• 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

jallman said:
And that's all well and good. But child-rearing for society's benefit does not translate into logical opposition to gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Ummm...that's what I'm arguing, jallman. :confused: Child-rearing for society's benefit translates, logically to support gay marriage.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Ummm...that's what I'm arguing, jallman. :confused: Child-rearing for society's benefit translates, logically to support gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I know, I was just commenting to you on Taylor's position...whatever that may be.

I'm so glad I will be somewhere without internet by tonight. That was 5 pages of you trying the wrangle Taylor into committing to a position, Taylor just mindlessly bickering with everyone who entered the thread, and texmaster ocassionally cheerleading Taylor's mindless bickering.

*sigh*

:kitty:
 
I wonder where this thread will take me today! :lol:


thread_is_gay.jpg
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Ummm...that's what I'm arguing, jallman. :confused: Child-rearing for society's benefit translates, logically to support gay marriage.
Click to expand...

And child rearing should be done without tax subsidized marriages. The focus of this debate should be to eliminate government sanctioned marriage. Once that's done, marriage will be open to all.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Poor textmaster. Still doesn't get it. Still can't understand that there are two ways to discount an argument: information or logic. Yours was simple enough to dispose of through logic. There is none in it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point for me CC. You can't cite any study to support your claims.

All you can do is proclaim your adversaries don't understand you. Its a sad and pathetic style of argument but considering how weak your argument is, not surprising.


BTW, you've been posting all this time and still can't get my name right? Hint: There are only two t's in Texmaster. Try to pay more attention to detail. It does explain how sloppy your arguments are though when you can't even get this right.

See, and this is where you continue to fail. You attribute a position to me that I never made. Tell me where I said that there was an equal chance of being gay or straight? Bet you can't find it, because I never said it. Now, I know that you must attribute to me a position that I never made, simply because my actual position so badly destroys yours, but please try to debate honestly.
Click to expand...

Pointing out your lies is just getting easier the more your post

Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

Busted. Again. Your lies are more and more transparent. Its painfully clear you made that exact claim. Poor CC, can't even keep up with his own posts.

Appeal to nature logical fallacy. You should make that your new username you use it so often.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge to my challenge. No shocker though.

Please show one study that clearly demonstrates that the penis and vagina were designed for procreation. A word from the designer, the only one who really knows this would be nice.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Ok this has to be the dumbest response you've made so far. By far, this is the worst argument I have ever seen on this issue.

I've already given you links explaining the function of the penis and vagina when it comes to procreation yet you continue this sad but now extremely amusing denial of basic 4th grade science.

hint: There's a reason they are called "reproductive organs" CC :rofl

Please explain how this has anything to do with the discussion. I'll give you a hint...it doesn't. And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain why homosexuality has been around since the beginning of recorded history....and undoubtedly beyond that.
Click to expand...

I've already explained it twice but I'll break out the crayons for you once more. It proves the natural connection between heterosexuality and nature. Cannibalism has also been around since the begging of time. An act does not make it natural. Your inability to prove any natural connection to homosexuality is just sad you keep clinging to it.

Which is precisely what you are doing. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Actually I have supported my argument by citing the history of the species and the sexual drives and woman's sexual cycles for pregnancy that only heterosexual sex and produce a child naturally.

You on the other had have provided no evidence. None, nada, zilch, nothing. That is why your argument is a circular one.

These are examples of the appeal to nature logical fallacy...another fallacy that you do not understand. This is why your argument is invalid and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy is a parent definition to other specific fallacies. Its painfully obvious you didn't even know that.

Now please, point to the specific fallacy you are claiming and quote what I said thats supports this laughable charge.

Hint: Googling a term you don't understand is pretty obvious. Try not to do it again.

Misrepresenting my position, again. I never claimed that sexual orientation is hereditary. You might want to read my posts a little more carefully. Might help to educate you not only on the issue, but so you don't constantly err in misrepresenting folks:
Click to expand...

Another lie by you.

I quote:

Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

Please make your decesion on what false argument you are going to go with next time mmmkay?

And also, your theory on the rates of homosexuality are ridiculous and do not fit in with biological genetics.
Click to expand...

From the guy who claims genetics has nothing do with it. Then says it does. Then says it doesn't :rofl

If blue eyes are inherited, why are their fewer blue eyed people? Read a bit on genetics to understand this concept.
Click to expand...

Thats called a recessive gene and it can be proven

Are you going to claim now that homosexuality is a recessive gene therefore going back to your original genetics argument?

Please make up your mind as to what argument you are going to make and stick with it.

Again, all irrelevant to the argument.
Click to expand...

LOL Of course you would say that since it proves heterosexuality has a genetic basis in nature.

All you are doing is discussing procreation and the heterosexual act.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Kinda goes to my entire point. lol

You STILL can't grasp the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

And you STILL can't prove homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation in any way shape or form.

Guess what? Someone who is homosexual can, through a heterosexual act, procreate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point for me, again. The point being that ONLY heterosexual sex can propegate the species naturally. There is NO natural function of homosexuality and therefore no basis in considering it as natural as heterosexual orientation as you have claimed then denied you made the claim.

There, now that I have dismissed the "procreation" part of your argument, what are you going to do?
Click to expand...

Thats your problem. You can't dismiss procreation as a key component to heterosexual sex because it is a requirement to propegate the species unlike homosexuality which you can't even prove is as likely as heterosexual orientation even though you made that specific claim.

Hell, you wont even admit what the function of a sexual organ is :lol:

:lol: Still don't know the difference between "acts" and "orientation". I'm guessing that this is deliberate because that admission would relegate your position to nothing but rubble.
Click to expand...

Actually what I was addressing if you had read carefully, was your argument that just because homosexuality has been found throughout history that somehow makes it natural.

again, your quote:

Second, homosexuality also occurs in nature, so on the right/wrong scale it is equivalent to heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

Do you even bother to read what you claim? My response to you was just because homosexuality has been found in history does not make it natural. Cannibalism, human sacrifice have both been found in the history of man but that in no way makes them natural. It is the flimsiest of arguments you use to support yourself.

And once again, without a fact or study to support your claim. :2wave:

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is demonstrate that you do not understand the issue, genetics, or the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Yeah...I think that about covers it.
Click to expand...

Dodging again I see. I'll repeat:

Please explain how the first humans "learned" how to procreate without oral or written language.

Please list all studies you have that show homosexual orientation has a natural history beyond the act being in history.

Go right ahead....

Say it 100 times. Until you understand the difference that I have mentioned MORE than 9 times, your position on this is meaningless. And inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Still can't admit the burden of proof is on the side that wants to change the law

Sad really because you know you can't prove it which is why you try to dishonestly shift the burden of proof on your opposite side.

No, I wrote 3 messages in a row to dispel all the myths that folks like you are presenting. I consider it a public service to correct inaccuracies like yours.
Click to expand...

If you want to send a positive public message support your claims with some hard facts from actual studies instead of staying in the world of theory.

I demonstrated how your position is completely illogical. You have addressed none of the challenges that I have made to the logic of your position, successfully. That makes your position what is known as a "losing" position. If you can address any of my logical destruction of your position, I'd like to see it. Thus far, you've given us a big goose egg.

Poor textmaster. I know, it must suck to have been so thoroughly demolished. Feel free to keep posting your non-logic, your logical fallacies, and your inaccuracies. I will continue to deftly demonstrate how invalid they are.
Click to expand...

Once again you prove you cannot prove anything you are claiming. You are permanently stuck in the world of theory and you refuse to get out because you can't find the evidence that supports your claims.

Its a sad sad little world you have made for yourself and your denial of even basic sexual function and the role of sexual organs in the body itself makes it all the more calamitous.


But I do want to thank you for this line.

Please show one study that clearly demonstrates that the penis and vagina were designed for procreation.
Click to expand...

If I had room in my sig, this would be there in lights. It is by far the funniest argument I have ever seen on this issue. Makes for a great laugh.
 
Last edited:
Someone give me the Cliff's Notes? Was that pretty much the same drivel of "Nuh-uh!!! I'm right because you're wrong" crap or did he say anything important yet?

I would read it myself but I'm also packing.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. As I said that started this entire thing...child rearing is what benefits society. HOW the child enters the world is irrelevant. It is the act of helping that child to grow that benefits the state.
Click to expand...
How about addressing what I wrote. "Nope" doesn't do much for the debate.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
All of which is irrelevant. The state cares who exists, not HOW they came into existence.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It's in the best interest of the state that procreation occurs within marriage.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Which is why you continue to hold an illogical position. Because a logical one would destroy your premise. All things being equal, since research shows that a homosexual couple can rear a child as well as a heterosexual couple, and since the health and stability benefits would also be equal regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple, GM certainly benefits the state just as much as heterosexual marriage. But please, feel free to show evidence of your position.
Click to expand...

Where does research show this?
 
Taylor said:
Wrong. It's in the best interest of the state that procreation occurs within marriage.
Click to expand...

Does that mean couples who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry?
 
Taylor said:
Wrong. It's in the best interest of the state that procreation occurs within marriage.
Click to expand...

It's funny to me when people spout off "it's in the best interest of the state" arguments.

But these are the same people that will disregard "the best interest of the state" on most everything else.

It's in the best interest of the state that kids are taught proper sexual hygeine.

It's in the best interest of the state that young adults have mandatory military service for a number of years.

It's in the best interest of the state that the Church and the State be closely tied to one another.

It's in the best interest of the state that there is a quota limiting the number of children per family.

All best interest of the state arguments. None would be acceptable. The best interest of the state is not an argument to limit personal liberties. Not by a long shot.
 
Taylor said:
Nobody is making that claim.
Click to expand...

Then why did you make the assertions you did in the first place?

I think you just like to bicker rather than debate the topic. You do an awful lot of backing off from stances. You have this habit of putting forth a position and then claiming it wasn't your position.
 
I've seen and am obviously aware of the effects on families without a father living in the home, in fact, it's an absolute disaster on this nation. We're now trying to argue in here that two men or two women are the equal while raising children?

Facts on Fatherless Kids

To pretend the absence of a father....pretending two women are an equal..is laughable and research shows the complete opposite. Please...someone show me where not having a father in the home has no affect on children.

I triple dog dare you.
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
I've seen and am obviously aware of the effects on families without a father living in the home, in fact, it's an absolute disaster on this nation.

Facts on Fatherless Kids

To now say the absence of a mother....pretending two men are an equal..is laughable and research shows the complete opposite. Please...someone show me where not having a father in the home has no affect on children.

I triple dog dare you.
Click to expand...

Why when all you're going to do is say "Nuh-uh. Neener neener neeeeener"?

But though I know it will be a wasted effort, here is the valid research:

Kids raised by gay parents have normal self images

Study shows no difference in children raised by gay parents
 
Taylor said:
You'll have to be more specific
Click to expand...

Nevermind. It's not worth dealing with your obtuse games today.

I will just stand by my assessment that you aren't debating so much as just mindlessly bickering with anyone who gets in reach.
 
jallman said:
But though I know it will be a wasted effort, here is the valid research:
Click to expand...

You base the research on the child's self image? And...the overwhelming evidence of children raised without a father...forget without a mother for one second.....are at at a colossal disadvantage...isn't correct?

Poppycock.

Facts are facts and I'm sorry about that.
 
Charles Martel said:
You base the research on the child's self image? And...the overwhelming evidence of children raised without a father...forget without a mother for one second.....are at at a colossal disadvantage...isn't correct?

Poppycock.

Facts are facts and I'm sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Well, I never did claim you were intelligent, reasonable, or given to acceptance of facts so I didn't really think we would get anywhere by posting any studies so I just posted a couple.

And I was right.

And by the way, "poppycock" isn't a rebuttal. It's just asinine stupidity being vomitted forth and wasting bandwidth.

But it's about where you've set your own bar so no one is disappointed.
 
Charles Martel said:
You base the research on the child's self image? And...the overwhelming evidence of children raised without a father...forget without a mother for one second.....are at at a colossal disadvantage...isn't correct?

Poppycock.

Facts are facts and I'm sorry about that.
Click to expand...

What is the difference in what you posted and what jallman posted? One is looking at single parent homes the other is looking at two parent homes.
 
winston53660 said:
What is the difference in what you posted and what jallman posted? One is looking at single parent homes the other is looking at two parent homes.
Click to expand...

The other is looking at two parent homes.....without either a mother or a father...You have either a male...or a female parent absent and to pretend that hasn't been an absolute disaster on the family structure and thus children in this nation, I submit you're either pushing an agenda and purposefully blind to the facts...or you're unpurposefully unaware of the obvious facts. Either way, you're blind and wrong. Aware of it or not, you're dead wrong.
 
winston53660 said:
What is the difference in what you posted and what jallman posted? One is looking at single parent homes the other is looking at two parent homes.
Click to expand...

B-b-b-but...poppycock. That's the answer, donchaknow?:lol::lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom