• 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!

Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

Bronson said:
Not "many cultures". That's a lie. Marriage has always had one meaning to 99.99999999999999% of all human beings who ever lived. Ever. Even the liberal justices on the supreme court recognize this. You are the extremist here.
Click to expand...

OK ... so in your world stating facts = extremist. I get that.



Yes gays are being given the special right to change the definition of what marriage is from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

Why do only gays get this special right on not any other sexual interest group? If "Marriage is a Civil Right" who gets excluded? Do you believe marriage is a "Civil Right"?
Click to expand...

I don't use the term Civil Right. I use the term Human Right.

You want to deny people their human rights by excluding them from having the opportunity to marry the person they choose to, because you personally do not choose to marry a person of the same sex as yourself.




Gays cannot procreate through gay sex
Click to expand...

so what?




Nobody ever said you have to procreate when you get married, but women or men who are infertile have still been able to get married because that union still fit within the definition of what marriage is. Gays are demanding the special right to change the definition of what marriage is. Stick to the topic.

1) Rubbish.
2) Let them try? So anything goes right? I thought marriage was a "civil right". You would discriminate against other people who want to change the definition of marriage to fit their needs?
3) Marriage as an institution has ALWAYS been about children. Even if infertile couples can't make a baby, that union was still man + woman and those people didn't try and change the definition of what marriage means. Marriage however has always had specific social and economic purposes that do have to do with spawning new taxpayers.
Click to expand...
if marriage has ALWAYS been about children and the spawning of new taxpayers, then heterosexual couples who use contraception, engage in oral and/or anal sex, are older or who may be infertile or who choose not to have children should also be denied the right to marry.

They should be happy with a civil ceremony.


There are literally 5 posters right now who can't even get their narrative straight. It's pure emotion with the Left.
Click to expand...

what would you say your narrative is based on?


Even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court recognized marriage has always meant man + ?. You can try and make a morally relative argument about "spirit brothers" or something, but it's ludicrous to try. Someone even went as far as to mention Nero. It's not my problem if you a radical extremist who is trying to shape reality around your emotions and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

using "always" detracts from the veracity of the argument


1) Is Marriage a "Civil Right"? Still waiting for the definitive answer on this one. Been pages of hand wringing, name calling, and dancing around the question. Quite hilarious.

2) If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage to fit their needs, what other sexual interest groups get the same "right" and which ones don't?

I'd like to condense all the raging and histrionics to these 2 particular points. Thanks:)
Click to expand...

1. Do you believe that you having the right to marry the person you love is your civil right?

2. gays are not being given a "special right" to do anything. They are being given the same right as heterosexual people. the right to marry the person they love

3. which sexual interest groups?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Wrong. And I already proved that you are completely ignorant on this particular issue.
Click to expand...

No you just lied with your normal bull**** and responded to multiple posts just like a little kid that thinks louder is always the winner, how dumb.
 
Rocketman said:
I accept your concession
Click to expand...

I understand a leftist like yourself offers nothing but spin. The reality is you appear to desire to limit the freedom and equality of those that you do not like or agree with. Noted. There are several leaders in history that were the same way.
 
Arbo said:
I understand a leftist like yourself offers nothing but spin. The reality is you appear to desire to limit the freedom and equality of those that you do not like or agree with. Noted. There are several leaders in history that were the same way.
Click to expand...

I simply do not believe in legislation changes for to our current marriage laws to benefit people with clear chemical imbalances.
 
Rocketman said:
I simply do not believe in legislation changes for to our current marriage laws to benefit people with clear chemical imbalances.
Click to expand...

You can justify your hate for others however you like. That doesn't make it not exist.
 
Arbo said:
You can justify your hate for others however you like. That doesn't make it not exist.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse pity for hate, just like serial killers I wish we could cure their strange desires.
 
Rocketman said:
Don't confuse pity for hate, just like serial killers I wish we could cure their strange desires.
Click to expand...
Wow!Are you actually equating homosexuals with serial killers?That's really messed up of you if you are.
 
Rocketman said:
Don't confuse pity for hate, just like serial killers I wish we could cure their strange desires.
Click to expand...

Keep it up, I love when people with bigoted and/or ignorant views expose themselves. More, more.
 
Deuce said:
Nope... definitely hate!
Click to expand...

You and others need to get one thing through your heads. If you repeatedly call people racists and homophobes for BS reasons, all you're going to accomplish is making them sick as hell of false accusations and give them a legitimate reason to hate.
 
Last edited:
Mathematician said:
You and others need to get one thing through your heads. If you repeatedly call people racists and homophobes for BS reasons, all you're going to accomplish is making them sick as hell of false accusations and give them a legitimate reason to hate.
Click to expand...

When anyone that puts themselves out there as part of a belief system that generally supports the Constitution, but overrides that belief in order to not support freedom and equality as put forth by the Constitution, they get called what they are. Deal.
 
Last edited:
Arbo said:
When anyone that puts themselves out there as part of a belief system that generally supports the Constitution, but overrides that belief in order to not support freedom and equality as put forth by the Constitution, they get called what they are. Deal.
Click to expand...

Where is Gay Marriage mentioned in The Constitution

Where are the volumes of writings and letters from The Founders supporting Gay Marriage, or that they ever believed The Constitution endorsed such a social experiment

Feel free to produce the evidence
 
Bronson said:
Nobody ever said you have to procreate when you get married
Click to expand...

Excellent. So your procreation argument is irrelevant. I will now expect you to cease using it or bringing it up... as YOU did.


1) Rubbish.
Click to expand...

No response, eh? I'm right, of course.

2) Let them try? So anything goes right? I thought marriage was a "civil right". You would discriminate against other people who want to change the definition of marriage to fit their needs?
Click to expand...

Stick to the topic. The topic is SSM. If people interested in promoting incest marriage want to, let them try. Not the issue here. Like I said, stick to the topic rather than throwing out red herrings and irrelevant slippery slope arguments.

3) Marriage as an institution has ALWAYS been about children.
Click to expand...

I know it's easier for you to respond to what you want me to have written rather than what I have written, but it's quite dishonest to do that. Marriage is NOT about PROCREATING children. Never has been.

Even if infertile couples can't make a baby, that union was still man + woman and those people didn't try and change the definition of what marriage means. Marriage however has always had specific social and economic purposes that do have to do with spawning new taxpayers.
Click to expand...

No, procreation is irrelevant... even YOU said it here:

Bronson said:
Nobody ever said you have to procreate when you get married
Click to expand...

Marriage is about RAISING children. And all evidence demonstrates that gay couples do it just as well as straight couples. Therefore, based on what you said, seems to me that you should be supporting SSM.

There are literally 5 posters right now who can't even get their narrative straight. It's pure emotion with the Left.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are the one who can't seem to get his argument straight, but that is standard operating procedures for extreme conservatives.
 
Rocketman said:
No you just lied with your normal bull**** and responded to multiple posts just like a little kid that thinks louder is always the winner, how dumb.
Click to expand...

No, I posted accurate information and when challenged you screamed and refused to back your position. Typical of you since you can't.
 
Rocketman said:
I simply do not believe in legislation changes for to our current marriage laws to benefit people with clear chemical imbalances.
Click to expand...

This further demonstrates your ignorance on this topic. Post substantiation for the "clear chemical imbalances" of which you speak. Or are you just going to scream and refuse as you usually do?
 
Mathematician said:
You and others need to get one thing through your heads. If you repeatedly call people racists and homophobes for BS reasons, all you're going to accomplish is making them sick as hell of false accusations and give them a legitimate reason to hate.
Click to expand...

When you post the false crap that you do, you demonstrate that these are not BS reasons. If you don't want these accusations, educate yourself on the topic so you won't post your own BS.
 
Mathematician said:
You and others need to get one thing through your heads. If you repeatedly call people racists and homophobes for BS reasons, all you're going to accomplish is making them sick as hell of false accusations and give them a legitimate reason to hate.
Click to expand...

You're defending people who compare gay people to serial killers and murderers, yet when we call them homophobes, it's clearly BS? Seriously?
 
Rocketman said:
Don't confuse pity for hate, just like serial killers I wish we could cure their strange desires.
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:
You're defending people who compare gay people to serial killers and murderers, yet when we call them homophobes, it's clearly BS? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Read it again, buddy! He's saying serial killers and homosexuals have the similarity of being misguided by their own minds and he'd like to see them both corrected and thinking straight, quite literally for the latter. Several of you are getting your panties in a bunch as if he said packing fudge was equivalent to killing 20 people.
 
Mathematician said:
Read it again, buddy! He's saying serial killers and homosexuals have the similarity of being misguided by their own minds and he'd like to see them both corrected and thinking straight, quite literally for the latter. Several of you are getting your panties in a bunch as if he said packing fudge was equivalent to killing 20 people.
Click to expand...

He's lumping them into the same category, as if there's even anything remotely similar about them. He made the comparison to be theatrical. Are you really surprised or shocked that people tend to think he just might be a homophobe?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
He's lumping them into the same category, as if there's even anything remotely similar about them. He made the comparison to be theatrical. Are you really surprised or shocked that people tend to think he just might be a homophobe?
Click to expand...

He has the opinion, like mine, that homosexuals have a wire out of place in their heads. I think you'll agree that serial killers have issues mentally, even if it's just not having a conscience. Perhaps a course in set theory would help you all. As I've just defined the homos and killers above, they are both subsets of the set of people who have an issue with their brain. Do you get all upset that the term criminal includes rapists and a mother stealing food to feed her kids?
 
Mathematician said:
He has the opinion, like mine, that homosexuals have a wire out of place in their heads. I think you'll agree that serial killers have issues mentally, even if it's just not having a conscience. Perhaps a course in set theory would help you all. As I've just defined the homos and killers above, they are both subsets of the set of people who have an issue with their brain. Do you get all upset that the term criminal includes rapists and a mother stealing food to feed her kids?
Click to expand...

I'm not upset. Why are you getting butt hurt when you or your buddy get called a homophobe? We are of the opinion that people like you have a wire out of place in your heads.

If you don't want to be called a duck, don't quack like one.

And let's say, for argument's sake, they did have a "wire out of place in their heads". Why does that give you the power and right to define their ability to make a marriage commitment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom