• 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!

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

Well if you don't know....why take the side that discriminates?

I was brought up differently. I was taught that if you don't know...you go with the side the promotes equality and fairness.

My reasons are well documented and you know that................
 
I've often thought the same thing. Just a hunch, but I'd go so far as to say that the group of "choosers" would be made up of more women than men. I know at least a couple of "lesbians" from college who are now happily married soccer-moms.

Then again, are "those who choose" just bisexual?

That is kinda how I see it, though kinda from the opposite view. I see most gay women discover they are gay, while most gay men kinda always know, if you follow the reasoning. When I was young, a saying in the gay community was "gay men are born, lesbians are made".
 
My reasons are well documented and you know that................

They aren't well documented at all Navy.....all you ever say is that this is what you believe. Fine. But given lack of proof that you yourself says exist, why would you advocate taking the side of that which discriminates?
 
That is kinda how I see it, though kinda from the opposite view. I see most gay women discover they are gay, while most gay men kinda always know, if you follow the reasoning. When I was young, a saying in the gay community was "gay men are born, lesbians are made".

Its really a cop out to call these people BI and it seems that every time you on the left are backed in a corner on the subject you bring thr Bi thing in.................The people that changed most of the time deny that........
 
And I am on the opinion they are not born that way.........

Navy you know genetically its very unclear there cant be something as clear as a gay gene.However i have met several people who are only interested in the same sex as themselves quite clearly.

Why should that bother you? Why not let them be and also if you believe in special rights for married straight couples why not for gay couples? From my point of view its both or none.
 
But my suggestion explains the data available better than yours......

We will have to agree to disagree because I firmly believe they are not born that way otherwise they could not change...........Just like a black person can't change...........
 
We will have to agree to disagree because I firmly believe they are not born that way otherwise they could not change...........Just like a black person can't change...........

and just like you cannot change the color of your eyes, right Navy?
 
That is kinda how I see it, though kinda from the opposite view. I see most gay women discover they are gay, while most gay men kinda always know, if you follow the reasoning. When I was young, a saying in the gay community was "gay men are born, lesbians are made".
I'm no scientist, but it seems to make sense from a biological standpoint.

If "sexual attraction" were tied to the sex chromosomes, I think you might expect more men to be "born gay" -- being much more sensitive to variations (XY instead of the more stable XX).
 
Its really a cop out to call these people BI and it seems that every time you on the left are backed in a corner on the subject you bring thr Bi thing in.................The people that changed most of the time deny that........

Nowhere did I mention bisexual.......
 
Seems to me, Navy, that if it's possible to wake up tomorrow and decide you want to be gay, you'd want to make sure gays have rights too, because you might make that choice.
 
Seems to me, Navy, that if it's possible to wake up tomorrow and decide you want to be gay, you'd want to make sure gays have rights too, because you might make that choice.

He said that he COULD make the choice to be gay...not that we would.
(Just to be technical)
 
We will have to agree to disagree because I firmly believe they are not born that way otherwise they could not change...........Just like a black person can't change...........

What I am saying, and what is clearly going over your head, is that some people can change, some cannot. That explains how some can change and lead happy lives, and how some people are very clearly very set in their orientation.
 
the first amendment is merely a minimum requirement.

libertarians against freedom and democracy or who are for limited freedom and democracy. i see.

Libertarians are for Limited Government and Maximal Freedoms. No democracy is a limited government, it is inherently a unbound, limitless government.

FAIL.

Try again. :2wave:
 
Navy you know genetically its very unclear there cant be something as clear as a gay gene.However i have met several people who are only interested in the same sex as themselves quite clearly.

Why should that bother you? Why not let them be and also if you believe in special rights for married straight couples why not for gay couples? From my point of view its both or none.

Lets get something clear....I could care less what gays or straights do in the privacy of the bedroom.....I just don't want to know about it........I am for gays having the same rights I have......I believe that can be accomplished through Civil Unions...I don't consider getting married a right..Its a privilege.........I believe in the sanctity of marriage and want it to remain the way it is today for the reasons I have posted a 100 times in this forum.......Gays have the same option I have...they can marry someone of the opposite sex..........I don't believe gays should marry, nor polygamysts, nor anyone identified by a class or sexual preference, nor I don't believe brothers and sisters, mothers and daughters. etc should marry for the benefits even if they remain celebrant........
 
He said that he COULD make the choice to be gay...not that we would.
(Just to be technical)

No, he said it was "highly unlikely" for him. Which means for everyone.

Whether he would is irrelevant.
 
Why not let them be and also if you believe in special rights for married straight couples why not for gay couples? From my point of view its both or none.
That's the crux of the argument IMO. To me biology isn't relevant. If I'm hardwired to be attracted to 10 partners simultaneously, that doesn't mean we should enact a marraige law that concords with my "biology."

It really comes down to what society should promote.
 
What I am saying, and what is clearly going over your head, is that some people can change, some cannot. That explains how some can change and lead happy lives, and how some people are very clearly very set in their orientation.

As it is yours....Like I said before I don't know for sure.....no one does..........
 
Lets get something clear....I could care less what gays or straights do in the privacy of the bedroom.....I just don't want to know about it........I am for gays having the same rights I have......I believe that can be accomplished through Civil Unions...I don't consider getting married a right..Its a privilege.........I believe in the sanctity of marriage and want it to remain the way it is today for the reasons I have posted a 100 times in this forum.......Gays have the same option I have...they can marry someone of the opposite sex..........I don't believe gays should marry, nor polygamysts, nor anyone identified by a class or sexual preference, nor I don't believe brothers and sisters, mothers and daughters. etc should marry for the benefits even if they remain celebrant........

Celebrant! What a perfect wrong word to use! Awesome. :doh

So you support civil unions? Fine. Good enough for me.
 
No, he said it was "highly unlikely" for him. Which means for everyone.

Whether he would is irrelevant.

I can't speak for everyone else...........Your going to cause me to get a warning ...Grrrrrrrrr
 
Celebrant! What a perfect wrong word to use! Awesome. :doh

So you support civil unions? Fine. Good enough for me.

If you had been around here for more then 5 minutes you would know that.........
 
I can't speak for everyone else.

Yes, you are speaking for everyone else. You're saying everyone else can choose their sexual orientation. That's exactly what you're doing.
 
If you had been around here for more then 5 minutes you would know that.........

So I'm new. So what? You want me to read every single post of every thread and memorize everything before I post?
 
Back
Top Bottom