• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)


  • Total voters
    154
It's part of history genius, my history and it needs to be understood. Homosexuality being right or wetting had been your nonsense, kids just need to know what it is. And the truth about out.

yes history, and the events of what you stated can be discussed in the class it history, ...however to take the history lesson, and go into the direction, homosexuality is ok...is not history..and no court ruled homosexuality is normal or abnormal.

Compete BS, you have argued your feelings from the beginning

So the thing about your kids being taught something opposite of what you taught them was complete BS. But i knew that was a lie.

excuse but you have said all along what i was saying was a lie........so is there any knew news here no.
 
yes history, and the events of what you stated can be discussed in the class it history, ...however to take the history lesson, and go into the direction, homosexuality is ok...is not history..and no court ruled homosexuality is normal or abnormal.
why are you blabbering about court cases.

Now you have changed your tune. Kids need to know it's okay. If you want your kids to hate themselves then teach them what you wish but the schools shouldn't support that nonsense.


excuse but you have said all along what i was saying was a lie........so is there any knew news here no.

Only when you lie.
 
I'm actually just asking questions. I certainly disagree with what you're doing, but I'm also trying to learn more about it. Maybe we could both learn something from seeing the other person's perspective.

actually i am not doing anything...i dont have children at all..

i am from the point of law, constitutional law....it is the use of force i am against, and people believing they have the power to make other people do things, just becuase they dont like what that other person is doing or try to make them accept things they do not want to.............not liking something or not wanting to accept something does not give people power in other peoples life's....

now if we the people dont like something people are doing in the name of government, when we can act.
 
Last edited:
actually i am not doing anything...i dont have children at all..

i am from the point of law, constitutional law....it is the use of force i am against, and people believing they have the power to make other people do things, just becuase they dont like what that other person is doing or try to make them accept things they do not want to.............not liking something someone does not wanting to accept something does not give people power in other peoples life's....

now if we the people dont like something people are doing in the name of government, when we can act.

That really has nothing to do with schools being that you aren't forced to attend.
 
Being that you are not forced to attend school there is no force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education

Compulsory education

United States

Compulsory school attendance based on the Prussian model gradually spread to other countries, reaching the American State of Massachusetts in 1852, and spreading to other states until, in 1917, Mississippi was the last state to enact a compulsory attendance law.[6] Massachusetts had originally enacted the first compulsory education law in the American colonies in 1647. In 1852, the Massachusetts General Court passed a law requiring every town to create and operate a grammar school. Fines were imposed on parents who did not send their children to school and the government took the power to take children away from their parents and apprentice them to others if government officials decided that the parents were "unfit to have the children educated properly".[7]

Compulsory education was not part of early American society;[8] which relied instead on church-run private schools that mostly charged tuition.[9] The spread of compulsory attendance in the Massachusetts tradition throughout America, especially for Native Americans, has been credited to General Richard Henry Pratt.[10] Pratt used techniques developed on Native Americans in a prisoner of war camp in Fort Marion, Augustine, Florida, to force demographic minorities across America into government schools.[10] His prototype was the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania.


United States (age) 6-17 Varies by state. Beginning age varies 5-8, ending age varies 15-18.[17] Some states allow early leave with parental approval.


State Compulsory School Attendance Laws

State Compulsory School Attendance Laws | Infoplease.com
 
Compulsory education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compulsory education

United States

Compulsory school attendance based on the Prussian model gradually spread to other countries, reaching the American State of Massachusetts in 1852, and spreading to other states until, in 1917, Mississippi was the last state to enact a compulsory attendance law.[6] Massachusetts had originally enacted the first compulsory education law in the American colonies in 1647. In 1852, the Massachusetts General Court passed a law requiring every town to create and operate a grammar school. Fines were imposed on parents who did not send their children to school and the government took the power to take children away from their parents and apprentice them to others if government officials decided that the parents were "unfit to have the children educated properly".[7]

Compulsory education was not part of early American society;[8] which relied instead on church-run private schools that mostly charged tuition.[9] The spread of compulsory attendance in the Massachusetts tradition throughout America, especially for Native Americans, has been credited to General Richard Henry Pratt.[10] Pratt used techniques developed on Native Americans in a prisoner of war camp in Fort Marion, Augustine, Florida, to force demographic minorities across America into government schools.[10] His prototype was the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania.


United States (age) 6-17 Varies by state. Beginning age varies 5-8, ending age varies 15-18.[17] Some states allow early leave with parental approval.


State Compulsory School Attendance Laws

State Compulsory School Attendance Laws | Infoplease.com
Attend private school or home school, options exist therefore you aren't forced.
 
Attend private school or home school, options exist therefore you aren't forced.
excuse me....you are defecting....BIG TIME HERE!...........you just stated there is no force to go to school.

Being that you are not forced to attend school there is no force.
 
Nuts. What is is about 'love your neighbor as you love yourself' do you even remotely believe justifies any of those things?
It doesn't, and yet I've heard major Christian leaders defend those things using the bible. In our history, every single one of those injustices has been defended by using one or more quotes in the bible. The golden rule, the basis of Secular morality, is downplayed by most Christians in those cases. There's a contradiction there, and that causes the problems we see with Christian morality today; Christian based discrimination of Homosexuals is condoned by passages of the bible, but ultimately undone by the golden rule; which one do we hear about? If Christian Righteousness was really based on the golden rule, it'd be compatible with Secular Righteousness, but that's not what most Christian Fundamentalists have in mind.

"It is certainly arguable that “progressive” liberal fundamentalism substantially undermines the basic effectiveness of the government and other societal elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of liberalism, attempts to build a utopian liberal society in America have only led to heightened outbreaks of AIDS, VD, porno-related crime, social divisions, divorce, abortion, drug addictions, deficit spending, the welfare state, a crushing tax burden, the breakdown of the family unit, moral depravity, and numerous other such scourges which have resulted in enormous societal suffering and discontent. As a result, secular liberal fundamentalism is strongly associated with left-wing fanaticism, reverse-racism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, nihilism, godlessness, and societal violence." – Author Unknown
Author Unknown is a moron. Let's address that quote piece by piece.

Utopian =/= Liberal and never did. I am not a liberal, Libertarianism is nearly the exact opposite of liberalism. Most secularist movements are for a reduction of existing laws and reducing the power of government, everything the Liberals hate.

Is AIDS/VD caused by Liberals, Secularists, or any other Progressive movements? Uh, no. The biggest outbreaks of AIDS correlate with the largest densities of Religiosity. Most secularists are promoting the use of condoms where religious movements promote abstinence; According to every study I could get my hands on, Abstinence only education yields higher teen pregnancies, higher teen std rates, and are an all around failure. Effective Sex Education

Porno-related crime? :lol: What in the hell is a Porno-related crime? If you mean crime being induced by the maddening effects of pornography, you're right up there with reefer madness. All countries that had banned pornography and then legalized it later found that crime was worse during the dry years, especially sex offenses. I seriously laughed at my screen when I read that line.

Social divisions are not any sort of problem that is solved by any form of "righteousness", since there's no problem with social divides. We are a diverse people, and that's a good thing.

Divorce rates of Atheists/Secularists are half that of Christians. Atheism & Divorce: Divorce Rates for Atheists are Among the Lowest in America - Why Do Conservative Christian Defenders of Marriage Get Divorced Most?

Abortion is tolerated but not condoned by secularists. I promote bans on all abortions that aren't due to Rape, Incest, or if the Child will endanger the life of the Mother. That doesn't make me pro-life, but I seriously don't condone the practice. I tolerate it under very specific conditions, and "inconvenience" or "choice" isn't one of them. I'm not Pro-life or Pro-choice.

Drug Addiction I'll give you, there is a mild increase in drug use and addiction among Secularists. But, we all know that Authoritarian laws against drug use are even worse than the drugs themselves; to use this as a "victory" for Religious Righteousness stops the second the Religious Right endorses the War on Drugs. That's the instant where the Religious Right promote more harm than Secularists.

Deficit Spending? Every president we've ever had was a Christian and there's only one Atheist in Congress. How can you possibly blame Atheists/Secularists for anything the Government does? I don't like paying taxes or living under an oppressive government; I support the deregulation of nearly every facet of every industry. I want smaller government, as do most secularists. "Author Unknown" doesn't know what "Liberal" even means.

Breakdown of the family unit goes right along with Divorce rates, Atheists have better family cohesion than Religious families. If you mean that we also love our neighbors and accept their families as valid, even when it goes against some Religious Fundamentalist's Bigoted world view, then yes we are destroying the family unit. How dare we be tolerant of others. Oh yeah, the golden rule. Again, the Religious Righteousness you speak of would be all fine and dandy if it actually entailed following the golden rule, but that's almost never the case.

Moral depravity and Societal Violence? Firstly, if you just define everyone that doesn't agree with you as immoral, then what's the point of even debating morality. It's simply close mindedness, and ultimately a contradiction of the golden rule. If we're talking about quantifiable and measured immorality/violence, such as federal crimes, Atheists beat Religion every time. From the Federal Bureau of Prisons (What Percentage of Prisoners are Atheists? It’s a Lot Smaller Than We Ever Imagined ), 0.07% of Federal inmates self identified as "Atheist", vs ~6% of the general population; 1/85th the population we would expect from statistics alone, and completely against any claim that Secularism breeds immoral or violent tendencies.

Reverse-Racism is a non-sensical statement. Either you're racist or you're not, there's no such thing as Reverse-Racism. If you mean tolerance and loving our neighbors, then Secularists are your guys.

How do you put anti-intellectualism and elitism in the same sentence? They literally mean opposite things. Again "Author Unknown" is a moron.

Nihilism? The most selfish people I've ever met were Christians. As an atheist, I've had several debates on this forum trying to prove the value of humility and selflessness; you can look up my profile if you want. Although I've met some bad Atheists before, the vocal majority emphasizes the golden rule and selfless lifestyles.

Godlessness. Yup, that's sort of the point of Secularism.
 
Just some rebuttals to your rebuttals:

1.) Religion/god/bible: There is yet to be a definitive proof against god and therefore none of those three can be considered meaningless or debunked (unless you know something I've never seen, heard or researched)
2.) Slippery slope argument: We've seen it happen before. We all have. Regularly. So as a generally applied principle it has grounds
3.)Marriage is between a man and a woman: Yes it is a foolish way to debate it (like saying someone in court "murdered because they are a murderer"). And yes it is an opinion but there's nothing to state its a lie in any form of the definition.
4.) Gay Parents will "turn" their kids gay: Well if you are arguing with someone that thinks being gay is ok then that isn't a legitimate point. That's why it isn't useful in the debate NOT because it's ignorant.
5.) Churches will lose their rights: It isn't ludicrous. Churches believe homosexuality is wrong and so, yes, they discriminate (please don't make the common assumption that discrimination is all bad. I discriminate by avoiding someone on a dark street who looks like a murderer. That's common sense) and a global legal passing of gay rights would force churches to go completely against what they believe.


5.)I do apologies if any of the above seemed like an attack. That was not intended, I simply wished to point out that the points you made to rebut the rebuttals aren't really all that legitimate.


1.) nobody said GOD is debunked im religious myself what was said is believing in god religion is not a reason fight against equal rights for gays
2.) well then simply put up or shut up. PLEASE explain to us all how granting equal rights for gays will solely lead to other things using only the precedence for gay rights. Otherwise you got nothing.
3.) facts prove you wrong so there nothing to debate here
4.) yes it very ignorant there is nobody educated and honest that thinks you can catch gay
5.) well since the constitution exists and since churches already discriminate again STRAIGHT,INTERRACIAL and RELIGIOUS couples RIGHT NOW your argument is simply not true and a huge failure. But most importantly has nothing to do with gays. Theres no danger of "churches" being forced to marry anybody. nice try but a complete failure. Are tou from the us?

5.) no apology need i dont feel attacked at all and all your points failed, facts and reality prove them all wrong.

but please feel free to come back when you have legit concerns or reason to stop equal rights for gays. Ill gladly read then too.
 
lets check in with the counter. 2 threads and 95 pages deep in the second thread.

OFFICIAL COUNTER
how many sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american, non-discriminating reasons are there to "Stop" gay marriage

GOOD REASONS: 0[/QUOTE]
 
Is AIDS/VD caused by Liberals, Secularists, or any other Progressive movements? Uh, no. The biggest outbreaks of AIDS correlate with the largest densities of Religiosity. Most secularists are promoting the use of condoms where religious movements promote abstinence; According to every study I could get my hands on, Abstinence only education yields higher teen pregnancies, higher teen std rates, and are an all around failure. Effective Sex Education

Going down the AIDS route...one of the biggest national failures in my book surrounds AIDS and our response in the early years.

I was a Reagan Republican in those days - bought into trickle down and all. Where he completely lost me was the AIDS crisis. If you want to pick and chose where federal money is spent - even the "small government" minded individual would understand that public safety and preventing epidemic is high priority. But in what was blatant pandering to the Moral Majority (immoral majority in my book) he basically ignored the epidemic. TO think we could have thrust our resources while deaths were in the thousands and prevented millions of deaths worldwide. Lack of needed resources and lack of national recognition of the seriousness of the situation were the fault of the Moral Majority and the Reagan administration.

For people who think they are in step with Jesus, they sure do not do what he would have done.
 
Going down the AIDS route...one of the biggest national failures in my book surrounds AIDS and our response in the early years.

I was a Reagan Republican in those days - bought into trickle down and all. Where he completely lost me was the AIDS crisis. If you want to pick and chose where federal money is spent - even the "small government" minded individual would understand that public safety and preventing epidemic is high priority. But in what was blatant pandering to the Moral Majority (immoral majority in my book) he basically ignored the epidemic. TO think we could have thrust our resources while deaths were in the thousands and prevented millions of deaths worldwide. Lack of needed resources and lack of national recognition of the seriousness of the situation were the fault of the Moral Majority and the Reagan administration.

For people who think they are in step with Jesus, they sure do not do what he would have done.

I don't have enough fingers to count who I know that died. And I do remember hearing people saying it was gods revenge
 
No you don't, private school, home school. No force that is an option.

Sorry clax I agree with ernst on this point. With compulsory education children have to be in school. Parents are forced to comply with this law. I do not however agree with enst"s angle on this
 
Back
Top Bottom