• 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.

Homosexuls Piggy-Backing Civil Rights Movement

Is it OK for Homosexuls to Piggy-Back the Civil Rights Movement

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 61.9%
  • No

    Votes: 8 38.1%

  • Total voters
    21
Is Mitt Romney another Republican Homosexual Pedophile?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Noticing a bit of personal attacks, a couple of STFU's and someone accused of being 'medicated'. Let's put a stop to this, now, and get back on topic.
 
So your saying that certain people are born with a gun pointed to their head with someone yelling at them to receive it up the *** like a bitch,instead of the ability to choose whom they want to have sex with?



Willfully engaging in sex with a chosen partner is not the same a race.You can control whether or not you have sex and with who you have sex with,you can not control the color of your skin.

Read - Leonard Pitts Jr. - Miami Herald - Hardaway spews hate
 
Lets the remember that 'wanting/ desiring' and doing/ acting are not the same things.

Jamesrage could you, if you so chose, make your self 'want' to have sex with a man? If not, then why do think that other people can do the same?

On a side note, given that Black people make up a greater proportion of people in jails in the US, perhaps they also should be barred from adopting children?
 
Our sexuality is either intrinsic, a product of the environment,or some combination of the two. I say it is either intrinsic or of such very strong potential that it might as well be intrinsic.



Interactions between two people can be harmful, or not harmful, and of course with varying degrees of harm. THis is what our legal system is all about, isn't it?

There is certainly nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality. The social mores against homosexuality are nothing more than conventions passed down the generations and accepted without any thought as to why it is a taboo. These prejudicescan just aseasily be geared towards left handed people redheads, as there is justification whatsoever for any prejudice based upon actions since the actions are not intrinsically harmful.

Is this a civil rights issue? You bet it is. People are being denied equal rights based upon nothing more signifigant than an old taboo. Should we also single out left handers? Some societies have, and for the same reasons-- it was something different, only occured in a small percentage of the population and was therefore feared due to its difference. There was no harm in being left handed, certainly, but that did not stop the prejudice.

I don't buy the argument that marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, and so we must continueto view it so. If we upheld social conventions based solely on the fact they were established conventions, women would not be voting today, marriages would be arranged, and we would be adhering too any manner of mores whether or not they made sense or had anything to do with people harming one another.

Make sure not to wear those white pumps before Memorial day, now, ya hear. It's a rule.

Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, and that includes marrying the person they love. If that notion sends some people into paroxisms of hate, perhaps they should look inside themselves and ask why they are reacting so strongly to something that harms no one and really isn't so very different than anything they are doing themselves.
 
Last edited:
Quite right. Children were often punished right up to the 60s in schools for using their left hand to write with. Why? Because the bible said that Jesus was on God's right hand side -thus the devil was on the left.
 
Quite right. Children were often punished right up to the 60s in schools for using their left hand to write with. Why? Because the bible said that Jesus was on God's right hand side -thus the devil was on the left.

Wow now that is a new one.........I am a child of the fifties and have never heard that one.....
 
Our sexuality is either intrinsic, a product of the environment,or some combination of the two. I say it is either intrinsic or of such very strong potential that it might as well be intrinsic.



Interactions between two people can be harmful, or not harmful, and of course with varying degrees of harm. THis is what our legal system is all about, isn't it?

There is certainly nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality. The social mores against homosexuality are nothing more than conventions passed down the generations and accepted without any thought as to why it is a taboo. These prejudicescan just aseasily be geared towards left handed people redheads, as there is justification whatsoever for any prejudice based upon actions since the actions are not intrinsically harmful.

Is this a civil rights issue? You bet it is. People are being denied equal rights based upon nothing more signifigant than an old taboo. Should we also single out left handers? Some societies have, and for the same reasons-- it was something different, only occured in a small percentage of the population and was therefore feared due to its difference. There was no harm in being left handed, certainly, but that did not stop the prejudice.

I don't buy the argument that marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, and so we must continueto view it so. If we upheld social conventions based solely on the fact they were established conventions, women would not be voting today, marriages would be arranged, and we would be adhering too any manner of mores whether or not they made sense or had anything to do with people harming one another.

Make sure not to wear those white pumps before Memorial day, now, ya hear. It's a rule.

Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, and that includes marrying the person they love. If that notion sends some people into paroxisms of hate, perhaps they should look inside themselves and ask why they are reacting so strongly to something that harms no one and really isn't so very different than anything they are doing themselves.

Off topic, Gardener I owe you and apology for saying you were a member of Whistlestopper forum..........Someone was using your AV but not your name.....
 
Wow now that is a new one.........I am a child of the fifties and have never heard that one.....

Used to happen a lot in strict Catholic schools. A friend of mine's father had it happen to him, and I've heard it from a couple of other people.
 
It is not the same because you have a choice in who and what you want to Fu<k or get fu<ked by...

Only if you define homosexuality as nothing more than a variation of sex. Of course, homosexuality is acctually much more than that because sexuality in general is entirely psychologically and biologically based. A true homosexual has sexual feelings, desires, and emotions exclusively for persons of the same sex, in other words, actions alone do not a homosexual, or heterosexual for that matter, make. Sexual attraction and reaction are controlled by the anterior hypothalamus. The anterior hypothalamus in homosexual men is smaller than the anterior hypothalamus in heterosexual men, in fact, identical to that of a woman. It also only activates and sends sexual signals to the rest of the body when exposed to certain stimuli pertaining to the same sex such as male pheramones. A homosexual can indeed choose who they have sex with but their body, in most instances, will not be responsive if you get my meaning. You can't change the structure of your brain by simply choosing to sleep with a gender which you aren't naturally attracted to therefore a homosexual can't become heterosexual simply by sleeping with someone of the opposite sex.

Americans of African decent do not have a choice in having darker skin.

Tell that to Michael Jackson. :lol:
 
Used to happen a lot in strict Catholic schools. A friend of mine's father had it happen to him, and I've heard it from a couple of other people.


Hmmmm I went 8 years to Sacred Heart Elementary school and 3 years to Bishop Guilfoyle high school both catholic schools and never heard of it......


Trust me they were strict..........
 
FOX News Alert - The GOP has changed it's Acronym. The GOP from this day forward will be known as the FORFHP - Fraternal Order of Republican Fascists Homosexual Pedophiles.
 
LeftyHenry

Grow a pair of balls already you sissy...

You "thank" some moron for wondering about a completely obvious and relevant question...this is par for the course with you. :lol:

Unless you are able to act mature and "Intelligent" (which I know is a stretch) then we are done kiddo!

where the **** did you pop out of bitch?

And the thank was because Jamesrage's post isn't something that can be responded to. Frankly, I did not even understand it. Out of no where he just says gays have guns pointed to their heads
 
Originally Posted by LeftyHenry
where the **** did you pop out of bitch?

And the thank was because Jamesrage's post isn't something that can be responded to. Frankly, I did not even understand it. Out of no where he just says gays have guns pointed to their heads

You're a sensitive tulip :lol: I think that he has been here since the beginning.

So you thanked somebody for something that you did not even understand? THAT is your response? 1069 thanks you for this brilliant defense? :rofl

Hey, where is Mo? You guys could make this really funny without even trying! LOL!
 
You're a sensitive tulip

thank you. New member line


:lol: I think that he has been here since the beginning.

yes trolling as usually and not contributing at all to the back and forth James and I were having

So you thanked somebody for something that you did not even understand? THAT is your response? 1069 thanks you for this brilliant defense? :rofl

Oh I understood it. I just couldn't understand how a human could say that, and whether or not that was an actually
 
LeftyHenry
where the **** did you pop out of bitch?

And the thank was because Jamesrage's post isn't something that can be responded to. Frankly, I did not even understand it. Out of no where he just says gays have guns pointed to their heads

Thank you for putting it into context. As usual, I meant no offense by my comments...I just don't mix Alcohol and Internet very well. :2razz: I come out to post one or two for a few minutes and I start going off for no reason...I apologize for that.

I started playing ping pong soon after.

yes trolling as usually and not contributing at all to the back and forth James and I were having

I disagree, since he started the thread, this could hardly be the case.

To All:

Is there a difference between Homosexual couple using a fertility clinic to have a baby versus a heterosexual couple? I heard Michael Savage go off on that point against some lady and he acted as if that was a valid debate point. Like heterosexuals were allowed to because at least there would be opposite sex parents and that made it OK. I think that his argument was weak *** crap. But that is just me. What do y'all think?
 
To get to the original question. A Pulitzer Prize winning black OP/ED Columnist named Pitts, I believe for the Washington Post, has clearly written that Homosexuals should certainly piggy-back on the back of the Civil Rights Movement. Now I see Pitts as more credible than anybody else in this forum.
 
Originally Posted by BodiSatva
Is there a difference between Homosexual couple using a fertility clinic to have a baby versus a heterosexual couple? I heard Michael Savage go off on that point against some lady and he acted as if that was a valid debate point. Like heterosexuals were allowed to because at least there would be opposite sex parents and that made it OK. I think that his argument was weak *** crap. But that is just me. What do y'all think?

That is a great question. It seems that there is a difference, obviously, since in one situation you would have two same sex parents and in the other you would have opposite-sex parents. But the real question is, how good of parents will those couples make, and that is impossible to determine, as any parent will tell you. You have to want to be a parent.
 
Originally Posted by billybobama
To get to the original question. A Pulitzer Prize winning black OP/ED Columnist named Pitts, I believe for the Washington Post, has clearly written that Homosexuals should certainly piggy-back on the back of the Civil Rights Movement. Now I see Pitts as more credible than anybody else in this forum.

More "credible" :lol: How so? He wrote a book? Pulitzer Prizes go out to all sorts of writers. It does not indicate that he is an expert, just that he wrote a good book. I bet that there are people here with more real life experience than Pitt has regarding this subject and that would make them MUCH MORE credible than Pitt. If you want to just rip on people here and say that they don't know what they are talking about, explain why. Show some evidence. To just stop by and make some lame-*** comment is WEAK. ;)
 
Yes it was common practice in UK schools. Particulary catholic schools I think
 
Thank you for putting it into context. As usual, I meant no offense by my comments...I just don't mix Alcohol and Internet very well. :2razz: I come out to post one or two for a few minutes and I start going off for no reason...I apologize for that.

I started playing ping pong soon after.

oh well then whatever forget about those posts then.


To All:

Is there a difference between Homosexual couple using a fertility clinic to have a baby versus a heterosexual couple? I heard Michael Savage go off on that point against some lady and he acted as if that was a valid debate point. Like heterosexuals were allowed to because at least there would be opposite sex parents and that made it OK. I think that his argument was weak *** crap. But that is just me. What do y'all think?

Really feel like this is a non-issue. As for Savage's arguement, its semi-disgusting.
 
More "credible" :lol: How so? He wrote a book? Pulitzer Prizes go out to all sorts of writers. It does not indicate that he is an expert, just that he wrote a good book. I bet that there are people here with more real life experience than Pitt has regarding this subject and that would make them MUCH MORE credible than Pitt. If you want to just rip on people here and say that they don't know what they are talking about, explain why. Show some evidence. To just stop by and make some lame-*** comment is WEAK. ;)

Homosexuality has been an accepted way of life as far back as Alexander the Great. You people just have no concept of history. I hate to say this but you people are very stupid.
 
I am a historian jack-***. That is what I majored in and what I have my Masters in. You have not addressed the aspect of history regarding this issue until now and I don't give a rat's *** about it because it is irrelevant to the point that you raised. That point is that you see, "Pitts as more credible than anybody else in this forum". I don't. This is an opinionated point that you raise since there is no way to prove who knows more. You can try if you like, but then we get into more and more opinions.

You want to toss out inane little insults about who is more credible? Answer that then instead of trying to switch gears once you see that you have no logical standing. His book does nothing to negate the fact that people at this site are credible references.

Lastly..."you people"? What people? Open people? Tolerant people? People that support gay marriage? People that support individual rights? People more Intelligent than you? That is the type of person that I am. I am all of those things and much more. What people are you referring too num-nuts? What type of person are you? That is a fair question at this point. You show no semblance of logic and you assume up the yin-yang.

Unless you can act reasonable, I am afraid that I won't be able to allot you any more time. :(

Bye! :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom