• 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 strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

The vast majority of sex, of both humans and even many other animals does not result in procreation. That is reality.

Natural sex acts are capable of resulting in procreation.

You mean an alternate reality in which non-procreation sex isn't practiced?

No I mean an alternate reality in which sodomy is natural.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Natural sex acts are capable of resulting in procreation.

Why is anybody obligated to perform sex acts that result in procreation?

No I mean an alternate reality in which sodomy is natural.

And what are you basing what is "natural" on?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Why is anybody obligated to perform sex acts that result in procreation?



And what are you basing what is "natural" on?

Because that's the nature of human sexuality.

Human nature.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Not for everyone, and for various reasons.

The nature of natural sex acts is to be capable of resulting in conception. That ecocide circumstances of persons impede this does not change the nature of the act.

Philosophical argument. Subjective. Opinion.

Duh. No. No.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

The nature of natural sex acts is to be capable of resulting in conception. That ecocide circumstances of persons impede this does not change the nature of the act.

Duh. No. No.

You have nothing but opinion here. This is why you lose your arguments. You can't even recognize that the philosophical argument you are trying to present is subjective. It is nothing but your personal opinion.

As for the nature of sex, you failed. The fact that some people cannot procreate when having sex means that it absolutely does counter the notion that the natural end of sex is procreation.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

You have nothing but opinion here. This is why you lose your arguments. You can't even recognize that the philosophical argument you are trying to present is subjective. It is nothing but your personal opinion.

As for the nature of sex, you failed. The fact that some people cannot procreate when having sex means that it absolutely does counter the notion that the natural end of sex is procreation.

This idiotic blather is just that, idiotic blather. Simply repeating "that's your opinion" doesn't change the nature of reality any more than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't here you" does.

No it doesn't mean that. For instance, the nature of legs is to walk. Some people legs are incapable of fulfilling this function. That doesn't change the nature of a leg.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

This idiotic blather is just that, idiotic blather. Simply repeating "that's your opinion" doesn't change the nature of reality any more than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't here you" does.

No it doesn't mean that. For instance, the nature of legs is to walk. Some people legs are incapable of fulfilling this function. That doesn't change the nature of a leg.

this is exactly why your argument fails. Your OPINION of what applies to equal rights and SSM is meanignless.
Please continue though its always entertaining to see somethign presented like it matters when it factually doesnt.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

This idiotic blather is just that, idiotic blather. Simply repeating "that's your opinion" doesn't change the nature of reality any more than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't here you" does.

No it doesn't mean that. For instance, the nature of legs is to walk. Some people legs are incapable of fulfilling this function. That doesn't change the nature of a leg.

So are you trying to tell me that I can't use my legs to swim? Is it not natural for humans to swim by propelling themselves through the water with their legs?

Of course, legs are a physical body part, whereas sexuality is an attraction, and sex is an act. You are wrongfully trying to compare very different things here.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Moderator's Warning:
The topic has not been discussed for pages. The topic is: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Notice the [W:287]. This is the second in-thread. Stick to the topic and which has nothing to do with religion. Take that to another thread or there is an E-ticket ride out of the thread and/or points.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Because that's the nature of human sexuality.

Human nature.

Except that human nature is also to have sex for enjoyment, and that's reality.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

This idiotic blather is just that, idiotic blather. Simply repeating "that's your opinion" doesn't change the nature of reality any more than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't here you" does.

No it doesn't mean that. For instance, the nature of legs is to walk. Some people legs are incapable of fulfilling this function. That doesn't change the nature of a leg.

A better example would be that the nature of legs is to walk, yet some people use them for dancing. Is dancing unnatural then? This is why you can't use naturalism as an argument: you'll always hit a giant brick wall with a sign that says "my opinion" on it it every time.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Moderator's Warning:
The topic has not been discussed for pages. The topic is: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Notice the [W:287]. This is the second in-thread. Stick to the topic and which has nothing to do with religion. Take that to another thread or there is an E-ticket ride out of the thread and/or points.



Well I'll be damned. Now I know what things like "[W:287]" mean in a thread title.

Seriously, thanks.


>>>>
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Well I'll be damned. Now I know what things like "[W:287]" mean in a thread title.

Seriously, thanks.


>>>>

Ditto.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

A better example would be that the nature of legs is to walk, yet some people use them for dancing. Is dancing unnatural then? This is why you can't use naturalism as an argument: you'll always hit a giant brick wall with a sign that says "my opinion" on it it every time.

What essential difference is there between dancing and walking?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

What essential difference is there between dancing and walking?

That depends entirely on the goal.
 
Last edited:
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

What do you think the goals of dancing and walking are?

They can vary extremely.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I already explained it. If your claim is that sodomy laws make it illegal for homosexuals to "be themselves", then you are defining "themselves" by their sodomy. And the really strange thing is that this isn't strange. It's not strange because homosexuals do that to themselves. The only people in the world that I know of that define themselves primarily by their sexual behavior is the GLBT community. Your post merely reinforced that.

Your post seriously misunderstands why rights groups come into existence to begin with. If you said that Prohibition made it illegal for people to socialize with their favorite drinks, would you be defining people as drinkers? No. However, it'd be perfectly fine to say that those laws definitely suppressed aspects of the existence of drinkers. Likewise, sodomy laws suppress a specific aspect in the life of a homosexual. That homosexuals have banded together against those particular laws is indicative that they were singled out for their sexuality to begin with.

In short: An aspect of your existence does not define who you are anymore than the shoes you like to wear. However, groups - regardless of sexuality, creed, race and gender have banded together regularly against laws they see as draconian even if what is being banned does not in any way define the group.

List of examples:

- Ending prohibition - Did opposing prohibition define one as a drinker?
- Ending the segregation marriage - Did opposing laws segregating mean one was in a segregated relationship?
- Equal treatment - Did supporting equal treatment of men and women define one as a woman?

What's far more interesting is that there are people who aren't even gay and are opposed to these laws on the basis that such a law for heterosexuals would be laughed out of existence.
 
Last edited:
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

The vast majority of sex, of both humans and even many other animals does not result in procreation. That is reality.

I guess he hasn't heard of contraception either?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

What essential difference is there between dancing and walking?

What essential difference is there between an opposite sex couple having sex for intimacy and pleasure using contraception and a same-sex couple having sex for intimacy and pleasure? Neither will result in 'procreation'.

The reality is that the vast majority of heterosexual couples use contraception because they want to be able to have sex and NOT "procreate".

Just how much time in the lifetime of a relationship are any heterosexual couples having sex that ends in 'procreation'? 10 or 20 minutes? Out of 50 years together?

(For the Duggar family, maybe 120 minutes, unless he's pretty quick)
 
Last edited:
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

What do you think the goals of dancing and walking are?

Religious zealots don't approve of people having sex standing up.... it might lead to dancing.
 
Back
Top Bottom