• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Luftwaffe said:
The Habsburg royal family of Europe. Wanna see what generations of incest lead to?

Charles II of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The extinction of a whole line of a family as well as the rule over a powerful country by a (literally) sterile retard.
Click to expand...

If you go to Colorado City AZ/Hildale UT, you can see what inbreeding has done. The Fundamentalist Mormon Church under Warren Jeffs...there are essentially three families, Jessop Jeffs, and Barlow. And a whole lot of the same genes. And it is starting to show up in the latest generations of kids. Polygamist community faces rare genetic disorder | Reuters
Forbidden Fruit | Phoenix New Times

Polygamy up there is not consensual, 17 year old girls do not really want to be one of several wives to a 70 year old man. It is basically a slave cult, sucks to be a woman, sucks to be a teenaged boy, but the creepy old men seem to love it...god tells them to do this donchaknow?
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
Weird I dont see anything in here that supports your failed claim. Deflections and failed attacks wont work, they just further expose the lack of support for your post.
Let us know when you have something to support your opinion. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Tell us some more about that history of gay marriage? Mr Educated.
 
beefheart said:
If you go to Colorado City AZ/Hildale UT, you can see what inbreeding has done. The Fundamentalist Mormon Church under Warren Jeffs...there are essentially three families, Jessop Jeffs, and Barlow. And a whole lot of the same genes. And it is starting to show up in the latest generations of kids. Polygamist community faces rare genetic disorder | Reuters Forbidden Fruit | Phoenix New Times

Polygamy up there is not consensual, 17 year old girls do not really want to be one of several wives to a 70 year old man. It is basically a slave cult, sucks to be a woman, sucks to be a teenaged boy, but the creepy old men seem to love it...god tells them to do this donchaknow?
Click to expand...

You're right but, I don't believe it was "God" who dreamed up that scheme.
 
WCH said:
You're right but, I don't believe it was "God" who dreamed up that scheme.
Click to expand...

It was the excuse that men use to explain why they want all the women.

Man making up "god", happens all the time.
 
WCH said:
Tell us some more about that history of gay marriage? Mr Educated.
Click to expand...

another deflection and zero support for your failed claim.
Are you EVER going to support your claim or just continue to make failed post after failed post.

and who is "us"? lol your factually false views are the minority.
also to answer your meaningless question history has shown gay marriage to existed 1000S of years ago. Links to these facts have been posted by many posters many times especially when somebody tries to sell the lie its a new thing.

also the best part is it doesn't matter. it has no impact on equal rights and legal marriage.
I bet you dodge the request again.
 
Keep the train rolling. Cant wait till it reaches 25 states.
 
Luftwaffe said:
The Habsburg royal family of Europe. Wanna see what generations of incest lead to?

Charles II of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The extinction of a whole line of a family as well as the rule over a powerful country by a (literally) sterile retard.
Click to expand...


Absolutely zero evidence at all that his "problems" were associated with inbreeding.. To suggest otherwise is to take any contemporary example of mental retardation and attribute it to inbreeding. Nope, sorry that isn't going to cut it.

Tim-
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Keep the train rolling. Cant wait till it reaches 25 states.
Click to expand...

me neither.
If you include the stayed states though that will eventually have final rulings its already 26.
and if some of those rulings are federal district court rulings it will effect even more and then just might knock over the domino to make it national
 
clownboy said:
Why vote? We can just do away with it altogether and have the Judiciary decide everything.
Click to expand...

Democracy isn't inherently a virtue. As much as I may want to have a cup of coffee with you, I still would not trust you or your peers with deciding my civil rights. In matters of minority civil rights, aristocratic and oligarchic institutions have been frequent allies, standing opposed to the masses idealization of populism.

I think many of us could stand to grab a few lessons from other such movements. Women had long been opposed to popular referendums. Surely, they were not reaching success in the legislative branch at the national level to receive suffrage, but state-level legislatures uninterested in satisfying the masses embraced suffrage quicker than those that relied on more democratic appeals. Individuals with disabilities overtly attempted to avoid convincing the public that its rights needed to be secured. The overbearing reason was the masses could not understand: they had to be led. Government knew better. Homosexuals, like women before them, have the unfortunate indignity of having to prove themselves worthy of rights, because the masses have seen it fit that democracy in this matter is good and just.

I love my neighbors, but I wouldn't trust them in the slightest. I have more faith in my government than in my neighbors.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Oohh ! I want to hear that too !
Click to expand...


He's attributing the historical record of homosexuality in antiquity as perhaps his evidence that this also meant marriage. His mistake, however, is that although evidence of homosexuality exists, although rare, and not much of a record among the peasants, it did indeed exist with the aristocracy. Problem is that although gay activists are eagerly trying to re-write that historical record as well, too much of the truth of ancient homosexuality exists for them to be taken seriously. Truth is that gay-boys, or I should say having a gay boy was a right of passage among the elite. One could argue that by contemporary standards homosexuality of yesteryear was not what revisionists call homosexuality today. In fact exclusive homosexual culture was none existent. The elite took what they wanted and forced homosexuality on young unsuspecting boys. That is what we call rape and pedophilia today, but they are try hard to change that perception.. :) I find it ironic that what they use to bolster their argument for homosexuality in antiquity was in fact not homosexuality at all, but something the gay left runs away from at every chance, it was, in fact, pedophilia, or more accurately, pederasty. Lesbianism was also in that vein although not much of a record exists for it, and virtually nothing exists in the way of an anthropological cultural record among the underclasses. throw in armies of only men in the field for decades at a time, and when not raping villages, homosexual behavior existed quite frequently, actually, and is well documented, however, again, modern homosexual definitions of what homosexuality is, do not mesh with a lack of female choices. One would have no choice but to argue that by today's standard, THAT form of homosexuality was not homosexuality at all, but merely a lack of opposite sex suitors. The left suffers from the fact that exclusive homosexuality is not very well documented, in fact, hardly ever any mention of it, but that won't let them stop themselves from proclaiming that which to any student of history is clearly not demonstrated by the record.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
He's attributing the historical record of homosexuality in antiquity as perhaps his evidence that this also meant marriage. His mistake, however, is that although evidence of homosexuality exists, although rare, and not much of a record among the peasants, it did indeed exist with the aristocracy. Problem is that although gay activists are eagerly trying to re-write that historical record as well, too much of the truth of ancient homosexuality exists for them to be taken seriously. Truth is that gay-boys, or I should say having a gay boy was a right of passage among the elite. One could argue that by contemporary standards homosexuality of yesteryear was not what revisionists call homosexuality today. In fact exclusive homosexual culture was none existent. The elite took what they wanted and forced homosexuality on young unsuspecting boys. That is what we call rape and pedophilia today, but they are try hard to change that perception.. :) I find it ironic that what they use to bolster their argument for homosexuality in antiquity was in fact not homosexuality at all, but something the gay left runs away from at every chance, it was, in fact, pedophilia, or more accurately, pederasty. Lesbianism was also in that vein although not much of a record exists for it, and virtually nothing exists in the way of an anthropological cultural record among the underclasses. throw in armies of only men in the field for decades at a time, and when not raping villages, homosexual behavior existed quite frequently, actually, and is well documented, however, again, modern homosexual definitions of what homosexuality is, do not mesh with a lack of female choices. One would have no choice but to argue that by today's standard, THAT form of homosexuality was not homosexuality at all, but merely a lack of opposite sex suitors. The left suffers from the fact that exclusive homosexuality is not very well documented, in fact, hardly ever any mention of it, but that won't let them stop themselves from proclaiming that which to any student of history is clearly not demonstrated by the record.

Tim-
Click to expand...

wrong again. Many posters are simply using the FACTS and LINKS(which you have none) that they have posted here many times in equal rights threads showng that same sex marriage existed for for over a 1000 years.

also NOBODY for equal rights uses this fact as thier argument to support equal rights.
This fact is only used when topically uneducated posters try and push the lie that its somethign new. Then thier lie completely fails and nobody takes it seriously.
The best part is it doesnt matter if it was around BC or just today, its meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage.
ONce again your posts and strawman complete fail. Let me know when you have somethign that matters to the topic and that is factual. Thanks
 
Hicup said:
Absolutely zero evidence at all that his "problems" were associated with inbreeding.. To suggest otherwise is to take any contemporary example of mental retardation and attribute it to inbreeding. Nope, sorry that isn't going to cut it.

Tim-
Click to expand...

I believe someone's quote once said to "debate with a man who has lost all reason is like administering medicine to the dead" Welp, I've experienced that first hand.

Go now, have fun with your mom Hilda in the back of a barn and see how the children come out.
 
AGENT J said:
another deflection and zero support for your failed claim.
Are you EVER going to support your claim or just continue to make failed post after failed post.

and who is "us"? lol your factually false views are the minority.
also to answer your meaningless question history has shown gay marriage to existed 1000S of years ago. Links to these facts have been posted by many posters many times especially when somebody tries to sell the lie its a new thing.

also the best part is it doesn't matter. it has no impact on equal rights and legal marriage.
I bet you dodge the request again.
Click to expand...

Oh Hell No!
 
AGENT J said:
another deflection and zero support for your failed claim.
Are you EVER going to support your claim or just continue to make failed post after failed post.

and who is "us"? lol your factually false views are the minority.
also to answer your meaningless question history has shown gay marriage to existed 1000S of years ago. Links to these facts have been posted by many posters many times especially when somebody tries to sell the lie its a new thing.

also the best part is it doesn't matter. it has no impact on equal rights and legal marriage.
I bet you dodge the request again.
Click to expand...

History and your made up assertions are actually two different things.

Historically homosexuality, and that would include "Gay marriage" was NOT accepted.

And the condemnation of Homosexuality extended beyond religious edicts.

So are Billions of Humans posthumously considered Bigots, haters, and disgusting people now ?

Because a small minority of activist have decided to Politicize their forceful redefinition of age old Cultural standards ?

Everyone who disagrees with Gay marriage currently is a Bigot, and deserves to targeted.

Why wouldn't that apply to generations long gone ?

Imagine, a small and loud and twisted group of individuals has devoted themselves to not only redefining Marriage but to target and disrupt the lives of anyone who disagrees.

To supress speach THEY feel is dangerous regardless of that persons Constitutional right to express themselves

Funny, your'e bigon bringing up the Constitution when it benefits your agenda.

Do you really think that this is going to end well for the activist ? Or is it going to plant seeds of contempt ?

Is Gay marriage worth pissing off the vast majority of individuals who when it came down to it could have cared less what people did in the privacy of theur own bedroom.
 
AGENT J said:
wrong again. Many posters are simply using the FACTS and LINKS(which you have none) that they have posted here many times in equal rights threads showng that same sex marriage existed for for over a 1000 years.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, problem is that up until now you are only referencing that. Without actually backing it up, and I do stand behind my version of history. In fact I would argue that anything other that what I just wrote is baloney, and unsupportable by the "facts".



also NOBODY for equal rights uses this fact as thier argument to support equal rights.
Click to expand...


Except of course that you did. :)


This fact is only used when topically uneducated posters try and push the lie that its somethign new. Then thier lie completely fails and nobody takes it seriously.
Click to expand...


Well it is something new. I double dog dare ya to post any credible evidence that homosexual marriage existed even more that 50 years ago in ANY culture.


The best part is it doesnt matter if it was around BC or just today, its meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage.
Click to expand...

Not really, especially if one takes the approach that Fenton and many others did which was to argue that in a very short while a very small minority are trying to change the very fabric of what was and has shown to be the most successful model for healthy societies.


ONce again your posts and strawman complete fail. Let me know when you have somethign that matters to the topic and that is factual. Thanks
Click to expand...

Once again you continue to ignore my facts, and decide on your own set of truths. The problem for you is that I am educated on the history, and the contextual significance of any claims I make. I separate fact from opinion as best as I can. I am one to establish that my opinions are opinions very early in the conversation, and when I claim something to be a fact, (like the above historical record) I tend to have a history of being correct. You on the other hand claim facts all the time when either you don't know what a fact really is, or that an opinion of someone you think has authority on the subject claims something to be true, but it does not, in-fact, make it true. The only thing that is true, most of the time during these little back and fourth's and on this particular issue is that, one thing is for sure, it is true that people sometimes think their opinions are true, and if not your own opinion, that the opinions of others are true. I suggest looking even deeper for the truth. Even if you can't find it, the journey is always worth it.

As to your this means nothing when it comes to equality.. Blah.. blah well, it does because it speaks to the rationale behind why societies reward one kind of behavior and leave others to manifest into giant legal monsters such as the gay left lobby. That's our fault, but not everyone's fault. ;)



Tim-
 
WCH said:
Oh Hell No!
Click to expand...

yes we are aware your answer is no
we knew you had no support for that failed claim, thanks.
 
AGENT J said:
yes we are aware your answer is no
we knew you had no support for that failed claim, thanks.
Click to expand...

Funny you chastised Clown earlier for saying "us", yet, you say "we".. I don't get it? ;)


Tim-
 
Fenton said:
1.)History and your made up assertions are actually two different things.
2.) Historically homosexuality, and that would include "Gay marriage" was NOT accepted.
3.) And the condemnation of Homosexuality extended beyond religious edicts.
4.) So are Billions of Humans posthumously considered Bigots, haters, and disgusting people now ?
5.) Because a small minority of activist have decided to Politicize their forceful redefinition of age old Cultural standards ?
6.) Everyone who disagrees with Gay marriage currently is a Bigot, and deserves to targeted.
7.)Why wouldn't that apply to generations long gone ?
8.)Imagine, a small and loud and twisted group of individuals has devoted themselves to not only redefining Marriage but to target and disrupt the lives of anyone who disagrees.
9.)To supress speach THEY feel is dangerous regardless of that persons Constitutional right to express themselves
10.) Funny, your'e bigon bringing up the Constitution when it benefits your agenda.
11.)Do you really think that this is going to end well for the activist ? Or is it going to plant seeds of contempt ?
12.) Is Gay marriage worth pissing off the vast majority of individuals who when it came down to it could have cared less what people did in the privacy of theur own bedroom.
Click to expand...

1.) correct good thing those posters posted links and facts while you have nothing
2.) meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
3.) meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
4.) now? billions always have been LMAO thats nothing new. History proves this fact. If gays never existed billions would still be bigots. That is dumb and still has no impact on equal rights and gay marriage.
5.) again this is simply a lie
6.) false and I never said that nor would ever say that. AGain stop with the lies and failed strawmen that just add to the failure of your posts
7.) again bigots existed through out history for many reasons, this still has nothing to do with the topic lol
8.) good thing thats not happening
9.) another made up lie
10.) please keep up this failed lies and strawman they are hilarious
11.) people that support equal rights dont care about seeds of contempt nor are they activist.
just like i dont care about racist or misogynists etc. they are free to FEEL how they want but they dont get to deny rights to others. SOrry equal rights bothers you
12.) again its factually not the majority and equal rights is always worth it. 87+% of the country was again interracial marriage, who cares lol

once again let me know when you have ANYTHING that matters to this topic and can support with anything accurate and factually.
Equal rights is winning sorry that bothers you
 
Fenton said:
History and your made up assertions are actually two different things.

Historically homosexuality, and that would include "Gay marriage" was NOT accepted.

And the condemnation of Homosexuality extended beyond religious edicts.

So are Billions of Humans posthumously considered Bigots, haters, and disgusting people now ?

Because a small minority of activist have decided to Politicize their forceful redefinition of age old Cultural standards ?

Everyone who disagrees with Gay marriage currently is a Bigot, and deserves to targeted.

Why wouldn't that apply to generations long gone ?

Imagine, a small and loud and twisted group of individuals has devoted themselves to not only redefining Marriage but to target and disrupt the lives of anyone who disagrees.

To supress speach THEY feel is dangerous regardless of that persons Constitutional right to express themselves

Funny, your'e bigon bringing up the Constitution when it benefits your agenda.

Do you really think that this is going to end well for the activist ? Or is it going to plant seeds of contempt ?

Is Gay marriage worth pissing off the vast majority of individuals who when it came down to it could have cared less what people did in the privacy of theur own bedroom.
Click to expand...

Answering your last question... Yes. The rights of a small number should not be dictated by a large number.

I do want to point out that name calling by the left is wrong so I wont debate that because I think it is wrong.
 
Hicup said:
1/)Yeah, well, problem is that up until now you are only referencing that. Without actually backing it up, and I do stand behind my version of history. In fact I would argue that anything other that what I just wrote is baloney, and unsupportable by the "facts".
2.)Except of course that you did. :)
3.)Well it is something new. I double dog dare ya to post any credible evidence that homosexual marriage existed even more that 50 years ago in ANY culture.
4.)Not really, especially if one takes the approach that Fenton and many others did which was to argue that in a very short while a very small minority are trying to change the very fabric of what was and has shown to be the most successful model for healthy societies.
5.)Once again you continue to ignore my facts, and decide on your own set of truths. The problem for you is that I am educated on the history, and the contextual significance of any claims I make. I separate fact from opinion as best as I can. I am one to establish that my opinions are opinions very early in the conversation, and when I claim something to be a fact, (like the above historical record) I tend to have a history of being correct. You on the other hand claim facts all the time when either you don't know what a fact really is, or that an opinion of someone you think has authority on the subject claims something to be true, but it does not, in-fact, make it true. The only thing that is true, most of the time during these little back and fourth's and on this particular issue is that, one thing is for sure, it is true that people sometimes think their opinions are true, and if not your own opinion, that the opinions of others are true. I suggest looking even deeper for the truth. Even if you can't find it, the journey is always worth it.

As to your this means nothing when it comes to equality.. Blah.. blah well, it does because it speaks to the rationale behind why societies reward one kind of behavior and leave others to manifest into giant legal monsters such as the gay left lobby. That's our fault, but not everyone's fault. ;)



Tim-
Click to expand...

1.) thats not a problem since your opinion doesnt matter to me or facts lol In fact it entertains me. Dishonesty always does.
2.) another lie that has no support, i have NEVER used that as an argument for equal rights because it doesnt matter only used it when people post lies that they think matters. I love when you make stuff up its so funny.
3.) dont need to. Go search the thread where this was already done. they werent my posts or links and im sure you were even in some of them trying to rally against equal rights just like now lol
4.) more meaningless opinion that changes nothing and has zero impact to facts equal rights and legal marriage. people think that about slavery and women being lesser then men too. :shrug: all meanignless
5.) you havent posted any that matters, let me know when you do. . . . .

sorry facts and equal rights bother you but your opinions have no impact on them.
 
Hicup said:
Funny you chastised Clown earlier for saying "us", yet, you say "we".. I don't get it? ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

nope i simply asked him who "us" is since the majority do not believe his falsehoods.
once again context and facts escape you. Thanks for proving this.
 
Hicup said:
He's attributing the historical record of homosexuality in antiquity as perhaps his evidence that this also meant marriage. His mistake, however, is that although evidence of homosexuality exists, although rare, and not much of a record among the peasants, it did indeed exist with the aristocracy. Problem is that although gay activists are eagerly trying to re-write that historical record as well, too much of the truth of ancient homosexuality exists for them to be taken seriously. Truth is that gay-boys, or I should say having a gay boy was a right of passage among the elite. One could argue that by contemporary standards homosexuality of yesteryear was not what revisionists call homosexuality today. In fact exclusive homosexual culture was none existent. The elite took what they wanted and forced homosexuality on young unsuspecting boys. That is what we call rape and pedophilia today, but they are try hard to change that perception.. :) I find it ironic that what they use to bolster their argument for homosexuality in antiquity was in fact not homosexuality at all, but something the gay left runs away from at every chance, it was, in fact, pedophilia, or more accurately, pederasty. Lesbianism was also in that vein although not much of a record exists for it, and virtually nothing exists in the way of an anthropological cultural record among the underclasses. throw in armies of only men in the field for decades at a time, and when not raping villages, homosexual behavior existed quite frequently, actually, and is well documented, however, again, modern homosexual definitions of what homosexuality is, do not mesh with a lack of female choices. One would have no choice but to argue that by today's standard, THAT form of homosexuality was not homosexuality at all, but merely a lack of opposite sex suitors. The left suffers from the fact that exclusive homosexuality is not very well documented, in fact, hardly ever any mention of it, but that won't let them stop themselves from proclaiming that which to any student of history is clearly not demonstrated by the record.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Fantastic Post !

It reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote.

When he described the Traditions of the Royal Navy as " Rum, Sodomy and Lash ".

He was reportedly upset at the time but it was probably a accurate description.

For a society to function as well as possible I absolutely believe that it should first, have a set of agreed upon standards that define morality and ethics.

Whether those standards are administered through the Church or through its traditions.

Societies all on their own, for millenia have all come to the same conclusion about some very basic truths.

Stealing is bad, murder is bad, Family is important and a belief in something larger than you is also important.

They've also agreed on the definition of a Family and or marriage as between a Man and a Women and have openly shunned Homosexuality.

Im sure there were Homosexuals at the time, but they still maintained their traditions and passed on the morals because it what was best of the Group.

These activist are going to shove their definition of morallity down the throats of the majority.

I wonder if they really know what their up against ?

Not just individuals that disagree but with Historical precedent that shows all Cultures and Societies eventually wind up straying back towards tradition.

After it becomes apparent why Societal standards for morality are so important.

And its not because they're hatefull. They're no more hateful than people were 5 thousand years ago.
 
Amandi said:
Answering your last question... Yes. The rights of a small number should not be dictated by a large number.

I do want to point out that name calling by the left is wrong so I wont debate that because I think it is wrong.
Click to expand...

But the agenda of the minority should dictate the rights of the majority ?

No one is depriving them of their rights.

Its not about equal treatment, this is about activism.

Attacking the traditional definition of marriage.

A tradition or a standard that wasn't voted on. It arose out of a natural process of societal evolution.

It transcended religion and culture as different groups of peoppe alver the world accepted and agreed upon the fundamental definition of what a marriage is.

Now that definition is being challenged in the name of equal rights.

But if your attacked and ostracized for your opinion, an opinion that contradicts theirs, how are your equal rights being protected ?

Its their way or the High way. Thats not equal rights.

Thats a dictatorship.
 
Fenton said:
History and your made up assertions are actually two different things. Historically homosexuality, and that would include "Gay marriage" was NOT accepted. And the condemnation of Homosexuality extended beyond religious edicts. So are Billions of Humans posthumously considered Bigots, haters, and disgusting people now ?
Click to expand...
Only in Western culture.

Most non-Western culture celebrated homosexuality and gender minorities. India, Japan and SE Asia have long traditions of accepting not only towards LGBT people, but people of third and fourth genders. The Bugis people in Indonesia (pop. ~5 million) have five genders. Had you been born in the pre-Colombian America and been gay, you'd have your own god that you worshiped or be considered a two-spirit. Take a look at the map, to get an idea of the widespread rejection of "male-female" only.

European colonization and Christianity/Islam are the primary culprits of the rejection of LGBT people.

Fenton said:
Is Gay marriage worth pissing off the vast majority of individuals who when it came down to it could have cared less what people did in the privacy of theur own bedroom.
Click to expand...
The majority of American support gay marriage. You're in a tiny minority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom