• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

captainawesome said:
Maybe his parent's had him reprogrammed.
Click to expand...

There's certainly a programming glitch in there somewhere. At the very least a glitch that prevents him from answering a direct question.
 
Papa bull said:
When I said choice, I mean my choice, not yours. You can stick anything you want in your mouth and I won't wait because I don't want to know. It's your chocie. It's your business and if you keep it your business we're all happy for that.
Click to expand...

What bugs me is that if a guy says, "My husband and had a great dinner last night," the response is, "Keep it in the bedroom, buddy!"

Different guy says, "My wife and I had a great dinner last night," the response is, "Oh, what'd you have?"

If there is a pervert in the mix, it's the person that immediately pictures sex when it's not the topic of the conversation.
 
Aderleth said:
Nope. I've got that covered. I'll ask again: can you change your sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me if I could before. You suggested I should. That's not your call. You can if you want, though. But to respond to a stupid question with a not-so-stupid-question. If I've already decided, why should I change my mind? On the other hand, bisexuals seem to change their mind all the time and I know some self-proclaimed hard-core homosexuals that have had sex with women.

Now, maybe I'm just a spoilsport because I was taught from an early age that homosexuality isn't normal or natural. Maybe that kept me from exploring the joys of sweet man-love. Whatever. I'm choosing not to do so in the future, either. But you can explore all the man-love you want if you don't already. And I'll even support your right to marry someone you feel man-love for. Just go to a state where it is legal and I'll throw a little rice on you and your husband while you go across the threshold.
 
Papa bull said:
That's the problem. That it MIGHT be an immutable characteristic isn't a powerful argument even though it seems to be the central thrust of gay propaganda.
Click to expand...
FFS...I'm not making a argument over whether it is or is not an immutable characteristic...YOU ARE.

I am saying it is irrelevant, it does not matter since we have protective rights for things that are NOT immutable characteristics, ie religion.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
What bugs me is that if a guy says, "My husband and had a great dinner last night," the response is, "Keep it in the bedroom, buddy!"

Different guy says, "My wife and I had a great dinner last night," the response is, "Oh, what'd you have?"

If there is a pervert in the mix, it's the person that immediately pictures sex when it's not the topic of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Possibly so..... but I don't hear anyone chastising homosexuals about "keeping it in the bedroom" just for mentioning some day-to-day activity they enjoyed with their partner.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
FFS...I'm not making a argument over whether it is or is not an immutable characteristic...YOU ARE.

I am saying it is irrelevant, it does not matter since we have protective rights for things that are NOT immutable characteristics, ie religion.
Click to expand...

Since we can't prove it is immutable, it's reasonable to assume it is not. As already mentioned to you, religion is a constitution protected right. Homosexual activity is not.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Straw, that is not my argument beyond the fact that we have rights for other than IC's.

Straw again, neither is an IC but both ARE suspect classes since both are groups that are subject to discrimination. That was determined long ago.


Yes, that is what I am doing, arguing for "child molesters, rapists or robbers" to be considered a suspect class.

FFS, look at what your argument has been reduced to, your "immutable characteristic" is a shambles and your defense is to create multiple straw men.

Sad.
Click to expand...

What is sad is that you want to try to elevate homosexuality to a suspect class even though it is entirely defined by behavior. Maybe you'd be happier with "fishermen", "water skiers" or "mountain climbers". They are entirely defined by their behavior, too. Maybe they should get special rights, too.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What part of irrelevant do you not get?

This is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

The part where you are correct about it being irrelevant. I don't get that. The supreme court obviously doesn't get that, either.
 
Papa bull said:
You didn't ask me if I could before. You suggested I should.
Click to expand...

No. I challenged you to do so. You failed.

Papa bull said:
That's not your call. You can if you want, though.
Click to expand...

No I can't, actually. That's kind of the point.


Papa bull said:
If I've already decided, why should I change my mind?
Click to expand...

If you had, that would be interesting, because you'd be the first person in history to do so.

Papa bull said:
On the other hand, bisexuals seem to change their mind all the time
Click to expand...

If it seems that way to you than you don't really understand what bisexuality is.

Papa bull said:
and I know some self-proclaimed hard-core homosexuals that have had sex with women.
Click to expand...

And there are straight men and women who have gay sex, sometimes for money (in the porn industry). Does that have any impact on their sexual orientation?


Papa bull said:
Now, maybe I'm just a spoilsport because I was taught from an early age that homosexuality isn't normal or natural.
Click to expand...

Nah, that just makes you ignorant.

Papa bull said:
Maybe that kept me from exploring the joys of sweet man-love. Whatever. I'm choosing not to do so in the future, either.
Click to expand...

Again: can you change your sexual orientation? You keep talking about having gay sex. That's not the same thing as desiring gay sex (which is what homosexual orientation is).

Papa bull said:
But you can explore all the man-love you want if you don't already. And I'll even support your right to marry someone you feel man-love for. Just go to a state where it is legal and I'll throw a little rice on you and your husband while you go across the threshold.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'd rather stick to banging chicks. I already have the one penis. Seeking out access to more just seems greedy.
 
Papa bull said:
Incest existed in numerous cultures over time, too and that doesn't mean they should be part of the norm in our society. I disagree about when civil unions became rejected. I think you're buying the propaganda instead of the truth. Here, get it from the horse's mouth.

Gays Against Gay Marriage | Just another WordPress.com weblog
Click to expand...

LOL Oh yeah, I am really going to believe a blog-site claiming to be published by a gay (male? female?) when the "about" section only shows "Self-explanatory. Follow us on Twitter @gayvmarriage"

You are grasping at straws. I've been following this issue almost from it's inception, as I have been following many civil rights and liberty issues as they arise. I stand by my remarks that there was wide-spread support in the gay community for civil unions until it was determined that such unions did not protect survivor benefits, nor rights in the event of injury leading to hospitalization, nor most other rights married couples take for granted.

As for your incest reference...sheesh! The original issue was your claim marriage is a natural right solely benefiting opposite sex couples supported by the majority of people throughout history, which therefore means homosexual couples are seeking "special rights" when they ask to be allowed to marry. I accept that you maintain that point and we disagree. It's clear nothing is going to change your mind even were every State in the Union to legalize same-sex marriage.

There's no point arguing with you, your mind is effectively closed. I have no problem with that, you are entitled to your opinion.
 
Captain Adverse said:
LOL Oh yeah, I am really going to believe a blog-site claiming to be published by a gay (male? female?) when the "about" section only shows "Self-explanatory. Follow us on Twitter @gayvmarriage"

You are grasping at straws. I've been following this issue almost from it's inception, as I have been following many civil rights and liberty issues as they arise. I stand by my remarks that there was wide-spread support in the gay community for civil unions until it was determined that such unions did not protect survivor benefits, nor rights in the event of injury leading to hospitalization, nor most other rights married couples take for granted.

As for your incest reference...sheesh! The original issue was your claim marriage is a natural right solely benefiting opposite sex couples supported by the majority of people throughout history, which therefore means homosexual couples are seeking "special rights" when they ask to be allowed to marry. I accept that you maintain that point and we disagree. It's clear nothing is going to change your mind even were every State in the Union to legalize same-sex marriage.

There's no point arguing with you, your mind is effectively closed. I have no problem with that, you are entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...

Seems we've both made our minds up and that's OK with me, too. I don't have a problem with you having a different opinion than mine, either.
 
Papa bull said:
What is sad is that you want to try to elevate homosexuality to a suspect class even though it is entirely defined by behavior. Maybe you'd be happier with "fishermen", "water skiers" or "mountain climbers". They are entirely defined by their behavior, too. Maybe they should get special rights, too.
Click to expand...
If this is how you want to argue, that homosexuals are NOT discriminated against as a class, and that their characteristics are equivalent to a hobby, and to continue to build straw men....that is fine with me.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If this is how you want to argue, that homosexuals are NOT discriminated against as a class, and that their characteristics are equivalent to a hobby, and to continue to build straw men....that is fine with me.
Click to expand...

You didn't like it when I used incest and pedophiles as alternative examples of groups defined entirely by their behavior just like homosexuals are defined entirely by their behavior.

But it is a fact that people can be discriminated against based on their behavior. Would you patronize a bar or restaurant owned by a white supremacist? They're another group defined entirely by their behavior.
 
Papa bull said:
You didn't like it when I used incest and pedophiles as alternative examples of groups defined entirely by their behavior just like homosexuals are defined entirely by their behavior.

But it is a fact that people can be discriminated against based on their behavior. Would you patronize a bar or restaurant owned by a white supremacist? They're another group defined entirely by their behavior.
Click to expand...

Ah, this explains a lot. You literally don't know what sexual orientation is. Orientation has nothing to do with behavior. It's entirely a function of desire.

If you think otherwise, let me ask you this, when did you become heterosexual? Was it the first time you had sex? What were you before you first had sex? Were you bisexual? Sexless? Why did you decide you wanted to have sex with women? What would you call that thought process/desire?
 
Papa bull said:
The part where you are correct about it being irrelevant. I don't get that. The supreme court obviously doesn't get that, either.
Click to expand...
The US SC has not yet made a determination, but the CA and CT SC's have.
 
Aderleth said:
This thinking would hold more water if any of us ever evinced any control whatsoever over who we're attracted to.
Click to expand...

Most of us have far more control over it than we give ourselves credit for.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The US SC has not yet made a determination, but the CA and CT SC's have.
Click to expand...

I don't think that should astonish anyone given that these are two of the most "progressive" state courts in the land.
 
Papa bull said:
Possibly so..... but I don't hear anyone chastising homosexuals about "keeping it in the bedroom" just for mentioning some day-to-day activity they enjoyed with their partner.
Click to expand...

Probably not on a day-to-day basis, but nearly every thread seems to come down to "keep it in the bedroom."

I've not met anyone who doesn't "keep it in the bedroom." An acknowledgement of who one is not a discussion of sexual activity, but too many people think it is.
 
mac said:
Most of us have far more control over it than we give ourselves credit for.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The day you can decide to be attracted to someone not of your preferred gender, you might have a point. Hell, the day you can decide within your preferred gender you might have a point. Do you have any idea how much easier life would be if I could just decide to be attracted to fat chicks with bad skin and BO?
 
Papa bull said:
You didn't like it when I used incest and pedophiles as alternative examples of groups defined entirely by their behavior just like homosexuals are defined entirely by their behavior.

But it is a fact that people can be discriminated against based on their behavior. Would you patronize a bar or restaurant owned by a white supremacist? They're another group defined entirely by their behavior.
Click to expand...
I was not aware that child molesters, pedophiles, WS's.....were contributing meaningfully to society.

But I guess you do beleive they do!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I was not aware that child molesters, pedophiles, WS's.....were contributing meaningfully to society?

But I guess you do beleive they do!
Click to expand...

I don't think the sexual behavior of child molestors, pedophiles or homosexuals contribute meaningfully to society, but neither does that sexual behavior prevent them from somehow contributing to society otherwise. You're really bolstering my point; that the only thing that makes them identifiable as a group is their behavior. Otherwise, there is no common defining characteristic shared by all of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom