• 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!

Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Would you vote to legalize same gender marriages?

  • Yes, I would vote to make gay marriage legal

    Votes: 79 69.9%

  • No, I would vote against making gay marriage legal

    Votes: 28 24.8%

  • I am undecided and wouldn't vote

    Votes: 6 5.3%
  • Total voters
    113
Apocalypse said:
My belief is that homosexuality is not natural.
I also believe that voting for gay marriage would counter my belief by legitimizing homosexuality as natural in the law.
I do not appeal to the meaning of natural, but to my theory that it isn't natural, and to the fact that I would counter my own theory by voting for gay marriage.
Why is it so hard to understand?
Perhaps you should be questioning your own belief, before claiming that other people's beliefs are foolish, and only make yourself appear as a fool in the process.
Click to expand...

Look, if you are using the idea that homosexuality is not natural in order to decide to vote against gay rights, then you are appealing to nature and that is fallacious reasoning. There is no way around that.

I could believe that X activity is unnatural, but since I know that whether something is natural or not is irrelevant, it would not affect my decision in voting.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Look, if you are using the idea that homosexuality is not natural in order to decide to vote against gay rights, then you are appealing to nature and that is fallacious reasoning. There is no way around that.

I could believe that X activity is unnatural, but since I know that whether something is natural or not is irrelevant, it would not affect my decision in voting.
Click to expand...
Then you did not understand any of my 3 first sentences in the post that you have quoted.
Good luck in the future, fool. :2razz:
 
Apocalypse said:
Then you did not understand any of my 3 first sentences in the post that you have quoted.
Good luck in the future, fool. :2razz:
Click to expand...

It appears we have communication barriers.

Does anybody understand what me means? If so, can you rephrase what he said? :)
 
LiveUninhibited said:
It appears we have communication barriers.

Does anybody understand what me means? If so, can you rephrase what he said? :)
Click to expand...
The vote counters my theory that homosexuality ain't natural.
I really can't see why would it be so hard for you to analyze this simple sentence. :)
 
Apocalypse said:
The vote counters my theory that homosexuality ain't natural.
I really can't see why would it be so hard for you to analyze this simple sentence. :)
Click to expand...

The vote on this forum isn't any more scientific or representative than a FOX news texting poll. If it were, it would still not show whether those people consider homosexuality natural or not, as many of them probably understand that what is natural has nothing to do with what should be allowed or disallowed.

I suppose you could be just defending your theory and not caring about reality instead of arguing that because you believe homosexual marriage is unnatural it should be disallowed, but that would be illogical in a different way.

It is true that what people believe is real in its consequences, so accepting homosexual marriage may push homosexuality more into what society considers "normal" or "natural." But since what is normal/natural is not something we should value, due to the appeal to nature fallacy, this should not affect your vote.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
The vote on this forum isn't any more scientific or representative than a FOX news texting poll.
Click to expand...
But the poll obviously refers to a vote in real life, similar to the one that was made in California.
It is true that what people believe is real in its consequences, so accepting homosexual marriage may push homosexuality more into what society considers "normal" or "natural." But since what is normal/natural is not something we should value, due to the appeal to nature fallacy, this should not affect your vote.
Click to expand...
Of course it should.
I wouldn't vote against gay marriage, but not for it either.
There's the point of countering my own theory and there's the point of forwarding the value of equality.
 
Apocalypse said:
I wouldn't vote against gay marriage, but not for it either.
There's the point of countering my own theory and there's the point of forwarding the value of equality.
Click to expand...

So you care more (or even the same) about being right than reality or people's rights?
 
LiveUninhibited said:
So you care more (or even the same) about being right than reality or people's rights?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, yes.
And it's not 'being right' but rather not contradicting my own theory.
 
Apocalypse said:
I'm sorry for your migraine but the argument is quite obvious.
"fools claim homosexuality isn't natural", hence the argument is whether homosexuality is natural or not.
If you didn't know what the argument is, how did you know that it could be easily disproved? :shock:

Edit: Alright, tomorrow then.
Click to expand...
Dude, I've seen his response to this challenge. Trust me, you are so not going to win.
 
Apocalypse said:
In my opinion homosexuality is not natural.
I do not care for what 'natural' means, whether it is right or wrong, in my opinion, it isn't natural, period.
Now how is that foolish?
Claiming that some people's thoughts and beliefs that differ than yours are foolish is just wrong.
The only fools are the ones who do it.
Click to expand...
If you don't care what the word "natural" means, then you cannot in any English sentence claim that homosexuality is "not natural." The claim rests upon there being a specific definition of "natural".

Your assertion is foolish because it is internally contradictory, irrational, illogical, and inane. Of all the reasons to object to homosexuality, it is easily the most laughable.
 
Other:


I would vote to remove the government from the marriage business altogether.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Other:

I would vote to remove the government from the marriage business altogether.
Click to expand...

Sorry, other was not a choice.

But I'll give you a makeup question:

If a gay guy jumped on your back, would you jerk him off or let him stay there?
 
There are about 28 million issues of higher importance.

government should stay out of the bedroom, including homosexual bedrooms.

Marriage should be a religious/private matter.

Sadly, too many people think government needs to regulate morality and too many people think government should bestow privileges on people.
 
Joe1991 said:
Sorry, other was not a choice.
Click to expand...


Then I refuse to vote based on not wanting to convince the Government that controlling marriage is a legitimate function of said government.


But I'll give you a makeup question:

If a gay guy jumped on your back, would you jerk him off or let him stay there?
Click to expand...


o_O
 
celticlord said:
Dude, I've seen his response to this challenge. Trust me, you are so not going to win.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice but I'll take my chances.
If you don't care what the word "natural" means, then you cannot in any English sentence claim that homosexuality is "not natural." The claim rests upon there being a specific definition of "natural".
Click to expand...
You misunderstood LiveUninhibited's claim.
It's not about the meaning of the word natural, we all know what that means.
LiveUninhibited claimed that I 'appealed to nature' by declaring homosexuality as a bad thing and reasoning this claim with homosexuality being unnatural.
I can pretty much say homosexuality is unnatural without referring to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, just like I can say that the Earth is round without giving explanation to whether it's a good thing that it's round or whether it should be square.
Your assertion is foolish because it is internally contradictory, irrational, illogical, and inane. Of all the reasons to object to homosexuality, it is easily the most laughable.
Click to expand...
Your political lean is foolish because it is internally contradictory, irrational, illogical and inane. Of all the political leanings, it is easily the most laughable.

I honestly found many way funnier ways to object homosexuality than to claim that it is unnatural, like religion for example.
Your humor is probably screwed up. :2razz:

You still haven't contradicted my theory, all you've done is just talk and talk about how foolish my opinion is.

People who claim that other people's opinions are foolish because they disagree with it, are idiots who do not belong to this age and time.
We are way over the "if you don't believe what I do you're probably a fool" era, buddy, and you better get used to it.
 
Well, color me stupid and call me a fool. I don't think it is "natural" either.

My ex-wife put it in the most eloquently succinct manner I've ever seen; unfortunately this involved gestures which won't translate here. :mrgreen:

Male equipment is designed to fit female equipment, just like a key and a lock.

Homo-sex is like trying to make two keys do something, or trying to open one lock with another lock. Best I can translate her analogy without pictures. :mrgreen:

(Yes, yes, I know that isn't the only way to have sex, spare me any graphic examples please. :eek: )

Male sexual physiology, combined with female sexual physiology, is designed to facilitate reproduction, which is the function of sex in nature. Male-male and female-female fail to produce reproduction, thus failing the obvious functionality test.

It does not fulfill the function of sex in a state of nature, therefore it is not "natural."

As previously noted by Apocalypse, whether "not natural" means the same thing as "wrong" is a much more complex question.
 
No. Gender is a word used to describe the masculinity/feminity properties of words, something that's mostly irrelevant in english anyway, and besides, words can't give legal consent.

But I'll certainly vote in favor of same sex marriages, cuz I don't care what legal contracts consenting adults get themselves into. If they want to pretend, in this day and age, that they need a marriage license to pound each other in the rear, fine. The guys and the girls are doing all the pounding to each other wthout that little legal document, now.
 
Goshin said:
Well, color me stupid and call me a fool. I don't think it is "natural" either.

My ex-wife put it in the most eloquently succinct manner I've ever seen; unfortunately this involved gestures which won't translate here. :mrgreen:

Male equipment is designed to fit female equipment, just like a key and a lock.

Homo-sex is like trying to make two keys do something, or trying to open one lock with another lock. Best I can translate her analogy without pictures. :mrgreen:

(Yes, yes, I know that isn't the only way to have sex, spare me any graphic examples please. :eek: )

Male sexual physiology, combined with female sexual physiology, is designed to facilitate reproduction, which is the function of sex in nature. Male-male and female-female fail to produce reproduction, thus failing the obvious functionality test.

It does not fulfill the function of sex in a state of nature, therefore it is not "natural."

As previously noted by Apocalypse, whether "not natural" means the same thing as "wrong" is a much more complex question.
Click to expand...

What's any of this have to do with marriage, which is primarily a social function, not biologic?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What's any of this have to do with marriage, which is primarily a social function, not biologic?
Click to expand...

It is a social function that derived from a biological function. Specifically, it came to be because it served society as a whole better to have the two parents stay together and raise the children together, rather than having all the men screwing all the women willy-nilly, and the kids left to shift as best they could.

At any rate, the question had already been posed by someone, I simply addressed the existing question.
 
Apocalypse said:
You still haven't contradicted my theory, all you've done is just talk and talk about how foolish my opinion is.
Click to expand...
You don't have a theory. A theory requires at least internal logic and coherence. As I already explained, you have not provided either.

You have an opinion, and that is all.
 
Goshin said:
It does not fulfill the function of sex in a state of nature, therefore it is not "natural."
Click to expand...
That presumes that the sole function of sex is reproduction. Even in species besides homo sapiens sapiens, that is not the case.
 
I am no "homophobic freak" and yes I would vote no.

Even though I feel it is wrong for the US Federal or State Government to deny homosexuals the same basic rights as married couples, I also (for religious reasons) will not support it in any way.

I have no problem with civil unions, but two men or women do not make a marriage as I see it. Semantics, I know. But it is my opinion and that is what counts most when I vote.
 
celticlord said:
That presumes that the sole function of sex is reproduction. Even in species besides homo sapiens sapiens, that is not the case.
Click to expand...

Of course. I would however say it is the primary function...if you believe in evolution it is the sine qua non of species survival, in fact.
 
Goshin said:
It is a social function that derived from a biological function.
Click to expand...

So what? The biological function is fulfilled quite handily by boinking in the bushes. In the old days if the father of the result of that boinking didn't want to stick around, he didn't, just like today. The social function evolved as a means of formally identifying property and lineages.

Fact of the matter is that it's no one's business who marries whom, or how they're constructed, or if they have children, or if they don't. Clearly if the purpose of marriage was to "make babies", we wouldn't have over-the-counter, out-of-the-vending-machine contraception.
 
celticlord said:
That presumes that the sole function of sex is reproduction. Even in species besides homo sapiens sapiens, that is not the case.
Click to expand...

The only function of sex is reproduction.

Sex evolved to be fun because otherwise no one would bother.

Could you imagine a female elephant letting some horny bull elephant clambering all over her if she didn't get some enjoyment out of it?

Can you even begin to imagine what a pair of brontosauruses had to do to make broto-eggs? Would they have bothered if they didn't like it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom