• 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

You mean when my grandparents were slaves? Those days?

You sure you wanna keep going down this road?

I'm not going down any road. I asked if you were.

Do you want to go back to the days of apartheid in SA? Just clarify your meaning.
 
Yeah, really. It's a Libbo flaw. They can't help it.

You forgot that "Libbo" is immature, an unfair generalization, and pisses off the mods.
 
So, since I call bull****, bull****, I must be a racist? That's the second time you've tried to call me a racist. Why would you calla black guy a racist? Is it because I'm not falling in line with my Libbo massa?

It's crazy to think it's a good thing to go from a few people being to everyone being poor. We're in real trouble if the Libbos ever get an solid power.

I just wanna know your secret to by-passing the curse filters without getting dinged by the mods. Don't get me wrong, I have no personal objection. I tried doing it myself, in fact. Only, I get spanked.

Tell me your secret. I promise I won't tell anybody else. ;)

Are you like, "immune?" Got a handicap sticker? What gives?
 
Last edited:
If Libbos couldn't scream, "racist", or, "homophobe", they wouldn't have an argument.

Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions[1][2][3] of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, aversion, and (irrational) fear. Based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, and sexism[4], homophobia as motivation is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a non-heterosexual orientation.
Homophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, apdst, we sure as hell can't call you a tolerant Christian. The word Homophobe means what it means. And when your views fit that meaning, that's what you get called. Pretty damn simple.
 
I'm not going down any road. I asked if you were.

Do you want to go back to the days of apartheid in SA? Just clarify your meaning.

So, since I had the unmidigated gaul to suggest that things are no better in SA now than they were during Apartheid and in fact they're worse, you automatically assume that 1) I want to go back to Apartheid and see a return of slavery in America and 2) I'm a racist?

Please, tell us you're smarter than
 
Well, apdst, we sure as hell can't call you a tolerant Christian. The word Homophobe means what it means. And when your views fit that meaning, that's what you get called. Pretty damn simple.

Oh, really? Ok, well then, do us all a favor and show us any of my comments that could be interpreted as homophobic. Fix a lunch, this is going to take you a while.
 
Yeah, really. It's a Libbo flaw. They can't help it.

Moderator's Warning:
I've already warned you once about the "Libbos" comment. You're baiting in this thread with it. Do it again, and you'll be thread banned.
 
So, since I had the unmidigated gaul to suggest that things are no better in SA now than they were during Apartheid and in fact they're worse, you automatically assume that 1) I want to go back to Apartheid and see a return of slavery in America and 2) I'm a racist?

I assumed nothing. I asked you a question. Just answer it.
 
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."


Absolutely right.

If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.

This is just another incident where activists try and circumvent the will of the people......As soon as a vote is taken it will be overturned again as it has every time when the people speak........
 
This is just another incident where activists try and circumvent the will of the people......As soon as a vote is taken it will be overturned again as it has every time when the people speak........

Perhaps you'd be happier in a Direct Democracy rather than a Republic.

The Will Of the People??:confused: Did the DC City Council elect themselves into office?
 
This is just another incident where activists try and circumvent the will of the people......As soon as a vote is taken it will be overturned again as it has every time when the people speak........

Just as they did with slavery and segregation. The "will of the people" isn't always right.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's cease with the innuendo and use of terms like "racist", "libbo" and others intended to be derogatory. This thread is about gay marriage in Washington DC, not slavery, apartheid in South Africa or someone's religion. I suggest everyone stop with the side banter and return to topic or thread bans will be issued.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's cease with the innuendo and use of terms like "racist", "libbo" and others intended to be derogatory. This thread is about gay marriage in Washington DC, not slavery, apartheid in South Africa or someone's religion. I suggest everyone stop with the side banter and return to topic or thread bans will be issued.

The thread isn't just about GM in Washington DC. It's also about rights. Some are arguing that the "will of the people" should be the determining factor in GM rights so the people should vote instead of the DC council. By bringing up slavery I show that the will of the people is not always right...hence why they should be circumvented at times by the government. If you wish to ban me for bringing up a valid response that's fine. I don't have to post in this thread.

I do agree with the rest of your warning tho. :D
 
Perhaps you'd be happier in a Direct Democracy rather than a Republic.

The Will Of the People??:confused: Did the DC City Council elect themselves into office?

That does not take away the fact that when the people voted gay marriage was shot down every single time........
 
[GOOGLE][/GOOGLE]
Just as they did with slavery and segregation. The "will of the people" isn't always right.

The usual phoney example..Comparing the black fight for equal rights to a cclass of people is ridiculous..........
 
That does not take away the fact that when the people voted gay marriage was shot down every single time........

Nor does it change the fact that DC had a law on the books that they felt they had to follow. Read the source material.
 
That does not take away the fact that when the people voted gay marriage was shot down every single time........

Appeal to the majority is not a logical argument.

Prop 8 is on its way to Federal Court.
 
That does not take away the fact that when the people voted gay marriage was shot down every single time........

"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."

-A. A. Milne

There is no evidence to suggest that same sex marriage would be anything but beneficial for the country. The biggest predictor for support of same sex marriage is level of education and that is reflected in the strong support base in the nation's youth. People voted against same sex marriage because they were ignorant and afraid, but it is fear and ignorance itself that is losing the battle with time.
 
This is just another incident where activists try and circumvent the will of the people

Yeah! Kind of like these activists! Damn anti-democratic agitators circumventing the will of the people!

civil-rights-dogs.jpg


br0225s.jpg
 
Appeal to the majority is not a logical argument.

Prop 8 is on its way to Federal Court.

and the only reason I would support a federal amendment. Normally, I'd land on the policy of states rights on this issue, but then, some radicals..as we can plainly see here....would like to see the feds step all over a voter decision o marriage in any particular state. And if the courts don't get it, I'd support a federal amendment that cannot be misinterpreted, any court doing what they're supposed to be doing...interpreting rather than making law...wouldn't have difficulty making a ruling.
 
and the only reason I would support a federal amendment. Normally, I'd land on the policy of states rights on this issue, but then, some radicals..as we can plainly see here....would like to see the feds step all over a voter decision o marriage in any particular state. And if the courts don't get it, I'd support a federal amendment that cannot be misinterpreted, any court doing what they're supposed to be doing...interpreting rather than making law...wouldn't have difficulty making a ruling.

I'm just curious, what would be the basis for a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

I can only see five ways that you could answer such a question. Not a single one is consistent with reason.

1. An appeal to tradition fallacy. (marriage has always been between a man and a woman)
2. Ignoring the countries that have legalized same sex marriage and making a fallacious argument that it would be somehow harmful to this country.
3. An appeal to the majority fallacy. (most people don't agree with same sex marriage)
4. A slippery slope fallacy. (if we allow same sex marriage then we have to allow polygamy)
5. Religious condemnation. (its a sin)

Please prove me wrong and provide some rational that isn't listed above for why a federal amendment banning same sex marriage would be a good idea.
 
I'm just curious, what would be the basis for a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

I can only see five ways that you could answer such a question. Not a single one is consistent with reason.

1. An appeal to tradition fallacy. (marriage has always been between a man and a woman)
2. Ignoring the countries that have legalized same sex marriage and making a fallacious argument that it would be somehow harmful to this country.
3. An appeal to the majority fallacy. (most people don't agree with same sex marriage)
4. A slippery slope fallacy. (if we allow same sex marriage then we have to allow polygamy)
5. Religious condemnation. (its a sin)

Please prove me wrong and provide some rational that isn't listed above for why a federal amendment banning same sex marriage would be a good idea.

I think you just summarized the flaws in the "opposition's" argument from A to Z. This is why their position is invalid.

Good post.
 
I think you just summarized the flaws in the "opposition's" argument from A to Z. This is why their position is invalid.

Good post.

It really is sad you continue to deny the very basics in introducing a new law and supporting it with facts to support your argument to change the law.

Lesson #1 Traditional marriage has been between a man and woman throughout the history of this country. It is a fact not a fallacy.

Lesson #2 Laws passed in other countries are inconsequential since we do not live under a world government. We use our own Constitution and require people like you who want to change the law to back it up with a factual argument. That is the logical fallacy of your side since you have failed repeatedly to do so.

Lesson #3 It is not a fallacy to vote as a majority on a ballot issue. The very fact you cannot understand that simply shows you do not understand how state government functions. The fallacy is for officials to deny the vote once the signatures were given by the people to vote on the law. You really need to do a little research on what propositions are and how they are lawful.

Lesson #4 It is a slippery slope argument and a factual one when you claim it is a "rights" issue to allow gay marriage. If you call it a rights issue it is a fallacy to believe you can restrict other alternative lifestyles when they use the same argument you are making. A "rights" argument does not end with homosexuality.

#5 is the only one where you are correct and an important point when you read further down...

Until you can provide factual studies not based on filled out unsurpervised questionaires that actually prove a genetic link that you claim exists, you have no basis to change the law to only narrowly allow gay marriage while excluding all other alternative lifestyles when you cannot even prove it isn't a choice which flies in the face of what we know of people who live one way then change their mind decades later or go to jail and engage in homosexual sex after being lifelong heterosexuals or finally, how some church groups have people who claimed to be gay only to be "cured". These are real life examples not theories or flawed studies. Its funny how so many people on your side flock to someone who comes out of the closet in their adult life but I wonder what you say to the people who claim they are gay only to renounce it later in life. Would you support their decision as well?

Its why this fails every single time it is brought forth to let the people decide. They understand you have no basis other than your belief in homosexuality being something you are born with and as #5 correctly points out, belief is not a argument to change the law.

Civil unions are the compromise for everyone but the zealotry your side has in pretending gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage without evidence to support it will only result in more failed votes by the people.
 
Last edited:
It really is sad you continue to deny the very basics in introducing a new law and supporting it with facts to support your argument to change the law.

Lesson #1 Traditional marriage has been between a man and woman throughout the history of this country. It is a fact not a fallacy.

And traditionally women often had no say in the marriage and were treated as chattel. Should we go back to that sort of marriage?

Lesson #2 Laws passed in other countries are inconsequential since we do not live under a world government. We use our own Constitution and require people like you who want to change the law to back it up with a factual argument. That is the logical fallacy of your side since you have failed repeatedly to do so.

Meh, international laws merely hammer in the point that the US is trailing in such issues.

Lesson #3 It is not a fallacy to vote as a majority on a ballot issue. The very fact you cannot understand that simply shows you do not understand how state government functions. The fallacy is for officials to deny the vote once the signatures were given by the people to vote on the law. You really need to do a little research on what propositions are and how they are lawful.

Sic Semper Tyrannis, as they say - in this case the tyrant is the majority.

Lesson #4 It is a slippery slope argument and a factual one when you claim it is a "rights" issue to allow gay marriage. If you call it a rights issue it is a fallacy to believe you can restrict other alternative lifestyles when they use the same argument you are making. A "rights" argument does not end with homosexuality.

Right, so because we allow two consenting adults who both have legal standing and are of age marry it automatically gives legal standing to dogs and other animals so they can marry humans. I totally see the logic there.

Until you can provide factual studies not based on filled out unsurpervised questionaires that actually prove a genetic link that you claim exists, you have no basis to change the law to only narrowly allow gay marriage while excluding all other alternative lifestyles when you cannot even prove it isn't a choice which flies in the face of what we know of people who live one way then change their mind decades later or go to jail and engage in homosexual sex after being lifelong heterosexuals or finally, how some church groups have people who claimed to be gay only to be "cured". These are real life examples not theories or flawed studies. Its funny how so many people on your side flock to someone who comes out of the closet in their adult life but I wonder what you say to the people who claim they are gay only to renounce it later in life. Would you support their decision as well?

You call it "curing", I call it "brainwashing" - tactics which religious groups have been using for centuries.

Its why this fails every single time it is brought forth to let the people decide. They understand you have no basis other than your belief in homosexuality being something you are born with and as #5 correctly points out, belief is not a argument to change the law.

Your point? There is such a thing as tyranny by majority, and Prop 8 was a classic case of it.

Civil unions are the compromise for everyone but the zealotry your side has in pretending gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage without evidence to support it will only result in more failed votes by the people.

Seperate but equal is inherently unequal, as the saying goes.

You base your arguments on the assumption that "marriage" is this almighty sacred institution - well it's not. It is simply a contract revolving around an exchange of property, and has been that way since the dawn of civilization. Comparing straight marriage to gay marriage is like comparing buying a pair of sunglasses to buying a bracelet; they are the same type of contract, plain and simple.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of marriage entirely in the legislation and replace it with union; the laicitous way tends to be the fairest.
 
Back
Top Bottom