• 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!

Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

And sex isn't always for procreation. Understand that yet?
It ought to be.


My wife hasn't been able to procreate for 22 years, you mean we were supposed to stop having sex?


Sorry, that ain't happening. We're in our 50's and still enjoy a good romp in the sack.


>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

My wife hasn't been able to procreate for 22 years, you mean we were supposed to stop having sex?


Sorry, that ain't happening. We're in our 50's and still enjoy a good romp in the sack.


>>>>

The act is still ordered towards procreation even if there is natural infertility.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The act is still ordered towards procreation even if there is natural infertility.

Thanks for back-peddling.


>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Thanks for back-peddling.


>>>>

Thanks for continuing to beat your wife.

Are we done thanking each other for things that the other didn't do?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

My wife hasn't been able to procreate for 22 years, you mean we were supposed to stop having sex?


Sorry, that ain't happening. We're in our 50's and still enjoy a good romp in the sack.


>>>>

exactly.

and yes, Paleocon, you back-pedaled.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

exactly.

and yes, Paleocon, you back-pedaled.

Most definitely. If they 'know' they cannot have kids, then the act isnt 'towards procreation.'

There are many positive things to be had with sex, like intimacy, pleasure, manipulation, bonding, power, reinforcing the pair bond.....people enter into intercourse all the time without moving 'towards procreation.' Esp. not intentionally.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

It ought to be.

No one says that without being a complete raging hypocrit.

No...

One...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

For any undecided people reading this, note:

I have made rational arguments, showing why sodomy is wrong.

And those arguing against me have called me a "complete raging hypocrite", a "depraved busybody", and "doomed".

You can see which position is supported by reason, and which one is backwards illogical thinking.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

For any undecided people reading this, note:

I have made rational arguments, showing why sodomy is wrong.

And those arguing against me have called me a "complete raging hypocrite", a "depraved busybody", and "doomed".

You can see which position is supported by reason, and which one is backwards illogical thinking.

No, you haven't made any rational arguments why sodomy is wrong. And if you look at the definition of "sodomy" that includes oral sex as well. I think you are going to have a real big problem convincing the majority of people in the U.S. that oral sex is wrong. Maybe you like a boring sex life, but most don't.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

No, you haven't made any rational arguments why sodomy is wrong. And if you look at the definition of "sodomy" that includes oral sex as well. I think you are going to have a real big problem convincing the majority of people in the U.S. that oral sex is wrong. Maybe you like a boring sex life, but most don't.

Yes I did. I'm aware of that. Reasonable people don't believe that objective truth bends to popular opinion.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yes I did. I'm aware of that. Reasonable people don't believe that objective truth bends to popular opinion.

Well the majority of people don't follow your idea of "reasonable", which is a good thing. So you have just proven your ideas irrelevant to todays time. Thank you for that. Oh BTW, the idea of "reasonable" is subjective. The majority of people don't find oral sex wrong. It seems YOUR view on sodomy is archaic and best left to the grave when you pass. Good riddance when that happens.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Well the majority of people don't follow your idea of "reasonable", which is a good thing. So you have just proven your ideas irrelevant to todays time. Thank you for that. Oh BTW, the idea of "reasonable" is subjective. The majority of people don't find oral sex wrong. It seems YOUR view on sodomy is archaic and best left to the grave when you pass. Good riddance when that happens.

Absolute ludicrousness, reason is objective, whether an individual person feels that sodomy is wrong is subjective. Oh the absolute arrogance of most modern people, tonking that we know better than virtually everyone who has come before, when in reality we are even less civilized then they were.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

It seems YOUR view on sodomy is archaic and best left to the grave when you pass. Good riddance when that happens.

And those arguing against me have called me a "complete raging hypocrite", a "depraved busybody", and "doomed".

And now I've been wished dead as well. How reasonable and tolerant. Make no mistake, this display of hatred shows the true face of the anti-God crowd.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Absolute ludicrousness, reason is objective, whether an individual person feels that sodomy is wrong is subjective. Oh the absolute arrogance of most modern people, tonking that we know better than virtually everyone who has come before, when in reality we are even less civilized then they were.

Oh how cute, someone who thinks they know whats best for everyone else. How archaic of you. Well we know where we place archaic things eventually.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

And now I've been wished dead as well. How reasonable and tolerant. Make no mistake, this display of hatred shows the true face of the anti-God crowd.

Nope I don't WISH you dead. I just am not going to shed a tear when your fate happens naturally. BTW I'm not ANTI-God, I'm just not PRO-YOUR God.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

For any undecided people reading this, note:

I have made rational arguments, showing why sodomy is wrong.

And those arguing against me have called me a "complete raging hypocrite", a "depraved busybody", and "doomed".

You can see which position is supported by reason, and which one is backwards illogical thinking.

You haven't made reasonable arguments. You have said sodomy is wrong because it doesn't lead to procreation; you then say it's ok to have sex even if you know you won't procreate. Those two things don't go together. If you are against sodomy because it doesn't lead to procreation, you should be against any sex except that done when you have a good reason to think pregnancy will result.

This is actually one of the things very different for humans - unlike other animals that mate only when a female is in heat - and thus likely to get pregnant - humans can mate at any time; we get aroused even outside of being of heat. This is how "nature" has made us, if you want to use that terminology. We are lucky that we can enjoy the closeness and bonding of sex at any time. And that we can "get off" in lots of different ways - whether oral stimulation, by hands, by vibrators, by anal sex, by **** between breasts, by all the other many variations we have dreamed off.

AND we can procreate even if we aren't a male/female pairing due to IVF.

Isn't it an amazing thing where our brains, talents, creativity combined with a nature that allows us to enjoy this at any time, not just when the female is in heat?

And you worry about the gender of the people involved or the type of act? Oh, what a narrow world you must have!

Again - because you have contradicted yourself - "sex is for procreation but yes you can have sex if you know you are infertile" makes your one argument against sodomy is invalid and not rational
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

You haven't made reasonable arguments. You have said sodomy is wrong because it doesn't lead to procreation; you then say it's ok to have sex even if you know you won't procreate. Those two things don't go together. If you are against sodomy because it doesn't lead to procreation, you should be against any sex except that done when you have a good reason to think pregnancy will result.

This is actually one of the things very different for humans - unlike other animals that mate only when a female is in heat - and thus likely to get pregnant - humans can mate at any time; we get aroused even outside of being of heat. This is how "nature" has made us, if you want to use that terminology. We are lucky that we can enjoy the closeness and bonding of sex at any time. And that we can "get off" in lots of different ways - whether oral stimulation, by hands, by vibrators, by anal sex, by **** between breasts, by all the other many variations we have dreamed off.

AND we can procreate even if we aren't a male/female pairing due to IVF.

Isn't it an amazing thing where our brains, talents, creativity combined with a nature that allows us to enjoy this at any time, not just when the female is in heat?

And you worry about the gender of the people involved or the type of act? Oh, what a narrow world you must have!

Again - because you have contradicted yourself - "sex is for procreation but yes you can have sex if you know you are infertile" makes your one argument against sodomy is invalid and not rational

Reasonable people can see the difference between a deliberate human act and a natural occurrence. It's that simple really.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Reasonable people can see the difference between a deliberate human act and a natural occurrence. It's that simple really.

What is that difference? And is there something that makes them 'morally' different?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Reasonable people can see the difference between a deliberate human act and a natural occurrence. It's that simple really.

But naturally we can have sex at any time; it is not tied to procreation. Nature has decided our sex activity is not tied to procreation. So what's not natural about whatever activity people do?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Reasonable people can see the difference between a deliberate human act and a natural occurrence. It's that simple really.
What is that difference? And is there something that makes them 'morally' different?


It's called the "No True Scotsman's" Fallacy.

Obviously, if you don't agree that sex is for procreation only - then you don't fall into the "reasonable" person category.


LOL


>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Not sure what the problem is here. Sex is not exclusively for procreation but that does not eliminate obligations connected to consensually engaging in that sex (irrelevant of the intent of the sex by either party).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

What is that difference? And is there something that makes them 'morally' different?

The moral difference is that one is willed by a moral agent and the other is not.

Nature has decided our sex activity is not tied to procreation.

Uh huh.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

So you deny that the sexual faculty is oriented towards procreation?

I deny that this is universally the case. Or would you suggest making it illegal for a woman past menopause to have sex with her husband of fifty years?
 
Back
Top Bottom