• 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!

Wash. has enough votes to legalize gay marriage

Not quite. I remember how back in the day he bragged how he would be the first to support it if the troops were fine with repealing DADT and Congress repealed it. Then when it was repealed he began ranting how wrong they all were and how the gays would form daisy chains and all hell was going to break loose. Fun times.

Speaking of DADT I wonder if Tigger no longer supports our military and the individuals that serve in it?
 
The values of the founding fathers were to have child labor, slavery, blacks not being able to vote, women not being able to vote and treated like property, etc. The morals of the time were to treat blacks and women as property. Are you saying you are for all those things?

Most of them. I am against slavery and voting based on race. Child labor, when necessary isn't the end of the world in my mind. I have no interest in women voting or working outside the home except in a limited fashion.

That's part of the whole paranoia thing I was talking about earlier.

It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.


I view your inability to tolerate the freedoms that other people deserve to be the "improper act". Why do you let what other people do have so much power over you? What are your thoughts on mixed-race marriages? Moral or immoral? What about marriages between people of different religions? Say a Catholic and a Jew? Moral or immoral? Isn't sex out of wedlock a bigger moral issue than sex within wedlock?

In this day and age it is almost impossible to live in a bubble. Other people have an influence on our lives whether we want them to or not. When you hold more traditional or old fashioned values that occurs even more often. I have no problem with mixed race marriage. I probably wouldn't do it myself, but I have no issue with it. Religion is a non-issue for me in all venues. Casual sex is a major issue in my mind; though I have no serious issue with heterosexual intercourse inside a committed relationship even before marriage.


By living in America, paying taxes, buying things here and paying sales tax, etc. you are supporting the TOLERANCE that America offers.

Which is why I am regularly seeking alternatives to staying here in the United States.
 
You have absolutely nothing to gain by preventing two men from getting married, nor do you stand to lose anything if they do get married.

You're right! I give 2 ****s if two men want to get married and I give 2 ****s on any state that accepts it

The "nor do you stand to lose anything" bit does concern me...

1 - For the record I'm opposed special rights for anyone.

2 - The national agenda of the homosexual lobby is less about "equal" rights for folks of different sexual orientation than then it is about securing protected status over heterosexuals ...And that amounts to "better" rights, not "equal" rights under the law. A latent effect of this is the creation of a legal environment where NO ONE IS ALLOWED to debate their social agenda ("hate speech" laws).

3 - The real problem that no one wants to talk about is the fact that the gay efficacy groups don't only want access to marriage and every other advantage of being heterosexual, they want the world to like and accept them also. Unfortunately for them, no matter how much money gays have or how good at paperwork they are, there are always going to be people (including our buddies from Islam) that disapprove of homosexuality
 
Legal marriage =/= religious marriage.

And even if it was, what of religious gay people? Should their religious freedom be compromised? What religion should be used to dictate how legal marriage runs?

Seriously, this argument lacks any sort of logic.

Since when, has logic been an important aspect of religious thought?
 
You're right! I give 2 ****s if two men want to get married and I give 2 ****s on any state that accepts it

The "nor do you stand to lose anything" bit does concern me...

1 - For the record I'm opposed special rights for anyone.

Nobody is asking for special rights.

2 - The national agenda of the homosexual lobby is less about "equal" rights for folks of different sexual orientation than then it is about securing protected status over heterosexuals ...And that amounts to "better" rights, not "equal" rights under the law. A latent effect of this is the creation of a legal environment where NO ONE IS ALLOWED to debate their social agenda ("hate speech" laws).

Complete nonsense. None of these sentences accurately portray reality. Same-sex marriage is not granting some "better" rights than what you have. And let's say for the sake of argument that you're right (YOU AREN'T), are you seriously saying that because the "homosexual lobby" wants "better" rights, they should therefore be denied equal rights? It can't be true. It's too stupid to be true.

P.S. Marriage and hate speech laws are not the same thing.

3 - The real problem that no one wants to talk about is the fact that the gay efficacy groups don't only want access to marriage and every other advantage of being heterosexual, they want the world to like and accept them also. Unfortunately for them, no matter how much money gays have or how good at paperwork they are, there are always going to be people (including our buddies from Islam) that disapprove of homosexuality

What the **** does that have to do with anything? Yes, people want to be accepted. You don't want to accept them, that's your deal, but in what ridiculous universe is that grounds to deny someone basic civil rights?

Hell, say all three of those points you propose are accurate: you still do not lose anything by allowing same-sex marriage.
 
Last edited:
Since when, has logic been an important aspect of religious thought?


I'm not going to degenerate into why you don't like religion and think it's tyranny, or bad Christians or bad Christian influenced laws. Individuals and individual examples are immaterial to the large number effect on society.

Step away from your own experiences and beliefs and take a look at the big picture. We're talking millions of people here and how they interact in general. You don't have to agree with the theology, but you should be able to agree that if a religion teaches that murder is wrong and that God will punish a murderer, and for that reason the murder rate is half the rate of a totally secular society, then religion has had a positive effect on societal morality.

And I'll also repeat this point. A very large segment of the human population moderates their behavior and doesn't cheat, steal, rape, rob, murder, etc. only because of fear. Fear of ridicule or prison, fines or death. Or, fear that even if no one catches them, their God will see it and punish them. Some people do what is right just because they believe it to be right. Without fear of punishment if they do wrong. They are the minority.
 
but you should be able to agree that if a religion teaches that murder is wrong and that God will punish a murderer, and for that reason the murder rate is half the rate of a totally secular society, then religion has had a positive effect on societal morality.

Thing is though, it isn't. All the studies I've seen so far show that the more secular a country is the lower its crime rates, even on state level in the U.S.


Do you have any evidence for that?
 
1 - For the record I'm opposed special rights for anyone.

It's not special rights. If SSM is passed YOU yourself could marry someone of the same sex. How is that a special right when you can use it to?
 
Thing is though, it isn't. All the studies I've seen so far show that the more secular a country is the lower its crime rates, even on state level in the U.S.


Do you have any evidence for that?

I think you're missing the point completely....


You simply can't control people effectively with only government rules. If Stalin couldn't get it done, I doubt it will happen in any sort of "free" society. A social "soft control" put on that particular negative behavior. A sense of shame. And since that "soft control" has been removed by the same secular "get away with what you can as long as it's not illegal" attitude that's now the rule in America, it turns out that behavior has become increasingly common.


However, if you have everyone more or less on the same sheet of music as far as their behavior goes, and Christianity probably has this figured out better than anyone else ...then you have a chance of a society that doesn't have make a court case of every tiny bit of social dysfunction.





 
Speaking of DADT I wonder if Tigger no longer supports our military and the individuals that serve in it?

Let's just say that I would no longer suggest that any member of my family join the US Military. That does not mean that I will not support the individuals in the US Military. I actually suppor the repeal of DADT.... I think that everyone SHOULD be asked, and those of low moral character refused the opportunity to serve.
 
We do not live in a theocracy, hazlnut. Remember...its, the government of the United States (of the People, by the People and for the People)
Is it not a matter for the states?
 
I think that everyone SHOULD be asked, and those of low moral character refused the opportunity to serve.

Umm even by your own admission Tigger, you have said there are only a HANDFUL of people that would meet your expectations of "moral". If you had your wish we would have a military that included maybe 10 people.
 
Let's just say that I would no longer suggest that any member of my family join the US Military. That does not mean that I will not support the individuals in the US Military. I actually suppor the repeal of DADT.... I think that everyone SHOULD be asked, and those of low moral character refused the opportunity to serve.

You are so damned offensive. And it makes me laugh every time.
 
Let's just say that I would no longer suggest that any member of my family join the US Military. That does not mean that I will not support the individuals in the US Military. I actually suppor the repeal of DADT.... I think that everyone SHOULD be asked, and those of low moral character refused the opportunity to serve.
There are a couple gays serving openly in my Company. It's not an issue. Like, at all. We don't care. We shower with gays, eat with gays, bunk with gays...it's not a problem. Women, however, are a problem, but that's a rant for another thread. The presence of gays does not disrupt "good order and discipline". They don't request special treatment, they don't hit on guys all the time...nothing like that. They're just normal folks who shoot-move-communicate just like the rest of us. Where pro-ssm gets it wrong is that the military is not a social experiment because military society is not like civilian society. DADT is about assets serving national security, not equal rights; not even employment equality because the military can bypass that as well (women in the infantry, for example).
 
Umm even by your own admission Tigger, you have said there are only a HANDFUL of people that would meet your expectations of "moral". If you had your wish we would have a military that included maybe 10 people.

I was speaking mostly to the morality of the sexuality issue, though there are some other isues that I would suggest disqualifying people for as well (gender being one of them).


You are so damned offensive. And it makes me laugh every time.

Laugh at this then..... Welcome to the Ignore List.


There are a couple gays serving openly in my Company. It's not an issue. Like, at all. We don't care. We shower with gays, eat with gays, bunk with gays...it's not a problem. Women, however, are a problem, but that's a rant for another thread. The presence of gays does not disrupt "good order and discipline". They don't request special treatment, they don't hit on guys all the time...nothing like that. They're just normal folks who shoot-move-communicate just like the rest of us. Where pro-ssm gets it wrong is that the military is not a social experiment because military society is not like civilian society. DADT is about assets serving national security, not equal rights; not even employment equality because the military can bypass that as well (women in the infantry, for example).

While I thank you for your service Jerry, I have to say that I wish you could do so in a more appropriate set of circumstances. Stay safe.
 
Great job by a bunch of amazing men. I've had the honor of meeting several SEALs and former SEALs over the years and they are truly the cream of the crop when it comes to what they do. Very glad they all came home in one piece.

On the other hand, I am TOTALLY against using US Military personnel to go rescuing American (and especially foreign) civilians who are too stupid to stay out of harms way. Somalia is NOT a tourist destination or a safe place for Westerners to work. I would have to bet the US State Department probably suggests AGAINST US citizens traveling there for any reason. This woman chose to ignore that basic common sense. They should have let her rot.

And what if you found out, after the fact, that a few of the Navy SEAL's you met were gay?
Odds are good there's at least one that is, even if he/she is not open about it.
 
And what if you found out, after the fact, that a few of the Navy SEAL's you met were gay? Odds are good there's at least one that is, even if he/she is not open about it.

Then I would be seriously disappointed; and I will leave it at that.
 
Then I would be seriously disappointed; and I will leave it at that.


But why? Why would something that has absolutely no effect on you, or on what they do and/or accomplish, have any impact on you what-so-ever?

They are still elite Navy SEAL's regardless of if they are gay or straight. What makes them great in your mind has nothing to do with who they are attracted to.
 
But why? Why would something that has absolutely no effect on you, or on what they do and/or accomplish, have any impact on you what-so-ever? They are still elite Navy SEAL's regardless of if they are gay or straight. What makes them great in your mind has nothing to do with who they are attracted to.

I see the US Military as an extension of the country itself, more than as a group of individuals. They should represent the values and ideals of the nation, which in my mind does not include homosexuality. It's pretty much that simple.
 
I see the US Military as an extension of the country itself, more than as a group of individuals. They should represent the values and ideals of the nation, which in my mind does not include homosexuality. It's pretty much that simple.

And it has been shown that the values of America are not your values, so then the military shouldn't garner any respect from you then because of that. Using your own words of course. This is where you are either conflicted with your values and morals or you simply are not aware of it.

On one hand you say you don't respect what America is and on the other hand you are saying that the military is an extension of those values and morals and you respect the military. Can't have it both ways and be consistant.
 
And it has been shown that the values of America are not your values, so then the military shouldn't garner any respect from you then because of that. Using your own words of course. This is where you are either conflicted with your values and morals or you simply are not aware of it.

On one hand you say you don't respect what America is and on the other hand you are saying that the military is an extension of those values and morals and you respect the military. Can't have it both ways and be consistant.

Would you be happier if I characterized it as Traditional American Values versus Modern American Values? I do not believe that the values of this nation today are the values that my relatives fought for in the American Revolution and War of 1812. Nor do I believe they are what those relatives of mine who fought for the Confederacy (even though they were from CT originally) fought for either. They may be closer to what my relatives who fought for the Union army believed in. I believe there has bee a see change in American Values over the years, and it's not something I am in favor of at all. Can we just leave it at that?
 
Would you be happier if I characterized it as Traditional American Values versus Modern American Values? I do not believe that the values of this nation today are the values that my relatives fought for in the American Revolution and War of 1812. Nor do I believe they are what those relatives of mine who fought for the Confederacy (even though they were from CT originally) fought for either. They may be closer to what my relatives who fought for the Union army believed in. I believe there has bee a see change in American Values over the years, and it's not something I am in favor of at all. Can we just leave it at that?

I'm just trying to see if you realize your inconcistancy. The military of today is idoctrinated with modern values and morals. So how can you say the military (which you say you respect) is a extension of the values and morals of America (which you don't respect)? Those are opposing views which leads to an inconsistancy.
 
I'm just trying to see if you realize your inconcistancy. The military of today is idoctrinated with modern values and morals. So how can you say the military (which you say you respect) is a extension of the values and morals of America (which you don't respect)? Those are opposing views which leads to an inconsistancy.

Please realize that whenever I speak of America or anything related to it, I am speaking of the Traditional America that I believe this nation was founded to be, not the modern version that we have today. I see the US Military as the extension of those values that this nation was founded upon, not modern america. In fact, the US Military was one of the last bastions of most of those more Traditional values until relatively recently.
 
I see the US Military as the extension of those values that this nation was founded upon, not modern america. In fact, the US Military was one of the last bastions of most of those more Traditional values until relatively recently.

And you would be 100% incorrect. Today's military (which includes the SEALS that you say you respect) has modern values and morals that are in many ways different to that which America was founded on. And not just recently either, this has been going on for decades.

So how can you say you respect those SEALS when they (voluntarily) support a military that you don't respect (due to values). Remember you said anyone that SUPPORTS something you believe to be immoral or lacking of values is just as guilty.

Clearly there is an inconsistancy in what you are saying, I'm just trying to find out if you realize that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom