• 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 GaY Agenda ?

Oi, Navy Pride - if gays can "convert" to heterosexuality, do you think you could convert to homosexuality?

Assuming you haven't already done so, of course.
 
Ok, with Gay marriage, It should be allowed or disallowed by determining what the real issue is.


1.) That the government has no right to interfere in a religious institution.

Valid arguement, however this isn't anti-gay marriage arguement as many faiths allow for gay marriage. Also following this logic you are either going to have to allow Polygamy (practiced in more faiths than not) OR are going to have to have the government stop granting marriage liscences and attaching any legal signifigance to being married.


2.) It cannot lead to children.

ALSO a VERY VERY valid arguement. However, following this path one would also have to ban women after menopause from getting married, and ban people who are sterile from being married. Im not being snide, Children are an important part of society and this is an all seriousness a good arguement, but it may have consequences that are callous and cruel. (Sorry you're infertile Susie, but that means you can never be married / Tough luck jack, you can't have kids, looks like no sex for you, ever..unless your a horrible sinner who wants to breach your faith)

3.) Homosexuality is morally wrong.

Fair arguement...but fully think out what other things are morally wrong, that used to be illegal but now aren't. If you revert homosexuality to being a crime , open the floodgates to premarital sex being illegal again, hell being the wrong faith aint far behind..Until the 1970's it was illegal to be a mormon in missouri. Now you may say "being wrong aint a crime", but unless its legally wrong, you have no grounds to use it against someone in a purely legal context.
 
Zzarchov said:
Ok, with Gay marriage, It should be allowed or disallowed by determining what the real issue is.


1.) That the government has no right to interfere in a religious institution.

Valid arguement, however this isn't anti-gay marriage arguement as many faiths allow for gay marriage. Also following this logic you are either going to have to allow Polygamy (practiced in more faiths than not) OR are going to have to have the government stop granting marriage liscences and attaching any legal signifigance to being married.


2.) It cannot lead to children.

ALSO a VERY VERY valid arguement. However, following this path one would also have to ban women after menopause from getting married, and ban people who are sterile from being married. Im not being snide, Children are an important part of society and this is an all seriousness a good arguement, but it may have consequences that are callous and cruel. (Sorry you're infertile Susie, but that means you can never be married / Tough luck jack, you can't have kids, looks like no sex for you, ever..unless your a horrible sinner who wants to breach your faith)

3.) Homosexuality is morally wrong.

Fair arguement...but fully think out what other things are morally wrong, that used to be illegal but now aren't. If you revert homosexuality to being a crime , open the floodgates to premarital sex being illegal again, hell being the wrong faith aint far behind..Until the 1970's it was illegal to be a mormon in missouri. Now you may say "being wrong aint a crime", but unless its legally wrong, you have no grounds to use it against someone in a purely legal context.

I understand where you were going with this. But I don't think any of these are fair arguments. If marriage only happened in a church, than the government couldn't interfere. But is doesn't. And banning a type of marriage because it can't produce kids is a horrible point. We're not breeding factories. The descision to have kids is personal, and should have no connection on who you are going to spend the rest of your life with.

Again, I see where you were going with this, but I don't think validating these claims as fair is going to help.
 
You guys are both nuts.

Kelzie said:
A little anatomy 101 for both of you. Women do not urinate out of their vagina. Do I need to post a diagram?:roll:
 
Kelzie said:
I understand where you were going with this. But I don't think any of these are fair arguments. If marriage only happened in a church, than the government couldn't interfere. But is doesn't. And banning a type of marriage because it can't produce kids is a horrible point. We're not breeding factories. The descision to have kids is personal, and should have no connection on who you are going to spend the rest of your life with.

Again, I see where you were going with this, but I don't think validating these claims as fair is going to help.

No, we are more like cattle... but not very good to eat.
 
HTColeman said:
No, we are more like cattle... but not very good to eat.

Neither are cattle :shock:
 
galenrox said:
I know, close enough though. The urethra's like a matter of centimeters.

But what important centimeters they are...;)
 
HTColeman said:
No diagram necessary, a picture might help though...JUST KIDDING! I couldn't resist, sry.

Perv. There's lots of pictures on line. Go look. That is, if your parents have taken off the Net Nanny.

ooo burn
 
Kelzie said:
Neither are cattle :shock:

GASP! Blasphemy! I am appalled to see such words on a respectable sight such as this. Cattle are very good to eat, maybe not as healthy as broccoli, but very good nonetheless.
 
Kelzie said:
Perv. There's lots of pictures on line. Go look. That is, if your parents have taken off the Net Nanny.

ooo burn

You are referring to the devil's internet, aka porn, I am above such material, don't you see my crown? I am king.
 
HTColeman said:
GASP! Blasphemy! I am appalled to see such words on a respectable sight such as this. Cattle are very good to eat, maybe not as healthy as broccoli, but very good nonetheless.

Yeah if you like a little mad cow disease with your hamburger. Mmmm. Eat up.
 
HTColeman said:
You are referring to the devil's internet, aka porn, I am above such material, don't you see my crown? I am king.

Oh so that's what it's for. I thought you were subtly throwing your weight behind monarchy...
 
Kelzie said:
Yeah if you like a little mad cow disease with your hamburger. Mmmm. Eat up.

Mad Cow is only present in the hamburgers of those who blaspheme the consumption of cattle. It does not affect the loyal.
 
Kelzie said:
Oh so that's what it's for. I thought you were subtly throwing your weight behind monarchy...

No, you see, heres how I figure it (there is some TX grammar for you):

As long as I have the crown as my avatar, I am royalty. As royalty I can make any statement I please, and it should be accepted as fact, no question.
 
YamiB. said:
Churches have already been told by the government that it does not have a monopoly. While many churches would not marry two people depending on their faiths the government would not do this.

If Churches didn't agree they wouldn't have to marry homosexual couples. Last I heard there are still a few Churches that will not perform interracial marriages and many Churches refuse to perform interfaith marriages.


I don't see what's wrong with transsexuals, but I'll agree that some of the stuff going on at Gay Pride parades is inappropriate. I was just pointing out that homosexuals are not unique in this type of behavior.

Are you going to address the rest of my post?

Then we agree on your last statement.....Can you refresh my memory on what you want me to address? Thanks.......
 
I accept that they are valid arguements, but that those aren't the arguements people want to say, because most people don't follow them to the downsides of using them. Often those arguements (which are good and fair arguements) each one, are used hypocritically as means for explaining homophobia. People say "its wrong" but they would never want premarital STRAIGHT sex to be wrong. Or "Its about religion", but they wouldn't let a religion that does allow gay marriage to practice it, "Its about kids" but they would let their grandma remarry rather than die a lonely widow.

2 big REAL arguements I see "I personally find homosexuality gross" and "My faith finds it wrong and my faith is right".

And while believing in your faith is a good thing, do you really wanna start allowing one person to impose their faith on you? It might not always you putting your faith on them.
 
vergiss said:
Oi, Navy Pride - if gays can "convert" to heterosexuality, do you think you could convert to homosexuality?

Assuming you haven't already done so, of course.

I will ignore the personal attack........

Yes there are men and women who have been happily married as straight people and have divorced their spouses and converted to a gay lifestyle.........

We had a Colonel here in Washington State in the National Guard recently who wss married for 35 years, had grown children and got a divorce and converted to the gay lifestyle.....Now I know what your going to say is that this person was gay all along and just came out of the closet so I will beat you to it......

Actually no one knows for sure if that is true or not.............
 
galenrox said:
yeah, but you implied that if I ****ed her in the ass she would **** on my ****.
Alright, I'll do that in less vulgar terms
you implied that if I made love to her in the butt she would poo on my penis.

So a little sex ed for you:
If all the girls that you've had sex with have peed on you in the process, that's not normal.

Thanks for at least trying to clean up your act.......

I am implying that the anus is a very dirty place for someone to put his penis and you are not able to procreate by doing that........I am saying one the main ways the AIDS virus came to be in this country was because of anal intercourse between gay males.......

I am implying that the vagina in the act of sexual intercourse is the normal way to procreate.............

I don't know how to make it any clearer to you without getting to graphic........
 
Navy Pride said:
I am implying that the anus is a very dirty place for someone to put his penis and you are not able to procreate by doing that........I am saying one the main ways the AIDS virus came to be in this country was because of anal intercourse between gay males.......

I am implying that the vagina in the act of sexual intercourse is the normal way to procreate.............

I don't know how to make it any clearer to you without getting to graphic........

So are you against oral sex?
 
HTColeman said:
As long as I have the crown as my avatar, I am royalty. As royalty I can make any statement I please, and it should be accepted as fact, no question.

Sorry old boy but the crown doth not maketh the royalty...the interbreeding, adultery and 61p a year from the taxpayer do.

:2ukflag: God Save the Queen :2ukflag:
 
Plain old me said:
Sorry old boy but the crown doth not maketh the royalty...the interbreeding, adultery and 61p a year from the taxpayer do.

:2ukflag: God Save the Queen :2ukflag:

:rofl Can I get my 61p back?
 
You could try, if not just steal sommit royal, that normally works...Howzabout 61p's worth of a swan, they belong to the Queen don't they?
 
NavyPride said:
We had a Colonel here in Washington State in the National Guard recently who wss married for 35 years, had grown children and got a divorce and converted to the gay lifestyle.....Now I know what your going to say is that this person was gay all along and just came out of the closet so I will beat you to it......

Actually no one knows for sure if that is true or not.............

I don't care about what other people did or didn't do. I want to know if you could simply convert to the "gay lifestyle"?

Gandhi>Bush said:
So are you against oral sex?

I already asked him this. He conveniently ignored it.
 
Back
Top Bottom