• 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!

NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American? [W:45]

TheNextEra said:
I agree you can't compare the two in terms of hardship, but I disagree on the historical significance. Historically, it will be of great significance.
Click to expand...

When they do approve it, they should also pick AC/DC's song "Highway to Hell" as our national anthem, we certainly are not the "land of the free" or "Home of the Brave" anymore. (Anthem change not related solely to this subject but general socio-political-economic condition of the US).
 
TheNextEra said:
I agree you can't compare the two in terms of hardship, but I disagree on the historical significance. Historically, it will be of great significance.
Click to expand...
The civil rights movement granted equality to millions of minorities who, prior to the Civil Rights Act, were LEGALLY discriminated against and denied the basic human rights that were granted to whites and protected by the constitution. It ended the legal practice of treating minorities as second class citizens.

In contrast, "gay marriage" would grant homosexuals the right/privilege to marry someone of the same sex. Something that the majority of gay people will never do anyway but hey... it's probably comforting for them to know that if they ever want to, the option is on the table. I get it. I really do but c'mon... it absolutely does not carry the same historical significance.
 
DVSentinel said:
When they do approve it, they should also pick AC/DC's song "Highway to Hell" as our national anthem, we certainly are not the "land of the free" or "Home of the Brave" anymore. (Anthem change not related solely to this subject but general socio-political-economic condition of the US).
Click to expand...

LOL you want to deny the freedom of two people getting married and you say we aren't the "land of the FREE" or "Home of the Brave" if we allow them to get married? You are funny.

You are free to move to such a "moral" country somewhere in the ME if you want religion to rule.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The civil rights movement granted equality to millions of minorities who, prior to the Civil Rights Act, were LEGALLY discriminated against and denied the basic human rights that were granted to whites and protected by the constitution. It ended the legal practice of treating minorities as second class citizens.

In contrast, "gay marriage" would grant homosexuals the right/privilege to marry someone of the same sex. Something that the majority of gay people will never do anyway but hey... it's probably comforting for them to know that if they ever want to, the option is on the table. I get it. I really do but c'mon... it absolutely does not carry the same historical significance.
Click to expand...

Again, YOU are making the comparison to gay marriage and the black civil rights movement, I'm not. I said it will be HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANT. Not that it would be greater significance than the civil rights movement.

You do realize that things can be historically significant and not be the same as the black civil right's movement right?
 
TheNextEra said:
Again, YOU are making the comparison to gay marriage and the black civil rights movement, I'm not. I said it will be HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANT. Not that it would be greater significance than the civil rights movement.

You do realize that things can be historically significant and not be the same as the black civil right's movement right?
Click to expand...
That is not what I am doing at all.

I am pointing out how ridiculous it is for people to try to piggyback this issue the way that they are. Jesus Christ, look at the freaking OP!! "Just like in the 60's, these people will be on the wrong side of history." The ONLY purpose of doing this is to add a level of significance to SSM that it does not have on it's own.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
That is not what I am doing at all.

I am pointing out how ridiculous it is for people to try to piggyback this issue the way that they are. Jesus Christ, look at the freaking OP!! "Just like in the 60's, these people will be on the wrong side of history." The ONLY purpose of doing this is to add a level of significance to SSM that it does not have on it's own.
Click to expand...

Plain and simple, the attitudes of interracial marriage CAN be compared to the attitudes of SSM. There is a logical comparison between the two. However, to compare the whole civil rights movement to gay marriage or even gay rights is not correct I agree.

There are similiarities that can be made between interracial marriage and SSM. I'm not saying SSM is MORE important, but there are similarities nonetheless.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
According to the Wiktionary…

Verb
tolerate (third-person singular simple present tolerates, present participle tolerating, simple past and past participle tolerated)

  1. To allow (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) to exist or occur without interference.
​

If you say that you are unwilling to tolerate a particular belief, then that means that you are not willing to allow this belief to be expressed without interference. To interfere with one's right to express a belief that you do not want to be expressed meets the definition of censorship. To tolerate something is to allow that thing to exist or occur, even if you do not like it. This is what you said you were unwilling to do.
Click to expand...

rocket88 said:
By that definition, there'd be no "Debate Politics." Wouldn't you have to "tolerate" what Obama says without disagreeing? Disagreeing with someone is very American. I can "tolerate" what you say, and still disagree. It is in fact, my right to say that I disagree, and you have to tolerate that.
Click to expand...

You and I do not appear to be in any disagreement on this point.

I was responding to someone else who expressed an unwillingness to “tolerate” a belief that he finds disagreeable, and then when called on the clear meaning of what he had said, went to great Haymarket-like efforts to twist and redefine the word “tolerate” in order to deny what he had originally said.
 
TheNextEra said:
LOL you want to deny the freedom of two people getting married and you say we aren't the "land of the FREE" or "Home of the Brave" if we allow them to get married? You are funny.

You are free to move to such a "moral" country somewhere in the ME if you want religion to rule.
Click to expand...

Other than "hell" in the title of the song I suggested, which can be considered both religious and non-religious, depending on usage and connotation, what gives you the idea that I object based upon moral or religious foundations? Or that I would want to live in a religious regulated society?
 
DVSentinel said:
Other than "hell" in the title of the song I suggested, which can be considered both religious and non-religious, depending on usage and connotation, what gives you the idea that I object based upon moral or religious foundations? Or that I would want to live in a religious regulated society?
Click to expand...

The fact that you are anti-SSM along with mentioning a song about the U.S. going to "Hell" and "morals" indicated religious motives. IF not, what morals do you follow that disallow gay marriage?
 
TheNextEra said:
The fact that you are anti-SSM along with mentioning a song about the U.S. going to "Hell" and "morals" indicated religious motives. IF not, what morals do you follow that disallow gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is a disease that is an aberration of normal human sexual desires. As a disease, it should not be normalized. It should be researched, the cause found and a cure created. Homosexuality is an abnormality, not a behavior that should be just tolerated for political reasons. It has nothing to do with religion or morals other than possibly as another indication of the decay of our society due to the disease of leftist political views.
 
DVSentinel said:
Homosexuality is a disease that is an aberration of normal human sexual desires. As a disease, it should not be normalized. It should be researched, the cause found and a cure created. Homosexuality is an abnormality, not a behavior that should be just tolerated for political reasons. It has nothing to do with religion or morals other than possibly as another indication of the decay of our society due to the disease of leftist political views.
Click to expand...
In what way is Homosexuality a disease? The term "aberration" implies that a disease is related to immorality, which then stems from religious ideology. I really can't see how you can say this and then say it has nothing to do with religion. The only people who have any problem with Homosexuality are the religious right; there is no secular basis for your statement, it requires a religious definition of "disease".
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Nothing new or surprising about the claim that standing up for basic morality and decency makes one a “hate group”. That's how far our society has degraded.
Click to expand...

The KKK, Westboro Baptist, The Nazi Party in 1930's and 40's all had the same reasoning. The KKK, thought anybody other than white was inferior and it was a moral obligation to kill these inferior beings before they destroy the purity of the white race. The Westboro Baptist, protest the funerals of fallen soldiers who were homosexual because "God Hates Fags." I can go on but hopefully you get my point.
 
DVSentinel said:
Homosexuality is a disease that is an aberration of normal human sexual desires. As a disease, it should not be normalized. It should be researched, the cause found and a cure created. Homosexuality is an abnormality, not a behavior that should be just tolerated for political reasons. It has nothing to do with religion or morals other than possibly as another indication of the decay of our society due to the disease of leftist political views.
Click to expand...

Do you know homosexuality is found out all throughout the Animal Kingdom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom