• 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!

The new argument against gay equality: Same-sex marriage kills [W:142]

SSM will cause an increase in abortions


  • Total voters
    26
Are you referring to an openly gay couple?

Well you just said that 'openly gay' means sex acts in public. And I said that neither straight nor gay couples participate in sexual acts in public, so your 'openly gay' argument is quite circular....is that intentional? Do you just have no answer?
 
Oh ... ick.

I'm in favor of all sexual activity outside marriage, as well as any within marriage which involves force, contraception, or sodomy being outlawed.

I think the appropriate penalty would vary depending on the heinousness of the act. Incest, sodomy, rape, and adultery should probably carry a maximum penalty of death. While seduction and simple fornication should probably be punished with lighter penalties.

But there are folks (male and female including sodomy) that like doing these things to people who enjoy them being done to them, and it doesn't hurt anyone not involved and only hurts those involved if they've chosen to be hurt.... what's your beef?
 
I'm not married. I've never had sex.

No wonder you think sex for the fun of it should be illegal and punishable by death. You're friggin' jealous and wish someone would feel sexually excited around and with you. Are you butt ugly or something? Perhaps under 5ft tall, I hear that's a real detriment for many men trying to have a gal.
 
Well you just said that 'openly gay' means sex acts in public. And I said that neither straight nor gay couples participate in sexual acts in public, so your 'openly gay' argument is quite circular....is that intentional? Do you just have no answer?

No, I said that holding hands isn't a sex act.

But there are folks (male and female including sodomy) that like doing these things to people who enjoy them being done to them, and it doesn't hurt anyone not involved and only hurts those involved if they've chosen to be hurt.... what's your beef?

It is harmful to society for sodomy to be legal.
 
No, I said that holding hands isn't a sex act.

And you also said that to be openly gay there had to be visible sex acts. So....when do you see gay or straight couples engaging publicly in sex acts?

Again, no one's fooled here by your circular argument. Can you support your belief or not?
 
And you also said that to be openly gay there had to be visible sex acts. So....when do you see gay or straight couples engaging publicly in sex acts?

Again, no one's fooled here by your circular argument. Can you support your belief or not?

I didn't say that.


Because, it creates the impression that society approves of it (usually not incorrect). Even if it's difficult to prosecute, having a law against it demonstrates society's rejection of the practice.
 
I didn't say that.

Well here's what ya did say and you have not clarified what 'openly gay' means or what 'sex acts' are evidence of that. And if they are *openly* gay then those sex acts must be public.

Holding hands would not be illegal. And you know what openly homosexual means.

Holding hands is not a sex act.

LOL When do you ever see straight couples or gays committing 'sex acts' in public? (being "openly gay or straight" as you define it)

This is ludicrous but entertaining.

Now...care to actually prove you have any support for your belief or not?
 
No, I said that holding hands isn't a sex act.



It is harmful to society for sodomy to be legal.

no its not and anyone who would jail someone for engaging in consensual "sodomy" ought to be vaporized by alien invaders
 
Well here's what ya did say and you have not clarified what 'openly gay' means or what 'sex acts' are evidence of that. And if they are *openly* gay then those sex acts must be public.







Now...care to actually prove you have any support for your belief or not?

You know what "openly gay" means.
 
It is harmful to society for sodomy to be legal.


Because, it creates the impression that society approves of it (usually not incorrect). Even if it's difficult to prosecute, having a law against it demonstrates society's rejection of the practice.

If it does no harm, why cant society approve of it?

Dude, another circular argument? This is a riot! Is there only quick sand beneath your beliefs? Sure seems like it, since you bob and weave like a shoelace in the wind.
 
You know what "openly gay" means.

No, I dont. I said that holding hands in public was and you said no. You said 'sex act.'

So...what does openly gay mean? If it's 'open,' then it is public. Can you or can you not answer that question?
 
If it does no harm, why cant society approve of it?

Dude, another circular argument? This is a riot! Is there only quick sand beneath your beliefs? Sure seems like it, since you bob and weave like a shoelace in the wind.

It harms the people who do it.
 
It harms the people who do it.

How?

And please be specific. I mean if it's harmful enough that you would jail people because of it, then there would have to be demonstrable harm.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the derailing about sodomy and such and return to the thread topic.
 
The OP is a demonstration of religious extremism translated (an attempt) into law.

Any insights & explanations into the thought processes behind this should be considered on-topic.

Just a general opinion, posted as a return to the thread topic.
 
The OP is a demonstration of religious extremism translated (an attempt) into law.

Any insights & explanations into the thought processes behind this should be considered on-topic.

Just a general opinion, posted as a return to the thread topic.

He's a troll. Nothing more nothing less. And I am being absolutely serious this isn't simply a jab at Palecons character. Reading any of his arguments on any thread it becomes very obvious.

He has never engaged honestly in any discussion. He purposely frames his arguments obtusely, vaguely, and says outrageous things for the sole purpose of derailing and getting a rise out of people.

You can argue ad nauseum with him - he will never come around to substantiating his position because his goal is not real discourse.
 
What does that have to do with anything?

In a free society, neither you nor the govt should have any right to tell others what to do in the bedroom any more than they should have the right to tell you how to cut your hair.
That is the realm of dictatorships.
 
You think that being gay is evil as in morally bad, right? Not as in Hitler evil?

Who would you rather have be your leader... a gay person or Hitler?

Neither, he would chose the Taliban
 
Ad hominem.

There isnt any attack on you kid. Just face the fact that virgins can never be authorities on sex. As a virgin you just have no clue what is perverted in any real sense when it comes to sexual intercourse. Of course you should be able to spot a few real perversions like sexual misconduct because there are laws forbidding certain activities. But when it comes to consenting adults in privacy the government cannot have any ability to ban such liberties. If consenting adults want to **** and pee on each other, while I find that to be very disgusting and wouldnt advocate such behavior, they are adults and if thats what they chose to do, I am not in any position to object nor is the government. The rational is that opinions do not dictate liberties and freedoms. If opinions held such powers then the American people would have tore up the Constitution a long time a go.
 
There isnt any attack on you kid. Just face the fact that virgins can never be authorities on sex. As a virgin you just have no clue what is perverted in any real sense when it comes to sexual intercourse. Of course you should be able to spot a few real perversions like sexual misconduct because there are laws forbidding certain activities. But when it comes to consenting adults in privacy the government cannot have any ability to ban such liberties. If consenting adults want to **** and pee on each other, while I find that to be very disgusting and wouldnt advocate such behavior, they are adults and if thats what they chose to do, I am not in any position to object nor is the government. The rational is that opinions do not dictate liberties and freedoms. If opinions held such powers then the American people would have tore up the Constitution a long time a go.

I have to disagree with the start of your post. You need not have had sex to have an opinion on it. He is however unaware of what he is missing out on.
I have never had homosexual sex nor have I peed or ******* on anyone or vice versa. Just not appealing to me.
However I agree that if someone wants to engage in these activities then they have every right to as long as it is between consenting adults. Neither I nor the govt has anything to do with it.
 
In a free society, neither you nor the govt should have any right to tell others what to do in the bedroom any more than they should have the right to tell you how to cut your hair.
That is the realm of dictatorships.

Very true but he and other posters (I can think of at least 2 others) have admitted a dictatorship would be better and not have American guided by the Constitution. Palecon has a name for it, he says it's not a theocracy but I forget the name, maybe he'll provide it. We can see what that would be like when we look at Iran or SA and the mullahs roaming the streets with sticks, stopping people and beating them for visible infractions.

I really am interested in the mindset that actually desires this type of authoritarianism in their lives.
 
I have to disagree with the start of your post. You need not have had sex to have an opinion on it. He is however unaware of what he is missing out on.
I have never had homosexual sex nor have I peed or ******* on anyone or vice versa. Just not appealing to me.
However I agree that if someone wants to engage in these activities then they have every right to as long as it is between consenting adults. Neither I nor the govt has anything to do with it.

I suppose you are right in that context. But it really is a matter of opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom