• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

Cardinal said:
I'm sorry, that wasn't very sensitive of me. What you went through was a very traumatic experience.
Click to expand...

It was a nice diversionary tactic. Try to make the discussion about me, personally, instead of the issue. Do you have any more personal remarks to make or can the discussion get back on topic?
 
Taylor said:
Are there any human characterisics you would consider not to be normal? If the litmus is whether there are lots of examples in nature, it seems to me that anything abnormal must be normal. Abnormal size, abnormal strength, abnormal intelligence, abnormal pigmentation, abnormal genetic conditions, abnormal psychology (i.e. mental illness) would all be "normal" by that definition. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that isn't (which would make the word meaningless).
Click to expand...

The simple answer, for me, is if it's natural it's normal, period. If someone alters, chemically or cosmetically, who they naturally are, then that would likely be abnormal, at least to me. Otherwise, one of the beautiful things about nature is its unexplained mystery.
 
Last edited:
Verax said:
I couldn't resist, you just put it all out there. Besides, don't you think these elaborate plots of yours are a little flaky? Are groups of people really this organized and sinister? Don't you think its probably more simple like they just want to have equal rights and be treated like everyone else?
Click to expand...

It's not about elaborate plots. It's about ulterior motives.
 
Papa bull said:
There are many examples of homosexual behavior but there are extroardinarily few examples of homosexual pair-bonding in animals that mate for life. I don't see any natural example of anything that would represent a model for homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into a scientific discussion - I don't have the expertise - but what's to say that homosexuality isn't a form of natural selection, in all species, or a form of population control, in all species. As I said above, if something appears naturally, it's normal to me.
 
Taylor said:
Are there any human characterisics you would consider not to be normal? If the litmus is whether there are lots of examples in nature, it seems to me that anything abnormal must be normal. Abnormal size, abnormal strength, abnormal intelligence, abnormal pigmentation, abnormal genetic conditions, abnormal psychology (i.e. mental illness) would all be "normal" by that definition. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that isn't (which would make the word meaningless).
Click to expand...

You are exactly right. To argue that an example of anything that occurs in nature is normal no matter how rare, unusual or bizarre it is means that the word "normal" is just wasting space in a dictionary and is nothing but white noise when used in a sentence.
 
Papa bull said:
It was a nice diversionary tactic. Try to make the discussion about me, personally, instead of the issue. Do you have any more personal remarks to make or can the discussion get back on topic?
Click to expand...

I'm merely being sensitive to your trauma. After a man hit on you were there any support groups available for you to join? It's not healthy to keep these things bottled up inside.
 
CanadaJohn said:
There's no need to abuse any words provided that there's no need to label homosexuality in derogatory terms. It's normal, from my perspective, because there are lots of examples of homosexual behaviour throughout nature. I don't consider a minority, regardless of the category, to be abnormal. They're just simply different. Not sure what makes my life's normal any more normal than another person's normal. As long as all individuals respect all individuals, nobody loses out.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? There are lots of examples of cannibalism in nature too.

Cannibalism (zoology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Papa bull said:
I see you don't have anything to say about the actual topic and would really just prefer to insult me personally. Excellent.
Click to expand...

I'd simply ignore the baiting, if I were you. I don't necessarily agree with some of your views about the "normalcy" of homosexuality, but I see nothing wrong or trivial about your views or you holding them. Those who wish to see understanding and acceptance sometimes have a way of being their own worst enemies and further driving a wedge between people of opposing views.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't want to get into a scientific discussion - I don't have the expertise - but what's to say that homosexuality isn't a form of natural selection, in all species, or a form of population control, in all species. As I said above, if something appears naturally, it's normal to me.
Click to expand...

OK. So you have a very different semantic conception of "normal" than most people. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect that to be the "normal" interpretation of the word.
 
Papa bull said:
It's not about elaborate plots. It's about ulterior motives.
Click to expand...

That the LGBT community wants gay marriage legalized to normalize being gay to grow (lol fat ****) their community and have more sex partners? That is not just a motive, that is a plot my friend. Ain't nobody think like that offhand. It could be a movie, Homoception.
 
Papa bull said:
You are exactly right. To argue that an example of anything that occurs in nature is normal no matter how rare, unusual or bizarre it is means that the word "normal" is just wasting space in a dictionary and is nothing but white noise when used in a sentence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with the use of the word natural as opposed to the word normal. In that way, "normal" which is used in its cultural context by you and others can be differentiated from my use of the word which is used to connote naturally occurring.
 
Cardinal said:
It reminds me of something I heard about homophobia, which is that it's essentially a man's fear of being on the business end of the treatment he regularly doles out to women.
Click to expand...

Hmm, sounds like a control / domination thing.
 
Papa bull said:
For the most part, "heteros" only think about you when you make them think about you. Demanding that marriage be redefined to make it genderless would be one of those things that makes heteros "think about you".
Click to expand...

Please, hostility towards homosexuality has been around long before marriage rights was even a topic.



Papa bull said:
The reason why less than 10% of homosexuals marry in countries where homosexual marriages are sanctioned is because most homosexuals don't want to be married. They just want to say that it's no different than heterosexuality. Now "why" that would be is something we'll never be able to discuss honestly, I'm sure, but a good clue would be that homosexuals would be very, very happy if more people were homosexual. As much pissing and moaning about how hard life is as a homosexual and "why would anyone choose this sort of awful life" hand-wringing, any mention of a genetic fix that would prevent babies from being homosexual brings down hell's fury from homosexuals on anyone suggesting such an awful thing.
Click to expand...

Well like it or not, a lot of heterosexuals DO consider it to be normal. Perhaps take it up with them?

Sure, everyone wants to fit in, but a lot of us give up on that early on. Abnormal/different isn't inherently bad anyway. The key is not being treated as *inferior* despite our differences. Efforts to eliminate homosexuality are predicated on this notion that it's inferior and harmful. All most of us are concerned with is avoiding interference in our lives now. If the homophobes showed one iota of concern for that, guess what, you might not see so much "woe is me, why do i have to be gay?" Then there would be no "need" to find a genetic 'fix' because it would truly be a harmless trait to have.


Papa bull said:
That should be enough to point people toward the truth of the matter. Homosexuals want to encourage homosexuality. And "normalizing" homosexuality makes it easier to do that. My own brother has tried the "recruitment" routine. I still remember the big kerfuffle when his "curious" boyfriend wouldn't tell his parents that he was queer. His boyfriend gave up the homosexual experimentation after that and went on to get married and start a family.

This is the dirty secret that homosexuals will never admit as long as there are any states that maintain traditional marriage requirements. It's all about normalization of homosexuality and the reason that's so important is because it makes it easier to recruit anyone that's confused or weak minded. It means a larger pool of potential sex partners. It means more members of the "GLBT community".
Click to expand...

This is so preposterous it belongs in "conspiracy theory." Sounds like you don't know your brother at all, or he fell in love with someone who didn't fully reciprocate. It happens. If we're just gonna rely on anecdotal tales, i take the word of actual homosexuals who insist their sexuality isn't contingent on "encouragement"
 
chromium said:
Please, hostility towards homosexuality has been around long before marriage rights was even a topic.





Well like it or not, a lot of heterosexuals DO consider it to be normal. Perhaps take it up with them?

Sure, everyone wants to fit in, but a lot of us give up on that early on. Abnormal/different isn't inherently bad anyway. The key is not being treated as *inferior* despite our differences. Efforts to eliminate homosexuality are predicated on this notion that it's inferior and harmful. All most of us are concerned with is avoiding interference in our lives now. If the homophobes showed one iota of concern for that, guess what, you might not see so much "woe is me, why do i have to be gay?" Then there would be no "need" to find a genetic 'fix' because it would truly be a harmless trait to have.




This is so preposterous it belongs in "conspiracy theory." Sounds like you don't know your brother at all, or he fell in love with someone who didn't fully reciprocate. It happens. If we're just gonna rely on anecdotal tales, i take the word of actual homosexuals who insist their sexuality isn't contingent on "encouragement"
Click to expand...

The fact that some or even many need no encouragement isn't proof that recruitment isn't an important part of homosexual culture. But here's a homosexual who broke the code of silence on the subject.

Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? / Queerty
 
Papa bull said:
Great. Post the evidence that supports your assertion that living in a committed relationship doesn't bring most of the benefits of marriage without a piece of paper stamped by some official sanctioning it. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Here you go.

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially | PsychPage

But as I've suggested it has to deal with the level of the commitment in the relationship and cohabiting does not necessarily mean that the couple is committed.

The official stamp of marriage is for the legal relationship it sets up, not for the level of commitment, but it does go into proving that commitment to each other. It proves to the other that you do take your relationship serious, which can improve the level of trust in the relationship for many people.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And just to piggyback on that, isn't it funny that courts are quite capable of establishing rights related to common-law relationships, the financial product of those relationships, and the offspring of those relationships and yet those who support government sanction/involvement in marriage claim that without the government piece of paper, people would have no protection of their rights in law.
Click to expand...

Courts cannot recognize or establish those rights or everything within the relationship of marriage nearly as efficiently or easily as just that single document, the marriage license, can. That is the entire point. One document that you get from a person behind a desk (takes about 15 minutes in most places, if that, depending on line) vs having to go to court or at least to a judge's chamber to go over each and every detail, likely needing a lawyer to help iron everything else.
 
Papa bull said:
The fact that some or even many need no encouragement isn't proof that recruitment isn't an important part of homosexual culture. But here's a homosexual who broke the code of silence on the subject.

Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? / Queerty
Click to expand...

I can't speak definitively, but I think it would be very abnormal, to use a term you like, for homosexuals to be "indoctrinating kids" into homosexuality. That would defy the logic of most homosexuals who believe they are genetically or naturally homosexual and not indoctrinated or brainwashed into same sex behaviour. Just as uniquely, there's a whole subclass of female who believes they can turn gay men straight - if a man is gay, he just hasn't met a sufficiently sexually talented female.
 
roguenuke said:
Here you go.

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially*|*PsychPage

But as I've suggested it has to deal with the level of the commitment in the relationship and cohabiting does not necessarily mean that the couple is committed.

The official stamp of marriage is for the legal relationship it sets up, not for the level of commitment, but it does go into proving that commitment to each other. It proves to the other that you do take your relationship serious, which can improve the level of trust in the relationship for many people.
Click to expand...

So you are arguing that without marriage there cannot be trust and without that trust that can only come through marriage, all those benefits don't take place. OK, but I ask again, where is your proof? I find it incredible that people who are committed to each other can only have sufficient trust to achieve any or even all those listed benefits if they got a marriage licence.
 
Papa bull said:
For the most part, "heteros" only think about you when you make them think about you. Demanding that marriage be redefined to make it genderless would be one of those things that makes heteros "think about you".

The reason why less than 10% of homosexuals marry in countries where homosexual marriages are sanctioned is because most homosexuals don't want to be married. They just want to say that it's no different than heterosexuality. Now "why" that would be is something we'll never be able to discuss honestly, I'm sure, but a good clue would be that homosexuals would be very, very happy if more people were homosexual. As much pissing and moaning about how hard life is as a homosexual and "why would anyone choose this sort of awful life" hand-wringing, any mention of a genetic fix that would prevent babies from being homosexual brings down hell's fury from homosexuals on anyone suggesting such an awful thing. That should be enough to point people toward the truth of the matter. Homosexuals want to encourage homosexuality. And "normalizing" homosexuality makes it easier to do that. My own brother has tried the "recruitment" routine. I still remember the big kerfuffle when his "curious" boyfriend wouldn't tell his parents that he was queer. His boyfriend gave up the homosexual experimentation after that and went on to get married and start a family.

This is the dirty secret that homosexuals will never admit as long as there are any states that maintain traditional marriage requirements. It's all about normalization of homosexuality and the reason that's so important is because it makes it easier to recruit anyone that's confused or weak minded. It means a larger pool of potential sex partners. It means more members of the "GLBT community".
Click to expand...

It is only being redefined in your mind and those who believe like you, which is no longer the majority, even of heterosexuals.

Homosexuality is "normal" in that it does exist and has throughout mankind's existence, at least. It is just as normal as being lefthanded or having two different colored eyes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So what? In some civilizations cannibalism is the norm. Just because something isn't culturally acceptable to us in western society doesn't mean it's abnormal. It's only abnormal in the narrow context in which it's viewed.
Click to expand...

The reverse is equally true; just because something is "natural" does not mean that it should be culturally accepted by a society. Personally, I favor allowing SSM as a state sanctioned relationship option (as well as some others), but I have no reason to get more than my one vote on the matter. Once we start down the path to what compelling state interest supports any "standard" then we are in for some serious time wasting.
 
Papa bull said:
So you are arguing that without marriage there cannot be trust and without that trust that can only come through marriage, all those benefits don't take place. OK, but I ask again, where is your proof? I find it incredible that people who are committed to each other can only have sufficient trust to achieve any or even all those listed benefits if they got a marriage licence.
Click to expand...

No. I'm arguing that people are different, and at this current time, people are more trusting of proof that someone is committed, particularly in a way that helps to protect both of their interests, as legal marriage does.
 
roguenuke said:
Courts cannot recognize or establish those rights or everything within the relationship of marriage nearly as efficiently or easily as just that single document, the marriage license, can. That is the entire point. One document that you get from a person behind a desk (takes about 15 minutes in most places, if that, depending on line) vs having to go to court or at least to a judge's chamber to go over each and every detail, likely needing a lawyer to help iron everything else.
Click to expand...

So only a marriage license issued by government can determine the rights and responsibilities of two parties in a contract?

Those who enter into business and employment contracts should be clamouring for government to sanction their agreements with a magical piece of government paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom