist an insult, I consider being a conformist to be an insult. My value system would never allow me to be a conformist. I have no issue with you being a conformist, I simply wanted you to recognize it, which you eventually did and you even articulated a hypothesis that homosexuality is a form of nonconformity.

Conformity is simply the process by which human behavior is homogenized in accordance with either group or religious expectations. It's useful for forming group cohesion, order, and stability. Everyone conforms to a degree. However, when an individual conforms to the point that it becomes their very identity, as is the case with people who adhere to a religious doctrine and expect others to do the same, then it becomes an issue. I was simply pointing out the fact that your chosen identity as a conformist makes debate a rather pointless endeavor for you since you are simply looking for evidence to support your preconceived beliefs and any arguments you do make will simply fall back on your religious beliefs.

Of course, you got a little hot under the collar when I pointed all this out to you because you feel that I look down on conformists, when in reality I simply pity the narrow world that conformists live. I was raised as a Christian and was very conservative when I was young, so I do know the feelings of acceptance and serenity of that world but it required that I suppressed major parts of who I am which ultimately negated the whole point. I'm by no means an atheist, I have my own relationship with God, but I recognize my beliefs in God are based on intuition rather than conviction. I also am aware of the historical origins of the Bible and the psychology behind it, so I have rejected it, whereas you have accepted it on faith. These factors make us very different people, but I respect your self determination to make the decision to be a conformist, which is unfortunate because you very identity requires that you reject my homosexuality, which I am fairly certain I never chose.
 
mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

I personally know a woman who has switched from men to women because of rape trauma. So yes it CAN be a "choice" (i.e. not determined by genetics), and may even be a conscious decision, instead of subconscious.
 
maquiscat said:
I personally know a woman who has switched from men to women because of rape trauma. So yes it CAN be a "choice" (i.e. not determined by genetics), and may even be a conscious decision, instead of subconscious.
Click to expand...

Sexual trauma can actually cause substantial neurological changes. That is a measured effect, especially among children who have been sexually abused. I question the use of the word "choice" since I doubt you know exactly what physical changes occurred in her brain as a result of her trauma. However, treatment of sexual trauma has lead to some people making major shifts in their sexual orientation and unresolved trauma can seemingly influence sexual orientation.

That aside, my family knows a woman who was a die hard lesbian for most of her life, and she left her partner of twenty years for a man. That was a conscious choice on her part. As such, I am aware that some people are capable of choosing their sexual orientation. I do not know the degree to which you can generalize that ability. People have varying degrees of neuroplasticity which influences the degree to which they can change attractions which are biologically inborn, learned, or the result of socialization. The opposite occurs, and people who desperately wish to change their sexual orientation put in every effort to do so and when they fail, they may even take their own lives. Those examples are just as worthy of consideration as the examples of people who choose their sexual orientation and they demonstrate the danger of making a hasty generalization.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention that women are much more likely to be somewhat bisexual in nature. Although I'm not sure if the reason behind this is well known, this is a reasonably well-agreed upon occurrence. There are also people who don't care about gender, just personality.

This does not, however, have much to do with choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom