• 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

jallman said:
Oh come on. Navy doesn't show any kind of hatred or desire to suppress the happiness of gays. He simply believes that gay marriage is wrong.

He and I will disagree on that but never has Navy indicated that gays should be served at different lunch counters or sit at the back of the bus.
Click to expand...

I never said that he shows hatred....but he and others like him are no different from those who wanted to relegate Blacks to the theater balcony.

Its the same mindset that they are "entitled" to rights/privileges but somehow feel justified in denying those same rights/privileges to others.
They feel "justified" in throwing a Domestic Partnership bone and saying....you should feel lucky....but don't think that you can sit at our table or drink from our drinking fountains.
 
jallman said:
That's irrelevant. Rate of transmission among homosexual men is far greater than any other demographic. Gay men make up a small portion of the total population but a majority of the actual cases.
Click to expand...

Do they make up a majority of the actual cases? Do you know that for sure?

Gay men are less than 5% of the population, probably less than that. Their rate of infection would have to be 20 times that of the hetero population for them to have more actual cases.
 
misterman said:
Thanks for the link. I looked around and couldn't find the data.
Click to expand...

As a matter of full disclosure, those statistics are for the United States only, not world wide.

World wide, I believe the last stats I saw indicated that Africans, understandably, had the highest rates of transmission followed by Brazil.
 
jallman said:
As a matter of full disclosure, those statistics are for the United States only, not world wide.

World wide, I believe the last stats I saw indicated that Africans, understandably, had the highest rates of transmission followed by Brazil.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd be very confident in guessing that the majority of cases in Africa are hetero only. There's just too many of them.
 
misterman said:
Yeah, I'd be very confident in guessing that the majority of cases in Africa are hetero only. There's just too many of them.
Click to expand...

Well that and you have a savage, cromagnon population that believes raping virgins will cure you of AIDS.

I am of a firm conviction that the epidemic there is simply a tool of nature to cull the herd.
 
jallman said:
Well that and you have a savage, cromagnon population that believes raping virgins will cure you of AIDS.

I am of a firm conviction that the epidemic there is simply a tool of nature to cull the herd.
Click to expand...

And I'm now a believer that you're a bigot of another kind.
 
misterman said:
And I'm now a believer that you're a bigot of another kind.
Click to expand...

What kind would that be? Sure, I'm bigoted against dark age beliefs like rape curing disease.

And I'm ok with that.
 
texmaster said:
You really are amusing. Nothing in any of that list of theories says homosexuality is genetic and the entire site is extremely biased and attacks only one side of people who are against gay marriage, Christianity. It doesn't address any other religion's views even though Islam is far stricter.

That is the point I was making because some people were trying to equate race to homosexuality which is a false argument since you cannot prove it is genetic. Got it now?

If you can't answer my simple challenge to you don't bother linking to theoretical arguments.
Click to expand...

You remind me of creationists. No real evidence for your idea, you just think complaining about other theories will make your ideas relevant. One of us has provided source material, one of us has not. One of us has shown exactly what they claimed, which is that the "causes" of sexual orientation are debated, one just claims that he is right because, well, because he is.
 
Redress said:
You remind me of creationists. No real evidence for your idea, you just think complaining about other theories will make your ideas relevant. One of us has provided source material, one of us has not. One of us has shown exactly what they claimed, which is that the "causes" of sexual orientation are debated, one just claims that he is right because, well, because he is.
Click to expand...

Have you tried debating with Charles "Neener Neener" Martel? He just points to the current state of things and says it's right because it is the way it is. Not even an attempt at making a coherent argument for why he thinks the way he does. Just, this is the law and this makes me right when the whole debate is about questioning the validity of the law.

It's like debating a preacher. "The Bibuhl is right becuz Guhd says the Bibuhl is right. How do we know Guhd says the Bibuhl is right? Becuz the Bible says Guhd says the Bibuhl is right."

Different argument but same principle tactic.
 
Redress said:
You remind me of creationists. No real evidence for your idea, you just think complaining about other theories will make your ideas relevant. One of us has provided source material, one of us has not. One of us has shown exactly what they claimed, which is that the "causes" of sexual orientation are debated, one just claims that he is right because, well, because he is.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. I challenge you to prove in even 60% of homosexuals that there is a genetic link and not only do you not prove that, you have the audacity to claim I haven't backed up my point?

Its easy to make general statements about someone. The key is to be specific so get specific.

Exactly what do I need to back up? That heterosexual sexual orientation is defined by nature?

I'm not the one claiming homosexuality is genetic.

Your "source material" from a clearly biased site to which I already pointed out that it only targets one religion, a point you ran away from and it doesn't answer my challenge to you. In fact, it doesn't come to a single conclusion only to speculate that the question cannot be answered.

You have got to love that circular argument. It hasn't been proven because it cannot be proven but I have no proof to back up my claim. :rofl

If you are going to debate, try answering the questions posed to you.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Let me get this straight. I challenge you to prove in even 60% of homosexuals that there is a genetic link and not only do you not prove that, you have the audacity to claim I haven't backed up my point?

Its easy to make general statements about someone. The key is to be specific so get specific.

Exactly what do I need to back up? That heterosexual sexual orientation is defined by nature?

I'm not the one claiming homosexuality is genetic.

Your "source material" from a clearly biased site to which I already pointed out that it only targets one religion, a point you ran away from and it doesn't answer my challenge to you. In fact, it doesn't come to a single conclusion only to speculate that the question cannot be answered.

You have got to love that circular argument. It hasn't been proven because it cannot be proven but I have no proof to back up my claim. :rofl

If you are going to debate, try answering the questions posed to you.
Click to expand...

I do not think you are following. I have been challenging you to prove your claim, to back it up with actual source material, just as I have done. Your whole argument is "you are wrong, I am right because...well just because I say it is that way". Get back to me when you can back up your claim. Until then, any challenge from you is laughable.
 
Redress said:
I do not think you are following. I have been challenging you to prove your claim, to back it up with actual source material, just as I have done.
Click to expand...

Third time.

What claim? Be specific.

Your whole argument is "you are wrong, I am right because...well just because I say it is that way". Get back to me when you can back up your claim. Until then, any challenge from you is laughable.
Click to expand...

Forth Time.

What claim? Be specific.
 
texmaster said:
Let me get this straight. I challenge you to prove in even 60% of homosexuals that there is a genetic link
Click to expand...

That's a false figure with no grounding in reality. You even confessed that yourself.

You are basically setting a bar for everyone else based on nothing but some figure you pulled out of your ass and then declaring that the debate is lost due to some arbitrary standard you set.

I don't know where you learned to debate from, but around here that ain't gonna fly.

When evidence was linked to you using legitimate studies, you not only showed a complete lack of knowledge of genetics by dismissing the studies because it used the most common model species for human genetic research but you looked like a total ass in the process by declaring some intellectual superiority. That was ****ing hilarious actually so I have to thank you for that gaffe. Not only did you do this but you simultaneously disregarded 3 of a 4 page article to zero in on the physiological mechanics of attraction which was a completely seperate section of the article from the genetics assertions and tried to use that to disprove the genetics aspect.

So do forgive the intelligent readers of this forum when they find it hard to believe a word you say or even have faith that you know what you are debating. However, you are free to continue bringing us amusement.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
That's a false figure with no grounding in reality. You even confessed that yourself.

You are basically setting a bar for everyone else based on nothing but some figure you pulled out of your ass and then declaring that the debate is lost due to some arbitrary standard you set.

I don't know where you learned to debate from, but around here that ain't gonna fly.

When evidence was linked to you using legitimate studies, you not only showed a complete lack of knowledge of genetics by dismissing the studies because it used the most common model species for human genetic research but you looked like a total ass in the process by declaring some intellectual superiority. That was ****ing hilarious actually so I have to thank you for that gaffe. Not only did you do this but you simultaneously disregarded 3 of a 4 page article to zero in on the physiological mechanics of attraction which was a completely seperate section of the article from the genetics assertions and tried to use that to disprove the genetics aspect.

So do forgive the intelligent readers of this forum when they find it hard to believe a word you say or even have faith that you know what you are debating. However, you are free to continue bringing us amusement.
Click to expand...


This coming from someone who called me a liar then had to retract it because you had no evidence.

Then called me a liar again, and again had no evidence and never once gave an apology for either false accusation.

You also lied about posting links to articles multiple times and when you finally did, I broke them down and exposed the nonsense and you couldn't respond.

You'll forgive me if someone who says liar liar then can't back it up or admit they were wrong isn't the first person I would turn to for moral and intelligent conversation.

This is why you are on ignore.
 
jallman said:
But ED, the problem won't be solved. The minute it becomes law that Marriage A is for heterosexuals and Marriage B is for homosexuals then you will have the opened the door for the same elements in our society who tried to deny Marriage B before to start challenging the rights inherited by both parties from that contract.

For instance, preferential treatment for adoption and foster care is given to married couples. So now that you have two marriages, which one gets preference over the other in adoption? Well clearly those from Marriage A category are going to press that their marriage is "a little more equal" than Marriage B because the only reason the two have different names is because of moral disapproval becoming codefied into law.

If you just give the exact same marriage to both parties, the openings for legal wrangling of one group or the other out of their rights is greatly decreased.
Click to expand...

I agree but...fine, keep fighting an uphill battle. Regardless of what you call it, two men are going to have a harder time getting a kid simply because they are two men rather than what the law codifies them as. :\ I think we need to EASE society into the fact that two men/women can be life partners rather than force the complete change and expect everyone to 'come around'

Give and take (haha I just noticed that's a homosexual pun)
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
This coming from someone who called me a liar then had to retract it because you had no evidence.

Then called me a liar again, and again had no evidence and never once gave an apology for either false accusation.

You also lied about posting links to articles multiple times and when you finally did, I broke them down and exposed the nonsense and you couldn't respond.

You'll forgive me if someone who says liar liar then can't back it up or admit they were wrong isn't the first person I would turn to for moral and intelligent conversation.

This is why you are on ignore.
Click to expand...

On ignore yet here you are posting to me.

But you've already confessed to completely making **** up so why not lie about the ignore feature, too? :lol:

Also you lied here. I never retracted calling you a liar because you are a liar and I would never retract the truth.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I agree but...fine, keep fighting an uphill battle. Regardless of what you call it, two men are going to have a harder time getting a kid simply because they are two men rather than what the law codifies them as. :\ I think we need to EASE society into the fact that two men/women can be life partners rather than force the complete change and expect everyone to 'come around'

Give and take (haha I just noticed that's a homosexual pun)
Click to expand...

No one needs to ease in to anything. It's not like gay marriage being legal will equate to everyone having to get gay married and have homosex. People need to just back the **** off and realize that moral disapproval is no grounds for legislating inequality. And the only way to stop the attempts is to give the exact same status to both sides right down to the name itself.

But honestly, if they hadn't tried so damned hard to deny us the civil unions to start with, the fight wouldn't be at their very doorsteps over the word itself today. The only reason the other side claims it's over the word is because they have seen now that it is a possibility...a probability and they are trying to cut their losses.

All this puffed up crooning that it's gotten voted down in each state is just false bravado. They know that this balance is shifting out of their favor and its gonna take more and more money to be tossed at the issue to keep winning it. And guess what: eventually, the money dries up and the voting pool gives way to a new generation. And when that happens, they lose. For good.
 
jallman said:
No one needs to ease in to anything.
Click to expand...

The easing has been done for decades. At some point it's time to stop "easing", and get moving. Yeah, times are better than 30 years ago when gays not being able to get jobs and housing was not uncommon, but somehow saying "well, at least you are not treated totally ****ty" is not rally an accomplishment.
 
Redress said:
The easing has been done for decades. At some point it's time to stop "easing", and get moving. Yeah, times are better than 30 years ago when gays not being able to get jobs and housing was not uncommon, but somehow saying "well, at least you are not treated totally ****ty" is not rally an accomplishment.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I feel about it. And I think we are at a moment in time that is ripe for a crushing defeat to true bigotry on all fronts. Not only are gays not attacked like they used to be but we are a courted political and marketing force now. Our dollar and our votes are looked at as important. We have a black president in the white house and our society is struggling toward pluralism and cultural integration.

Forces of intolerance and groups that clearly lobby for inequality are only being funded by religious zealots and fundamental nutjobs who have shown themselves to be more interested in their agenda rather than the morality they claim drives the agenda. All over the country, groups like Focus on the Family, NARTH, and other family values organizations are losing all credibility as their leaders are exposing themselves, in the best cases, as fallible human beings and, in the worst cases, as fraudulent charlatans. The zealous devotion that holds them together is being frayed by realism and the acceptance that eventually they are going to lose anyway.

I don't think this fight is going to last another decade. Maybe 15 years at most and we will have full marriage for everyone in this country. I also believe in another 50 years most bigotry and intolerance will be thought of as being sooooo last century.

But I can be something of an optimist at times so take what I say with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
No one needs to ease in to anything.
Click to expand...

You ever tried anal sex with no lube and just ramming it on home? it hurts for the asshole getting ****ed and dick doing the ****ing. :\

jallman said:
It's not like gay marriage being legal will equate to everyone having to get gay married and have homosex.People need to just back the **** off and realize that moral disapproval is no grounds for legislating inequality. And the only way to stop the attempts is to give the exact same status to both sides right down to the name itself.

But honestly, if they hadn't tried so damned hard to deny us the civil unions to start with, the fight wouldn't be at their very doorsteps over the word itself today. The only reason the other side claims it's over the word is because they have seen now that it is a possibility...a probability and they are trying to cut their losses.

All this puffed up crooning that it's gotten voted down in each state is just false bravado. They know that this balance is shifting out of their favor and its gonna take more and more money to be tossed at the issue to keep winning it. And guess what: eventually, the money dries up and the voting pool gives way to a new generation. And when that happens, they lose. For good.
Click to expand...

I agree with you man, but you have to learn to manipulate the system to get what you want otherwise you're going to have to actually work hard for it and push this asinine debate farther and farther until like you said, the New Generation shows up.
 
Redress said:
The easing has been done for decades. At some point it's time to stop "easing", and get moving. Yeah, times are better than 30 years ago when gays not being able to get jobs and housing was not uncommon, but somehow saying "well, at least you are not treated totally ****ty" is not rally an accomplishment.
Click to expand...

If the Jews can come from the All Time Favorite Scapegoat of History to in total them owning half the planet, there's no reason any other group can't do the same. :D


:lol:
 
'Family Ties' Mom Meredith Baxter Joins Group of Later-in-Life Lesbians

A 'Family Ties' Mom Meredith Baxter Reveals She's a Lesbian - ABC News

woman changes from straight to gay after 3 marriages

"I am a lesbian and it was a later-in-life recognition," Baxter said on NBC's "Today" show. "Some people would say, well, you're living a lie and, you know, the truth is -- not at all. This has only been for the past seven years."

Baxter, 62 and thrice divorced, came out following the National Enquirer's November report that she was spotted "traveling with a female friend" on a Caribbean cruise sponsored by lesbian travel company Sweet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom