• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are afraid that a civics class is going to make your kids gay? Isn't that the fear of teaching that the government doesn't discriminate against homosexuals? You can teach your kid to discriminate on your own dime. Don't expect the taxpayers to do it. If it the law, it will be taught. The law won't say, "Hey kids, it's acceptable to be gay. Give it a try."

First, who do you think pays for my kid to go to school? Second, matters of sexuality shouldn't be taught at all in school. It's simply not their business. Third, you have no more right to decide what is appropriate to be taught to my children than I do to yours, if you had them.
 
Second, matters of sexuality shouldn't be taught at all in school. It's simply not their business.

And that is why teen pregnancy, and STD's are rampant within high school students.
 
Nice try.

Much better than a "nice try". Your post did nothing to dispute what I said. Let me demonstrate.

The human (or mammal, even) anatomy alone is proof.

No, it's not. Oh, wait. You're going to say that the anatomy is proof because of what these organs were designed for. Well, we know that these organs have several uses, but tell you what. Link me to the designer's website, or link me to some proof of the designer's intent and I'll take a look at it.

Until then... no proof.

I'm sure you know there has been no study attempting to validate heterosexuality

Excellent. My point, exactly. Thank you for proving me correct.

as even the most liberal know it's the natural order of our species and of every other mammal on earth.

And I'm sure that every conservative like you knows that you just committed a naturalistic fallacy.

There is simply no need to conduct such a study.

Of course there is. Without it, there is no proof that heterosexuality is either genetic or physiological. I already asked, so I'll ask again. You are making an assertion. Link to ANY study that demonstrates the physiological or genetic basis for heterosexuality.

I agree that homosexuality has existed as long as recorded history, but I also know that homosexual marriage has been illegal for just as long. The first historical reference to banning it dates back to the roman empire.

And now an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. So, let's count this up. Your post contained two logical fallacies and no proof. Not so good, mac. Not so good.
 
And that is why teen pregnancy, and STD's are rampant within high school students.

No, teen pregnancy and STDs are rampant because the majority of Americas kids spend about 9 hours a day with their parents, and they're asleep for 6-8 of those. What do you expect a kid to be like if he/she is raised by MTV?
 
And once you kick the door open to redefine marriage to accomodate gays, what makes you think you can shut it again before the polygamists, polyamorists, and who knows what else get their foot in? Seriously, if you can justify gay marriage, it is hard to imagine how you could justify denying the same rights to polygamists, group-marriage, line-marriage, or basically about any damn thing anybody wants. The very same pro-SSM arguments would be used against you.

I've debunked the "what about polygamists" slippery slope argument, several times in the past, Goshen. I'll go look for the post, if I need to, but in essence there is are two major differences. Polygamy is NOT a sexual orientation and though research has show the benefits of gay marriage, research has shown the opposite with plural marriage.
 
Much better than a "nice try". Your post did nothing to dispute what I said. Let me demonstrate.



No, it's not. Oh, wait. You're going to say that the anatomy is proof because of what these organs were designed for. Well, we know that these organs have several uses, but tell you what. Link me to the designer's website, or link me to some proof of the designer's intent and I'll take a look at it.

Until then... no proof.



Excellent. My point, exactly. Thank you for proving me correct.



And I'm sure that every conservative like you knows that you just committed a naturalistic fallacy.



Of course there is. Without it, there is no proof that heterosexuality is either genetic or physiological. I already asked, so I'll ask again. You are making an assertion. Link to ANY study that demonstrates the physiological or genetic basis for heterosexuality.



And now an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. So, let's count this up. Your post contained two logical fallacies and no proof. Not so good, mac. Not so good.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I'll assume that you believe in evolution and natural selection. What would be the natural benefit to a portion of a species being born homosexual?
 
Once homosexuality becomes accepted by the state and federal governments then it will be taught in civics classes to children of parents who will take great offense to having their children taught morality by public school teachers which is in direct opposition to their own personal beliefs. These teachers will then utilize (as they already do in some places) the separation of church and state to defend their rights to do so. This is but one of the many problems I see arising. It's a little more complicated than a couple of guys holding hands.

One can teach about the laws, rights, and issues of homosexuality without teaching morality. If GM becomes the law, and parents do not like it being taught in schools, there are other school choices.
 
I've debunked the "what about polygamists" slippery slope argument, several times in the past, Goshen. I'll go look for the post, if I need to, but in essence there is are two major differences. Polygamy is NOT a sexual orientation and though research has show the benefits of gay marriage, research has shown the opposite with plural marriage.

What research has shown that?? You are aware that in a good portion of the world, polygamy is legal and accepted right?
 
This is absolutely ridiculous. I'll assume that you believe in evolution and natural selection. What would be the natural benefit to a portion of a species being born homosexual?

Population control. Rearing of children who are orphaned.
 
Last edited:
What research has shown that?? You are aware that in a good portion of the world, polygamy is legal and accepted right?

Just because it is legal and accepted doesn't mean it is beneficial. Slavery was legal and accepted for a long time... and still is in places. Doesn't mean it was beneficial.
 
One can teach about the laws, rights, and issues of homosexuality without teaching morality. If GM becomes the law, and parents do not like it being taught in schools, there are other school choices.

You are quite correct. This is but one of the reasons why the majority of the American public is opposed to Homosexual Marriage.
 
Just because it is legal and accepted doesn't mean it is beneficial. Slavery was legal and accepted for a long time... and still is in places. Doesn't mean it was beneficial.

The same applies to homosexuality. Still, what research do you cite on polygamy involving consenting adults that shows it to be a detriment to society?
 
No, teen pregnancy and STDs are rampant because the majority of Americas kids spend about 9 hours a day with their parents, and they're asleep for 6-8 of those. What do you expect a kid to be like if he/she is raised by MTV?

No, it's because they have no sexual education. They don't know how to properly use birth control, and/or don't have access to it.
 
First, who do you think pays for my kid to go to school?

I do.
Second, matters of sexuality shouldn't be taught at all in school. It's simply not their business.

Absolutely should be taught in schools. It is certainly important information. Morally does not need to be taught along with it. Further, comprehensive sex education has been shown to lower the risks of teen pregnancy and STD's.

Third, you have no more right to decide what is appropriate to be taught to my children than I do to yours, if you had them.

Well, if the educational system is dictated by historical information, then one of us is not going to be happy.
 
The same applies to homosexuality. Still, what research do you cite on polygamy involving consenting adults that shows it to be a detriment to society?

I will be glad to post my information. As soon as you follow through with my request for studies that show that heterosexuality is physiologically or genetically linked. I asked yesterday and still haven't seen them.
 
I do.


Absolutely should be taught in schools. It is certainly important information. Morally does not need to be taught along with it. Further, comprehensive sex education has been shown to lower the risks of teen pregnancy and STD's.



Well, if the educational system is dictated by historical information, then one of us is not going to be happy.

No, you don't. Not one dime of tax payer money goes towards my child's education. I do however support yours.
 
You are quite correct. This is but one of the reasons why the majority of the American public is opposed to Homosexual Marriage.

Why, because they do not want the legal and issues-based information taught in schools? That's fine. Makes no sense to me, but as I said yesterday, this is what the American people have voted on. They may be basing their decision on morality rather than information, but it is their right to do so.
 
No, you don't. Not one dime of tax payer money goes towards my child's education. I do however support yours.

Then that means that you send your kids to a private school, or homeschool. If that is the case, then you have already done what I said. Pulled your kids from an environment where they were being taught what you did not want then to be taught. Perfectly acceptable.

Oh, and you do not spend a penny on my kids' education.
 
Last edited:
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any more accurate.

No species on earth has displayed any inclination to control it's own population internally. That is an absolutely ridiculous reply.
 
No species on earth has displayed any inclination to control it's own population internally. That is an absolutely ridiculous reply.

You're kidding, right? Natural selection weeds out weaknesses and dangerous recessive genes.

And, you of course missed the second part of my statement.
 
I will be glad to post my information. As soon as you follow through with my request for studies that show that heterosexuality is physiologically or genetically linked. I asked yesterday and still haven't seen them.

It's really not necessary at this point. You are apparently completely ignorant of the human reproductive system. Your argument has completely broken from reality and there is really no reason to attempt a debate with you.
 
You're kidding, right? Natural selection weeds out weaknesses and dangerous recessive genes.

And, you of course missed the second part of my statement.

Natural selection is external to the species. It is not internally driven and is not controlled directly or indirectly by the actors. Read Darwin.
 
It's really not necessary at this point. You are apparently completely ignorant of the human reproductive system. Your argument has completely broken from reality and there is really no reason to attempt a debate with you.

Obviously demonstrating that you have nothing. YOU have no understanding of the human reproductive system, and seem to be one of those who believe that procreation and genetics are the same. You also have shown that your understanding of sexual orientation is minimal at best. You have, thus far, offered nothing to prove your position. Let me know when you have garnered more information on this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom