• 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!

Pushing the "gay" agenda in schools..

Status
Not open for further replies.
mac said:
Why may I want to believe that? If American society as a whole decides that's what it wants, that's what will happen. I want American society to choose for itself rather than be dictated too.
Click to expand...

Well you do continually state that opposition to gay marriage/gay rights is at 80% or more. So if you don't believe that it is really at 80%, then why do you keep stating that it is at that amount?

Along with this, if you do believe that opposition is at 80% or more, it would be nice to have some supporting evidence for that number.

You are the one who tried to say that other civil rights issues that were not supported by the public when they were changed in favor of civil rights were closer to 50/50 at the time. I am showing you that the gay rights issue is close to 50/50 right now.
 
Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg


I just wanted to point out that indoctrination isn't really a new trend in American society.
 
Arcadius said:
Because it looks funnier. I know it's taken out of context; And it's kind of a cheap shot.
Click to expand...

Most people aren't aware of the Bellamy salute, but most people aren't aware that the Pledge was written by a socialist and, arguably, promotes socialist ideas either.

But those things are not really all that relevent to the discussion here.

You do have a good point about indoctination of school children regarding the Pledge, I just think that the use of the Bellamy salute pic undermines that point a bit.
 
More like it undermined the point alot. Appeals to emotion are always weak, and always hurt your point.
 
Tucker Case said:
Most people aren't aware of the Bellamy salute, but most people aren't aware that the Pledge was written by a socialist and, arguably, promotes socialist ideas either.

But those things are not really all that relevent to the discussion here.

You do have a good point about indoctination of school children regarding the Pledge, I just think that the use of the Bellamy salute pic undermines that point a bit.
Click to expand...

Well, the word indoctrination seems to be flying around everywhere, so I'd say it does pertain to the discussion at hand. I just like that picture because the little kids look like Nazis. I guess it wasn't really necessary.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Well you do continually state that opposition to gay marriage/gay rights is at 80% or more. So if you don't believe that it is really at 80%, then why do you keep stating that it is at that amount?
Click to expand...

No, no...that's not what I said, once and not repeatedly...

You are the one who tried to say that other civil rights issues that were not supported by the public when they were changed in favor of civil rights were closer to 50/50 at the time.
Click to expand...

I didn't try to say that. I did say that.

I am showing you that the gay rights issue is close to 50/50 right now.
Click to expand...

choir.
 
OscarB63 said:
but isn't that basically what a lot of our laws are based on? ...what society feels is best?
Click to expand...
No, they are based on the negative and positive rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Technically a Law should never remove a right, even if 51% of society wants to do it.
 
Tucker Case said:
So are you saying that you do not believe in the 9th amendment?
Click to expand...

So, let me see. You feigned ignorance at the thought of bringing in any mention of the 14th (Constitution), and answer with some mention that your point was discussing the ideas of rights in philosophical terms in the context of rights afforded homosexuals, in the specific context of innateness, and naturally occurring, and now you're including a mention of the 9th Amendment; I assume to see if I'm paying attention?

I just want to say.. How are any of the Amendments to the US constitution, and the Bill of Rights, anything other than philosophical? What makes them substantive, Tuck? :)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
So, let me see. You feigned ignorance at the thought of bringing in any mention of the 14th (Constitution), and answer with some mention that your point was discussing the ideas of rights in philosophical terms in the context of rights afforded homosexuals, in the specific context of innateness, and naturally occurring, and now you're including a mention of the 9th Amendment; I assume to see if I'm paying attention?
Click to expand...

I mention the 9th because it is the only portion of the constitution that relates to this discussion without creating an offshoot red herring debate about interpretaton of the constitution (which is where I feel you want the debate to go).

The 9th is pretty clear. Other rights exist other than those enumerated by the constitution.

The philosophical debate here attempts to find common ground about the specific nature of some of those rights doesn't, and doesn't involve specific mention of the constitution outside of the 9th.

I believe that you know this already, since you have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are more than willing to knowingly distort the facts, and even flat out lie, in order to pursue your single-minded agenda, you instead chose to engage in more of your dishonest tactics.

I don't care that you have no intellectual integrity, Tim. That's your own business. But now that I know you are devoid of such integrity, I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt when I debate you. I know you are lying and distorting and engaging in red herrings on purpose. You aren't interested in honest discussion, therefore, I won't bother treating your fallacy-ridden "rebuttals" as honest discussion. I shall treat them for what they are.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
I just want to say.. How are any of the Amendments to the US constitution, and the Bill of Rights, anything other than philosophical? What makes them substantive, Tuck? :)
Click to expand...
The negative and positive rights in the Constitution dictate the restraints of the Law.

Laws are somewhat more powerful than a "philosophy," in my view. Energy doesn't have "substance," but it's still powerful.
 
Tucker Case said:
I mention the 9th because it is the only portion of the constitution that relates to this discussion without creating an offshoot red herring debate about interpretaton of the constitution (which is where I feel you want the debate to go).

The 9th is pretty clear. Other rights exist other than those enumerated by the constitution.

The philosophical debate here attempts to find common ground about the specific nature of some of those rights doesn't, and doesn't involve specific mention of the constitution outside of the 9th.

I believe that you know this already, since you have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are more than willing to knowingly distort the facts, and even flat out lie, in order to pursue your single-minded agenda, you instead chose to engage in more of your dishonest tactics.

I don't care that you have no intellectual integrity, Tim. That's your own business. But now that I know you are devoid of such integrity, I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt when I debate you. I know you are lying and distorting and engaging in red herrings on purpose. You aren't interested in honest discussion, therefore, I won't bother treating your fallacy-ridden "rebuttals" as honest discussion. I shall treat them for what they are.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. I see. Well can I ask you a question? Why is discussing the US constitution, NOT a discussion in philosophy? If we can't center the discussion on a substantive level, then how can discussing it in pure philosophical terms, not be conjecture? Requiring no proof? Were you suggesting that I argue against homosexuality from a purely "moral" standpoint? How else, (Without invoking some substance) can you expect someone to win a debate, or even progress in this discussion trying to justify a moral objection to homosexuality? Isn't that what you were really trying to do, Tucker?

You wanted me to bite on attempting to make an argument that, could not otherwise be made, and survive valid criticism.

Tim-
 
mac said:
Woodrow Wilson is part of todays Democratic Party, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...

Why are you ignoring a fact of history?

Historians consider FDR's election one the quintessential examples of a 'realigning election'. The full effects of it were felt in the following decades...

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified more closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights, and the regulation of business. The opponents, who stressed long-term growth and support for entrepreneurship and low taxes, now started calling themselves "conservatives."
Click to expand...

History of the Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1948, Democrats alienated white Southerners in two ways. The Democratic National Convention adopted a strong civil rights plank, leading to a walkout by Southerners . Two weeks later President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the armed forces. From 1948 onward, southern whites against integration looked for political accommodation for their views.
Click to expand...

History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wilson is not a part of the modern Democratic Party. Saying that means that you are 100% denying the historical party realignment. He did do some 'progressive' things, but they were not the foundation of Democratic Party - perhaps he started the shift that FDR fully realized with the New Deal. Moreover, his foreign policy idealism is expressed in both parties, but most prominently in the Republican Party where the desire to spread democracy and save the world is much more intense than it is in the Democratic Party (see neoconservatives and the differences between George W. Bush's grand strategy and Clinton's). You need to read up on history.

EDIT: I also forgot to add that the progressivism Wilson is associated with was a general trend in the early 20th century among both parties and not something that was exclusive to him.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Hmmm.. I see. Well can I ask you a question? Why is discussing the US constitution, NOT a discussion in philosophy? If we can't center the discussion on a substantive level, then how can discussing it in pure philosophical terms, not be conjecture?
Click to expand...
Why don't you considering the Highest Laws in the US to be "substantive?"

If you mean legal interpretation is subjective, that is not entirely true in the case of the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court weights all Laws put before it by the positive and negative rights explicit or implicit in the text of the US Constitution. Rather than interpret the Constitution, a Justice interprets the ramifications of the Law on our rights. An implicit right is a right implied by the Constitution, such as privacy. The Right to privacy is recognized by the Supreme Court, but is not explicitly written in the Bill of Rights or in the Amendments of the US Constitution, but it is implied heavily. It's the basic of the requirement of a warrant in Constitutional Law, because of the implicit Right each citizen has to privacy. I could list the major positive and negative rights for you and we could compare those rights to any US Law, concerning homosexuals or any subject. But the fact remains that a fragile as our rights are, they exist and have a substantial impact on our Law.
 
Hicup said:
Why is discussing the US constitution, NOT a discussion in philosophy?
Click to expand...

Because discussing the contitution is discussing law.

Discussing the reasoning for placing certain amendments into the constitution is a discussion about philosophy.

If we can't center the discussion on a substantive level, then how can discussing it in pure philosophical terms, not be conjecture?
Click to expand...

Whether or not something is conjecture depends on what one considers sufficient evidence for proof. A purely philosophical discussion requires presenting valid logic in an argument.

If one can also manage to present sound logic (i.e. logic which is valid that also contains true premises), they have definitely provided sufficient proof for a philosophical discussion.

If one throws away any use of valid and sound logic, then one will rely solely on conjecture. But since philosophy requires valid logic at the very least, and sound logic in the best case scenarios, it is never truly just conjecture.


Requiring no proof?
Click to expand...

Logical "proofs" are required in philosophy.


Were you suggesting that I argue against homosexuality from a purely "moral" standpoint?
Click to expand...

No.

I'm suggesting that you argue against homosexuality from a purely fallacious standpoint. I don't know what your motivations are, nor do I care about them. They are irrelvent to the discussion.

What is relevent is that, whatever those motivations may be, they are strong enough that you have shown yourself to be willing to use dishonest tactics and purposefully employ certain fallacies to distort the arguments.

Granted, my beleif that these are willfull actions on your part is due to my respect for your intelligence. I beleive you to be a pretty intelligent person who is aware of the inherent fallcies within many of your arguments. I therefore assume that you employ them purposefully so as to take advantage of those who are less intelligent than you are and unaware of the fallacious nature of the tactics you engage in.

How else, (Without invoking some substance) can you expect someone to win a debate, or even progress in this discussion trying to justify a moral objection to homosexuality?
Click to expand...

By using valid logic as per the standards of philosophical discussions.

Then once one has provided a valid logiclal framework for their views, they can proceed to use evidence to show the truth of their premises, thus presenting an argumetn for the soundness of thier logic. With a valid logical foundation upon which an argumetn is built, the ultimate debate will be regarding the soundness of the framework. This is where the real meat of the debate will exist.

It is the presentation of valid logic that seems to be the ultimate failure in the arguments objecting to homosexuality. They use fallacies including, but not limitted to, appeals to nature, appeals to authority (pointing towards the fact that marriage is not a specifically ennumerated right in the constitution and current laws are examples of this fallacy), appeals to tradition, red herring (beastiality and polygamy are two common examples of this fallacy), appeals to majority, fallacy of four terms, over-generlization, etc.

Often, in response to arguments with these fallacies, the debate ends up being sidetracked into discussions about the truth of the fallacy. i.e. Is homoesxuality natural or normal?

Who cares. Whether or not it is natural or normal has no bearing on the discussion because the argumetns relying on these issues are fallacious, regardless of which side is presenting them.


Isn't that what you were really trying to do, Tucker?

You wanted me to bite on attempting to make an argument that, could not otherwise be made, and survive valid criticism.
Click to expand...

I'm attempting to make you and others present a logically valid foudation for your arguments. Ultimately, that is the goal of my debates on most issues. I do not hide that fact. I want people to provide logical arguments in support of their beliefs. I want people to challenge their unquestioned assumptiosn about the "truth" of that which they believe in. I'm more than willing to egange in a substatiative debate about the truth value of premises in these logically valid arguemtns in order to discover if their argumetns are sound.

I want you to bite on attempting to make an argument which is logically valid. Which doesn't rely on falacy. Which doesn't rely on distortions such as the ones present in the OP of this thread.

If such an argument cannot survive valid criticism, then it is becuase the argument is flawed logically.

As it stands, this is already true about the arguments you present. They are all flawed logically, and as such, cannot survive logically valid criticism. If anything, I'm challenging you to make better arguments. Because it is only in the presence of valid arguments that truly substatiative arguments about the soundness of an arugment can be made.

All too often, these debates end up as arguments regarding the truth of the premises in invalid arguments. But since the arguments are already invalid, the logic is inherently unsound, regardless of how true the premises are. That's why many of my debates will involve pointing out flaws in the underlying logic. Until a person is willing to address these flaws, they aren't really willing to engage in an honest debate on a topic. They instead wish to promote thier views, regardless of the validity of those views.
 
Natural: of or occurring in nature, developing or growing without undue influence, and including natural deviation serving evolutionarily plausible purposes while happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, enlightenment, etc.
 
mac said:
Natural: of or occurring in nature, developing or growing without undue influence, and including natural deviation serving evolutionarily plausible purposes while happening in the ordinary or usual course of things , without the intervention of accident, violence, enlightenment, etc.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you taking the time to come up with this; it's pretty precise.

The entire definition is pretty much how everyone defines nature except for the highlighted part...which I don't subscribe to because:
1. It's highly presumptuous to assume that nature has a purpose.
2. Genetic mutations are not ordinary or the usual course of things and many 'random', 'unusual' things happen in non-human parts of nature, but we still consider them natural.
3. This seems like a definition crafted around a particular perception of homosexuality.
 
theplaydrive said:
Why are you ignoring a fact of history?

Historians consider FDR's election one the quintessential examples of a 'realigning election'. The full effects of it were felt in the following decades...



History of the Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wilson is not a part of the modern Democratic Party. Saying that means that you are 100% denying the historical party realignment. He did do some 'progressive' things, but they were not the foundation of Democratic Party - perhaps he started the shift that FDR fully realized with the New Deal. Moreover, his foreign policy idealism is expressed in both parties, but most prominently in the Republican Party where the desire to spread democracy and save the world is much more intense than it is in the Democratic Party (see neoconservatives and the differences between George W. Bush's grand strategy and Clinton's). You need to read up on history.

EDIT: I also forgot to add that the progressivism Wilson is associated with was a general trend in the early 20th century among both parties and not something that was exclusive to him.
Click to expand...

Like I said, civil rights was added to garner votes. This didn't change the party in any way. I you look at the civil rights issue that the Democrats push, you can see they push them to empower themselves...using the minorities and other "small folk" to generate power.

Jackson and Wilson are still very much alive in the DNC.
 
theplaydrive said:
I appreciate you taking the time to come up with this; it's pretty precise.

The entire definition is pretty much how everyone defines nature except for the highlighted part...which I don't subscribe to because:
1. It's highly presumptuous to assume that nature has a purpose.
2. Genetic mutations are not ordinary or the usual course of things and many 'random', 'unusual' things happen in non-human parts of nature, but we still consider them natural.
3. This seems like a definition crafted around a particular perception of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Genetic mutations most often occur for evolutionary reasons. The definition was written to apply to the argument, sure. There are many other factors that could have been included for other arguments, but I don't think that makes the definition false or contrived in any way.
 
mac said:
Natural: of or occurring in nature, developing or growing without undue influence, and including natural deviation serving evolutionarily plausible purposes while happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, enlightenment, etc.
Click to expand...

Using this definition, driving isn't natural.
 
mac said:
No, no...that's not what I said, once and not repeatedly...
Click to expand...

You have tried to make this claim once, at least, in this thread, but other times in other threads. I have put up poll results to counter the claim that opposition of gay marriage is around 80% a few times in threads such as this.

The fact is however that opposition to gay marriage is, when polls are taken by a fair representation of the US, between 50 and 60%.

mac said:
I didn't try to say that. I did say that.
Click to expand...

And you would be wrong. When interracial marriage was made legal throughout the US by the SCOTUS, opposition was around 70% or more, not around "50/50".

U.S. public opinion polls on same-sex marriage


Also, the most opposed right that homosexuals face is SSM. Most of the rest of the "civil rights" issues are all supported by a majority of people. Gay adoption, gays serving openly in the military, and even some legally sanctioned same sex union (either marriage or civil union) are all supported by a majority of people in the US. The only thing that is opposed by a small majority of people, as far as gay rights issues go, is actually using the word "marriage" to describe a same sex union.

So why exactly should schools, even public schools, not be allowed to inform students that some of the people they may know or know of are gay or inform students that there are same sex couples, who may even be raising children that attend that school, or including books about gay parents in reading time or inform children that gay people are fighting for rights that they believe they deserve in the same way that people who weren't white or women did in our past when those things come up or events happen in either our society or the school that could prompt such discussions, no matter what age/grade the students are in? I am not saying that children in elementary school should learn sex education just to support gay rights, but including gays in discussions about civil rights issues or current events is not getting children into believing that homosexuality is right or wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom