• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Sound Victory in the Gay Rights Movement

RightatNYU said:
It's good that you recognize that your own personal beliefs as to what sexual acts between two consenting adults are none of your business, and you have no right to legislate there. We're making progress with you, Navy.:lol:

Why should the governent recognize marriage at all? I think everyone who wants to marry another person should get a civil union which offers some sort of tax benefits, sharing of property, hospital access rights, etc.
Click to expand...


The government is in a lot of areas it does not belong..Can you say abortion?

The reason it is involved in marriage though is because of the benefits the government gives married people.........

Not sure I want to be on your side........:confused: Jusy kidding.......
 
Navy Pride said:
...
As far as the divorce issue goes, its true the divorce rate is around 50% but the pecentage is very badly skewed because of the high divorce rate of young people getting divorces......When you get up to age of 30 or over you will find the divorce rate is much lower........
Click to expand...
Navy Pride's post is :spin: ing in the wind, again!

What is the divorce rate of people over 50? 70? 90? What a ridiculous argument.

You're a frickin' genius Navy Pride!

I must also comment on your opinion that anal sex is PERVERTED. I think anal sex is just another form of sexual pleasure....and I also think that someone who uses the word PERVERTED to describe non-violent sex acts has serious issues regarding their own sexuality, hang-ups, most likely these hang-ups are borne in repressive thinking taught to too many people, especially those above 60....

Sex is a pleasure not a perversion....what is perverted, IMHO is the concept that sex is wrong...

Just another great post from that Frickin' Genius...keep it up Mr. Pride!
 
I must also comment on your opinion that anal sex is PERVERTED. I think anal sex is just another form of sexual pleasure....and I also think that someone who uses the word PERVERTED to describe non-violent sex acts has serious issues regarding their own sexuality, hang-ups, most likely these hang-ups are borne in repressive thinking taught to too many people, especially those above 60....
Click to expand...

As I already said Chumps the anus was devised as and out take for refuse not as and intake, but if you like receiving anal that is your business...I could care less what you do in the privacy of your bedroom whether you be straight or gay but to me its still a perverted abnormal sex act........Enjoy though.................

THE YANKEES ARE THE WORSE TEMA IN BASEBALL..................THEY SUCK BIG TIME........
 
Navy Pride said:
As I already said Chumps the anus was devised as and out take for refuse not as and intake, but if you like receiving anal that is your business..
Click to expand...
:2funny: Chumps? Receiving Anal? Your genius increases with every post my dear friend, Mr. Pride!

:moon: :moon: :moon:
 
26 X World Champs said:
Just another great post from that Frickin' Genius...keep it up Mr. Pride!
Click to expand...

Navy Pride said:
THE YANKEES ARE THE WORSE TEMA IN BASEBALL..................THEY SUCK BIG TIME........
Click to expand...

[Moderator mode]
:smash:

That is IT!...Enough of this childish rubbish!...On & on & on...like two kids who can't stop touching each other in the back of the car...

This is how it plays out...simple & to the point....

Champs & Navy...Stick to the topics and the topics only....Both of you have proven that you don't know how to play together...If you can't do that, don't bother discussing anything....

Champs....I see "frickin genius" one more time and you're out...One month...

Navy...I see "Yankees suck" one more time and you're out...One month...

End of discussion...

[/Moderator mode]
 
cnredd said:
[Moderator mode]


That is IT!...Enough of this childish rubbish!...On & on & on...like two kids who can't stop touching each other in the back of the car...

This is how it plays out...simple & to the point....

Champs & Navy...Stick to the topics and the topics only....Both of you have proven that you don't know how to play together...If you can't do that, don't bother discussing anything....

Champs....I see "frickin genius" one more time and you're out...One month...

Navy...I see "Yankees suck" one more time and you're out...One month...

End of discussion...

[/Moderator mode]
Click to expand...

:rofl :applaud :rock :bravo:

too frickin funny
 
cnredd said:
[Moderator mode]
:smash:

That is IT!...Enough of this childish rubbish!...On & on & on...like two kids who can't stop touching each other in the back of the car...

This is how it plays out...simple & to the point....

Champs & Navy...Stick to the topics and the topics only....Both of you have proven that you don't know how to play together...If you can't do that, don't bother discussing anything....

Champs....I see "frickin genius" one more time and you're out...One month...

Navy...I see "Yankees suck" one more time and you're out...One month...

End of discussion...

[/Moderator mode]
Click to expand...

I think it is against the rules for a MODERATOR to publicly admonish a member this way.

Let's permit the people who run this site to decide if it's OK for a moderator to attack members in public!

I could care less if Navy Pride writes unkind things about me. It doesn't bother me at all. I enjoy the repartee and I think he might too.

CNREDD? He's got a chip on his shoulder against my politics, in my humble opinion and that is why this post was written.

If I am wrong, I humbly aplogize for misinterpreting what I consider a personal attack against me by a moderator.
 
26 X World Champs said:
I think it is against the rules for a MODERATOR to publicly admonish a member this way.

Let's permit the people who run this site to decide if it's OK for a moderator to attack members in public!

I could care less if Navy Pride writes unkind things about me. It doesn't bother me at all. I enjoy the repartee and I think he might too.

CNREDD? He's got a chip on his shoulder against my politics, in my humble opinion and that is why this post was written.

If I am wrong, I humbly aplogize for misinterpreting what I consider a personal attack against me by a moderator.
Click to expand...

*passes 26x the box of tissues again* :lol:
 
cnredd said:
[Moderator mode]
:smash:

That is IT!...Enough of this childish rubbish!...On & on & on...like two kids who can't stop touching each other in the back of the car...

This is how it plays out...simple & to the point....

Champs & Navy...Stick to the topics and the topics only....Both of you have proven that you don't know how to play together...If you can't do that, don't bother discussing anything....

Champs....I see "frickin genius" one more time and you're out...One month...

Navy...I see "Yankees suck" one more time and you're out...One month...

End of discussion...

[/Moderator mode]
Click to expand...

Got it, but if you want to call me out about something PM me don't do it in the forum..................
 
Navy Pride said:
Got it, but if you want to call me out about something PM me..................
Click to expand...
Navy, you and I are on the same page here. You and I have fun with each other, and I think we're both "tough" enough to not take it too seriously or mind what the other person is writing.

Mods are not supposed to publicly admonish forum members, period...IMHO.
 
cnredd said:
[Moderator mode]
:smash:

That is IT!...Enough of this childish rubbish!...On & on & on...like two kids who can't stop touching each other in the back of the car...

This is how it plays out...simple & to the point....

Champs & Navy...Stick to the topics and the topics only....Both of you have proven that you don't know how to play together...If you can't do that, don't bother discussing anything....

Champs....I see "frickin genius" one more time and you're out...One month...

Navy...I see "Yankees suck" one more time and you're out...One month...

End of discussion...

[/Moderator mode]
Click to expand...


wow, that was rude, at best. couldnt that have been done through a private message or something...way to flex those mod muscles for your own amusement. :2wave:
 
DeeJayH said:
where in the world do you get this
and reading into it, it sounds like you see some higher intelligence intervening in the sexual orientation of species to control the populations
Personally i think gays are entitled to every protection and right under the law
Just as i think Blind people, retarded people and any other person with any type of aberration should

No animal has gotten on the face of this planet through homosexual reproduction.
It is abnormal.
however it is not a choice they made
I never chose to be straight, but i am
homosexuality, genetic sterility, retardation, mutations all are anomalies
not their fault
not their choice
and they should not be treated differently as a result of how they were born
but it does not make them normal, if there is such a thing ;) :lol:
Click to expand...

Biology classes. I know, a crazy thing, that rabbit reproduction system. Seriously try a little research. It is extremely well documented. No higher power about it. Simply evolution saying that the species tends to survive better if reproduction is controlled.

There is no such thing as homosexual reproduction...although there is asexual reproduction. Regardless, species that do have homosexuals are doing just fine, so it doesn't appear to be harming anything.

Being caucasian, according to your "defintition" is abnormal too.
 
26 X World Champs said:
I think it is against the rules for a MODERATOR to publicly admonish a member this way.

Let's permit the people who run this site to decide if it's OK for a moderator to attack members in public!

I could care less if Navy Pride writes unkind things about me. It doesn't bother me at all. I enjoy the repartee and I think he might too.

CNREDD? He's got a chip on his shoulder against my politics, in my humble opinion and that is why this post was written.

If I am wrong, I humbly aplogize for misinterpreting what I consider a personal attack against me by a moderator.
Click to expand...

[mod mode]

In response to this and to every one else who feels that this should have been conducted through PMs:

Sometimes we do issue warnings through PM. Sometimes we don't. In instances like this, cnredd felt, and the moderating team as well, that the interests of the forum were best served if we made it public. If it had just been an isolated event, obviously "the yankees suck" or "your a freakin genius" wouldn't have been enough to constitute a warning of any type. The fact that it was repeated to the point of insanity through many threads detracts from the quality of the thread. Whether you, champs, or navy were insulted is irrelevant. It is the childish behavior that is bringing down the quality of debatepolitics that will not be allowed. And, as such, it needed to be made public, so hopefully all other people annoyed at the middle school tactics used by you two will see that this site will not allow it.

[/mod mode]
 
jallman said:
wow, that was rude, at best. couldnt that have been done through a private message or something...way to flex those mod muscles for your own amusement. :2wave:
Click to expand...

This is not the first time the events precipitation Cnredd's post have happened, nor, I suspect, will they be the last.

Childish arguing between members of the board contributes nothing, and if after attempt after attempt by the moderators to handle this matter privately, nothing has changed, then things have to be stepped up.

And for the record, regarding your question Champs, it's perfectly acceptable for mods to admonish detrimental behavior in the forums. It happens every day for lesser offenses than this.

Easy way to avoid being "called out again?" Champ and Navy, put each other on ignore. You both obviously have no respect for anything the other one says, and gain nothing from bitterly arguing. I can say with certainty that neither one of you will ever convince the other to join their side, so why raise your blood pressure over an online forum? Be easy...
 
galenrox said:
Oh come on man, where the hell have you been living, under a rock? I was well into dry humping and finger****ing broads by time I was 14, and a good half my friends had already lost their virginities.
Click to expand...


And we see the results.
 
Kelzie said:
I know why statutory rape laws are there, and I do agree with them, I just don't have a problem with 18 and 14.
Click to expand...

And I note your age. Get back to me when you have a 14 year old daughter and an 18 year old is trying to have sex with here and you find out about it.

I had sex when I had just turned 15 and not only did that extra week not do much for my mental development, having sex didn't turn me crazy. Or is that what you righties think is going to happen? And plenty of 14 year-old girls are more than mature enough to date an 18 year-old guy.
Click to expand...

Oh please spare me, perhaps if the 18 is grossly immature and that is reason enough for the 14 year not to be involved. There is a hugh difference between 14 year olds and 18 year olds believing that they can have a proper sexual relationship is absurd. Just accepting 14 year olds engaged in sex is the height of absurdity. What happen to letting kids just be kids without putting the adult pressure of sexual activities on them.


It was also a victory for women's rights. And equal rights. And the US government system. And the world movement. Stop being so stubborn.
Click to expand...

It was a victory for women, who is the victor in this case, what group of people gain from it?

And this "decision" has nothing to do with homosexuals having sex with minors. He was still punished. It's about not being punished more cause you don't like homosexuals.
Click to expand...

It's all about the punishment and what society thinks about the offense. The problem here is that the people spoke in a democratic way and said that such attacks are more egregious and should have a stiffer penalty. Now some judge comes around and says homosexuals who rape young boys have a right to a lessor penalty, subverting what the people decided they wanted.

Quote:
Plus engaged the young boy in a homosexual act which is a mitigating factor.

But it shouldn't have been. Which thankfully was the ultimate decision by the court.
Click to expand...

Which it should have been and unfortuniately the courts have removed that.



So I take this to mean you can't prove it. Not much of a surprise really.

Quote:
No I think that not too many don't share that opinion.
So I take this to mean you can't prove it. Not much of a surprise really.
Click to expand...

You said otherwise can you prove it? I do have this on my side, the majority of the state legislature voted in the penalty, they vote on behalf of the majority of the people in the state. So yes until they vote otherwise I stand by my statement. What do you have? One judge.

He was 14, not 8. And he spends just as much time in prison as 18 year-old boys who have consensual sex with 14 year-old girls. Which is fair.
Click to expand...

What a victory.


Since you appear to have problems figuring it out, I'll give you some help.
Click to expand...

I have no problem figgering it out, but if you will go back in my statements I specifically qualified it by stating except in cases of stress or captivity. During such times as those abnormal behavior is expected.

Let's see this quote from a biology book that says we are a heterosexual species.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?
And all animal species reproduce heterosexually
Click to expand...

Wrong again. But what exactly is your point in trying to quantify the human species by what other species do, it makes no sense.
, so it would be hard for it to be a defining feature of our species.
Click to expand...

Not at all.
I hope you didn't get that from your "biology book" too, cause it's wrong.
Click to expand...

Facts not in evidence.
We have had homosexuality for as long as we have had humans.
Click to expand...

So what? It is still abnormal behavior.

So tell me, if it's something that our species has always had, how are we exclusively a heterosexual species?
Click to expand...

When we begin to reproduce homosexually then we won't be exlusively heterosexual. But for now it takes a male and a female.
 
Kelzie said:
Biology classes. I know, a crazy thing, that rabbit reproduction system. Seriously try a little research. It is extremely well documented. No higher power about it. Simply evolution saying that the species tends to survive better if reproduction is controlled.

There is no such thing as homosexual reproduction...although there is asexual reproduction. Regardless, species that do have homosexuals are doing just fine, so it doesn't appear to be harming anything.

Being caucasian, according to your "defintition" is abnormal too.
Click to expand...
apologies, lack of clarity on my part i was refering to the following claim

When humans are having too many children, there is a higher chance that they'll be gay, thus stopping the reproductive line. Both are mechanisms nature has developed to slow down reproduction. Make more sense?
Click to expand...
 
Stinger said:
And we see the results.
Click to expand...

Someone who gets laid all the time and knows how to please a woman?
 
Stinger said:
And I note your age. Get back to me when you have a 14 year old daughter and an 18 year old is trying to have sex with here and you find out about it.
Click to expand...

I see. The whole "you're wrong cause you're young" argument. So original. I highly doubt I'll change my mind. My mom was extremely supportive when I chose to have sex at 15 and I'm sure I'll be the same.

Oh please spare me, perhaps if the 18 is grossly immature and that is reason enough for the 14 year not to be involved. There is a hugh difference between 14 year olds and 18 year olds believing that they can have a proper sexual relationship is absurd. Just accepting 14 year olds engaged in sex is the height of absurdity. What happen to letting kids just be kids without putting the adult pressure of sexual activities on them.
Click to expand...

So you think having a 15th birthday automatically makes kids mental able for sex? That's a little...uninformed. The fact is that a large amount of 14 year-olds are mentally capable of having sex. You think 14 year-olds are kids? No, they're not.

It was a victory for women, who is the victor in this case, what group of people gain from it?
Click to expand...

It was a victory for women...and women rights...and equal rights...and human rights...Wow. A victory for all those things!

I
t's all about the punishment and what society thinks about the offense. The problem here is that the people spoke in a democratic way and said that such attacks are more egregious and should have a stiffer penalty. Now some judge comes around and says homosexuals who rape young boys have a right to a lessor penalty, subverting what the people decided they wanted.
Click to expand...

What people? I never voted on this.

Which it should have been and unfortuniately the courts have removed that.
Click to expand...

Says you. Thankfully someone educated in law disagrees with you.

You said otherwise can you prove it? I do have this on my side, the majority of the state legislature voted in the penalty, they vote on behalf of the majority of the people in the state. So yes until they vote otherwise I stand by my statement. What do you have? One judge.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. What are you talking about? When did the state legislature vote on this case.

What a victory.
Click to expand...

Why yes it is.

I have no problem figgering it out, but if you will go back in my statements I specifically qualified it by stating except in cases of stress or captivity. During such times as those abnormal behavior is expected.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that there have been animals observed in a natural environment engaging in homosexuality.

Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Yes I am. Seriously I want the title of the book and the exact quote. You said it was from a biology book, now back it up.

Wrong again. But what exactly is your point in trying to quantify the human species by what other species do, it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Fine mammals, whatever.

Not at all.
Click to expand...

My point is that if ALL mammals reproduce heterosexual, than it can't be a defining point of humans

Facts not in evidence.


So what? It is still abnormal behavior.



When we begin to reproduce homosexually then we won't be exlusively heterosexual. But for now it takes a male and a female.
Click to expand...

No it's not

That's not a criteria. Reproduction does not define a species.
 
Kelzie said:
I see. The whole "you're wrong cause you're young" argument. So original. I highly doubt I'll change my mind. My mom was extremely supportive when I chose to have sex at 15 and I'm sure I'll be the same.
Click to expand...
*shakes head*:shock:
 
DeeJayH said:
*shakes head*:shock:
Click to expand...

Ohhh...so there's supposed to be somthing morally wrong with it? Is it supposed to have screwed me up somehow? Think I'm running around banging everyone with a penis? No, that's repressed little catholic girls you're thinking of. Save your moral indignation for your church.
 
Kelzie said:
I see. The whole "you're wrong cause you're young" argument. So original. I highly doubt I'll change my mind. My mom was extremely supportive when I chose to have sex at 15 and I'm sure I'll be the same.
Click to expand...

This to brings many questions in to my mind, many of which I feel may be too personal to raise in any ethical conversation over a public forum.

I understand a child's curiosity about sex, even at age 15. That's a sophmore in highschool(that's what I was anyway). I don't really understand how said situation came to be. I understand that a 15 year old may desire to have sex and may in fact go through with it, but I don't understand how a parent can be supportive about it. If you don't mind, could you explain to me how your mother was "supportive"?

If you feel that continuing this discussion would result in revealing things that are a little bit more of a personal nature that you feel is comfortable, I will end my line of inquiries.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
This to brings many questions in to my mind, many of which I feel may be too personal to raise in any ethical conversation over a public forum.

I understand a child's curiosity about sex, even at age 15. That's a sophmore in highschool(that's what I was anyway). I don't really understand how said situation came to be. I understand that a 15 year old may desire to have sex and may in fact go through with it, but I don't understand how a parent can be supportive about it. If you don't mind, could you explain to me how your mother was "supportive"?

If you feel that continuing this discussion would result in revealing things that are a little bit more of a personal nature that you feel is comfortable, I will end my line of inquiries.
Click to expand...


It really boggles my mind that any parent would not have a problem with her 14 or 15 year old daughter engaging in sex..............I..Not just the moral implications but in this day of AIDS and other STDs its just unbelievable that any parent could condone this behavior.......

I guess I am just old fashioned and remember the day when chastity meant something........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom