• 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!

Just Plain Wrong

Thank you for clarifying what I suspected.

No problem. I get how debates with people to the left are. They typically feel a certain way (i.e. they feel that a majority of christians think that sodomy should be illegal so it must be true), and feel that the facts just get in the way of that feeling.

If you can actually find some recent facts showing that majorities of christians support anti sodomy legislation, please let me know. My mind can be changed if you can find some recent polling (not 8 year old data) and not a party platform that you completely misunderstand.
 
No problem. I get how debates with people to the left are.

You call facts minutia and somehow those on the left are whacked? lololololol

Keep em comin Shecky.


If you can actually find some recent facts showing that majorities of christians support anti sodomy legislation, please let me know. My mind can be changed if you can find some recent polling (not 8 year old data) and not a party platform that you completely misunderstand.

Yes we know how you deal with facts.
 
How is opposing homosexuality and gay marriage "original and independent thought"?
I couldn't care less about the sex life of others, whether it be getting freaky with the opposite sex, the same sex or a farm animal.

The only problem most decent people have is when the morally corrupt drag their sick perversions into the light of day and demand acceptance and legitimacy.

The few who still recognize this reality are the ones not brainwashed by Political Correctness and whose abilities of original and independent thought and common sense are still intact.
 
I couldn't care less about the sex life of others, whether it be getting freaky with the opposite sex, the same sex or a farm animal.

The only problem most decent people have is when the morally corrupt drag their sick perversions into the light of day and demand acceptance and legitimacy.

The few who still recognize this reality are the ones not brainwashed by Political Correctness and whose abilities of original and independent thought and common sense are still intact.
Depends how you define "decent people", "morally corrupt", "sick perversions", and "demand acceptance and legitimacy".

Also, "brainwashed", "political correctness", "independent thought", and "common sense".


Many people, I would guess (based on this post), disagree with your definitions.
 
I couldn't care less about the sex life of others, whether it be getting freaky with the opposite sex, the same sex or a farm animal.

The only problem most <em>decent</em> people have is when the morally corrupt drag their sick perversions into the light of day and demand acceptance and legitimacy.


The few who still recognize this reality are the ones not brainwashed by Political Correctness and whose abilities of original and independent thought and common sense are still intact.

Honestly, it sounds like you really could care a whole lot less.
 
Last edited:
Putting her needs above the child's. The child was obviously not comfortable with it, but the mother thought she could score some political points for her cause.

Weirdo parents do this often - when the serach for Caylee Anthony was going on people would picket with their children in front of her house wearing "how could you do this" t-shirts.

It doesn't matter WHAT they're supporting - it's that theyr'e doing it, period.
 
I couldn't care less about the sex life of others, whether it be getting freaky with the opposite sex, the same sex or a farm animal.

The only problem most decent people have is when the morally corrupt drag their sick perversions into the light of day and demand acceptance and legitimacy.

The few who still recognize this reality are the ones not brainwashed by Political Correctness and whose abilities of original and independent thought and common sense are still intact.

As soon as you used the term, "decent people" your entire post became a logical fallacy and irrelevant.
 
Um.. Yeah. Not quite. It's simply the GOP' parties platform that can provide funding to republican candidates if they agree to a certain number of the statements.

It's a party platform. Parties run for office, to make legislation.

If this isn't legislative, it shouldn't be in a party platform.

The text that he copied is, IMO, not repugnant. It's just something that you and he disagree with.

I find it repugnant.
 
I couldn't care less about the sex life of others

Bull****. You care deeply, as the rest of your post shows.

Mind your own damn business. Get out of the sex lives of other people.
 
Its really stupid to use children for this purpose.
It was very emotional.
Michele your the one that needs fixingAnd no son, your mom does not need any "fixing"
You think Michelle will be reading your post?
 
Again, this is a strawman.

No one is suggesting that "Because its natural we should accept it". What people ARE suggesting is that "Because its UNNATURAL we should not accept it" and then people are pointing out "No, you're wrong, it is natural as it does occur in nature".

Let me explain it another way because you seem to have a SIGNIFICANT problem grasping this.

One person says "Basketball sucks because its not a sport".
A second person points out "Actually, basketball is a sport".

That second person is not saying "Basketball is good because its a sport", he's simply pointing out that the REASON person 1 is saying it sucks ("That its not a sport") is incorrect.

Same thing here.

One person says "We shouldn't accept homosexuals, its unnatural"
Second person says "Actually, it is natural".

That is not saying "Homosexuality should be accepted because its natural", its simply pointing out the REASON person one is saying it shouldn't be accepted ("because its unnatural") is not correct.

If YOU want to make the argument that "Homosexuality shouldn't be accepted because [some reason or opinion that is not factually incorrect]" then more power to you. However, pointing out that someone is wrong that its unnatural is not suggesting that all natural things are bad. If you have a problem with people pointing out when someone makes a factually incorrect argument perhaps you should focus more on those that are making said argument.
The real problem is historical and philosophical illiteracy; or in other words what nature means. When the Angelic Doctor or Aristotle considered something unnatural, they didn't simply mean according to empirical readings of the natural world, but according what was considered the essence or nature of something; what it couldn't have removed from it without ceasing to be itself.
 
Last edited:
Yes we know how you deal with facts.

So you don't have any facts to show a majority of "righty christians" look to make it illegal despite your hyperbolic rant. Noted.
 
Last edited:
It's a party platform. Parties run for office, to make legislation.

It's not legislative. cadidates that run for office in Texas only have to agree with 10 points on the 25 page document (I would guess there are 100 or so points to choose from) in order to recieve funding from the state party. I would be willing to bet that very-very few, if any, candidates chose the point that you find so objectionable as one they agree with. If they had, you can be sure it would have been news on all the left leaning webstes - such as the one that was originaly quoted here and used to misrepresent what a party platform is. Can you find any candidate that supported the anti sodom point?

I find it repugnant.

So what? The point that Top Cat chose to quote, I find reasonable. I do not agree with the point that you both find so objectionable.
 
Last edited:
It's not legislative. cadidates that run for office in Texas only have to agree with 10 points on the 25 page document (I would guess there are 100 or so points to choose from) in order to recieve funding from the state party. I would be willing to bet that very-very few, if any, candidates chose the point that you find so objectionable as one they agree with. If they had, you can be sure it would have been news on all the left leaning webstes - such as the one that was originaly quoted here and used to misrepresent what a party platform is. Can you find any candidate that supported the anti sodom point?

I didn't say the candidates do. The party does though. I blame the party for it.

You're doing a good job of playing with specifics to dodge the fundamental issue, which is that the Texas GOP is on record as supporting this.

So what? The point that Top Cat chose to quote, I find reasonable. I do not agree with the point that you both find so objectionable.

Fine. I do.
 
So you don't have any facts to show a majority of "righty christians" look to make it illegal despite your hyperbolic rant. Noted.

We both know of those in this country that want homosexuality made illegal, almost all are Right Wing Christians. The only difference is, I voice it. You deny it. Spare me your request of facts. After all, they are, in your words "minutia".
 
I didn't say the candidates do. The party does though. I blame the party for it.

You're doing a good job of playing with specifics to dodge the fundamental issue, which is that the Texas GOP is on record as supporting this.

That particular point is just a carry-over from when the party did care. Additionally, if no candidate is running on that point or chose that point as one of their 10, then those “evil righty Christians” just aren’t forcing everyone to live by the bible.
 
I

The only problem most decent people have is when the morally corrupt drag their sick perversions into the light of day and demand acceptance and legitimacy.

If only everyone else could be decent: like you? The sick perversion here is the condescending and judgmental attitude on display.
 
We both know of those in this country that want homosexuality made illegal, almost all are Right Wing Christians. The only difference is, I voice it. You deny it. Spare me your request of facts. After all, they are, in your words "minutia".

I will readily acnkowledge that there are some that want anti-sodom. There are very few when compared to the number of right wing christians. There are hard-liners in any camp (including the pro-gay group). Those hard liners do not make up the marjority opinion of said camp. your point was that right wing christians wanted X. I indicated it was not very many (as taken in the context of the total number of right wing christians) that want x.

You are the one that said we were arguing minutia, because I was adding facts to the conversation. I simply summarized your statement.
 
The few who still recognize this reality are the ones not brainwashed by Political Correctness and whose abilities of original and independent thought and common sense are still intact.

You have to love this quote. It sure sounds to me like some serious RW Christian indoctrination to me. Some might call that brainwashing too. Imagine that?
 
I will readily acnkowledge that there are some that want anti-sodom. There are very few when compared to the number of right wing christians. There are hard-liners in any camp (including the pro-gay group). Those hard liners do not make up the marjority opinion of said camp. your point was that right wing christians wanted X. I indicated it was not very many (as taken in the context of the total number of right wing christians) that want x.

You are the one that said we were arguing minutia, because I was adding facts to the conversation. I simply summarized your statement.

So now you didn't say facts=minutia and you are the one adding facts?

I'm done with you.
 
That particular point is just a carry-over from when the party did care.

Oh, come on. What an even lamer excuse.

Additionally, if no candidate is running on that point or chose that point as one of their 10, then those “evil righty Christians” just aren’t forcing everyone to live by the bible.

Sure, but the Texas GOP officially wants them to.
 
So now you didn't say facts=minutia and you are the one adding facts?

I'm done with you.

I added facts to the conversation. And in response to the facts, you indicated we were arguing minutia. So, I summarized your point by saying facts = minutia. To make my point better, I should have said "to you facts = minutia", I just left out the "to you" part.
 
Oh, come on. What an even lamer excuse.

The official TX GOP position is that it is just a carry-over. They have stated this on record. They are not actively pursuing it.

Sure, but the Texas GOP officially wants them to.

Don't you find it odd that very few, and probably no, TX GOP candidates are running on the item that the Texas GOP "officially" wants?
 
The official TX GOP position is that it is just a carry-over. They have stated this on record. They are not actively pursuing it.

That's an even bigger load of horse****. If they aren't "actively pursuing it" they should remove it. It's pathetic political weaseling, and you're participating in it too.

Don't you find it odd that very few, and probably no, TX GOP candidates are running on the item that the Texas GOP "officially" wants?

I don't care. The TX GOP is on record. So the point about the party is made, and undeniable, about the party.

I'd like to see each candidate confronted with their views on it though. Not choosing it on a list isn't the same thing as disavowing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom