• 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

Suggesting animals do it is not peoples explanation for why its "okay"

Suggesting animals do it is peoples, correct, counter that its "Unnatural" IE something not existing in nature.

Its a counter to the notion that being gay is BAD because its unnatural, not stating that it is GOOD because it is natural.

Animals hump legs and sniff stranger's butts. I assume that we as a society should just start accepting this naturalbehavior from other people. Note: I am not arguing if homo sexuality is natural or unnatural, I am only stating that justifying something by the actions of some frigging dumb ass animals is a nutty thing to do. There are all types of adhorrent behaviours we can find animals doing - attempting to justify humans doing the same thing is not something I would want to do.
 
Animals hump legs and sniff stranger's butts. I assume that we as a society should just start accepting this naturalbehavior from other people.

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.
 
Why is it in the most liberal state California all the polls said the majority of people was for gay marriage...and when it came to a vote it was VOTED DOWN...an california if not THEY most populated state with homosexuals its in the top 3.

Because black people, as a group, tend to be giant homophobes. It's not really a secret in political circles. Black people tend to be socially conservative and politically liberal, unless gay people are involved.
 
Last edited:
Oh-oh. Now you're going to have a lot of your pro-GM friends start asking why you are here. They only like to debate opinions, apparently.

No, most of the better pro-GM posters debate the position using facts and logic, pretty exclusively. The only occasional question comes from the interpretation of those facts.
 
The sight of hundreds of men gayly parading down a public city street in broad daylight dressed only in ladies pumps, panties and makeup with fluffy boas and colorful feathered head-dress tends to make many people question the seriousness of their oppression.

It is pretty silly and naive to associate all gays with those who march in parades.

Not to mention, they are one of the most financially successful groups in America__The homosexual lifestyle is based entirely on unnatural sex acts, which most people have no problem with as long as they are not being forced to accept it as anything but what it is__Sick perversion.

Unnatural sex acts. Please define natural in the context of this discussion.

Sick perversion. You do understand that your use of this terminology is nothing but your own subjective value of homosexuality, a subjective opinion that is completely worthless when presenting it masked as a fact.
 
ahh you didnt disappoint me your favorite topic...and NO you have asked me the same question 20 times and ive answered it 3 and I shall not answer it again...define normal....and sorry Captain but my opinion counts to me alot more than yours does...
Im going to make this short then take my leave...half of america or more thinks like me...so my opinion is just as right as yours if not more so...bye

I never said your opinion was valueless. I said it was valueless when you try to pretend it is a fact. And of course you won't/can't answer my question about normal, honestly. If you did, you would have to admit that your position isn't factually based, but based on opinion, morals, or just personal feelings. All fine, but not factual.
 
Oh, and just to let those on the pro-GM side know... using information about other species is pretty irrelevant when discussing human homosexuality and whether or not it is natural. There are FAR better ways to prove that position.
 
Well yes actually it was and still is. How so very right wing of you. Trying to tell me what or how I think.

There's a huge difference between living one's life according to one's beliefs and supporting legislation so that others live their lives like you. I realize that many righties can't grasp that concept. Clearly you're having a great deal of difficulty. But most righties don't seem to have a problem cashing those religious right checks.

And yet you so easily tell me what I'm thinking? Priceless.

I'm sure they will be lining up. Honestly, it's hilarious that you are buying this steamy pile you're shoveling here.

There is also a huge difference between accepting homosexuality as normal and trying to legislate and redefine "marriage," which liberals seem very eager to do despite the fact that in the history of humankind, gay "marriage" has not been the status quo.

You seem to think that legislation that supports your POV is okay, so why wouldn't it be okay for those who disagree to oppose said legislation?
 
One person says "We shouldn't accept homosexuals, its unnatural"
Second person says "Actually, it is natural".

The overall point that you seemed to miss while trying to be condescending, was that homosexuality as practiced by animals and homosexuality as practiced by humans are not even close to the same. For example, penguins will act as a gay couple when there is not any other opposite sex penguin available. They will often leave their same sex coupling when opposite sexed penguins are introduced. They are not really gay, in the sense that you seem to be arguing. So, your little diatribe, doesn't prove that homosexuality as practiced by humans is natural.
 
Last edited:
There is also a huge difference between accepting homosexuality as normal and trying to legislate and redefine "marriage," which liberals seem very eager to do despite the fact that in the history of humankind, gay "marriage" has not been the status quo.

For most of history slavery was accepted and legal in most of the world. So please, when you want to drudge up desperate arguments, you'll have to do better. The very idea is that as Americans we are better than that.

You seem to think that legislation that supports your POV is okay, so why wouldn't it be okay for those who disagree to oppose said legislation?

I have made my position clear. I oppose legislation that forces me, or others to behave in a certain way. Gay marriage has no impact on me. I'm not gay. Two people who love each other and want to be married living their lives as legal, law abiding, tax paying citizens impacts me negatively how? What they do in their bedroom impacts me how?

Or you?

See that's that's the heart of this. Righties want to prevent two people from getting married. A marriage that has no impact on them. None.

And for what? To satisfy your religious beliefs?

No thanks. Keep your religion out of their bedroom. And mine.

Besides, the term marriage is a joke anyway. Over half fail. So why should we as a society prevent others from the right to be miserable?
 
No, most of the better pro-GM posters debate the position using facts and logic, pretty exclusively. The only occasional question comes from the interpretation of those facts.

I can't say most of the better ones do somethign or not. I simply know there are two here that apaprently dont.
 
The overall point that you seemed to miss while trying to be condescending, was that homosexuality as practiced by animals and homosexuality as practiced by humans are not even close to the same. For example, penguins will act as a gay couple when there is not any other opposite sex penguin available. They will often leave their same sex coupling when opposite sexed penguins are introduced. They are not really gay, in the sense that you seem to be arguing. So, your little diatribe, doesn't prove that homosexuality as practiced by humans is natural.

Gold medalist in mental gymnastics.

The "it's not natural" argument is demonstrably false. Do you have another one?
 
Gold medalist in mental gymnastics.

The "it's not natural" argument is demonstrably false. Do you have another one?

Don't need another one. The way it is practiced in the animal kingdom and the way it is practiced by humans are not even close. You are free to disagree, but you would be, IMO, wrong.

Penguins are not gay, they are just lonely - Telegraph

Professor F Stephen Dobson, one of the authors of the study published in the journal Ethology, said the number of same sex pairs was actually lower than expected. When the colony was studied over time he found all the ‘gay’ penguins chose a heterosexual partner.
 
Okay. I disagree with your religion for religious reasons.



So you oppose kids saying the Pledge of Allegience?

And that's perfectly alright.

See, that's pretty deceitful. This issue is different from having American children recite the national anthem in public schools in America. It just doesn't work, and it's like spitting in the wind. If you're going to use some great, conceptual revelation to prove your point, don't try to compare this apple with that orange because you'll surely be called out on it.

Why is it different?

You're going to have to get up a little earlier and bring your lunch pail if you want to school me.




Yes it is. But it is also the following...

intolerant (ɪnˈtɒlərənt)
adj (foll by of )
1.lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own
2.not able or willing to tolerate or endure: intolerant of noise
Intolerance | Define Intolerance at Dictionary.com
[h=2]Definition of INTOLERANT[/h]1
: unable or unwilling to endure

2
a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious mattersb : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

3
: exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>

in·tol·er·ant·ly adverb
in·tol·er·ant·ness noun

Intolerant - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary





Actually you do not. As I just clearly pointed out.



Wow, you haven't murdered a homosexual? How noble of you.



Ummmm No. Try again.


.

Wrong yet again. You're really good at that.



What dictionary would that be? The "Coulter Bachmann" Version? Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself here.

Your hyperpartisan drivel is completely wrong.

To be intolerant is to not even allow opinions/share space for the opinions of others. I tolerate your opinion, and don't keep you from expressing it. If I didn't respect your opinion, as in actually bgeing intolerant, you wouldn't be having one.

I disagree with certain issues, civilly, and that does not make me intolerant, so don't you dare be calling me intolerant when that is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Your hyperpartisan drivel is completely wrong. To be intolerant is to not even allow opinions/share space for the opinions of others. I tolerate your opinion, and don't keep you from expressing it.

Drivel? Definitions supported with documentation are drivel? Black is white, up is down, in is out.
Can you read? That's a serious question. Apparently you can't.

I disagree with certain issues, civilly, and that does not make me intolerant, so don't you dare be calling me intolerant when that is not the case.

If your disagreement leads you to vote in such a way that the legislation you support when enacted infringes on the rights of someone else, you are in fact intolerant in deed.

And clearly, that is the case. Have the nads to admit it. The truth will set you free.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's maintain a civil atmosphere, mmmkay? Some of you are pushing it a bit.
 
Don't need another one. The way it is practiced in the animal kingdom and the way it is practiced by humans are not even close. You are free to disagree, but you would be, IMO, wrong.

Penguins are not gay, they are just lonely - Telegraph

About 1500 species have been observed to engage in homosexual activity. Bonobos are straight up hedonists. Sorry dude. Cling to the penguins all you want, but it's just too common in nature.

Incidentally, since when is "is it natural" a determinant for whether or not you should ban it? Owning a gun is decidedly unnatural. Let's ban all guns! People should only defend themselves the way "nature" "intended!"

But it goes beyond that. Your moral disapproval of anything is not sufficient grounds to ban any behavior on my part. You have to show that this behavior is somehow harmful to you. Unless maybe you believe in government legislating morality for you. I know some of you conservatives are quite authoritarian that way.
 
There is also a huge difference between accepting homosexuality as normal and trying to legislate and redefine "marriage," which liberals seem very eager to do despite the fact that in the history of humankind, gay "marriage" has not been the status quo.

You do realize that if you want to get on the topic of what has been normal as far as marriage is concerned, polygamy has been far more common than one man and one woman, correct?
 
This was plastered at the top of the Yahoo web page when I clicked on___It made me angry when I watched it, which is an emotion I rarely experience.

It's quite obvious this timid little boy is very uncomfortable with the situation his selfish and insensitive mother has forced upon him and possibly even embarrassed by her lifestyle.

Don't get me wrong, whatever sick perversions she enjoys behind closed doors with another consenting adult is nobodies business but her young son shouldn't be forced to legitimize it.



It was a set up and the mother didn't have the courage to convey the message herself, instead used her own kid to do it, I am glad that Mrs. Bachmann didn't take the hook and was very nice to the little boy. This was a very stupid move but Liberals are using the method of "Seek and destroy". It's very shameful.
 
About 1500 species have been observed to engage in homosexual activity. Bonobos are straight up hedonists. Sorry dude. Cling to the penguins all you want, but it's just too common in nature.

Alot of it, just like with the penguins, are people conveying their own beliefs and emotions upon animals. They are not gay. They rarely mate with the same sex for life.

Incidentally, since when is "is it natural" a determinant for whether or not you should ban it? Owning a gun is decidedly unnatural. Let's ban all guns! People should only defend themselves the way "nature" "intended!"

I never argued wether Homosex is natural. I made that clear in this thread. I am simply stating that someone claiming that animals do it does not make it normal behaviour for humans. The situtations are completly different.

But it goes beyond that. Your moral disapproval of anything is not sufficient grounds to ban any behavior on my part. You have to show that this behavior is somehow harmful to you. Unless maybe you believe in government legislating morality for you. I know some of you conservatives are quite authoritarian that way.

Society makes all kinds of moral judgements and laws to dissuade some behaviours and encourage other behaviours. It is part of living in a society. What they do, is of no concern to me. When gays attempt to force their agenda upon society, society has the right to reject it. This may change in the future. For now, though, it hasn't in most states.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, with all those negatives, I'm too dizzy to attempt to comprehend what that sentence actually was intended to mean.

Don't worry about it then - the person I was talking to apparently got it.

Just rest assured that I'm not one of those idiots who thinks you choose to be gay.
 
I don't feel like reading 27 pages, but I felt it necessary to comment on this...

It appears that this kid was used by his mother, which I dislike.

It appears that Bachmann may have views on gays/gay marriage that I disagree with, in part or in whole (don't know that much about the woman).

It appears that Empirica has views on gays/gay marriage that I definitely disagree with..."sick perversions"? WTF!


As if some of the weird (IMO) **** straight people get up to in private (or even public) is any better..
 
Last edited:
About 1500 species have been observed to engage in homosexual activity. Bonobos are straight up hedonists. Sorry dude. Cling to the penguins all you want, but it's just too common in nature.

BTW, as has already been mentined in this thread, dogs (and bonobos and most other animals) engage in this type of homo behaviour for dominance, not pleasure. However, if you insist on applying human emotions and thoughts to animals, at best you have an argument that tri-sexuality (Cheech and Chong reference) is natural. To find that homosexuality is natural, you would have to find species that have many members that will only have sex and nesting type reationships with the same sex. This is why penguins are much more relevant to the discussion then bonobos are.
 
Last edited:
You do realize that if you want to get on the topic of what has been normal as far as marriage is concerned, polygamy has been far more common than one man and one woman, correct?

You do realize, don't you, that comparing the number of heterosexual relationships that have historically defined marriage has nothing to do with homosexual relationships at all?
 
You do realize, don't you, that comparing the number of heterosexual relationships that have historically defined marriage has nothing to do with homosexual relationships at all?

But it exposes an inconsistency in the "tradition" logic - if one bases opposition to homosexual marriage on "tradition" then one ought not to oppose polygamy. Do you oppose polygamy?
 
Back
Top Bottom