• 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

Charles Martel said:
Mutual inheritance of joint property and dissolution of obligations? Please, are you trying to be amusing?



I'm actually quite right, sorry.



I already did so.



:spin:



I don't care what words you used, I'm merely addressing the point. It is often mistaken that those that oppose same sex marriage are an extreme fringe of religious zealots, or that the vote doesn't go pro same sex marriage because of "misinformation" or "lies." This isn't true, same sex marriage is stomped on across the nation, by many walks of life, in many different states red and blue. In truth, the extreme finge element is found on the pro same sex marriage side of the aisle, most people overwhelmingly oppose marriage being defined any other way than one woman, one man.



Actually I'm quite learned, know much about the Loving vs. Virginia case you cited and am bringing links to laws specific on the books defining marriage.



So are laws passed by the Legislature such as the DOMA and State amendments to COnstitutions, in fact, they take precedent ocer case law. Your case study is Loving vs Virginia 1948, why not return to 1883 in Pace vs Alabama where the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the 14th amendment? Is that case law not vital to the debate?

I'm giving you the most recent and telling reality concerning same sex marriage and marriage has been defined in dozens of state Constitutions. By We the People.



It's a very serious discussion...that you're losing. Again, support your point, marriage isn't what you suggested, not even close. Would you like to start addressing reality...please.
Click to expand...

:roll::roll::roll:

Yes, Charlie...you won the internetz. That's very nice and makes you a big boy. Now can the rest of us who don't think "neener neener neener" is a legitimate argument go back to the real discussion?
 
jallman said:
Yes, Charlie...you won the internetz. That's very nice and makes you a big boy. Now can the rest of us who don't think "neener neener neener" is a legitimate argument go back to the real discussion?
Click to expand...

I merely won the argument for lack of resaonable opposition that's all. And I was merely trying to correct you, marriage isn't defined as you say, a Supreme Court case on inter-racial marriage doesn't define marriage. We the People, our Legislature, our Representation either through referendum or amendment processes defines marriage and do does the federal Defense of Marriage Act that I quoted.

You're wrong, you don't like me pointing that out, nonetheless, you're wrong.
 
Charles Martel said:
I merely won the argument for lack of resaonable opposition that's all.
Click to expand...

Yes, Charlie. You won the internetz and that makes you a big boy.

Although, I must point out that your post was so full of inconsistencies and blatant falsehoods I scarcely found it in me to read the whole thing.

For one, I never referenced Loving. I referenced Perez v Sharp. Next time you come up to bat, you might want to try a little harder to keep up with the conversation and spend less effort wagging your fingers beside your head whilst sticking out your tongue. ;)
 
Navy Pride said:
As long as Gays can change then they have to be a class of people defined by their sexual oreientation............
Click to expand...

Could you change to gay?
 
TheNextEra said:
Can you change your sexual orientation to be attracted to the same sex? No, you cannot. But then your ignorant homophobic comments are of no surprise.
Click to expand...


People don't change what gets them off ever? I know multiple fetishes and kinks that I've had come (no pun intended) and go. Why would homosexuality be any different? Is there more to why homosexuality gets you off than any other sexual activity?
 
jallman said:
Here you are telling blatant lies again and pulling statistics out of your ass.
Click to expand...

Sigh. School is out again I see.

You already had to retract the liar comment before. Do you really want to go down this road again, me demanding evidence of my lies and you running away like some 4 year old?

Studies with drosophilia indicate that a gene on the right arm of the third chromosome ironically called "fruitless", determines courtship patterns and sexuality. If there is such a gene in the drosophilia, it is not far fetched to believe that there is a similar compelling genetic factor in human sexuality.

Since 1973, it has been accepted fact that certain compounds found in nature called "endocrine disruptors" play a a huge role in determining gender assignment in fish and other reptiles and also in influencing sexuality in greater cats in the wild. These endocrine disruptors are found in more heavy concentrations in the human food supply due to our use of artificial growth hormones and antibiotics.
Click to expand...

hahhahahahahaha

I love it when people like you cite this study.

First of all it did not make flies gay.

Since you obviosuly didn't read the study..

Yael Grosjean et al. (1) report that this homosexual - or more accurately bisexual - behavior in fruit flies is controlled by glutamatergic synapse strength, i.e., ambient levels of glutamate in the nervous system. Glutamate is what's known as an "excitatory amino acid." It plays an important role as a neurotransmitter in the brain. Glutamate levels in the fly's nervous system are regulated at least in part by an amino-acid transport protein in the glia, the non-excitatory cells that feed and care for neurons. That transport protein is encoded by the genderblind allele.

Sexual behaviors, and variations thereof, for both fruit flies and mice are strongly influenced by pheromones which in turn trigger specific proteins in the nervous system. However, the mechanisms are quite different: one relies on glutamate levels as influenced by a transport protein and the other by a relatively non-specific calcium permeable ion channel. Kinda complex, isn't it? Suffice it to say that transport proteins and ion channels are different beasts.

The stupidity of this as "evidence" to mammals much less humans would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad.

*hint* Pssst hey jallman. Flies and humans are different species. See flies are part of the insect family. Humans are mammals and now I know this part is a little hard for you to fathom, but there are a few differences between the two that go a little beyond mating practices. :rofl

Now on to my personal favorite. The twins studies.

Further, twins studies consistently show a pattern of higher rates of homosexuality in identical twins than in fraternal twins, indicating a genetic factor.
Click to expand...

Yes now lets look at the FACTS from your own study.

A number of studies have looked at homosexuality in twins, all with similar results. For example, in one study, if one identical twin was gay, the other was also gay 50% of the time. If they were fraternal twins, they were both gay 22% of the time. And if one was adopted, the chances fell to 11%.

Now these numbers are from one study. Other studies have different percentages but the same trend—identical twins are more likely to both be gay as compared to fraternal twins.

This strongly suggests that there is a genetic component—there is something in their genes that makes them more likely to be gay. Genetics, though, isn't everything.

So this bull**** can't even be proven 50% of the time much less the very generous number I set at 60% and this is just twins!

And he even admits TWINS have the EXACT SAME GENETIC MAKEUP! :rofl

And isn't it interesting how drastic the number drops off when the TWINS are separated?

Now don't get me wrong, I love a good laugh but these arguments you are making have been destroyed so many times over its hard not to feel sorry for you.
 
Last edited:
[opinion]
You aren't "Homosexual" anymore than you are "Sado Masochistic". it's not a definition of a person, it's something you are into. Ya dig? Homosexuality is a fetish. Same-Sex love is a whole different level of intimacy, that while sometimes includes homosexual activity, they are not mutually exclusive.
[/opinion]

that first sentence is confusing, I know.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Personally, I could care less whether it's genetic or not. Being attracted to someone of the same sex is just as legitimate as being attracted to the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. One is something nature deisgned for the procreation of the speicies. The other has absoltuely no scientfic basis in genetics whatsoever.

I have yet to see a legitimate argument from anyone as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. I don't think that the government should step in and force every church to recognize homosexual marriage if it is against their ideology. I also don't think that any religion should be able to get their anti-gay marriage ideology legislated. No single religion holds a monopoly on marriage and what the definition of it is. End of story.
Click to expand...

This is classic. Anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is basing it on religious conditions?

I'm certainly not.

And your caveat that you haven't see a legitimate argument is just as ridiculous to say since legitimate argument itself is a personally defined statement.

I'm against gay marriage because if you allow it in you cannot stop any other alternative lifestyle from demanding the same thing.

I'm all for civil unions however and religion never played into this for me.
 
texmaster said:
Sigh. School is out again I see.

You already had to retract the liar comment before. Do you really want to go down this road again, me demanding evidence of my lies and you running away like some 4 year old?



hahhahahahahaha

I love it when people like you cite this study.

First of all it did not make flies gay.

Since you obviosuly didn't read the study..

Yael Grosjean et al. (1) report that this homosexual - or more accurately bisexual - behavior in fruit flies is controlled by glutamatergic synapse strength, i.e., ambient levels of glutamate in the nervous system. Glutamate is what's known as an "excitatory amino acid." It plays an important role as a neurotransmitter in the brain. Glutamate levels in the fly's nervous system are regulated at least in part by an amino-acid transport protein in the glia, the non-excitatory cells that feed and care for neurons. That transport protein is encoded by the genderblind allele.

Sexual behaviors, and variations thereof, for both fruit flies and mice are strongly influenced by pheromones which in turn trigger specific proteins in the nervous system. However, the mechanisms are quite different: one relies on glutamate levels as influenced by a transport protein and the other by a relatively non-specific calcium permeable ion channel. Kinda complex, isn't it? Suffice it to say that transport proteins and ion channels are different beasts.

The stupidity of this as "evidence" to mammals much less humans would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad.
Click to expand...

All you did here was demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of why drosophilia is used for genetic studies and how those studies relate to himan beings.

As far as I am concerned, you can be thrown in the same pile of useless posters who aren't interested in debate (or possibly lack the depth of thought to offer true debate) as Charlie "Neener" Martel, Whip Comes Down, Scarecrow, and the other loons we have around here.

I am just highly amused at the total confidence with which you spew utter nonsense. If I've gotten anything out of our brief interaction besides a diminished faith in the overall intelligence of our "conservative" posters, it was a hearty laugh at how shallow and lacking in understanding one can be while still feigning a know it all attitude.

Why don't you do yourself a favor...check out the drosophilia and how many genetic studies are tied directly to it and why. Then you might not appear to be a slavering idiot when you speak. I'm sure you are a smart guy so you only do yourself a disservice when you present yourself as being this dense.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
You have to be kidding me..........Murtha is a crook and Kerry is a habitual liar.......:rofl
Click to expand...

So that makes them not decorated veterans, or supporters of our troops?

Logic is your friend, don't abuse it.
 
texmaster said:
No it isn't. One is something nature deisgned for the procreation of the speicies. The other has absoltuely no scientfic basis in genetics whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Sex isn't just for the purposes of procreation. If it were, it wouldn't feel good. What about hetero couples who are unable or unwilling to reproduce, should we make it so they can't be married either? Prove that it has no scientific basis in genetics. They did do a study and found out that there was no specific gay gene, but that's about it. Find me an unbiased scientific study that says what you are asserting here.

This is classic. Anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is basing it on religious conditions?

I'm certainly not.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, is it? I was referring specifically to people who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons...which makes up quite a large number of people who oppose gay marriage.

And your caveat that you haven't see a legitimate argument is just as ridiculous to say since legitimate argument itself is a personally defined statement.
Click to expand...

Over the years I've seen a lot of arguments against gay marriage, and not one of them has been legitimate or worthwhile. Most of it is based in unwarranted paranoia.

I'm against gay marriage because if you allow it in you cannot stop any other alternative lifestyle from demanding the same thing.
Click to expand...

Case in point. What other lifestyles are you referring to? Are you specifically referring to polygamy? If so, I have no problem with that being legalized either. As long as consenting adults are involved I see no problem.

I'm all for civil unions however and religion never played into this for me.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
 
misterman said:
So that makes them not decorated veterans, or supporters of our troops?

Logic is your friend, don't abuse it.
Click to expand...

No. Their actions do that for them.

Kerry supported anti war vets with unproven stories of abuse.

He pretended to throw over his own medals then was discovered he threw someone else's.

Kerry claimed only stupid people get "stuck in Iraq"

Then he claimed our soldiers were terrorizing Iraqi civilians in the middle of the night.

Murtha is probably the worst next to Durbin with his Nazi comparison to our troops.

Murtha tried and convicted Marines publically of murdering civilians in Iraq only to be proven later wrong and never apologized for it.

He is scum and neither support our troops based on their actions, not their words in a political speech.


Assumption is not your friend.
 
texmaster said:
No. Their actions do that for them.

Kerry supported anti war vets with unproven stories of abuse.

He pretended to throw over his own medals then was discovered he threw someone else's.

Kerry claimed only stupid people get "stuck in Iraq"

Then he claimed our soldiers were terrorizing Iraqi civilians in the middle of the night.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah. Right.

Murtha is probably the worst next to Durbin with his Nazi comparison to our troops.

Murtha tried and convicted Marines publically of murdering civilians in Iraq only to be proven later wrong and never apologized for it.

He is scum and neither support our troops based on their actions, not their words in a political speech.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that actually happened. It's unfortunate, but it doesn't make him not a decorated veteran.
 
texmaster said:
No. Their actions do that for them.

Kerry supported anti war vets with unproven stories of abuse.

He pretended to throw over his own medals then was discovered he threw someone else's.

Kerry claimed only stupid people get "stuck in Iraq"

Then he claimed our soldiers were terrorizing Iraqi civilians in the middle of the night.

Murtha is probably the worst next to Durbin with his Nazi comparison to our troops.

Murtha tried and convicted Marines publically of murdering civilians in Iraq only to be proven later wrong and never apologized for it.

He is scum and neither support our troops based on their actions, not their words in a political speech.


Assumption is not your friend.
Click to expand...
You are obviously one who thinks the swift-boat liars were heroes. Right?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Sex isn't just for the purposes of procreation. If it were, it wouldn't feel good.
Click to expand...

So you think the very act of procreation is just a coincidence that it feels good?

What about hetero couples who are unable or unwilling to reproduce, should we make it so they can't be married either? Prove that it has no scientific basis in genetics. They did do a study and found out that there was no specific gay gene, but that's about it. Find me an unbiased scientific study that says what you are asserting here.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. (no pun intended) You want a study that proves procreation is between a man and a woman?

That's not what I said, is it? I was referring specifically to people who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons...which makes up quite a large number of people who oppose gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Actually that's exactly what you said since you failed to mention any other group who opposes gay marriage for reasons other than religion.

Over the years I've seen a lot of arguments against gay marriage, and not one of them has been legitimate or worthwhile. Most of it is based in unwarranted paranoia.
Click to expand...

As long as you understand you are speaking from personal opinion not based on facts.

Case in point. What other lifestyles are you referring to? Are you specifically referring to polygamy? If so, I have no problem with that being legalized either. As long as consenting adults are involved I see no problem.
Click to expand...

But there you go. Why stop at consenting adults? This is where you fall off the wagon. Kids can drive at 16. Why can't they marry a 40 year old?

Because society made a moral judgment on where we defined marriage. Same thing as drawing a line at gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Let me get this straight. (no pun intended) You want a study that proves procreation is between a man and a woman?
Click to expand...

I think he wants to know why you think marriage is about procreation only when we allow non-fertile heteros to marry. I sure want to know. And gays can have children too, you know.
 
texmaster said:
Because society made a moral judgment on where we defined marriage. Same thing as drawing a line at gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Society also made a moral judgement that people should only be able to marry members of their own race. Did you support that as well?
 
texmaster said:
Because society made a moral judgment on where we defined marriage. Same thing as drawing a line at gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Nice circular argument.
 
texmaster said:
Because society made a moral judgment on where we defined marriage. Same thing as drawing a line at gay marriage.
Click to expand...

No, society didn't make a "moral judgment". The law makes an ethical judgment that dictates a minor cannot give informed consent to enter a contract.
 
disneydude said:
Society also made a moral judgement that people should only be able to marry members of their own race. Did you support that as well?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And this is why their analysis is lazy and shallow. They keep pointing to the point of contention and using that point of contention (the question at the heart of the argument) and using it as the foundation for their argument.

That is logically inconsistent.
 
TheNextEra said:
Can you change your sexual orientation to be attracted to the same sex? No, you cannot. But then your ignorant homophobic comments are of no surprise.
Click to expand...

You know by now little boy I don't respond to your posts so please don't respond to mine.....thanks.........
 
Navy Pride said:
You know by now little boy I don't respond to your posts so please don't respond to mine.....thanks.........
Click to expand...

Yet you just responded to his post. What the hell happened to you while you were away, Chief?
 
disneydude said:
Society also made a moral judgement that people should only be able to marry members of their own race. Did you support that as well?
Click to expand...

That is a cop out and you know it DD Huge difference in the races marrying ang gays.......When the races marry its man and woman....not so if you allow gays to do so......entirely different.................
 
texmaster said:
So you think the very act of procreation is just a coincidence that it feels good?
Click to expand...

That's not at all what I said.

Let me get this straight. (no pun intended) You want a study that proves procreation is between a man and a woman?
Click to expand...

Nor is that. Is this how you think you win arguments, by making up positions that the other person never had?

Actually that's exactly what you said since you failed to mention any other group who opposes gay marriage for reasons other than religion.
Click to expand...

My comment was specifically aimed at people who oppose it for religious reasons. It's not my fault that you failed at reading comprehension and were unable to see that.

As long as you understand you are speaking from personal opinion not based on facts.
Click to expand...

Oh and you think that the arguments against gay marriage are based in facts? :rofl

But there you go. Why stop at consenting adults? This is where you fall off the wagon. Kids can drive at 16. Why can't they marry a 40 year old?
Click to expand...

You are trying to be obtuse in order to prove your failed point. I specifically said consenting adults. A 16 year old kid isn't a consenting adult. Please, try to stay on topic.

Because society made a moral judgment on where we defined marriage. Same thing as drawing a line at gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Society did no such thing. Are people who are pro-gay marriage not a part of society?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom