• 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!

Anti-gay lawmaker caught in Craigslist scandal

No it's not. Tell me how I was fueled by hatred and homophobia when I opposed SSM. You misquoting representatives cannot speak for every single individual who opposes SSM.

You weren't, that's how you were able to change your views.
 
*Sigh* I feel like I am getting no where. If you are going to judge everyone who opposes SSM based on what Rich Santorum says (not only that, but snipped quotes from a biased liberal website) then that's a logical fallacy you are permitted to make. It's obvious that you have hatred towards those who oppose SSM and want to bigotedly judge them all as being homophobic and ruined with hatred. This action in and of itself is no better then what you falsely accuse all you oppose SSM of doing.

You are getting nowhere because the only defense you have is to repeat your unsupported and unsupportable claims about a lack of hate and homophobia.

Your personal attack has been noted and understood as demonctrating a lack of evidence for your claims
 
*Sigh* I feel like I am getting no where.

For once you would be right.

If you are going to judge everyone who opposes SSM based on what Rich Santorum says

Who suggested that was the case? Oh that's you. I simply offer it as a clear example of the views of so many on the right. After all, he is one of the leaders of the right.

(not only that, but snipped quotes from a biased liberal website)

Your point? Are you actually suggesting he didn't say these things? Really? Or is that all you have?

It's obvious that you have hatred towards those who oppose SSM and want to bigotedly judge them all as being homophobic and ruined with hatred.

The moment you publicly deny others what you enjoy, and you do so in the "name of faith and personal beliefs", you deserve everything you get bestowed upon you. Yes, I hate intolerant people who go out of their way to inflict their morality on others.. Guilty as charged.


This action in and of itself is no better then what you falsely accuse all you oppose SSM of doing.

Hardly.
 
No it's not. Tell me how I was fueled by hatred and homophobia when I opposed SSM. You misquoting representatives cannot speak for every single individual who opposes SSM.

Why don't you tell us how your bigoted opinion on SSM was fueled by anything other than hatred and homophobia, instead of merely claiming that it wasn't
 
Why don't you tell us how your bigoted opinion on SSM was fueled by anything other than hatred and homophobia, instead of merely claiming that it wasn't

Good luck with that.
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Is defining marriage enumerated in the Constitution?
 
Why don't you tell us how your bigoted opinion on SSM was fueled by anything other than hatred and homophobia, instead of merely claiming that it wasn't

It is possible to oppose SSM on grounds other than hatred and homophobia. Just as it is possible to support SSM without resorting to demonizing those who disagree with you.
 
It is possible to oppose SSM on grounds other than hatred and homophobia. Just as it is possible to support SSM without resorting to demonizing those who disagree with you.

So why don't you tell us how the bigoted opposition to SSM can be fueled by anything other than hatred and homophobia, instead of merely claiming that it isn't?
 
So why don't you tell us how the bigoted opposition to SSM can be fueled by anything other than hatred and homophobia, instead of merely claiming that it isn't?

1) Common law grounds.

2) States rights

3) unnecessary change

that is off the top of my head. None of those are bigoted or hateful. When your whole argument is that those you disagree with are bad, you automatically fail.
 
1)

that is off the top of my head. None of those are bigoted or hateful.

Convenient RW Radio Red herrings the lot. It's all about intolerance masked and rationalized to assuage one's guilt and mask the true intent and its sinister nature.

When your whole argument is that those you disagree with are bad, you automatically fail.

When you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

Everything about the RW movement to suppress gays oozes from the religious right like pus from a infected boil. The irony is that it flies in the face of those conservatives who profess less governmental interference and less government...
 
Last edited:
1) Common law grounds.

2) States rights

3) unnecessary change

that is off the top of my head. None of those are bigoted or hateful. When your whole argument is that those you disagree with are bad, you automatically fail.

The new prophets and apostles believe Christians--certain Christians--are destined to not just take "dominion" over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the "Seven Mountains" of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world. They believe they're intended to lord over it all. As a first step, they're leading an "army of God" to commandeer civilian government.
Rachel Maddow: Rick Perry May Be The Face Of A Christian Movement Seeking Political Domination (VIDEO)

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMY
"These belief systems find a voice in Christian Reconstructionism -- a political movement to convert the United States -- and eventually the entire earth -- into a theocracy in which dissenters, adulterers, sexually active homosexuals, some sexually active bisexuals, witches, sorcerers, etc. would be exterminated."

Perry, she said, had just held a prayer event with "a specific Christian political movement...that seems to want a Rick Perry candidacy to be their political vehicle."

I fear for this country.
 
The new prophets and apostles believe Christians--certain Christians--are destined to not just take "dominion" over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the "Seven Mountains" of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world. They believe they're intended to lord over it all. As a first step, they're leading an "army of God" to commandeer civilian government.
Rachel Maddow: Rick Perry May Be The Face Of A Christian Movement Seeking Political Domination (VIDEO)

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMY
"These belief systems find a voice in Christian Reconstructionism -- a political movement to convert the United States -- and eventually the entire earth -- into a theocracy in which dissenters, adulterers, sexually active homosexuals, some sexually active bisexuals, witches, sorcerers, etc. would be exterminated."

Perry, she said, had just held a prayer event with "a specific Christian political movement...that seems to want a Rick Perry candidacy to be their political vehicle."

I fear for this country.

None of this really has anything to do with what I said. I never claimed that there are not people who dislike gays and oppose gays using religious excuses. What I said is that there are other reasons to oppose SSM for some, and assuming is bad.

I support SSM. I am in fact one of the strongest advocates of SSM on this board. I learned early on that arguments such as Sangha is using are weak and ineffective, and often just inaccurate.
 
"These belief systems find a voice in Christian Reconstructionism -- a political movement to convert the United States -- and eventually the entire earth -- into a theocracy in which dissenters, adulterers, sexually active homosexuals, some sexually active bisexuals, witches, sorcerers, etc. would be exterminated."

If any Christian group wants to exterminate me, then I am going to take a **** ton of them with me.
 
None of this really has anything to do with what I said. I never claimed that there are not people who dislike gays and oppose gays using religious excuses. What I said is that there are other reasons to oppose SSM for some, and assuming is bad.

I support SSM. I am in fact one of the strongest advocates of SSM on this board. I learned early on that arguments such as Sangha is using are weak and ineffective, and often just inaccurate.

Okay, here's the thing. The government has no business in the business of marriage, or morals. Morals and ethics are personal and with the normal exceptions like killing, should have no place in the political process. Doing so comes far too close for many of us to establishing a state "religion", by imposing religious morals and ethics to the law.

I personally do not care who this guy has sex with, because it's none of my business. Or anyone elses outside of his family. I think what the others here are saying is this reeks of hypocritical political pandering. How dare he in the first place pretend to have such ethics and morals that he says out loud should be imposed on some, while in reality, well, he is leading quite a different lifestyle.

How many times must a pathetic scenario like this be presented before Americans simply don't care who does what with whom? You know as well as anyone that it is indeed the religious right who fights basic civil rights for those who are different from them. In a free society this can not bode well for the populace.

First homosexuals. Then Pagans. Then Muslims. Then, well, you get the idea.

I will say it once more, personal religious morals and ethics have no place in my government.
 
1) Common law grounds.

2) States rights

3) unnecessary change

that is off the top of my head. None of those are bigoted or hateful. When your whole argument is that those you disagree with are bad, you automatically fail.

#1 is nonsense which you can't explain and the other two are just other words for the homophobes intolerance and hate.
 
None of this really has anything to do with what I said. I never claimed that there are not people who dislike gays and oppose gays using religious excuses. What I said is that there are other reasons to oppose SSM for some, and assuming is bad.

I support SSM. I am in fact one of the strongest advocates of SSM on this board. I learned early on that arguments such as Sangha is using are weak and ineffective, and often just inaccurate.

And I have yet to hear you give a reason for opposing SSM that is not rooted in hate and homophobia.
 
In order to get to a point in one's head where they actually buy the notion that the government needs to play a role protecting people from homosexuality you need to believe that everybody has a desire to have sex with members of their own sex, but that those desires are kept in check by laws and moral judgment. You know who has a desire to have sex with members of their own sex? Gay people. Straight people know that they're not straight because of a law or something a preacher told them. So obviously it makes sense that such a huge percentage of the zealous anti-gay folks turn out to be gay.
 
careful, obama's doj has said far crueler things about gay marriage than mr santorum

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/obamas-doma-defense-unacc_b_215718.html

and, unlike the defeated senator from pa, the administration made its statements IN COURT

The DOJ has a responsibility to defend the laws of the country as far as they can. They defended DOMA up until about 9 months ago then they concluded that they just couldn't make a morally sound or logical argument in favor of it, so they stopped defending it. It is literally only one of a handful of times in US history that the DOJ has refused to defend a law. But you're mad that they even tried to defend it?
 
And I have yet to hear you give a reason for opposing SSM that is not rooted in hate and homophobia.

Redress, I'd like you to review the two sets of answers you have given, one for opposing and one for not opposing SSM, and then read my explanation for why the opposition to SSM is rooted in homophobia and hatred

Do you know what his actual family values are? If not, it makes it impossible for you to judge.

My response to this: I do not care. If he wants to see a gay escort, it's his and his families business, not mine. It does not effect me in any way.

Please note that the lack of opposition is based on your conclusion that SSM will not have any bad consequences for you. People do not object to changes that will not affect them (or will have a beneficial effect on them). People only object to change when they believe the change will have a negative effect on them (or their family, or society at large, etc)

1) Common law grounds.

2) States rights

3) unnecessary change

that is off the top of my head. None of those are bigoted or hateful.

Now note that the reasons you give for opposing SSM are based on change. Your arguments here are based on not wanting to change. But as I noted above, people do not object to change that has either a good effect or no effect on them. Obviously, the objection to this change (ie allowing SSM) is a perception that allowing SSM will have a deleterious effect on the people who object to SSM. Now here's the kicker

People do not love change that is bad for them. People do not even like change that is bad for them. People are not even merely nuetral about change that is bad for them. People don't like (ie hate) change that is bad for them. Bad consequences are something that is to be feared and fear leads to hate. This doesn't mean that the idea of SSM causes the homophobes to curl up into a ball, quivering with fear and anger, but since SSM is seen (by the homophobes) as something that will lead to bad consequences for them, SS is seen as a threat. Threats are things which are feared (this is just human (and animal) nature), and fear leads to hate (again, this is just human nature).

And because this perception of bad consequences, threats and fears are based on strong opinions of what SSM will lead to, I beleive that any and all opposition to SSM is rooted in bigoted hate and homophobia. So if you can, tell me where I'm wrong
 
Last edited:
not like that

What do you mean? They had to either argue that DOMA advanced a government interest or concede that it was unconstitutional. Normally the DOJ always has to argue that any law is constitutional. They did so in this case for a couple years until Obama took the unusual step of ordering them to stop. That prompted many on the right to freak out and claim that he was abandoning his constitutional duty to defend the laws of the country and whatnot, but they just very plainly said that they just couldn't in good conscience make arguments they knew were ridiculous in court.
 
In order to get to a point in one's head where they actually buy the notion that the government needs to play a role protecting people from homosexuality you need to believe that everybody has a desire to have sex with members of their own sex, but that those desires are kept in check by laws and moral judgment. You know who has a desire to have sex with members of their own sex? Gay people. Straight people know that they're not straight because of a law or something a preacher told them. So obviously it makes sense that such a huge percentage of the zealous anti-gay folks turn out to be gay.

Exactly. I think a significant percentage of anti-gay crusaders are in fact gay, but they've had to suppress those feelings due to their moralistic upbringing. Same reason there are so many gay men in the Catholic clergy: they think it will allow them to avoid those feelings.
 
Redress, I'd like you to review the two sets of answers you have given, one for opposing and one for not opposing SSM, and then read my explanation for why the opposition to SSM is rooted in homophobia and hatred



Please note that the lack of opposition is based on your conclusion that SSM will not have any bad consequences for you. People do not object to changes that will not affect them (or will have a beneficial effect on them). People only object to change when they believe the change will have a negative effect on them (or their family, or society at large, etc)



Now note that the reasons you give for opposing SSM are based on change. Your arguments here are based on not wanting to change. But as I noted above, people do not object to change that has either a good effect or no effect on them. Obviously, the objection to this change (ie allowing SSM) is a perception that allowing SSM will have a deleterious effect on the people who object to SSM. Now here's the kicker

People do not love change that is bad for them. People do not even like change that is bad for them. People are not even merely nuetral about change that is bad for them. People don't like (ie hate) change that is bad for them. Bad consequences are something that is to be feared and fear leads to hate. This doesn't mean that the idea of SSM causes the homophobes to curl up into a ball, quivering with fear and anger, but since SSM is seen (by the homophobes) as something that will lead to bad consequences for them, SS is seen as a threat. Threats are things which are feared (this is just human (and animal) nature), and fear leads to hate (again, this is just human nature).

And because this perception of bad consequences, threats and fears are based on strong opinions of what SSM will lead to, I beleive that any and all opposition to SSM is rooted in bigoted hate and homophobia. So if you can, tell me where I'm wrong

My post 3 was not in answer to your post 66(hint: I am not psychic, I don't know what stupid question you will ask until you ask it). In fact, if you look at my comments in context with where they are posted, people will see that you have tried to dishonestly create a false impression about what I said. I understand you have a failed argument, but when you have to stoop to lying to try and cover, it just shows every one how poorly your argument is fairing.
 
My post 3 was not in answer to your post 66(hint: I am not psychic, I don't know what stupid question you will ask until you ask it). In fact, if you look at my comments in context with where they are posted, people will see that you have tried to dishonestly create a false impression about what I said. I understand you have a failed argument, but when you have to stoop to lying to try and cover, it just shows every one how poorly your argument is fairing.

Regardless of who you are responding to, it is what you said. And I asked the question earlier. You have had time to respond to it.

I understand why you don't want to answer my question. Too bad if you can't explain how opposition to SSM can be rooted in anything other than homophobia and hate because hate and homophobia are the only reasons to oppose SSM
 
Back
Top Bottom