• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Homosexuality

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,883
Reaction score
821
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“On the contrary, you - not me - is the one attempting to imply something that isn't there, specifically the type of marriage. Your error stems from...” – Singularity

From my post no. 107:

“The court decision specifically dealt only with heterosexual marriage.
If Warren wanted to make it plain that his remarks pertained to homosexual marriage he could have quite easily have done so.

However, since the case in no way considered homosexual marriage but only heterosexual marriage his remarks must be seen in that light.
You are attempting misconstrue Warren’s comments to imply something that simply isn’t there.”

“Based on the article I linked to you, written by Professor Frakes.” - Singularity

From my post no. 107:

“While homosexual liaisons were certainly practiced, there is no evidence that there was anything of a homosexual marriage in Roman times.”

“On the contrary, the reputable source I linked specifically said that unions were not legislated against, which you in turn mistakenly to mean that none existed. This means people were free to engage in the type of…” – Singularity

From my post no. 107…again:

“Currently, there are no laws that prevent the space shuttle from landing on my head. This in no way suggest that the space shuttle has ever landed on my head...there are just no laws against it.”

And while I hate to point out the painfully obvious, the absence of a law against something is not proof that something actually existed.

Hello?

“Which proves my point exactly, that marriage between same sex couples did exist.” – Singularity

From the very source you provided I was able with very little effort to call into question a number of the observations made by your source.

In addition, the author of your source is a known homosexual and gay advocate who, by his own body of work demonstrates his own bias on this subject.

So, once again, your source is weak and most certainly questionable.

And, at the end of the day, it does not change the fact that across time, continents, countries, cultures, religions, backgrounds, etc., marriage has existed between men and women exclusively.

Even if you could find a “credible” source demonstrating that a some remote tribe of Africans did actually engage in homosexual "marriage", so what? One small insignificant group has never had any impact on the fact that marriage has historically always been between men and women.

Even in Africa today--where homosexual marriage is legal in many areas--it remain quite predominantly between men and women.

“Your error stems from your failure to recognize that 'marriage' has always been a malleable institution…” – Singularity

From my post no. 101:

“There have certainly been polygamous instances where one man has been married to more than one woman and even rarer cultures that have allowed one woman to be married to more than one man. But in every instance this was still a marriage between men and women.

And these marriages were meant to last a lifetime. That all changed with the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1970 (at least in this country). Prior to that, divorce was very rare.

It’s only been in the last fifteen years or so that marriage between the same-sex has even been considered.

So, once again, marriage throughout time, culture, country, religion, etc has been between one man and one woman for life (with the notable exception mentioned above).

Homosexuality has not played a part in marriage history.”

“I am referring to the fact that marriage has always been a malleable institution depending on historical time period, whereas you believe marriage has always been an institution defined by your particular belief systems.” – Singularity

See above.

“No, the article specifically says it is marriage. Pederasty is an entirely different construct.” – Singularity

Pederasty
“sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor.”

I don’t care how you or your “source” care to spin it, but pederasty is pederasty.

And that is not a “marriage”.

It’s a felony.

“Again, you mistakenly define 'marriage' according to your belief system. This is question-begging, as you automatically assume that the act of consummation which one culture holds as a tenet of marriage eliminates those unions who did not practice it for every marriage. As I mentioned all along, marriage is defined differently according to historical cultures.” – Singularity

Then by your reasoning and example we could find a tribe in Africa where men have a “special” relationship with their pet dog and can be “defined” as a marriage, too.
But then, by your standards, a marriage could be anything, right?

“Their counseling has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality being 'wrong' or 'mentally imbalanced'. I'm sure you've read Captain Courtesy's post on this. It's quite legendary on this board.” – Singularity

Yea, he and I have been back-and-forth on this issue.

“No, but it kills your argument that the behavior is 'unnatural' or indicative of something mentally wrong with homosexuality.” – Singularity

So although eating your young and killing your mate after copulation is natural and in no-way indicative of mental or emotional imbalance?

Okay….

“Your belief that Judeo Christian ideals should dictate our country is fine as long as it is mere opinion. Since I am not a Christian, I am happy to keep 'separation of church and state' and the…” – Singularity

So go vote.

I know I will.

“Your denial illustrates that you are not interested in learning, you are more interested in solidifying your position despite whatever evidence is…” – Singularity

Guess what?

You just got boring.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,883
Reaction score
821
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“you have yet to tell me other than fear what are the reasons that same sex marriage is such a big deal?” - katiegrrl0

I have moral and practical objections to homosexual marriage. And yet I’ve already asked you in my post no. 95--after accusing me of playing “word games”--what do you see as the issues of this topic. Why do you believe that homosexual marriage should be legal?

I get that you are not American and English is not your first language. I am not attacking your grammatical skills. Fact is you are doing far better than I could manage in a second language and I commend you for it.

Just because you are a lesbian does not mean that I think you are a bad person. I don’t. I know nothing about you and have made no judgments about you.

Just because I am against homosexual marriage does not mean that I think that your relationship with your partner is not a loving one. I quite sure that it is.

And just because I am against homosexual marriage does not mean that I am bigoted or prejudiced against you or homosexuals in general. I have some deeply held beliefs. That is all.

Nor does my being opposed to homosexual marriage mean I am “fearful” of you or homosexuals in general. I’m an alpha-male redneck and I’m intimidated by very little and if it were somehow possible I would invite you to speak with my gay friends as proof of that.

But you have demonstrated by your posts that you are very passionate about this issue.

Why?
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
“On the contrary, you - not me - is the one attempting to imply something that isn't there, specifically the type of marriage. Your error stems from...” – Singularity

From my post no. 107:

“The court decision specifically dealt only with heterosexual marriage.
If Warren wanted to make it plain that his remarks pertained to homosexual marriage he could have quite easily have done so.

However, since the case in no way considered homosexual marriage but only heterosexual marriage his remarks must be seen in that light.
You are attempting misconstrue Warren’s comments to imply something that simply isn’t there.”
Show me where Warren and the court make a specific distinction between types of marriages. In other words, show me anywhere in Loving v Virginia where Warren and the court said that he was referring to heterosexual marriage specifically.

Warren's opinion simply states that marriage is a civil right. And since homosexuals do have legally recognized marriages nowadays, theirs is included as well.

“Based on the article I linked to you, written by Professor Frakes.” - Singularity

From my post no. 107:

“While homosexual liaisons were certainly practiced, there is no evidence that there was anything of a homosexual marriage in Roman times.”
From that very same post, I quote Frakes - "Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against." There was no legislation in existence at the time which prevented same sex unions. What you are attempting to do is make the claim that because such couplings were not specifically mentioned, they must not have existed, whereupon I mentioned that these types of unions were specifically banned in the later empire. Logically, that should lead any intelligent person to surmise that these unions did exist, if Roman legislation was later enacted to prohibit them.

“On the contrary, the reputable source I linked specifically said that unions were not legislated against, which you in turn mistakenly to mean that none existed. This means people were free to engage in the type of…” – Singularity

From my post no. 107…again:

“Currently, there are no laws that prevent the space shuttle from landing on my head. This in no way suggest that the space shuttle has ever landed on my head...there are just no laws against it.”

And while I hate to point out the painfully obvious, the absence of a law against something is not proof that something actually existed.
Hello?
Yet the subsequent banning by the later empire does, in fact, point to the occurrence of these unions.

“Which proves my point exactly, that marriage between same sex couples did exist.” – Singularity

From the very source you provided I was able with very little effort to call into question a number of the observations made by your source.

In addition, the author of your source is a known homosexual and gay advocate who, by his own body of work demonstrates his own bias on this subject.

So, once again, your source is weak and most certainly questionable.

And, at the end of the day, it does not change the fact that across time, continents, countries, cultures, religions, backgrounds, etc., marriage has existed between men and women exclusively.

Even if you could find a “credible” source demonstrating that a some remote tribe of Africans did actually engage in homosexual "marriage", so what? One small insignificant group has never had any impact on the fact that marriage has historically always been between men and women.

Even in Africa today--where homosexual marriage is legal in many areas--it remain quite predominantly between men and women.
My sources were not only accurate, but did a fine job detailing the historical existence of such unions. The fact that you continually deny that such unions existed after being shown links disputing your belief illustrates that you are simply looking to solidify your position by criticizing any and all evidence presented to you.

But those are just a few of the sources I could find via a shotgun google search. There are most certainly more. In fact, i'll link them and let you read for yourself.

"Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum were ancient Egyptian royal servants. They shared the title of Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niuserre during the Fifth Dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs, circa 2400 B.C., and are listed as "royal confidants" in their joint tomb.[1] They are considered to be the first recorded same-sex couple in history. Niankhkhnum means "joined to life" and Khnumhotep means "joined to 'the blessed state of the dead'" and together the names can be translated as "joined in life and joined in death"[[2]" (Source: Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
(Sounds an awful like some type of marriage to me - "joined in life and joined in death").

"Same-Sex Marriage in History

One of the recurring clichés of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In many cultures and in many eras, the issue has emerged-and the themes of the arguments are quirkily similar. Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage. In other cultures (see the debate between Brent Shaw and Ralph Hexter) the meaning of same-sex unions remains opaque and complex. In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted. Judge for yourself what this might mean for our current convulsion. One thing emerges clearly: this issue is not a modern invention." (Source: Same-Sex Marriage in History : Same-Sex Marriage).


"Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania." (Source: Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com)

Again, this is just from a google search. I'm sure you can find others.

“Your error stems from your failure to recognize that 'marriage' has always been a malleable institution…” – Singularity

From my post no. 101:

“There have certainly been polygamous instances where one man has been married to more than one woman and even rarer cultures that have allowed one woman to be married to more than one man. But in every instance this was still a marriage between men and women.

And these marriages were meant to last a lifetime. That all changed with the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1970 (at least in this country). Prior to that, divorce was very rare.

It’s only been in the last fifteen years or so that marriage between the same-sex has even been considered.

So, once again, marriage throughout time, culture, country, religion, etc has been between one man and one woman for life (with the notable exception mentioned above).

Homosexuality has not played a part in marriage history.”
Incorrect (see above)

See above.
I provided arguments refuting your point, backed up with links supporting my position.

“No, the article specifically says it is marriage. Pederasty is an entirely different construct.” – Singularity
Pederasty
“sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor.”

I don’t care how you or your “source” care to spin it, but pederasty is pederasty.

And that is not a “marriage”.

It’s a felony.
In other words, you dispute the article because it does not conform to your mistaken belief system you're attempting to pawn of as fact, despite the author is far more researched than yourself. This appears to be what you are saying to me.

If you are able to provide a link disputing this particular source, or provide an expert's opinion which does so. As I said, i'd love to read it.

“Again, you mistakenly define 'marriage' according to your belief system. This is question-begging, as you automatically assume that the act of consummation which one culture holds as a tenet of marriage eliminates those unions who did not practice it for every marriage. As I mentioned all along, marriage is defined differently according to historical cultures.” – Singularity

Then by your reasoning and example we could find a tribe in Africa where men have a “special” relationship with their pet dog and can be “defined” as a marriage, too.
But then, by your standards, a marriage could be anything, right?
My standards have zero to do with this debate. I simply showed you the facts. Whether you choose to read them impartially or with a specific agenda is up to you.

“Their counseling has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality being 'wrong' or 'mentally imbalanced'. I'm sure you've read Captain Courtesy's post on this. It's quite legendary on this board.” – Singularity

Yea, he and I have been back-and-forth on this issue.
And did you bother to read his sources? I would guess not, probably because they do not support your particular belief system. Science based on unbiased study has a way of doing that.

“No, but it kills your argument that the behavior is 'unnatural' or indicative of something mentally wrong with homosexuality.” – Singularity

So although eating your young and killing your mate after copulation is natural and in no-way indicative of mental or emotional imbalance?

Okay….
We aren't talking about that subject. We are discussing sexuality. There is no mental deficiency associated with that behavior, and no modern, unbiased studies to my knowledge have showed that there is some sort of deficiency. On the off chance you can provide links showing otherwise, again, I would love to read them.

“Your belief that Judeo Christian ideals should dictate our country is fine as long as it is mere opinion. Since I am not a Christian, I am happy to keep 'separation of church and state' and the…” – Singularity

So go vote.

I know I will.
I do.

“Your denial illustrates that you are not interested in learning, you are more interested in solidifying your position despite whatever evidence is…” – Singularity

Guess what?

You just got boring.
See below
 
Last edited:

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Baron;

I should add that I am not attacking your beliefs as a whole nor saying that your particular belief system is wrong, but I do find points of it are mistaken on certain issues. I am, however, very interested in debating your position. I feel that I should add this because your final sentence, that "I just got boring", indicates that you are viewing my debate as some sort of attack. My choice of wording may seem to come across that way, so I feel that I should say that in no way do I think you are a homophobe, bigoted, or anything like that. You make good arguments to the contrary, and I appreciate the fact that you have read my sources and dispute them with a level of sincerity based on your particular beliefs. I do, however, disagree with your beliefs on the subject. But beyond that, I hold nothing against you or your position.

I think both sides can be very passionate on this issue, but I think you and I have had a pretty good debate thus far, and I certainly respect your position, even if I disagree with it. So when I label some of your rebuttals as 'incorrect' or attribute it to a mistake in your belief system, please chalk my language up to nothing personal. If you take it as such, I will happily alter it in subsequent posts on this debate.
 
Last edited:

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You think so many of our youth are "viciously judgmental"? I'm inclined to think that vicious judgmentalness takes a while to mature... and rather than it being a trait of our youth, it's more often found in crabby adults - for example, perhaps like some of the people who can't think of anything nice to say about our youth of today.
You don't really know any children, do you?
 
Top Bottom