• 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!

Why are many people grossed out by homosexuality?

Why are many people grossed out by homosexuality?

  • It's a learned bigoted reaction that can be unlearned.

    Votes: 12 46.2%

  • It's a natural reaction.

    Votes: 9 34.6%

  • Not enough is known about it to explain it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (please elaborate)

    Votes: 5 19.2%
  • Total voters
    26
LuckyDan said:
I really need to dedicate a hotkey to post this.

There already IS equal treatment under the law. Any man and woman can marry. Equal. Same. No discrimination based on anything.
Click to expand...

Again with feeling... this is not an equal situation. A heterosexual can marry any willing individual that they are attracted in the context of their sexual orientation. A homosexual cannot. The argument that things are equal because a homosexual has the same rights as a heterosexual because they can also marry someone of the opposite sex has, thus, been rendered absurd, irrelevant, and invalid. Again.

Every time you post your inaccurate information, I will correct you.
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
Of course the kid knows when the parents are fighting. My argument is not about combative parents. I'm talking about the kid's notion of whether the parent is "fulfilled" or "happy in the marriage." I'm arguing against the sad old feminist line (and aren't they all sad and old?) that it's a bad thing for a child to "grow up in a loveless marriage," as if the kid cares whether or not his parents are in love. He just wants them together and, yes, not fighting.
Click to expand...

And I didn't say combative, didn't I. And it truly doesn't matter. You'd just rather stay with the message that gay people shouldn't be able to raise kids and should be legally discriminated against than admit that your stance doesn't make any sense.

Fortunately, time will disagree with you. Always does. I've yet to hear of an issue of civil liberties that came to the fore, and didn't win. And a hundred years from now, kids will sit in history class looking back on this era and wondering how anyone could discriminate against gays - it will look just as stupid as women not having the vote and blacks not being allowed to marry - while they fight with whatever prejudices they're dealing with then.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
And I didn't say combative, didn't I. And it truly doesn't matter. You'd just rather stay with the message that gay people shouldn't be able to raise kids and should be legally discriminated against than admit that your stance doesn't make any sense.

Fortunately, time will disagree with you. Always does. I've yet to hear of an issue of civil liberties that came to the fore, and didn't win. And a hundred years from now, kids will sit in history class looking back on this era and wondering how anyone could discriminate against gays - it will look just as stupid as women not having the vote and blacks not being allowed to marry - while they fight with whatever prejudices they're dealing with then.
Click to expand...

Interesting, historically. Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of "separate but equal" between whites and blacks in 1896... and was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Betts v. Brady denied indigent defendants the right to an attorney at the state's expense in 1942. Gideon v. Wainwright overturned this in 1963. Things get changed based on a changing society.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Interesting, historically. Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of "separate but equal" between whites and blacks in 1896... and was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Betts v. Brady denied indigent defendants the right to an attorney at the state's expense in 1942. Gideon v. Wainwright overturned this in 1963. Things get changed based on a changing society.
Click to expand...

Yup. They don't always win the first time, but they always win eventually. There will probably be some stragglers in the US for another 20-50 years. But eventually it will be a thing of the past.
 
MistressNomad said:
And I didn't say combative, didn't I. And it truly doesn't matter. You'd just rather stay with the message that gay people shouldn't be able to raise kids and should be legally discriminated against than admit that your stance doesn't make any sense.

Fortunately, time will disagree with you. Always does. I've yet to hear of an issue of civil liberties that came to the fore, and didn't win. And a hundred years from now, kids will sit in history class looking back on this era and wondering how anyone could discriminate against gays - it will look just as stupid as women not having the vote and blacks not being allowed to marry - while they fight with whatever prejudices they're dealing with then.
Click to expand...

And you, dear Mistress (wow! deja vu!) would rather stay with the popular culture and pretend gays are so horribly, horribly mistreated.

What will the offspring of these gay marriages say a hundred years from now? That is the question.
 
LuckyDan said:
And you, dear Mistress (wow! deja vu!) would rather stay with the popular culture and pretend gays are so horribly, horribly mistreated.

What will the offspring of these gay marriages say a hundred years from now? That is the question.
Click to expand...

It's not popular culture if it's actually happening. Popular culture is sparkling vampires.

Good question. I have my theories, but I'm not of that age. Time will tell and I have some ideas about how technology will affect it. I can only hope that I'll still be flexible enough in my old age to see what's right.

The children of some gay couples are already grown, and the answer is already in: they had loving parents as often as other kids and they're just as thankful.
 
MistressNomad said:
It's not popular culture if it's actually happening. Popular culture is sparkling vampires.

Good question. I have my theories, but I'm not of that age. Time will tell and I have some ideas about how technology will affect it. I can only hope that I'll still be flexible enough in my old age to see what's right.

The children of some gay couples are already grown, and the answer is already in: they had loving parents as often as other kids and they're just as thankful.
Click to expand...

Thank you, but it was in fact a trick question.

There are no offspring of gay couples. It is in fact a biological impossibiity.

No points, but thanks for playing.
 
LuckyDan said:
Thank you, but it was in fact a trick question.

There are no offspring of gay couples. It is in fact a biological impossibiity.

No points, but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

If you'd actually read my post, you'd seen that I said "children." It was a needed adjustment, since your sentence was nonsensical and I assumed you had a point. Apparently not. Way to prove how seriously you take any perspective but your own that you can't even read other people's posts. It's in your own quote.

In addition, I fail to see, even if you hadn't just made a dumb mistake of failure to read, how that would score you any points. Unless you'd like to argue infertile people who adopt or have IVF or sperm/egg doners (all of which gay people can do) make lousy parents too, and that the fertile partner can "feel free" to marry someone who isn't infertile.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
If you'd actually read my post, you'd seen that I said "children." It was a needed adjustment, since your sentence was nonsensical and I assumed you had a point. Apparently not. Way to prove how seriously you take any perspective but your own that you can't even read other people's posts. It's in your own quote.

In addition, I fail to see, even if you hadn't just made a dumb mistake of failure to read, how that would score you any points. Unless you'd like to argue infertile people who adopt or have IVF or sperm/egg doners (all of which gay people can do) make lousy parents too, and that the fertile partner can "feel free" to marry someone who isn't infertile.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, cherie. My sentence was pefectly sensical. T'was, to wit, this:

What will the offspring of these gay marriages say a hundred years from now? That is the question.
Click to expand...

To which you relied

The children of some gay couples are already grown, and the answer is already in: they had loving parents as often as other kids and they're just as thankful.
Click to expand...

There are no children of gay couples. And there never will be.
 
I assumed you had:
1. An understanding of biology.
2. A better point than simply an infantile jab at gay people that makes absolutely no point.

I was right about #1, and wrong about #2. But my response was perfectly in keeping with having an optimistic outlook on the intelligence and integrity of people who converse with me. So sue me if I assume people will live up to a standard and I'm not always right. That is the only mistake I made.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
I assumed you had:
1. An understanding of biology.
2. A better point than simply an infantile jab at gay people that makes absolutely no point.

I was right about #1, and wrong about #2. But my response was perfectly in keeping with having an optimistic outlook on the intelligence and integrity of people who converse with me. So sue me if I assume people will live up to a standard and I'm not always right. That is the only mistake I made.
Click to expand...

I got an A in biology! Go me!

My "jab at gay people" does however make a point, tho one they like to minimize. They cannot - CAN NOT - reproduce.

Find a judge who can fix that one and I'll convert.

No suit papers are forthcoming, Mistress. I'm sorry to have disappointed you.
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
I got an A in biology! Go me!

My "jab at gay people" does however make a point, tho one they'd careto minimize: they cannot - CAN NOT - repproduce.

Find a judge who can fix that one and I'll convert.

No suit papers ar forthcoming, Mistress. I'm sorry to have disappointed you.
Click to expand...

Once again, unless you would like to apply the same to infertile people, or childfree people for that matter, and ban either of them from marrying, it's not a "point." It means nothing at all.
 
MistressNomad said:
Once again, unless you would like to apply the same to infertile people, or childfree people for that matter, and ban either of them from marrying, it's not a "point." It means nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Are you proposing a fertility test for couples appyling for marriage? I'll go there wit'cha, if that'll stop this asinine argument.
 
LuckyDan said:
Are you proposing a fertility test for couples appyling for marriage? I'll go there wit'cha, if that'll stop this asinine argument.
Click to expand...

And your whole argument is demolished by the fact that LGBT people can adopt, and have children through other means. We can still have families, and there is no reason to not support those families, and strengthen one of the core American values, which is family.
 
LuckyDan said:
Are you proposing a fertility test for couples appyling for marriage? I'll go there wit'cha, if that'll stop this asinine argument.
Click to expand...

No. I am assuming you're saying the inability to have a biological offspring of both gay parents is some sort of argument against gay marriage. If you're not then I doubly don't get it.

I personally don't care. People get married for love these days, not for a license to breed in a way that is acceptable to you. You don't care if straight people do it through IVF, other artificial means, adoption, or not at all. So why does it matter if gay people do?
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
And your whole argument is demolished by the fact that LGBT people can adopt, and have children through other means. We can still have families, and there is no reason to not support those families, and strengthen one of the core American values, which is family.
Click to expand...

They can adopt, they can inseminate, they can pray to ****ing unicorns if they want, but they cannot reproduce, now can they?

Can they?
 
LuckyDan said:
They can adopt, they can inseminate, they can pray to ****ing unicorns if they want, but they cannot reproduce, now can they?

Can they?
Click to expand...

This is about having, and raising a family, not reproducing. Stop trying to move the argument to a point that doesn't matter.
 
MistressNomad said:
No. I am assuming you're saying the inability to have a biological offspring of both gay parents is some sort of argument against gay marriage. If you're not then I doubly don't get it.

I personally don't care. People get married for love these days, not for a license to breed in a way that is acceptable to you. You don't care if straight people do it through IVF, other artificial means, adoption, or not at all. So why does it matter if gay people do?
Click to expand...

I'm asking what is the point? They can't have kids, there is no possible family, but suddenly they just CAN'T be happy unless we all gather round them, hold hands, and pronounce them wife and wife!

They used to be be so cool, so far above that ****. What happened?
 
LuckyDan said:
I'm asking what is the point? They can't have kids, there is no possible family, but suddenly thay just CAN'T be happy unless we all gather round them, hold hands, and pronounce them wife and wife!

They used to be be so cool, so far above that ****. What happened?
Click to expand...

Love, making the person you want to spend the rest of your life with a legal member of your family, having, and raising children. You know just like straight people, we are not that different from straight people.
 
Your Star said:
This is about having, and raising a family, not reproducing. Stop trying to move the argument to a point that doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Sweetie, I'm starting at the starting point - where the sperm meet the egg. You're the one trying to move the chains.
 
LuckyDan said:
I'm asking what is the point? They can't have kids, there is no possible family, but suddenly they just CAN'T be happy unless we all gather round them, hold hands, and pronounce them wife and wife!

They used to be be so cool, so far above that ****. What happened?
Click to expand...

There's no family? Adopted children have no family? Kids conceived by IVF have no family?

Or does that only apply when the parents are gay?

You're the one getting angry for no discernible reason. I'm just sitting here wondering how that particular wheel gets stuck in someone's head.
 
Your Star said:
Love, making the person you want to spend the rest of your life with a legal member of your family, having, and raising children. You know just like straight people, we are not that different from straight people.
Click to expand...

You can't have that unless I say so? Really? You need a judge to make me say it before you feel it?
 
LuckyDan said:
Sweetie, I'm starting at the starting point - where the sperm meet the egg. You're the one trying to move the chains.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't matter in this debate, it never has.
 
LuckyDan said:
You can't have that unless I say so? Really? You need a judge to make me say it before you feel it?
Click to expand...

The judge has the power to impede or destroy their ability to do that. They can feel it all they like but if they can't do it there's a problem.
 
LuckyDan said:
You can't have that unless I say so? Really? You need a judge to make me say it before you feel it?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about a judge to make you say it? You don't have to accept it, I could care less, I just want to live in a country where the law treats me the same as it treats you. And there are many benefits that only apply to married couples, and families, why should we not receive those benefits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom