• 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]

Gimmesometruth said:
I'm good with that.
Click to expand...

Me, too. They decide the law for two of the most progressive states in the country, so I'm good with them being progressive as they are. It's a good fit for them.
 
Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...
Um, this is getting beyond stupid, the criteria for a suspect class includes whether these classes are contributing meaningfully to society. The groups you mentioned, as defined by their identification, do not.

You are reducing your argument to absurdity.
 
Aderleth said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ever been to prison?
 
clownboy said:
All that would make so much sense if I hadn't heard every last bit of it before, as has my mother when she was young, my grandparents and going all the way back. Young people think everything is new and they like change, that a given. Also a given, MOST of them grow up and head right on back to the values their parents taught them.
Click to expand...

The thing that doesn't change is generations not wanting to change from what is familiar to them. Once that change begins, what is familiar to them is the new set of ideals/morals, and resistance is to change of that new ideal.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, this is getting beyond stupid, the criteria for a suspect class includes whether these classes are contributing meaningfully to society. The groups you mentioned, as defined by their identification, do not.

You are reducing your argument to absurdity.
Click to expand...

I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that the gaggle of giggles that is the gay community, defined entirely by it's behavior "contributes meaningfully to society" as a group. As individuals they may "contribute to society" just as a child molestor might be a scientist working on a cure for cancer when he's not molesting children. But as a group, there is no significant contribution unless you place a lot more value on the "societal contribution" of interior design or drag queen revues than I do.
 
Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...

Many things are not specifically protected by the Constitution. Is age an "immutable characteristic"? What about disability? Can someone not change their disability status either to being disabled or their level of disability or to no longer disabled depending on what happens or technology? Disability is protected.

Tell me, is being behind on child support an immutable characteristic? What about being an inmate in prison? Marriage laws have been struck down that restricted people from marriage based on these specific characteristics. And same sex marriage restrictions are based on sex/gender, not sexuality.
 
Papa bull said:
I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that the gaggle of giggles that is the gay community, defined entirely by it's behavior "contributes meaningfully to society" as a group. As individuals they may "contribute to society" just as a child molestor might be a scientist working on a cure for cancer when he's not molesting children. But as a group, there is no significant contribution unless you place a lot more value on the "societal contribution" of interior design or drag queen revues than I do.
Click to expand...

They contribute just as much as heterosexuals.
 
Papa bull said:
I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that the gaggle of giggles that is the gay community, defined entirely by it's behavior "contributes meaningfully to society" as a group. As individuals they may "contribute to society" just as a child molestor might be a scientist working on a cure for cancer when he's not molesting children. But as a group, there is no significant contribution unless you place a lot more value on the "societal contribution" of interior design or drag queen revues than I do.
Click to expand...

If all you know about gays is stereotypes, then yes. Since gays are people, not stereotypes, most of them have regular jobs and pay their taxes the same as everyone else.
 
Aderleth said:
Bull****.

Sexual orientation | Define Sexual orientation at Dictionary.com

Sexual orientation - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

Sexual Orientation
Click to expand...

Do I need to provide you links that say "homosexuality is a behavior"? Probably not. We can find links to say anything we want, and it's superfluous since it's obvious that homosexuality is a behavior. Lusting is a behavior. If you lust after or engage in sex with someone of the same sex, you are a homosexual. It's defined by behavior and you can shout "bull****" from dusk till dawn and it won't change that.
 
Regardless of the points raised, opponents of same-sex marriages simply feel that by allowing same-sex couples to marry society is not only condoning sin, but their own “traditional” marriages are being defiled in some way.

I find this belief strange for many reasons. The first being, if your God or Gods truly oppose same-sex marriage then He, or They, have the power to act on that by simply “smiting the blasphemers with great wroth!”

If you are Christian, that is clearly stated in the Bible. In point of fact Jesus made it very, very, VERY clear by both direct commands and several examples, that every human contains sin and therefore NONE are qualified to judge or condemn other human sinners. Only God has that right and authority.

But aside from religion, how can anyone in a “traditional” marriage claim that their marriage is somehow demeaned if same-sex couples are allowed to legally marry too? In what way? None of your marital rights are removed. All of your vows are still in full force. Your children are still “legitimate.” No one is forcing you to “like” it. You are still entitled to both your personal opinion and right to choose whom to, and whom not to, associate with in personal interactions. You are still kings and queens in your own homes.

In fact, I have not heard a single, specific, reason or example, showing how any “traditional” marriage is actually harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to exist. It is INSANE to claim that just because a fellow human being shares your liberty rights this somehow demeans those rights. Please, someone explain it to me like I am a “5-year-old” because I just don’t get it.
 
rocket88 said:
If all you know about gays is stereotypes, then yes. Since gays are people, not stereotypes, most of them have regular jobs and pay their taxes the same as everyone else.
Click to expand...

So does most any other group defined entirely by their behavior except maybe the "freestuffers" that make up most of the rest of the left.
 
Papa bull said:
I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that the gaggle of giggles that is the gay community, defined entirely by it's behavior "contributes meaningfully to society" as a group. As individuals they may "contribute to society" just as a child molestor might be a scientist working on a cure for cancer when he's not molesting children. But as a group, there is no significant contribution unless you place a lot more value on the "societal contribution" of interior design or drag queen revues than I do.
Click to expand...
I understand that your argument is limited by your own self admitted ignorance of the contributions to society by homosexuals as a group as is your ignoring that they are discriminated against as a group....while you continue to equate them with child molesters. You continue to play 3 card monte with a scientist who is at one point a cancer researcher and the next a molester. Again, you continue to play this game of trying to confuse the group and individual. I know what sets and subsets are, I know that the subset does not define the set. Why you believe that you can confuse me on this aspect is funny, but not unexpected.

Your argument rests on ignorance, but I knew that from the beginning.
 
Aderleth said:
I meant rhetorically, but I suspect you know that already.
Click to expand...

If someone can choose to have sex with someone they are not attracted to, how can you say they have no control over their attractions?
 
Papa bull said:
Do I need to provide you links that say "homosexuality is a behavior"? Probably not. We can find links to say anything we want, and it's superfluous since it's obvious that homosexuality is a behavior. Lusting is a behavior. If you lust after or engage in sex with someone of the same sex, you are a homosexual. It's defined by behavior and you can shout "bull****" from dusk till dawn and it won't change that.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not behavior. Homosexuality is an attraction, just like heterosexuality. What is a behavior is choosing to act on that attraction, no matter a person's sexuality.
 
mac said:
If someone can choose to have sex with someone they are not attracted to, how can you say they have no control over their attractions?
Click to expand...

You just said it. They aren't attracted to the person. It does not require attraction to have sex. It does not require attraction to be in a relationship.
 
Papa bull said:
Do I need to provide you links that say "homosexuality is a behavior"? Probably not. We can find links to say anything we want, and it's superfluous since it's obvious that homosexuality is a behavior. Lusting is a behavior. If you lust after or engage in sex with someone of the same sex, you are a homosexual. It's defined by behavior and you can shout "bull****" from dusk till dawn and it won't change that.
Click to expand...

If the part in bold is true, does that mean that heterosexuality is also a behavior and not a state of being? If lust is just a behavior, does that mean you can decide to become attracted to men? I mean you, specifically. Have you ever attempted to do so? If not, on what are you basing this contention?

I'm sure you can provide all sorts of links to the internet backwater from which you apparently get information. I provided you with two dictionary definitions, and the opinions of medical professionals. Desire is not a behavior, it's a feeling. Both science and the English language are on my side here. Also logic, but I'm sure you're not interested in letting such concerns interfere with your bigotry. Carry on.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I understand that your argument is limited by your own self admitted ignorance of the contributions to society by homosexuals as a group as is your ignoring that they are discriminated against as a group....while you continue to equate them with child molesters. You continue to play 3 card monte with a scientist who is at one point a cancer researcher and the next a molester. Again, you continue to play this game of trying to confuse the group and individual. I know what sets and subsets are, I know that the subset does not define the set. Why you believe that you can confuse me on this aspect is funny, but not unexpected.

Your argument rests on ignorance, but I knew that from the beginning.
Click to expand...

And you are trying to play the same self-stroking narcissistic game I've heard so many other homosexuals try to run down about their "group's" contributions to history as though there was some sort of wonderful thing about the "gay culture" that made people contribute special things to the sciences and arts and business than plain ol' heterosexuals would have or could have done. Go ahead and make the case that the "gay culture" has contributed significantly to society in any way other than as individuals utterly independent of their sexual activity.... just like any other nondescript group of people that is only defined by specific sexual behavior.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
If someone can choose to have sex with someone they are not attracted to, how can you say they have no control over their attractions?
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question. If they're still not attracted to the person they've chosen to have sex with, then they haven't chosen their attraction at all, simply acted in opposition to it.
 
mac said:
If someone can choose to have sex with someone they are not attracted to, how can you say they have no control over their attractions?
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily require attraction to have sex..."any port in a storm" and all that.
 
Aderleth said:
If the part in bold is true, does that mean that heterosexuality is also a behavior and not a state of being?
Click to expand...

Yes. Unlike homosexuals, we don't define our very existence and being by our sexual preference. We don't state heterosexual pride parades to draw attention to the wonderfulness that is us. We don't walk around with gay pride shirts on. We don't feel the need to make sure every person we run into knows we go for the opposite sex whether they like it or not.

To heterosexuals, it's not a "state of being". We just engage the opposite sex and that's that. Homosexuals lust after people of the same sex. Heterosexuals don't. The difference is behavior.
 
Papa bull said:
And you are trying to play the same self-stroking narcissistic game I've seen heard so many other homosexuals try to run down about their "group's" contributions to history as though there was some sort of wonderful thing about the "gay culture" that made people contribute special things to the sciences and arts and business than plain ol' heterosexuals would have or could have done. Go ahead and make the case that the "gay culture" has contributed significantly to society in any way other than as individuals utterly independent of their sexual activity.... just like any other nondescript group of people that is only defined by specific sexual behavior.
Click to expand...
I don't have to show they are "wonderful", all I have to show is that they DO contribute meaningfully to society....but wait....you just did that......and you also gave examples of how YOU stereotype them, how YOU subject them to discriminatory actions......YOU have made my case entirely in showing that they are a class subject to discrimination who contributes meaningfully to society.

You made my case, thank YOU!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom