• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

Charles Martel said:
I see you calling it nonsense, you haven't addressed my argument.



Your colossal misunderstanding once again exposed, you're now making analogies of child conception to being left handed. You're in fact so wrong here, you're blinded by your own error. It's that huge.



Oh...yes they are. Any behavior whether sexual, predatory, unethical, normal, abnormal, or circus like pales in comparison to the behavior engaged upon when the child was conceived. No person or persons you'll ever be with will ever be as critical, as important, as real. You are now the parent of a child. Either a mother or a child. That is your primary responsibility now, that human being is now YOUR child. Conceived in the ultimate heterosexual behavior, there is NOTHING....I repeat so you can understand your colossal error, Captain.....NOTHING remotely close to homosexual can reproduce, it cannot procreate, it is selfish pleasure, it is behavior, is isn't human sexuality. If you cannot see this clearly, I cannot help you to understand. It's right there in front of your mirror each morning, your denial of the truth and reality quite obvious.



Every member arguing here. Every single person you know. Every single person you've EVER known....was produced from heterosexual behavior.....sorry, it's a fact. If you know someone who was born of artificial insemination, then it's artificial...the human body is clearly designed for heterosexual behavior, the human orgasm...including the woman's...primary purpose is procreation...not your behavioral pleasures. And when I say "you" here Captain, I am not speaking AT you. I am making a manking argument, I would hope that clear. I'm enjoying the banter-filled debate, not trying to start a fight.



Your actual beliefs here are the problem, Captain. You're so wrong...you are compounding colossal error after misunderstanding after having no idea. Let's agree to disagree.

And...the smoke over that horizon there is the remains of your argument after having being shot down in flames like a world war one Spad. I pray you can be more successful with someone else less educated on this matter. I have yet to hear a coherent argument from you, let's move on, shall we?
Click to expand...

Very well said.

CC and others can try and pretend that if you define homosexuality into subsects long enough it will somehow lend crediance to the argument that it is a behavior that cannot be helped.

I like you really enjoy the left/right hand argument since one can learn to use the left or right hand.

What it boils down to is this. People who want gay marriage, not civil unions but gay marriage have to be able to provide an argument that shows some kind of equal footing with the practice of heterosuxality going back thousands of years and by its very nature is essential to the procreation of the species. They cannot do that but it is an alternative lifestyle. That is why it continues to fail when called on for a vote. The majority of people in this country understand that. Civil unions is a very sound compromise but for the zealots, it simply isn't enough until they are on equal footing with traditional marriage but since they cannot explain or prove that the genetic nature of this lifestyle is equal to heterosexual marriage, their goal changes from proving their case to declaring victory with repeated "you don't understand" despite not explaining their conclusions with factual backing.
 
Cilogy said:
Ok that's why I'm asking, what do we do then? (seriously)
Click to expand...

Oh sorry. With all the sarcasm and idiocy flying around this thread, I did us both a disservice and just assumed your post was the same. I won't do that again.

I think we should give more credit to the nuance that the professional jargon relates than to what the depthless vernacular we would normally use.
 
jallman said:
Oh sorry. With all the sarcasm and idiocy flying around this thread, I did us both a disservice and just assumed your post was the same. I won't do that again.
No I was being serious, I didn't know what you were talking about so I just guessed.

Sorry for living.


I think we should give more credit to the nuance that the professional jargon relates than to what the depthless vernacular we would normally use.
Click to expand...

What does it relate? I swear I'm not being sarcastic, I am just trying to understand you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jallman said:
Then all that tells me is that you don't value marriage like you claim to value it.
Click to expand...

See, here's the beauty of keeping marriage defined by society. You have values, I have values. You put certain value on marriage, I put a certain value on marriage, I put a high value on marriage, you pretend to know what that is.....and then we ALL together now....hold a referendum or legislative endeavor that defines marriage specifically and on we go. It doesn't matter at all what this tells you about my value on marriage, the federal government and my state have both put values on it and I'm cool with that.

You seem to think it makes you a "second class citizen."
 
Cilogy said:
No I was being serious, I didn't know what you were talking about so I just guessed.
Click to expand...

I understand that now. I was the one at fault for assuming you were behaving like a couple of others in this thread and reacting that way to you. Please accept my apologies for being short.

What does it relate? I swear I'm not being sarcastic, I am just trying to understand you.
Click to expand...

I think the technical and professional jargon relates more specific technicalities and nuances than our common vernacular. That's why we have specific dictionaries like medical dictionaries and engineer's dictionaries.

I'm just saying that lifting a definition from Miriam Webster is going to give you the general usage of that word and is likely to skip more technical meanings to specific professions.
 
texmaster said:
The majority of people in this country understand that. Civil unions is a very sound compromise but for the zealots, it simply isn't enough until they are on equal footing with traditional marriage but since they cannot explain or prove that the genetic nature of this lifestyle is equal to heterosexual marriage, their goal changes from proving their case to declaring victory with repeated "you don't understand" despite not explaining their conclusions with factual backing.
Click to expand...

They've no factual backing I concur and why it's downright hillarious when I'm asked to provide the same. Even when I have.
 
I have no facts, experience or links to offer, however, I can see no logic in "choosing" to be gay and live a life of persecution and oppression. So I am of the opinion that gay people are gay people because that's just the way the good lord made 'em.

Just my opinion.

Also, I do know a handful of gay people and I think the world of them. They are very nice folks. As long as they are cool with me I don't care who they choose to boink behind closed doors. Other than their sexual preference, I don't see them to be much different from anybody else, for the most part.

Nobody's gonna tell me what to do behind closed doors so I ain't gonna tell anybody else what they can do either.
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
See, here's the beauty of keeping marriage defined by society. You have values, I have values. You put certain value on marriage, I put a certain value on marriage, I put a high value on marriage, you pretend to know what that is.....and then we ALL together now....hold a referendum or legislative endeavor that defines marriage specifically and on we go. It doesn't matter at all what this tells you about my value on marriage, the federal government and my state have both put values on it and I'm cool with that.

You seem to think it makes you a "second class citizen."
Click to expand...

No. You are attempting to use the referendum vote to override the supreme law which is the Constitution. Constitutionally, one group cannot define away equal access to government approved institution. Especially not on the grounds of mere moral disapproval.

I don't really care what marriage means to you. I don't care if you wipe your ass with your marriage license. Your marriage means absolutely nothing to me.

What I take exception to is the idea that you put forth that you may define into existence a new right in the Constitution solely as a means of denying me the right you seek to define. Your attempt at defining marriage by referendum is nothing more than a cheap, plastic, transparent ploy to, for the first time in US history, create an amendment that creates a right while simultaneously using language to unequivocally deny that right to others who were the ones seeking it in the first place.

It's a sad testament to the fall of conservatism when conservatives are seeking to institute an amendment that has the sole purpose of nannying society into being complicit in a purely moral agenda that seeks to limit personal freedoms and individual liberties. That conservatives take so little personal responsibility for their relationships that they could seek to blame the fall of society on their marriages being destroyed if two homos down the street have the mutual transferrence rights that come along with a certificate.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I think the technical and professional jargon relates more specific technicalities and nuances than our common vernacular. That's why we have specific dictionaries like medical dictionaries and engineer's dictionaries.

I'm just saying that lifting a definition from Miriam Webster is going to give you the general usage of that word and is likely to skip more technical meanings to specific professions.
Click to expand...

Ok I completely understand now, thank you.

What would be the appropriate definition (or usage) in this case?
 
Cilogy said:
Ok I completely understand now, thank you.

What would be the appropriate definition in this case?
Click to expand...

I imagine we would probably need to look at the accepted definition within the psychological and psychiatric community. Perhaps even specifically those that study sexual behavior.

I don't have access to those kinds of sources so my next best thing is to look to Captain since he is a mental health professional. Perhaps, when he takes a peak at this thread, he could provide us with the standard text book definitions of sexual orientation and sexual behavior from within his professional circles.
 
jallman said:
I imagine we would probably need to look at the accepted definition within the psychological and psychiatric community. Perhaps even specifically those that study sexual behavior.

I don't have access to those kinds of sources so my next best thing is to look to Captain since he is a mental health professional. Perhaps, when he takes a peak at this thread, he could provide us with the standard text book definitions of sexual orientation and sexual behavior from within his professional circles.
Click to expand...

I suspect Epic Dude will be along shortly to point out you mispelled "peek." :rofl
 
jallman said:
I don't have access to those kinds of sources so my next best thing is to look to Captain since he is a mental health professional. Perhaps, when he takes a peak at this thread, he could provide us with the standard text book definitions of sexual orientation and sexual behavior from within his professional circles.
Click to expand...

That certainly ain't my best next thing, been there done that. Captain is dead on inaccurate here and hasn't supported the argument he attempts. Whatsoever. So, good luck.:lol:
 
Charles Martel said:
That certainly ain't my best next thing, been there done that. Captain is dead on inaccurate here and hasn't supported the argument he attempts. Whatsoever. So, good luck.:lol:
Click to expand...

Since there are multiple "Captains" here (and I have seniority,) please be specific when you refer to a captain.

Thank you. :rofl
 
Charles Martel said:
That certainly ain't my best next thing, been there done that. Captain is dead on inaccurate here and hasn't supported the argument he attempts. Whatsoever. So, good luck.:lol:
Click to expand...

That's because you wouldn't know accuracy if it came up and bit you on your ass.

You have no room to speak about the inaccuracies of others after some of the moronic and retard **** you have spewed in this thread. It's only fair to let you know that at this point, the only reason I respond to you at all is for the comedy factor of what you might post next.
 
jallman said:
That's because you wouldn't know accuracy if it came up and bit you on your ass.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would know accuracy....and clearly have been pointing out your lack of it with your incorrect and rather random argument.

You have no room to speak about the inaccuracies of others after some of the moronic and retard **** you have spewed in this thread.
Click to expand...

I've got more than enough room to speak and will continue doing and with hardly any resistance whatsoever. So lame and inaccurate are the arguments opposing me on this particular thread, I've won by default. Captain C was wrong, there was no fight. I won this debate by forfeit, the other side simply never showed up with anything reasonable or logical. All I've heard is "you're wrong" or "you're not right" or "no, this can't be."

Sorry, this can be and is what it is.

It's only fair to let you know that at this point, the only reason I respond to you at all is for the comedy factor of what you might post next.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less why you respond. Being right is more important to me and I clearly am here. :2wave:
 
Charles Martel said:
Actually, I would know accuracy....and clearly have been pointing out your lack of it with your incorrect and rather random argument.



I've got more than enough room to speak and will continue doing and with hardly any resistance whatsoever. So lame and inaccurate are the arguments opposing me on this particular thread, I've won by default. Captain C was wrong, there was no fight. I won this debate by forfeit, the other side simply never showed up with anything reasonable or logical. All I've heard is "you're wrong" or "you're not right" or "no, this can't be."

Sorry, this can be and is what it is.



I couldn't care less why you respond. Being right is more important to me and I clearly am here. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes I know.

Charles "Neener-Neener" Martel said:
I'm right and you're wrong. Neener neener neener!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, your ability to form a coherent argument is unsurpassed by all the other retards.

You must be soooooo proud of that extra chromosome you keep showing off.
 
jallman said:
Yes I know.



Yes, your ability to form a coherent argument is unsurpassed by all the other retards.

You must be soooooo proud of that extra chromosome you keep showing off.
Click to expand...

Thank you oh so much for the Santa pic finding the round file cabinet. It dishonored the spirit of Christmas in my opinion, was off-color in my view.

And nasty lookin.
 
Charles Martel said:
Thank you oh so much for the Santa pic finding the round file cabinet. It dishonored the spirit of Christmas in my opinion, was off-color in my view.

And nasty lookin.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. You aren't even being coherent at this point.

Does anyone else know what this jackass moron is talking about?
 
jallman said:
You are an idiot. You aren't even being coherent at this point.
Click to expand...

My IQ rather high, 1380 on my high school Sats and that was when they were difficult. Masters degree in business, minor in history focusing on military history, I'm not an idiot and this is the 15th or perhaps the 16th colossal error you've made just on this thread.

And...wasn't it you who had a picture of a half naked Santa that I asked about earlier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom