• 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:
That is true, I did not mean it that way in the context of the conversation.



Higher thinking is not a sign of morals or abstract thought. It is simply higher thinking. This does not make an animal a moral animal. Nor does it mean it can understand anything outside of basic emotional contexts.
Click to expand...

Morals are subjective. There are dolphins that kill and torture seemingly purely for pleasure, but not all of them do. Why wouldn't all of them do it? Why would it be more of a rogue behavior? Wouldn't that imply that the 'mean' dolphins are acting on a different set of 'morals' (for lack of a better term, since I think 'morals' are a purely human construct and entirely subjective to the individual)? Some of them have sex purely for pleasure as well, some of them even have nasal sex (yup, sex with a blowhole - and here you thought anal sex was unusual :lol: )

Personally, I don't think compassion is just a 'basic emotional context', since some humans are completely lacking it.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, the studies I was thinking about regarding birds were carried out with wild Kea.
Click to expand...

Yes I know of the study. The fact is they don't know if it is an instinct or learned response.
 
rivrrat said:
Morals are subjective. There are dolphins that kill and torture seemingly purely for pleasure, but not all of them do. Why wouldn't all of them do it? Why would it be more of a rogue behavior? Wouldn't that imply that the 'mean' dolphins are acting on a different set of 'morals' (for lack of a better term, since I think 'morals' are a purely human construct and entirely subjective to the individual)?
Click to expand...

I could be, but it could also be some kind of mental defect. The fact is we don't know. Scientists are still hotly debating this one.

rivrrat said:
Some of them have sex purely for pleasure as well, some of them even have nasal sex (yup, sex with a blowhole - and here you thought anal sex was unusual :lol: )
Click to expand...

Again we don't know this to be a fact. It is as I stated hotly contested.

Blowhole sex! Those sick Dolphins!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwNvIM2W9Aw"]YouTube- South Park - Whale Whores - **** you whale and dolphin[/ame]

rivrrat said:
Personally, I don't think compassion is just a 'basic emotional context', since some humans are completely lacking it.
Click to expand...

I don't know for certain myself. Until animals can appreciate art etc, I just don't see it.
 
rivrrat said:
How do you know they can't? Do you speak with them? ;)
Click to expand...

No, lol. I said I don't know for certain! I probably should have said...

Until it can be proved in some way.
 
Blackdog said:
I don't know for certain myself. Until animals can appreciate art etc, I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

When I had my studio in NYC the Golden would not step on the art and on occasion she would stare at it for a lenggth of time when on the wall.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes I know of the study. The fact is they don't know if it is an instinct or learned response.
Click to expand...

Ah, but we really don't know if logic and abstract thought is instinctual or a learned in humans either. The Nature/Nurture debate still rages.

I tend to think it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B, myself.

As far as determining if morality exists within animal species, without being able to communicate with the animals, this is impossible to determine. We know that at least a few species of non-human animals can communicate to a high degree compared to other non-human animals. This opens up the possibility that there is some rudimentary moral code that develops within certain species, but it could be vastly different from what humans would consider in their morality.

Either way, it's an interesting subject.
 
winston53660 said:
When I had my studio in NYC the Golden would not step on the art and on occasion she would stare at it for a lenggth of time when on the wall.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about GoldenDog? :lol:

Sorry I could not resist.

This means little. My cat liked to watch TV.
 
Blackdog said:
Nothing I did not already know.
Click to expand...

No kidding?

Completely ignore the comparison and then ad hom.
Click to expand...

Since you're so dense, I'll show you point for point...
Here is what you said, "Animals also eat there own feces. Dogs eat cat feces. Chimps eat other monkeys etc. They eat their own young. "

Those things you talked about have nothing to do with the subject. Hence... apples and oranges! However, I decided to address your comment "They eat their young."

Was that slow enough for you? Holy ****!

Actually I am, but your constant fallacy arguments and inability to debate is all that is showing.
Click to expand...

If you were expressing yourself, as if you knew anything about all of this, all these people wouldn't be arguing with you. Think about that.
 
ADK_Forever said:
No kidding?
Click to expand...

:roll:

ADK_Forever said:
Since you're so dense, I'll show you point for point...
Here is what you said, "Animals also eat there own feces. Dogs eat cat feces. Chimps eat other monkeys etc. They eat their own young. "

Those things you talked about have nothing to do with the subject. Hence... apples and oranges! However, I decided to address your comment "They eat their young."

Was that slow enough for you? Holy ****!
Click to expand...

And again you have shown a complete and utter lack of understating.

Here is the original statement I was responding to...

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". - ADK Foever

Now I said...

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

In other words... You can't judge humans or our morality by what animals do in nature.

ADK_Forever said:
If you were expressing yourself, as if you knew anything about all of this, all these people wouldn't be arguing with you. Think about that.
Click to expand...

What is even more telling is the utter lack of support and thanks for anything you have said. Not to mention your lack of thanks all together, I have actually gotten a few. ;)
 
Last edited:
Amazing! The argument that homosexuality is unnatural has been repeated so often it's become a mantra for the homophobic; and the minute rational thinkers show evidence that counters that argument--evidence from actual nature, no less--they are condemned as "absurd" for bringing animal behaviour into the discussion. Talk about creating a no-win situation. :roll:
 
Blackdog said:
What is even more telling is the utter lack of support and thanks for anything you have said. Not to mention your lack of thanks all together, I have actually gotten a few.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that settles it then. You win a fact based debate based on... applause. :bravo::bravo::2funny::2rofll::2rofll:
 
Antagony said:
Amazing! The argument that homosexuality is unnatural has been repeated so often it's become a mantra for the homophobic; and the minute rational thinkers show evidence that counters that argument--evidence from actual nature, no less--they are condemned as "absurd" for bringing animal behaviour into the discussion. Talk about creating a no-win situation. :roll:
Click to expand...

Amazing how Liberals resort to name calling like homophobic and bigot to people that have a difference of opinion with them....And they call us the intolerant ones...:roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
Amazing how Liberals resort to name calling like homophobic and bigot to people that have a difference of opinion with them....And they call us the intolerant ones...:roll:
Click to expand...
So what word would you assign to someone who justifies their opinions by reference to a term like "unnatural," which they can't even define? Who jettisons their argument's constructs the moment their construct doesn't fit their conclusions?

Bigotry is all about starting with a conclusion that condemns others and then searching around for a justification to support it.
 
Navy Pride said:
Amazing how Liberals resort to name calling like homophobic and bigot to people that have a difference of opinion with them....And they call us the intolerant ones...:roll:
Click to expand...
Amazing how wingnuts think that any opinion contrary to theirs is automatically "liberal." I'd ask if you realised there are plenty of right wing people who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but I know you of old VOR, so I know there's no point. :roll:
 
Rassales said:
So what word would you assign to someone who justifies their opinions by reference to a term like "unnatural," which they can't even define? Who jettisons their argument's constructs the moment their construct doesn't fit their conclusions?

Bigotry is all about starting with a conclusion that condemns others and then searching around for a justification to support it.
Click to expand...

Horse puckey, Its called and opinion, they might have gotten it from their religion or some other place......That does not make them homophobic or a bigot......I am totally against gay marriage for the reasons I have mentioned over and over again in this forum and in this thread and I am no bigot or homophobe...
 
Antagony said:
Amazing how wingnuts think that any opinion contrary to theirs is automatically "liberal." I'd ask if you realised there are plenty of right wing people who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but I know you of old VOR, so I know there's no point. :roll:
Click to expand...

Your from Northern England (actually been there) a liberal and a conservative mean different things here then they do there.....In this country most liberals favor gay marriage, most Conservatives do not..Read the names on the poll and how they voted........You might just learn something.............
 
Antagony said:
Amazing! The argument that homosexuality is unnatural has been repeated so often it's become a mantra for the homophobic; and the minute rational thinkers show evidence that counters that argument--evidence from actual nature, no less--they are condemned as "absurd" for bringing animal behaviour into the discussion. Talk about creating a no-win situation. :roll:
Click to expand...

No. This is so typical of someone who just jumps in and has no clue about the over all discussion.

1 person tried to say it was unnatural. I then said that is ridicules. And is no more rational than using animals as a standard to judge humans.

So you can leave the homophone crap at home, thanks.
 
So what word would you assign to someone who justifies their opinions by reference to a term like "unnatural," which they can't even define?
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said homosexuality is unnatural? I did in fact say the exact opposit.

Who jettisons their argument's constructs the moment their construct doesn't fit their conclusions?
Click to expand...

Well you are going to be hard pressed to show this since no one has done this at thsi point on either side.

Bigotry is all about starting with a conclusion that condemns others and then searching around for a justification to support it.
Click to expand...

No. Bigotry here is about making untrue blanket statements.
 
Last edited:
CHEESE


:mrgreen:
 
K-1 said:
Alas, someone being deliberately obtuse and using ad hominem to buttress a patently illogical and silly argument.

The point I was making is pretty clear, and that is: marriage by definition is ONE MAN + ONE WOMAN. Arguing that the definition of marriage also includes ONE MAN + ONE MAN is as absurd as saying that marriage also includes ONE DOG + ONE DOG. In both contexts, you are fundamentally changing the definition of the institution, which defeats the purpose for the institution in the first instance. So why not start recognizing marriages between flowers, rats, dogs and other living things?

The liberal idiocy about "consenting, human adults" is a red herring. Granted it would be fascistic to argue that consenting human adults couldn't engage in any relationship or association they wish; conservatives do not argue this. It is not fascistic, however, to argue that the entire definition of marriage shouldn't be changed because liberals decide to introduce the absurdity of homosexual marriage as a constitutional right.

To argue that believing that marriage between an man and a man is fundamentally flawed is fascistic, is as idiotic as arguing that believing a flat-screen TV should be used as a mattress is fascistic. Gays are free to be gay, and they are free to engage in the most disgusting homosexual relations to their full pleasure. I think it is indescribably immoral, but I think passing laws banning sodomy is a waste of governmental resources and would be very hard to enforce, but to argue that marriage ought to be destroyed in order to include gays is manifestly preposterously, and is the kind of absurdity that can only be promulgated by liberals.
Click to expand...


I don't want to bother arguing with you because it's pointless and a waste of time, but I just look at the things you post...
Why are you so mean?
 
Blackdog said:
Oh well I am sorry, I never new! I will give up the combined Christian wisdom of the last 3000 years and go with your teachings on the Bible. Your understanding is so much better than an actual Christin who studies the Bible. :roll:

Yes their is. To bad you do not know the difference.
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't know the difference between "new" and "knew," "their" and "there," or "to" and "too."
Also, you're not a "Christin," you're a "Christian."

Wow...take some English classes, man.
 
Blackdog said:
No. This is so typical of someone who just jumps in and has no clue about the over all discussion.

1 person tried to say it was unnatural. I then said that is ridicules. And is no more rational than using animals as a standard to judge humans.

So you can leave the homophone crap at home, thanks.
Click to expand...
Um, actually, although I haven't contributed to the latter part of the discussion, I have been following it closely. Closely enough to have spotted that you only came into the "natural" debate quite a while after it was declared unnatural and only in response to winston53660's post about it occurring in nature. If you said the the "unnatural" claims were ridiculous, I missed it. Point me to that post and I'll apologise.
 
Skateguy said:
Back on topic here---If same sex marriages are made legal--they should include everyone, and no particular sub group of individuals.
Click to expand...

There are countries where same sex marriage is legal. Are there any where it is legal only for gay people...specifically?

If your more backward states ever catch up with the developed world and allow same sex marriage, what's to stop you from marrying another male?

Gay people should take this tax break issue up though, as leverage to support the cause..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom