• 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!

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%

  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%
  • Total voters
    93
Blackdog said:
As soon as I start treating a racial or ethnic group differently, I will let you know.
Click to expand...

I guess assuming you could read into a dictionary definition was too much to ask.

G'day mate
 
ADK_Forever said:
I guess assuming you could read into a dictionary definition was too much to ask.

G'day mate
Click to expand...

Yes ignore the rest, that is what you are best at.

Dishonest to the last. ;)
 
Blackdog said:
Yes ignore the rest, that is what you are best at.
Click to expand...

I choose to cut my losses when people like you simply can't move forward with a discussion but, stubbornly keep making the same points even tho you have been proved wrong.

Next...
 
ADK_Forever said:
I choose to cut my losses when people like you simply can't move forward with a discussion but, stubbornly keep making the same points even tho you have been proved wrong.

Next...
Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
The next person that calls or blatantly implies another poster is a coward, a moron, or anything besides it is getting smacked with point. Ditto for anyone continuing to turn this into a personal slugfest rather than stay on topic. Only warning. Get it back on topic and civil
 
Blackdog said:
Some do and no it does not go on and on, this does not make my statement wrong or nonfactual.
Click to expand...
Actually it does since you implied that ALL animals that engage in homosexual behavior do so only due to lack of the opposite gender and stop as soon as females/males are reintroduced. Obviously, that's not true. If you wanted to quantify that statement with the fact that only *some* do that, then you should have done so when you made the erroneous statement.

No. :roll:

Not even close.
Click to expand...
Yeah, killing your offspring is nothing at all like killing your offspring. How silly of me!
 
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
23. October 2006 16:28

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."
Click to expand...
from: 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Fascinating stuff.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Actually it does since you implied that ALL animals that engage in homosexual behavior do so only due to lack of the opposite gender and stop as soon as females/males are reintroduced. Obviously, that's not true. If you wanted to quantify that statement with the fact that only *some* do that, then you should have done so when you made the erroneous statement.
Click to expand...

I did not imply anything. I stated a fact as an example of why that argument does not work. You assumed things that were not stated.

The statement is also not erroneous.

"Another argument that has been raging has been the statistical fact that the majority of giraffe couplings are homosexual in nature. When observed in action, it seems that over ninety percent of mountings are between males. However, when the males come in to contact with females when they are in estrus then they invariably will go with them."

Thanks for completely ignoring and/or missing my point. Why don't you go and read it, and pay close attention to the last part.

rivrrat said:
Yeah, killing your offspring is nothing at all like killing your offspring. How silly of me!
Click to expand...

Swing and a miss! Strike 2.
 
Here is my statement for those who want to mischaracterize what I said..

"The whole nature argument for either side is absurde.

In nature it does occur usually as a response to a lack of adult females. As soon as more females are introduced, it stops. This makes it no less natural.

On the other side we have "A natural law." It is also a natural law that many animals eat their own young. Using some kind of natural law argument is just silly. Humans do not base our laws on animals. " - Blackdog

Now understand and stop with the knee jerk reactions.
 
Please folks, I'm no moderator, but let's try to stay on topic here. No hair pullin and no spittin. It is unbecoming---there is a Topic here, use it.
 
Blackdog said:
Here is my statement for those who want to mischaracterize what I said..

"The whole nature argument for either side is absurde.

In nature it does occur usually as a response to a lack of adult females. As soon as more females are introduced, it stops. This makes it no less natural.

On the other side we have "A natural law." It is also a natural law that many animals eat their own young. Using some kind of natural law argument is just silly. Humans do not base our laws on animals. " - Blackdog

Now understand and stop with the knee jerk reactions.
Click to expand...

Read the article I just posted.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Read the article I just posted.
Click to expand...

My comment agrees with the article.

What part of...

"This makes it no less natural"

Are people missing????

My whole point is trying to use animals who do not have our ability to reason etc for or against homosexuality is absurd.

The problem here is people are viewing anything I say in tunnel vision.

I am not anti gay, I am not against gays having the same rights as married couples in a Civil Union. I am against it being called marraige. Two men or women do not make a marraige as far as I am concerned. Never has, never will. Until God comes down to tell me personally it is OK, I will not support it or the lifestyle, period.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
My comment agrees with the article.

What part of...

"This makes it no less natural"

Are people missing????

My whole point is trying to use animals who do not have our ability to reason etc for or against homosexuality is absurd.

The problem here is people are viewing anything I say in tunnel vision.
Click to expand...

Either you're having a hard time putting in words what you're thoughts are or... you're just wrong. The article makes no connection to homosexuality increasing when females are not around. You say, "This makes it no less natural" and then say we can't use animals to gauge homosexuality in humans. The article is all about it being "natural".
 
Blackdog said:
I did not imply anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did by way of not using a qualifier such as "some".

The statement is also not erroneous.
Click to expand...
It is unless you say "some". If you don't say some, then you applying the statement to all, and that is erroneous.

Thanks for completely ignoring and/or missing my point. Why don't you go and read it, and pay close attention to the last part.
Click to expand...
Yup, I saw the last part. Which doesn't make the first part any less incorrect.


Blackdog said:
I am not anti gay, I am not against gays having the same rights as married couples in a Civil Union. I am against it being called marraige. Two men or women do not make a marraige as far as I am concerned. Never has, never will. Until God comes down to tell me personally it is OK, I will not support it or the lifestyle, period.
Click to expand...
Your 'god' doesn't have anything to do with our country's legal marriage contract.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Either you're having a hard time putting in words what you're thoughts are or... you're just wrong. The article makes no connection to homosexuality increasing when females are not around.
Click to expand...

It happens in the case of Giraffes etc. as I quoted. I never said this was the only thing, I also said it IS natural. I pointed out 1 example. Not the only one.

ADK_Forever said:
You say, "This makes it no less natural" and then say we can't use animals to gauge homosexuality in humans. The article is all about it being "natural".
Click to expand...

Animals also eat there own feces. Dogs eat cat feces. Chimps eat other monkeys etc. They eat their own young.

Animals are not something we can gage human kind by.
 
rivrrat said:
Yes, you did by way of not using a qualifier such as "some".
Click to expand...

That is your assumption.

rivrrat said:
It is unless you say "some". If you don't say some, then you applying the statement to all, and that is erroneous.
Click to expand...

It is not erroneous as I have shown.

rivrrat said:
Yup, I saw the last part. Which doesn't make the first part any less incorrect.
Click to expand...

And yet you still make an incorrect assumption. :roll:

rivrrat said:
Your 'god' doesn't have anything to do with our country's legal marriage contract.
Click to expand...

So what? Just ignore the rest and completely ignore my point.

Good job!
 
Yes! Gay folks should have every right to be miserable, too. :rofl
 
Blackdog said:
Chimps eat other monkeys etc.
Click to expand...

This is really no different than a human eating a monkey. Or a human eating a chimp for that matter. Chimps aren't monkeys.

Chimps eating other chimps is a different story, but humans have been known to eat other humans as well.

Aside from correcting this technical mistake, I agree that just because something might be natural/unnatural, it's naturalness doesn't have a bearing on it being moral/immoral.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
This is really no different than a human eating a monkey. Or a human eating a chimp for that matter. Chimps aren't monkeys.

Chimps eating other chimps is a different story, but humans have been known to eat other humans as well.

Aside from correcting this technical mistake, I agree that just because something might be natural/unnatural, it's naturalness doesn't have a bearing on it being moral/immoral.
Click to expand...


So would that mean morality is unnatural?
 
Blackdog said:
It happens in the case of Giraffes etc. as I quoted. I never said this was the only thing, I also said it IS natural. I pointed out 1 example. Not the only one.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the article... did you?

Animals also eat there own feces. Dogs eat cat feces. Chimps eat other monkeys etc. They eat their own young.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.

However, humans kill their young too. Ever hear of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome?

Animals are not something we can gage human kind by.
Click to expand...

Science is a wonderful thing. Check it out some time.
 
ADK_Forever said:
You didn't read the article... did you?
Click to expand...

Yes I did.

ADK_Forever said:
Apples and oranges.

However, humans kill their young too. Ever hear of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome?
Click to expand...

So the eating is apples and oranges but the killing is not? :lol:

ADK_Forever said:
Science is a wonderful thing. Check it out some time.
Click to expand...

I probably know more about anthropology, then you will ever know. Considering of course I majored in it in college :mrgreen:
 
Tucker Case said:
This is really no different than a human eating a monkey. Or a human eating a chimp for that matter. Chimps aren't monkeys.

Chimps eating other chimps is a different story, but humans have been known to eat other humans as well.

Aside from correcting this technical mistake, I agree that just because something might be natural/unnatural, it's naturalness doesn't have a bearing on it being moral/immoral.
Click to expand...

Yep, thank you for getting it!
 
winston53660 said:
So would that mean morality is unnatural?
Click to expand...

For animals yes, for humans no.

We have the abuility to understand abstract concepts etc. Animals do not. Humor for instance.

This does not make it unnatural, it makes it exclusive to humans.

PS Needed to add... Just as certain things are exclusive to certain animals and not humans.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
For animals yes, for humans no.

We have the abuility to understand abstract concepts etc. Animals do not. Humor for instance.

This does not make it unnatural, it makes it exclusive to humans.
Click to expand...

I dunna know, i think there are examples in the animal kingdom of animals exhibiting moral behaviors like exhibiting compassion.
 
winston53660 said:
I dunna know, i think there are examples in the animal kingdom of animals exhibiting moral behaviors like exhibiting compassion.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of such a thing. A find like that would throw the scientific world on it's ear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom