• 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!

Just Plain Wrong

CaptainCourtesy said:
Define abnormal.
Click to expand...

ah the same redundant question that has been answered a 100 times...the dishonest one on here is you and your dishonest rhetoric used to discredit anyone that doesnt say what you want..You just use dodges and the same repetitive questions to avoid any one elses facts and points...you just want what YOU want to hear and no one elses opinions or facts count...from where im sitting you are totally unconvincing and you have shared no facts to support your cheerleader chants....you dont debate the issue you just use the same ruse in everyone of these threads on everyone that isnt on your cheerleading team.

Define how homosexuality is normal
 
Last edited:
Society in general has no objection to it's members being "different" providing those differences have either a positive or static impact on civilization and in no way presents a threat to it's overall welfare.

You people demand evidence of societies rejection of immorality, evidence of what is normal, evidence of what is immoral and how it affects society, in a frantical-fanatical-semantical effort to twist facts, confuse reality and legitimize perversion.

I believe I've made it quite clear that I don't wish to play your silly word games__The point of this thread was of a shy timid little boy, forced to be a pawn by a selfish mother to publicly attack someone who dissagrees with her social policies.

If anyone would care to comment on this I would be happy to join in, but if your only objective is to legitimize homosexuality by demanding acceptance from normal people, you can count me out___Bye-Bye!
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
ah the same redundant question that has been answered a 100 times...the dishonest one on here is you and your dishonest rhetoric used to discredit anyone that doesnt say what you want..You just use dodges and the same repetitive questions to avoid any one elses facts and points...you just want what YOU want to hear and no one elses opinions or facts count...from where im sitting you are totally unconvincing and you have shared no facts to support your cheerleader chants....you dont debate the issue you just use the same ruse in everyone of these threads on everyone that isnt on your cheerleading team.

Define how homosexuality is normal
Click to expand...
Do you think it's possible they've been looped?__Ha-Ha!
 
Empirica said:
Society in general has no objection to it's members being "different" providing those differences have either a positive or static impact on civilization and in no way presents a threat to it's overall welfare.
Click to expand...
Like homosexuality, which has never hurt society?

You people demand evidence of societies rejection of immorality, evidence of what is normal, evidence of what is immoral and how it affects society, in a frantical-fanatical-semantical effort to twist facts, confuse reality and legitimize perversion.
Click to expand...
Um, no, demanding evidence doesn't twist facts. Refusing to give evidence does because it often means that there is no evidence for the argument.

I believe I've made it quite clear that I don't wish to play your silly word games__The point of this thread was of a shy timid little boy, forced to be a pawn by a selfish mother to publicly attack someone who dissagrees with her social policies.
Click to expand...
A. Who said that he was forced to do it?

B. How is it selfish of the mother to want to be treated as an equal to heterosexuals?

If anyone would care to comment on this I would be happy to join in, but if your only objective is to legitimize homosexuality by demanding acceptance from normal people, you can count me out___Bye-Bye!
Click to expand...
So you're willing to debate if the only people you are debating agree with you?
 
nota bene said:
Don't want to get into whether the pile-on is deserved (I've read the posts and understand the frustrations); I'm just saying that stooping to pile-on level doesn't exactly contribute to a civil discourse and is...stooping.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Pile-ons can actually facilitate civil discourse. You see, when someone is incompetent and dishonest, they are, by their very nature, an impediment to civil discourse. Not challenging them on their incompetence and dishonesty makes one a party to the incompetent dishonesty. If I have the capacity to remove an impediment, but choose not to because I fear that my efforts might get me "dirty", then I am just as guilty of impeding as the impediment is.


You've heard the only saying about not wallowing in the mud with a pig, right? The pig likes it, but you both get dirty?
Click to expand...

The point of that cliche is to illustrate the fact that engaging in the same behavior as someone makes you essentially the same as that person.

For it to be analogous in this circumstance, those who are involved in the pile-on would have to be engaging in incompetent dishonesty as well. A more analogous example would be if the person is not wallowing in the mud with the pig, but instead attempting to capture said pig in order to humanely slaughter it so that they can provide a ham dinner for the less fortunate.

The pig wrangler will still get dirty, but for the right reasons.
 
lpast said:
Define how homosexuality is normal
Click to expand...

Here are the definitions of Normal from Websters:

1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency

2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>

4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : sane

5 of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen <normal silver phosphate> c : not associated <normal molecules> d : having a straight-chain structure <normal butyl alcohol>

6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element

7 : relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>

8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix
Click to expand...

Normal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Of those, only 2 and 3 can realistically be used in the context of your question.

If one uses definition 2, homosexuality is not normal, but neither is high intellect.

If one uses definition 3, then it is normal since it does occur naturally (unless all gay people are secretly robots, of course.).

It's a very simple question.



The problem with the "homosexuality is/is not normal" debate is that only an idiot assumes normal = good, abnormal = bad.

But since it is undeniably normal to be an idiot (using both of the aforementioned definitions), lots of people think that way. Which is something I would argue is bad, thus giving a very pointed example of the veracity of the argument that normal =/= good.
 
Empirica said:
Society in general has no objection to it's members being "different" providing those differences have either a positive or static impact on civilization and in no way presents a threat to it's overall welfare.

You people demand evidence of societies rejection of immorality, evidence of what is normal, evidence of what is immoral and how it affects society, in a frantical-fanatical-semantical effort to twist facts, confuse reality and legitimize perversion.

I believe I've made it quite clear that I don't wish to play your silly word games__The point of this thread was of a shy timid little boy, forced to be a pawn by a selfish mother to publicly attack someone who dissagrees with her social policies.

If anyone would care to comment on this I would be happy to join in, but if your only objective is to legitimize homosexuality by demanding acceptance from normal people, you can count me out___Bye-Bye!
Click to expand...

So, since you are claiming somehow that gays "present a threat to it's overall welfare", it being society, you should of course be able to show how? Or does this mean you are running away?
 
Redress said:
So, since you are claiming somehow that gays "present a threat to it's overall welfare", it being society, you should of course be able to show how? Or does this mean you are running away?
Click to expand...
She sees a debate on the issue looming. Wouldn't want to have a debate here, now would we?
 
Questions on a loop require answers on a loop

I for one am tired of looping answers

My final loop will be, "count me out".
 
I have to do it.. it just fits so well here.

 
Empirica said:
Questions on a loop require answers on a loop

I for one am tired of looping answers

My final loop will be, "count me out".
Click to expand...

Is running away from the harsh reality that you don't have an intelligent position something that you consider "moral"?
 
Empirica said:
Questions on a loop require answers on a loop

I for one am tired of looping answers

My final loop will be, "count me out".
Click to expand...

The problem has been you have refused to answer questions actually identifying your position beyond a string a buzzwords.
 
Empirica said:
If anyone would care to comment on this I would be happy to join in, but if your only objective is to legitimize homosexuality by demanding acceptance from normal people, you can count me out___Bye-Bye!
Click to expand...

Cutting and Running 101. Did they teach that at Oxford?
 
Empirica said:
Yea, I'll get right on that Tuck.

I have absolutely nothing better to do than varify the obvious to someone who doesn't recognize that proposition 8 was an open and shut indicator of main stream americas intolerance of perversion and immorality.
Click to expand...

So you're a libertarian?

I don't think so.
 
As an 9 year old who knew there was a gay member in the family, I was bothered by what I heard in church and worried that that that member would "burn in hell' as stated by my sunday school teacher.

Kids know. I applaud this child for taking a stand for his mother.
 
Parrish said:
As an 9 year old who knew there was a gay member in the family, I was bothered by what I heard in church and worried that that that member would "burn in hell' as stated by my sunday school teacher.

Kids know. I applaud this child for taking a stand for his mother.
Click to expand...

I had it explained to me, in church, in front of the whole congregation including my younger sister(I was 7, she was 6) that my mom was going to burn in hell for her perversions. Yes, young people do know, even if they don't really understand.
 
Redress said:
I had it explained to me, in church, in front of the whole congregation including my younger sister(I was 7, she was 6) that my mom was going to burn in hell for her perversions. Yes, young people do know, even if they don't really understand.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a really crappy church.
 
Redress said:
I had it explained to me, in church, in front of the whole congregation including my younger sister(I was 7, she was 6) that my mom was going to burn in hell for her perversions. Yes, young people do know, even if they don't really understand.
Click to expand...

un****ingbelievable
 
lpast said:
ah the same redundant question that has been answered a 100 times...the dishonest one on here is you and your dishonest rhetoric used to discredit anyone that doesnt say what you want..You just use dodges and the same repetitive questions to avoid any one elses facts and points...you just want what YOU want to hear and no one elses opinions or facts count...from where im sitting you are totally unconvincing and you have shared no facts to support your cheerleader chants....you dont debate the issue you just use the same ruse in everyone of these threads on everyone that isnt on your cheerleading team.
Click to expand...

And of course, as is your MO... you refused to define the term. The only one here dodging is you, simply because every time you present an argument, I obliterate it.

Define how homosexuality is normal
Click to expand...

Define normal.
 
MadLib said:
Not normal does not equate immoral.
Click to expand...

Immoral has nothing to do with it...and was never a part of my conversation or opposition to homosexual marriage
 
Empirica said:
Society in general has no objection to it's members being "different" providing those differences have either a positive or static impact on civilization and in no way presents a threat to it's overall welfare.

You people demand evidence of societies rejection of immorality, evidence of what is normal, evidence of what is immoral and how it affects society, in a frantical-fanatical-semantical effort to twist facts, confuse reality and legitimize perversion.

I believe I've made it quite clear that I don't wish to play your silly word games__The point of this thread was of a shy timid little boy, forced to be a pawn by a selfish mother to publicly attack someone who dissagrees with her social policies.

If anyone would care to comment on this I would be happy to join in, but if your only objective is to legitimize homosexuality by demanding acceptance from normal people, you can count me out___Bye-Bye!
Click to expand...

Translation: Since it has been proven that I know little about the issue, have had each of my points shown to be either irrelevant, ignorant, or wrong, I'm going to leave the thread.

Good to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom