• 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!

[W:363]accepting gay as normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
dixon01767 said:
Well, your point was that I was "wrong", except you cant point out what I was wrong about.
………...
Otherwise the kids have only the hope that someone voluntarily assumes those responsibilities.
Click to expand...


roguenuke said:
I've posted much more than just "you're wrong", most of which you haven't addressed.

You are wrong about parental obligation. Parental obligation can come from choosing to take on that responsibility.
Click to expand...

Youre demonstrating my point beautifully.
 
roguenuke said:
I posted a link in a post above. I've shown how it wasnt universal.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No you didn't

There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

Same sex Unions, contracts, partnership, and ritualized ceremonies. Just not marriages.
 
dixon01767 said:
No you didn't

There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

Same sex Unions, contracts, partnership, and ritualized ceremonies. Just not marriages.
Click to expand...

Post 814.

13 Facts on the History of Marriage | Live Science

Those unions were marriages. The exact word marriage didnt exist until around 1200-1300 AD, so to say they werent marriage would mean you couldnt really call any unions marriages until that point in time.

Marriage - Wikipedia

Note how you left out some of the actual quote to replace with your own beliefs.

"Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage.[1]*" (dishonest much?)

And your assertion has been that marriage was universally for child procreation and/or paternity. Your assertion is wrong. Several civilizations have had marriages that prove you wrong, such as polygamy, polygyny, group marriages, and ghost marriages. There have even been proxy marriages. How in a polygynous marriage would you use it to determine the father?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
Youre demonstrating my point beautifully.
Click to expand...
The only thing kids have is the hope that someone will care for them when they are born. That does not make either bio parent obligated to do so however, regardless of how many times you assert as such. That child can be abandoned or put up for adoption. The mother could have no clue who the father is, or not disclose to the father or anyone else who he is, that she was pregnant, had a child. She could use a donor egg, which would make the child not biologically hers, whether she carried it or not.

These are all things that easily counter your contentions on marriage and paternity.

Note how you fail to address how parental assumptions have any affect on marriage or marriage on those assumptions. People are idiots who assume all sorts of dumb things.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Note how you left out some of the actual quote to replace with your own beliefs.
Click to expand...

Notice how you lie like a dog. Was an exact quote.

There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

But you all will always have Nero and Elagabalus as your precedent setters

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other males on different occasions. The first was with one of Nero's own freedmen, Pythagoras, with whom Nero took the role of the bride.[107] Later, as a groom, Nero married Sporus, a young boy, to replace the adolescent female concubine he had killed[108][109] and married him in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, after which Sporus was forced to pretend to be the female concubine that Nero had killed and act as though they were really married.[108] A friend gave the "bride" away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[110]

Conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[111] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[112]
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
The only thing kids have is the hope that someone will care for them when they are born. That does not make either bio parent obligated to do so however, regardless of how many times you assert as such. That child can be abandoned or put up for adoption. The mother could have no clue who the father is, or not disclose to the father or anyone else who he is, that she was pregnant, had a child. She could use a donor egg, which would make the child not biologically hers, whether she carried it or not.

These are all things that easily counter your contentions on marriage and paternity.
Click to expand...


Your not contradicting anything Ive stated. Nothing above contradicts or conflicts with anything Ive said. Slaying some strawman again?
 
dixon01767 said:
Notice how you lie like a dog. Was an exact quote.

There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

No it isnt. You have the period misplaced and left off some words.

"Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage.[1]*State-..."

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
Your not contradicting anything Ive stated. Nothing above contradicts or conflicts with anything Ive said. Slaying some strawman again?
Click to expand...
Yes it does. You stated that marriage has been universally between men and women for the purpose of paternity, procreation. Because men and women can procreate with each other.

First, it has not only been between just one man and one woman universally.

Second, it has not been limited, where it was, because of procreation or paternity, since other laws show this is wrong.

Last, this is also not those times. In current times, right now, we dont need to assume paternity. We also have adoption, stepfamilies, and even surrogates, sperm/egg donation, IVF, which are brand new and allow everyone to be parents who are married but dont want to adopt, cant have their own children together.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
No it isnt. You have the period misplaced and left off some words.
Click to expand...

People who lie like a dog dont hesitate to lie like a dog to cover for their previous lies.
 
dixon01767 said:
People who lie like a dog dont hesitate to lie like a dog to cover for their previous lies.
Click to expand...
So you are just going to claim I'm lying eventhough the evidence shows that what you quoted does not match, in fact states different than your claim?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
So you are just going to claim I'm lying eventhough the evidence shows that what you quoted does not match, in fact states different than your claim?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nah, Il show again the quote and the link it was taken from. Taken word for word, copied and pasted from the site. JUST BECAUSE you would prefer that I would of copied and pasted a different portion from the link, doesn't negate the fact that -
"There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions."
is a precise quote from
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

No movement of the period, not a single word edited and not a single word added.
 
dixon01767 said:
Nah, Il show again the quote and the link it was taken from. Taken word for word, copied and pasted from the site. JUST BECAUSE you would prefer that I would of copied and pasted a different portion from the link, doesn't negate the fact that -
"There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions."
is a precise quote from
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

No movement of the period, not a single word edited and not a single word added.
Click to expand...

The very first one is from the same link, in the first part you read, and shows that you selectively chose one only to exclude the relevant remarks, to exclude the part you didnt agree with.

You are still debating dishonestly, insisting that without the words "including in marriage", that means they never were allowed to marry, despite that being part of the first paragraph you read.

There is evidence of same sex marriages throughout that article, yet you are insistent that the lack of the word marriage in one paragraph is evidence it didn't exist.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Da Mole said:
Up front---I am not in favor of gays being attacked or victimized in any way.
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting that out there at the beginning... that way nobody can accuse you of being anti-homosexual. Well played.

Their affliction is not self imposed or chosen but the result of an unfortunate act of nature and if it were the norm, most of us would not be here today.
Click to expand...

Yes, those poor afflicted gay people that resulted from an unfortunate act of nature... you are so compassionate. *sniffle*

Those, mostly on the liberal left are working hard to normalize gay behavior to the detriment of us all.
Click to expand...

Those BASTARDS trying to help homosexuals feel like accepted members of society! ****ING ****ER ****S!!! ****!

How did Sodom and Gomorrah work out?
Click to expand...

I still weep about that... oh Sodom!! Or Gomorrah!!!

The left leaning agenda has progressed so far in the media that almost every prime time show on TV includes some type of gay activity. Pandering politicians have passed laws the favor the LGBTQ crowd making them a separate protected segment of society. I have actually seen a commercial recently that had two gay men swapping spit. You can shove this stuff down my throat but I will not accept it as gospel.
Click to expand...

Two gays guys were swapping spit? That **** is unacceptable.

If homosexuality bothers you as much as it bothers the guy who posted this post then you need some serious help.

Your turn, go for it.
Click to expand...

Go get therapy...
 
roguenuke said:
The very first one is from the same link, …..
Click to expand...

I never claimed your quote was inaccurate. You claimed mine was inaccurate. You were lying like a dog. My quote is accurate, word for word. No period moved, no words left off.

roguenuke said:
There is evidence of same sex marriages throughout that article
Click to expand...

No evidence of contracts, unions, partnerships and ritualized ceremonies. And like with Nero and Elagabalus when same sex people did marry, it wasn't recognized by the law. There was a sect of monks who practiced same sex unions and they were executed by the law.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Those BASTARDS trying to help homosexuals feel like accepted members of society! ****ING ****ER ****S!!! ****!.
Click to expand...

Marriage USED to be about improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couplings produce. Now its about helping gays feel better about their homosexuality.
 
dixon01767 said:
Marriage USED to be about improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couplings produce. Now its about helping gays feel better about their homosexuality.
Click to expand...

That is why everybody I know gets married.... to help gays feel better about their homosexuality. You post the bestest.
 
dixon01767 said:
I never claimed your quote was inaccurate. You claimed mine was inaccurate. You were lying like a dog. My quote is accurate, word for word. No period moved, no words left off.



No evidence of contracts, unions, partnerships and ritualized ceremonies. And like with Nero and Elagabalus when same sex people did marry, it wasn't recognized by the law. There was a sect of monks who practiced same sex unions and they were executed by the law.
Click to expand...
I wasnt lying. I didnt see the second quote being made, which was exactly like the first one in that link, except the specific phrase that you attempted to omit through selective quoting to support your argument of their not unions not being like marriage.

It was not accurate because you tried to use that single quote to indicate marriage wasnt included as part of what same sex couples could enter into. That is not true. And the fact that other places in that same link showed it was not true, said different, even used that quote with the addition of including marriage shows you were dishonestly trying to represent it as not supporting that same sex couples could get married in the past.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is why everybody I know gets married.... to help gays feel better about their homosexuality. You post the bestest.
Click to expand...

I, of course, was not referring to an individuals motives for entering marriage but instead societies motivations in promoting the institution.
 
roguenuke said:
I wasnt lying. I didnt see the second quote being made, …..
Click to expand...

Not really believable after you repeated the claim 3more times after I pointed out that it was a word for word quote.
 
dixon01767 said:
Not really believable after you repeated the claim 3more times after I pointed out that it was a word for word quote.
Click to expand...
Except that I posted the first quote each time. Not really that difficult to see I was looking at that one, not the one you posted.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
I, of course, was not referring to an individuals motives for entering marriage but instead societies motivations in promoting the institution.
Click to expand...

Gay people should have always been allowed to get married and it is better for them and society that they can do so now....
 
Bodhisattva said:
Thanks for putting that out there at the beginning... that way nobody can accuse you of being anti-homosexual. Well played.



Yes, those poor afflicted gay people that resulted from an unfortunate act of nature... you are so compassionate. *sniffle*



Those BASTARDS trying to help homosexuals feel like accepted members of society! ****ING ****ER ****S!!! ****!



I still weep about that... oh Sodom!! Or Gomorrah!!!



Two gays guys were swapping spit? That **** is unacceptable.

If homosexuality bothers you as much as it bothers the guy who posted this post then you need some serious help.



Go get therapy...
Click to expand...

I am not anti-gay, I am anti the gay agenda of forcing me to condone their unnatural sexual behavior. At least you admit that gays are the result of an UNFORTUNATE act of nature. Once again ---Not natural. Sodom and Gomorrah may be fiction but it portrays a demented society based on sexual perversion. You may not like the term "swapping spit" but but it is still an accurate description of the action, gay or straight. If you think that homosexuality should get special treatment and acceptance how about necrophilia? Those individuals were, just like the gays born different. They are not hurting anybody and they practice this behavior behind closed doors. Not infringing on you or me so what is the harm there? Over the top scenario but you get the point, Is nothing sacred anymore?
 
Da Mole said:
I am not anti-gay, I am anti the gay agenda of forcing me to condone their unnatural sexual behavior. At least you admit that gays are the result of an UNFORTUNATE act of nature. Once again ---Not natural. Sodom and Gomorrah may be fiction but it portrays a demented society based on sexual perversion. You may not like the term "swapping spit" but but it is still an accurate description of the action, gay or straight. If you think that homosexuality should get special treatment and acceptance how about necrophilia? Those individuals were, just like the gays born different. They are not hurting anybody and they practice this behavior behind closed doors. Not infringing on you or me so what is the harm there? Over the top scenario but you get the point, Is nothing sacred anymore?
Click to expand...

I am not anti Christian. I am anti the unnatural Christian agenda
 
Da Mole said:
I am not anti-gay, I am anti the gay agenda of forcing me to condone their unnatural sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

No gay person gives a flying **** if you accept their lifestyle or not... they just don't want to be treated disrespectfully or discriminated against as a result of it... just like you and I don't want to be treated that way because we are heterosexual.

At least you admit that gays are the result of an UNFORTUNATE act of nature. Once again ---Not natural.
Click to expand...

Absolutely natural... it happens in nature and we are but a part of nature. There are actual issues in the world and your hatred (or mind boggling ignorance) is not helping in any positive way.

Sodom and Gomorrah may be fiction but it portrays a demented society based on sexual perversion.
Click to expand...

Religion is one of the major downfalls of humanity... it unfortunately pits people against each other instead of uniting them.

If you think that homosexuality should get special treatment
Click to expand...

Homosexuals don't get special treatment. :roll:

If anything, they are still treated poorly.

and acceptance how about necrophilia? Those individuals were, just like the gays born different.
Click to expand...

Is that your idea of speaking intelligently and logically? The two are nothing alike...

They are not hurting anybody and they practice this behavior behind closed doors. Not infringing on you or me so what is the harm there? Over the top scenario but you get the point, Is nothing sacred anymore?
Click to expand...

Idiotic. You don't understand the difference between two consenting adults and taking a dead body and having sex with it? What is wrong with you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom