• 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

ecofarm said:
You can beat editor of Harvard Law? Please, do tell. I wouldn't put my PhD up against that, even if it was Ivy.
Click to expand...

As well as Columbia and Occidental. That's a hell of a pedigree. I can appreciate thinking political foes are stupid. I'm betting unlike Dubya, Obama actually attended class.
 
Empirica said:
What difference does it make?__Does being one state closer make him one state smarter?

(if this is an obama defense, it is a very weak one)
Click to expand...

Yes, I find 7 an acceptable margin of error. 8 is unacceptable. :lol:
 
if God hates gays so much, how come they are richer than everyone else???
 
Wessexman said:
The problem is Empirica's way of arguing for her point. If you are going to argue that homosexuality is unnatural(and I do agree with you), then may I suggest reading Aristotle and St.Thomas Aquinas. Otherwise you're simply lost in the vague meaning you, and most of our contemporaries, ascribe to nature.
Click to expand...

So an act that predates both of those individuals is unnatural....
 
Empirica said:
I would imagine my education and IQ blows obama's away plus I know how many states there are and that the P in corpsman is silent.

Actually, it is very likely that even you are probably smarter than obama___Try to find his IQ or school records.
Click to expand...

:prof Your second sentence proves the first one false.
 
iliveonramen said:
So an act that predates both of those individuals is unnatural....
Click to expand...

Because those individuals get to define natural. Why would it matter 'when'?
 
ecofarm said:
You can beat editor of Harvard Law? Please, do tell. I wouldn't put my PhD up against that, even if it was Ivy.
Click to expand...

Take a blue pencil to these sentences, written by an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Since the merits of the Law Review's selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues, I'd like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works.

(Approximately half of this first batch is chosen solely on their performance on the writing competition; the other half are selected on a weighted formula of 70 percent grades and 30 percent writing competition.)

No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind.
Click to expand...
 
FFDP666 said:
if God hates gays so much, how come they are richer than everyone else???
Click to expand...

And better looking, and more popular, and smarter, and more successful(on average, not as much as it used to be however), and better dressed.
 
FFDP666 said:
if God hates gays so much, how come they are richer than everyone else???
Click to expand...

That's good comedy.

But if your question is serious, then you'll undoubtedly damage your credibility.
 
Wake said:
That's good comedy.

But if your question is serious, then you'll undoubtedly damage your credibility.
Click to expand...

You mean more than some one using a book supposedly written by a voice in the sky thousands of years ago, translated multiple times(frequently poorly), which portrays god as more petty than most humans...you mean the person using that book as an excuse to look down on some one has more credibility? I doubt it.
 
Redress said:
You mean more than some one using a book supposedly written by a voice in the sky thousands of years ago, translated multiple times(frequently poorly), which portrays god as more petty than most humans...you mean the person using that book as an excuse to look down on some one has more credibility? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Well, to break out my own form of philosophy, you can either believe in a religion, or believe in the notions/beliefs of humans. Whatever the case, it's just as obscure.
 
ecofarm said:
Because those individuals get to define natural. Why would it matter 'when'?
Click to expand...

They do not define what is natural. Natural is defined by something innate or something caused by nature. Not a constructed human moral code. That is not natural. Homesexuality has been around before civilization as well as has occured throughout human history...therefore natural. it's a natrual occurance. Humankind did not invent homosexuality, they invented the moral code that considered it "evil".
 
Wake said:
Well, to break out my own form of philosophy, you can either believe in a religion, or believe in the notions/beliefs of humans. Whatever the case, it's just as obscure.
Click to expand...

And neither gives a person the right to feel superior. The difference is I don't, and I take responsibility for my stance on issues instead of blaming a voice in the sky.
 
This thread amuses me.
 
Wessexman said:
The temporal aspect has nothing to do with it, it has to do with human nature, which for Aristotle and the Angelic Doctor is that without which man is not man.
Click to expand...

And neither one of them is relevant to this discussion. Trying to dazzle people with bull**** does not change that it is bull****.
 
Wessexman said:
The temporal aspect has nothing to do with it, it has to do with human nature, which for Aristotle and the Angelic Doctor is that without which man is not man.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with something being "natural". As I mentioned, natural is something that exists in nature. Natural is the normal birthing process...unnatural is a C-Section.

Homosexuality has existed as long as mankind has existed. It's a natural state. Homosexuality is as natural as hetero-sexuality. A moral construct if it states one thing unnatural that has existed before....even religion....is redifining natural.

Now...if you have a problem with it due to your own moral code...well everyone has their own moral code, but to claim something is unnatural...when all evidence shows it's a natural occurance is wrong.
 
Redress said:
And neither one of them is relevant to this discussion. Trying to dazzle people with bull**** does not change that it is bull****.
Click to expand...
And trying to be down to earth and vulgar doesn't mean that there is substance necessarily behind the swearing. It takes something more than you have shown so far to combine substance and vulgarity. It can done. William Cobbett did it wonderfully.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
It has everything to do with something being "natural". As I mentioned, natural is something that exists in nature. Natural is the normal birthing process...unnatural is a C-Section.

Homosexuality has existed as long as mankind has existed. It's a natural state. Homosexuality is as natural as hetero-sexuality. A moral construct if it states one thing unnatural that has existed before....even religion....is redifining natural.

Now...if you have a problem with it due to your own moral code...well everyone has their own moral code, but to claim something is unnatural...when all evidence shows it's a natural occurance is wrong.
Click to expand...
What is nature?
 
Empirica said:
Actually, there is no comparison whatsoever and I imagine your statement would draw critisism from many in the puerto rican community.

Even though it may not be the "focus" it is the basis of the parade__
Click to expand...

That's right, folks, it's not the focus, but it is the basis. :roll:

Their entire homosexual lifestyle revolves around their sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

That's silly and insulting.

Does your entire lifestyle revolve around your sexual orientation? And hey, what if it did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom