• 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!

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

winston53660 said:
And Albert Einstein's genius is normal!

Oh never mind
Click to expand...

You struggle with analogies something awful. The vast majority of people aren't as intelligent as Einstein, so Einstein's intelligence wasn't normal. The vast majority of people do not favor homosexual sex, so homosexuality is not normal.
 
Papa bull said:
You struggle with analogies something awful. The vast majority of people aren't as intelligent as Einstein, so Einstein's intelligence wasn't normal. The vast majority of people do not favor homosexual sex, so homosexuality is not normal.
Click to expand...

Whoosh goes the point right over your head.
 
this question was totally dodged earlier but is there anybody that is ok with these examples or that thinks when these issues are pushed to the courts they will find it ok?

for example im married to my wife in PA and we are granted all the state and federal rights.

she is traveling in SC and gets in a car accident, is it right for them not to notify me to make medical decisions if that state does recognize my marriage?
what if she dies? can they just not tell me since they dont see us as married?
of if i go there do i not have visitation rights since in that state we arent married?
etc etc etc

can she be forced to testify against me in that state?
can she legally cheat in that state?

etc etc etc

with the fall of doma its examples and reality like this that will eventually push the issues and equality will happen in every state.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Here Seems like you don't understand the definition of normal.let me explain it to you. Something normal would something that would not be considered disordered or something natural. Homosexuality fits in both. There. Now you know.
Click to expand...

CC, Seems like you don't understand the definition of normal.Let me explain it to you. Something normal would be something that would not be considered disordered or something natural. Like CANCER, homosexuals are not normal, they fall into the category of being "disordered" in that they like CANCER are outside NORMALITY. Homosexuals are not NORMAL because like CANCER, homosexuals simply exist.

Homosexuals differ from NORMALS because NORMALS can PROCREATE .....unless in their category, the subset are ABNORMAL because of some physical defect. So Homosexuals are by definition different fro NORMALS because their union CANNOT by NATURE result in PROCREATION. Thus the Homosexuals do NOT meet the first of your criteria.....i.e., Homosexuals are NOT like the rest of us NORMALS.

Your second criteria of what is NORMAL excludes the homosexuals because NORMAL people and their UNION has the POSSIBILITY of a very important function, The PRIMARY IMPERATIVE of NATURE, i.e. PROCREATION.

The homosexuals, and their UNION cannot possibly result in PROCREATION......a VASTLY DIFFERENT consideration of these two obviously disparate UNIONS. In other words, Homosexuals cannot even perform the POSSIBILITY of the essential act of the NORMAL and NATURAL result of a UNION.

The term for this UNION.....for NORMAL and NATURAL UNIONS is the word MARRIAGE.

Since the Homosexuals, the Unnatural, The Abnormals, are the POLAR OPPOSITES of the Normals, Homosexual MARRIAGE is a fantasy in the minds of only the Homosexuals and their enablers, the Liberals.

Now YOU know.......but won't accept because you are what you are.
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
You struggle with analogies something awful. The vast majority of people aren't as intelligent as Einstein, so Einstein's intelligence wasn't normal. The vast majority of people do not favor homosexual sex, so homosexuality is not normal.
Click to expand...

"Normal" does not have to represent 50.1% of the population or more. That's not what the word means.
 
Deuce said:
"Normal" does not have to represent 50.1% of the population or more. That's not what the word means.
Click to expand...

I think everyone knows what normal means and it doesn't mean people who are homosexual. It doesn't mean people who are left handed. It doesn't mean people who are color blind.
 
Papa bull said:
I think everyone knows what normal means and it doesn't mean people who are homosexual. It doesn't mean people who are left handed. It doesn't mean people who are color blind.
Click to expand...

Ahem!!! :peace
 
HoongLoong said:
CC, Children exist as a RESULT of PROCREATION.......CHILDREN & PROCREATION are INEXTRICABLY BOUND TOGETHER.

Homosexuality and the union of these unnaturals, and abnormals that do not have any connection to PROCREATION, and the RESULT of PROCREATION is on its face RIDICULOUS !!!

You, and your category of individuals (with their enabling liberals) may want to persist in furthering your agenda and of course that is permissible with the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Post anything that shows that procreation is a legal requirement for marriage.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Post anything that shows that procreation is a legal requirement for marriage.
Click to expand...

Procreation is no more a requirement for marriage than catching fish is for fishing. It's a really idiotic argument to claim the purpose of anything can only be validated if it is a requirement. That's dishonest,argumentation even for you.
 
HoongLoong said:
CC, Seems like you don't understand the definition of normal.Let me explain it to you. Something normal would be something that would not be considered disordered or something natural. Like CANCER, homosexuals are not normal, they fall into the category of being "disordered" in that they like CANCER are outside NORMALITY. Homosexuals are not NORMAL because like CANCER, homosexuals simply exist.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. It has been proven that homosexuality is normal and not disordered. This fact has been around for quite some time. Your refusal to accept this doesn't change the reality of it.

Homosexuals differ from NORMALS because NORMALS can PROCREATE .....unless in their category, the subset are ABNORMAL because of some physical defect. So Homosexuals are by definition different fro NORMALS because their union CANNOT by NATURE result in PROCREATION. Thus the Homosexuals do NOT meet the first of your criteria.....i.e., Homosexuals are NOT like the rest of us NORMALS.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals CAN procreate. If the equipment works, procreation can happen. Your definition of normal fits homosexuals perfectly.

Your second criteria of what is NORMAL excludes the homosexuals because NORMAL people and their UNION has the POSSIBILITY of a very important function, The PRIMARY IMPERATIVE of NATURE, i.e. PROCREATION.
Click to expand...

This is the same as your first comment. Homosexuals can and do procreate. There are plenty of heterosexuals who can't or don't. Heterosexual unions too.

The homosexuals, and their UNION cannot possibly result in PROCREATION......a VASTLY DIFFERENT consideration of these two obviously disparate UNIONS. In other words, Homosexuals cannot even perform the POSSIBILITY of the essential act of the NORMAL and NATURAL result of a UNION.

The term for this UNION.....for NORMAL and NATURAL UNIONS is the word MARRIAGE.
Click to expand...

Since procreation is not a requirement for marriage... nor is the POSSIBILITY of procreation a requirement for marriage, your argument completely fails.

Since the Homosexuals, the Unnatural, The Abnormals, are the POLAR OPPOSITES of the Normals, Homosexual MARRIAGE is a fantasy in the minds of only the Homosexuals and their enablers, the Liberals.
Click to expand...

This has already been proven incorrect. Repeating it doesn't help you.

Now YOU know.......but won't accept because you are what you are.
Click to expand...

I understand that you won't accept the facts of this matter because of what YOU are, but I'll keep posting them just to make sure that no one considers your position valid.
 
Papa bull said:
I think everyone knows what normal means and it doesn't mean people who are homosexual. It doesn't mean people who are left handed. It doesn't mean people who are color blind.
Click to expand...

Ah. So you are talking statistical.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Ah. So you are talking statistical.
Click to expand...

nor·mal (nôrml)
adj.
1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
2. Biology Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
3. Abbr. n or N Chemistry
a. Designating a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution.
b. Designating an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms.
4. Mathematics
a. Being at right angles; perpendicular.
b. Perpendicular to the direction of a tangent line to a curve or a tangent plane to a surface.
5.
a. Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development.
b. Free from mental illness; sane.
n.
1. Something normal; the standard: scored close to the normal.
2. The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree.
3.
a. Correspondence to a norm.
b. An average.
4. Mathematics A perpendicular, especially a perpendicular to a line tangent to a plane curve or to a plane tangent to a space curve.
[Middle English, from Late Latin normlis, from Latin, made according to the square, from norma, carpenter's square; see gn- in Indo-European roots.]
normal·ly adv.

Normal. It is what it is and it isn't homosexuality.
 
AGENT J said:
FACTS


legal marriage has ZERO to do with the following:
Religion
Procreation

Gay Marriage was around BC
Click to expand...

So has CANCER. The mere existence of something does not mean it is NOT AN ABERRATION from the NORMAL, or NATURAL.
 
HoongLoong said:
So has CANCER. The mere existence of something does not mean it is NOT AN ABERRATION from the NORMAL, or NATURAL.
Click to expand...

thanks for your opinion but its meaningless to legal marriage and facts
 
this question was totally dodged earlier but is there anybody that is ok with these examples or that thinks when these issues are pushed to the courts they will find it ok?

for example im married to my wife in PA and we are granted all the state and federal rights.

she is traveling in SC and gets in a car accident, is it right for them not to notify me to make medical decisions if that state does recognize my marriage?
what if she dies? can they just not tell me since they dont see us as married?
of if i go there do i not have visitation rights since in that state we arent married?
etc etc etc

can she be forced to testify against me in that state?
can she legally cheat in that state?
Can my company deny me and my wife benefits if its HQ is in NC
Can my insurance deny my wife coverage or benefits if its out of a state

etc etc etc

with the fall of doma its examples and reality like this that will eventually push the issues and equality will happen in every state.

37 pages and no opposes of equal gay rights have any answers or opinions on this? not shocked and very telling
 
Papa bull said:
Procreation is no more a requirement for marriage than catching fish is for fishing. It's a really idiotic argument to claim the purpose of anything can only be validated if it is a requirement. That's dishonest,argumentation even for you.
Click to expand...

The marriage license says "marriage license" on it, not "procreation license". Your analogy, as always, fails.
 
Papa bull said:
nor·mal (nôrml)
adj.
1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
2. Biology Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
3. Abbr. n or N Chemistry
a. Designating a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution.
b. Designating an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms.
4. Mathematics
a. Being at right angles; perpendicular.
b. Perpendicular to the direction of a tangent line to a curve or a tangent plane to a surface.
5.
a. Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development.
b. Free from mental illness; sane.
n.
1. Something normal; the standard: scored close to the normal.
2. The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree.
3.
a. Correspondence to a norm.
b. An average.
4. Mathematics A perpendicular, especially a perpendicular to a line tangent to a plane curve or to a plane tangent to a space curve.
[Middle English, from Late Latin normlis, from Latin, made according to the square, from norma, carpenter's square; see gn- in Indo-European roots.]
normal·ly adv.

Normal. It is what it is and it isn't homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Actually, homosexuality fits a number of those definitions, especially 1. and 2.
 
Originally Posted by Papa bull
Procreation is no more a requirement for marriage than catching fish is for fishing. It's a really idiotic argument to claim the purpose of anything can only be validated if it is a requirement. That's dishonest,argumentation even for you.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go fishing with out a license because of the possible fines and criminal penalties.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Post anything that shows that procreation is a legal requirement for marriage.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that marriage exists and has existed based on the idea of procreation. without the need for procreation you would have no need to marry. understand? This is a general idea, not the case by case basis you try and break it down to which just confuses the entire idea.
 
JoeTrumps said:
I think the point is that marriage exists and has existed based on the idea of procreation.
Click to expand...

It is based on our idea of property.

without the need for procreation you would have no need to marry. understand?
Click to expand...

Now that is rhetorical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom