• 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!

Pride Month! I celebrate.

I think people think that man hating is a lesbian trait. I find it more uncommon than the reverse. As I said and you confirmed that it has something to do with the nature of the male female relationships that these women have had. It is the same for some gay guys where they have had bad abusive relationships with a female in their life and hate women.

I agree completely. Most men I've met who haven't met a lot of lesbians or feel threatened by them tend to believe that absurd stereotype. There's nothing more ego-crushing to a man then a woman who has no need or interest for him. Man-hating lesbians are uncommon, though, from my experience. I've met a fair amount of lesbians in my life and only one was man-hating.

The thing that I find funny is that all these researches that are trying to figure what it is that makes one gay or bi or straight never ask the people that know. I can tell you why some lesbians hate men in 10 minutes. They will spend years and do a million surveys and still be unsure. If the want to know if I was born lesbian just ask. I can answer and it is not rocket science. I was born lesbian. I have no idea why. I just was. Would I choose to have most of my relatives hate me. Would I choose to be an outcast at school and work. Why would I pick being lesbian. That would be saying I am really stupid and like pain and hatred in my life.

Exactly. I find it hilariously absurd that anyone would even entertain the notion that one would choose to risk being ostracized by friends and family by simply being honest and open about who they are. I've found, though, that more people have begun to accept homosexuality as they've learned more. The 90's was monumental for gay rights and fighting ignorance. Many people learned more about homosexuality and many of the idiotic stereotypes began to fall away. I think it's no surprise that people who do still cling to these stereotypes have extremely limited or no first-hand experience with homosexuals.
 
I like good human beings, I only have one criteria, that they should reciprocate.:)
 
So you are the kind of guy who makes wildly unlikely statements, pass them off as fact, and refuse to back up those statements.

Gotcha.

No, I'm the kind of man that makes statements based in logic and common knowledge.

Is there a fourth alternative to the cause of homosexuality?

It's either an inherited defect, and developmental defect, or a personal choice, which indicates a psychological defect of uncertain origin.

Are you going to put a fourth option on the table?
 
Elementary statements? Don't you mean baseless assertions which you've still yet to back up with anything concrete?

No, I mean the statement I made, not whatever it is you're referring to because you can't address the statements confronting you.

Plenty of people claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder, but they all share one common bond in that they can't find anything concrete to back up their absurd claims.

Well, I'm not one of them.

I've already backed them up.

You're not addressing what was posted. Chicken, or just choking one?

I'd rather not get into a serious debate with someone whose argument is a joke to begin with.

Ah, you surrender.

That's a typical escape device.

Personally, I could care less what the reasons are.

Again, escaping. Fleeing the interview. Hiding. Call it what you want, the fact of the matter is that understanding the origins of your illness are key to treating it.
 
The fact that intentionally childless couples can be married does not detract from marriage being the best condition in which to raise children, and thus does not detract from the government having a legitimate interest in promoting marriage.

True, but this argument does not offer a defense against the inclusion of homosexuals into the institution. In fact, you seem to agree with my position here.

My position isn't against allowing homosexuals to marry. It's defending and promoting the institution of marriage regardless of whether or not homosexuals are allowed to participate in it. As I noted earlier, I am fully in favor of the government recognizing homosexual and polygamous unions.

My argument is not to analyze the supposed purpose of government's endorsement of marriage; rather, my argument is about the philosophical reasoning behind the exclusion of homosexual couples from participating in the institution.

I think it's relevant, especially with so many people arguing that the government should get out of the marriage business in the first place. In order to determine properly who should or should not be allowed to married, it makes sense that we should keep in mind why we're allowing it in the first place. Government programs should be organized according to their intended purpose.
 
No, I'm the kind of man that makes statements based in logic and common knowledge.

Is there a fourth alternative to the cause of homosexuality?

It's either an inherited defect, and developmental defect, or a personal choice, which indicates a psychological defect of uncertain origin.

Are you going to put a fourth option on the table?

How about inherited but not a defect? Kinda like heterosexuality. Just because you can only see 4 possibilities means those 4 are the only possibilities.
 
I think some think of lesbians as man haters because it is easier to marginalize them that way. Same thing is done with feminists and "feminazi". You label the group by the extreme, and are able to dismiss them easier.

I think that in a way is true. It is a way to reject the entire group instead of just the one. Good insight.
 
I agree completely. Most men I've met who haven't met a lot of lesbians or feel threatened by them tend to believe that absurd stereotype. There's nothing more ego-crushing to a man then a woman who has no need or interest for him. Man-hating lesbians are uncommon, though, from my experience. I've met a fair amount of lesbians in my life and only one was man-hating.



Exactly. I find it hilariously absurd that anyone would even entertain the notion that one would choose to risk being ostracized by friends and family by simply being honest and open about who they are. I've found, though, that more people have begun to accept homosexuality as they've learned more. The 90's was monumental for gay rights and fighting ignorance. Many people learned more about homosexuality and many of the idiotic stereotypes began to fall away. I think it's no surprise that people who do still cling to these stereotypes have extremely limited or no first-hand experience with homosexuals.

Oh yes i agree the 90's were a watershed of information and growth. The youth see lesbians and gays as just people. this is the new movement and the strength of the future. Back when i came out in 64 the knowledge was just hear say. No one know what gay or lesbian really was. When I came out my mom had no idea what I was talking about. My dad was open and great. He helped me a lot. He got me over a lot of hurdles. He bailed me out of jail more than once. He saved me from the hospital tests for gays and lesbian sanity.

Now things have changed. I still feel as if people see me differently. I am very out. Everyone knows I am lesbian. I have the tattoo that says so on my arm. It is my reminder that I am queer. LOL. It tells the world that I am not afraid of the judgments they have.

I have paid the high price to be who I am. My days in the movement are numbered. I am simply one of the first that met with the GLF. Now the yoyth and GLAAD move forward. Lambda Legal and all the others.

I do take the time in June to celebrate who i am what we are and what we will become.
 
No, I mean the statement I made, not whatever it is you're referring to because you can't address the statements confronting you.



Well, I'm not one of them.

I've already backed them up.

You're not addressing what was posted. Chicken, or just choking one?



Ah, you surrender.

That's a typical escape device.



Again, escaping. Fleeing the interview. Hiding. Call it what you want, the fact of the matter is that understanding the origins of your illness are key to treating it.

The illness lies not with the gays and lesbians it lies with the homophobes who may be afraid of what they really are under the mask of straightness. The bigger the judge of the movement the better chance that that person is hiding the true nature of them self.
 
My position isn't against allowing homosexuals to marry. It's defending and promoting the institution of marriage regardless of whether or not homosexuals are allowed to participate in it. As I noted earlier, I am fully in favor of the government recognizing homosexual and polygamous unions.



I think it's relevant, especially with so many people arguing that the government should get out of the marriage business in the first place. In order to determine properly who should or should not be allowed to married, it makes sense that we should keep in mind why we're allowing it in the first place. Government programs should be organized according to their intended purpose.

I agree with you totally on marriage and the respect that the union should have. It should be more than a swinging door relationship. Easy in and easy out.
 
You don't have any idea what it will be until it is tried. Marriage is a system doomed to fail as it is. Unless you change the way people are allowed to enter into marriage and the way they are allowed to get out of said contract there will be no change. The divorce rate will go up. The number of children in single family homes will go up.

The odds are because lesbians and gays have been denied this right for so long that it will have a better survival rate.

Maybe marriage should be abolished totally and all children should become wards of the state. Does that work for anyone?

It is like abortion everyone pisses and moans about that and they never stop to think that it is rampant uncontrolled sexuality that causes this problem. But no one wants to face the issue head on. So they bitch about abortions.

Marriage is the same thing. Single parent families. 50% divorce rate. Over 50% of the kids born out of wedlock. It all circles back to rampant uncontrolled sexuality. In both cases. No one stops to say hey we have ****ed our way into a massive problem and now how do we get out.

It seems that people are more content to bitch about other things.

Wait...what? You don't even know? Well wtf are you supporting it for then? You're argument is as much against gay-marriage as it is for it. I could adopt your own argument and claim the opposit vote.

"Gay-marriage: because finding a real solution is to hard".

Like I said, unless I think it's an improvement, I'm not on board. I'm not going to invest in stocks which have a coin's toss of going either direction, I'm going to invest in roth IRAs which have a proven 15 year track record and have withstood some economic hardships. Same principal with gay-marriage.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think you have it backwards. If gays DIDN'T respect the institution of marriage, they'd hardly want to participate in it.

Oh you must be talking about all the gays who want the alleged tax brakes marriage comes with :roll:...and I say "alleged" because in my 9 years of being married I have yet to see anything but a penalty.
 
Did gay marriage impact your relationship with your wife?

Did the normalizing of divorce with the 50% rate affect my own personal marriage? Yes. I'm not about to support anything which further enables that 50% divorce rate, so if gay-marriage is going to sport that 50% rate then I view gay-marriage as a direct threat to my own personal marriage.

Again, if it's not an improvement, I'm not on board with it. I want that 50% divorce rate brought down.
 
The argument that recognizing same-sex marriage means recognizing incestuous unions strongly resembles the now-discredited argument that legalizing same-gender sex means legalizing incest. “With whom can you legally have sex?” differs not so much from “Whom can you legally marry?” In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional laws prohibiting sexual intimacy between people of the same sex. That decision did not trigger a movement to legalize incest.

Nor will such a movement ever arise. However much affection a brother may have for his sister, it does not much limit his potential field of satisfactory mates to prohibit him from marrying her. By sharp contrast, most gays or lesbians cannot have fully satisfying loving marriages with someone of the opposite sex — just as exclusively heterosexual people cannot have fully satisfying loving marriages with someone of the same sex. Denying those gays and lesbians the right to marry someone of the same sex means denying them the right ever to have a fully satisfying loving marriage with anyone, not just with a particular person (as with incest) but with anyone.

Wow you just totally ignored everything I said. Well go **** yourself then.

Your objection is bull ****. It's not a convincing argument because it's heavily flawed as demonstrated. Every time you make it, only you are convinced.

I do. If you disagree with my position, i'd love to hear why. The question was certainly valid and deserving of a response.

Yeah, check this out: Morality is not allowed in law. You're question is thus invalid.

Based on your response, does this mean you are for prohibiting marriage to heterosexual couples who are either incapable of procreation or choose not to?

Yes, I have the power to prohibit, by my own word alone, anything :roll:

I was under the impression that, while you do not endorse gay marriage, you are not against it, either. So I am perplexed at why you would be more willing to eliminate heterosexuals from marriage based on this criteria, rather than simply include same-sex couples into the institution.

You're confused because you aren't paying any attention at all.

Marriage is about raising children. I'm closed to debating rather or not it is, so anyone who disagrees can piss-off. It is, end of debate.

Since marriage is about raising children, I am willing to cast my vote to open the door to any significant demographic who is raising children. Any demographic. Gays. Polygamists. Incest. Any.

In order to win Conservative and Moderate support for gay-marriage (not just civil union) you must show how gay-marriage supports the family in raising children even if that's not what you believe marriage is about; because you aren't trying to get your vote, you're trying to get mine.
 
Last edited:
Don't claim it's not a mental illness.

Homosexuality is a mental problem, isn't it?

Since no one's determined the cause of homosexuality, it's still under three possible causes:

Genetic disorder, hence not normal.
Developmental distraction caused by environmental factors, hence not normal.
Choice, hence not normal.

No, I don't see "different state of normal" as being one of the causes of your problem, I see the claim as you people refusing to accept the truth about who you are.

So you're insisting it's a genetic disorder. Glad you've made your choice. So many people try to insist isn't "none of the above".

Being born with a defect doesn't grant someone the right to special treatment, does it?

You do understand the biological purpose of sex, don't you?

It doesn't exist to give the animal a good time. It gives the animal a good time to motivate him and her to mix bodily fluids that eventually result in offspring.

Sexual urges that dominate an animal's pysche that prevent this result aren't normal and aren't healthy, since they deny the biological purpose of sex.

Merely a symptom of your disease, is all.

Have you sought professional psychological help?

No, it's merely symptomatic of your illness.

If your friends care about you, they'll let you know when they think you're ill.

I don't care about you and I'll let you know when I think you're ill, too.

For some reason, the people sharing your illness won't tell you you're ill.

Yes, it's a learned behavior, not a genetic defect or developmental maladjustment.

It's a specific act intended to elicit specific responses and succeeding.

Irrelevant to the issue of the mental disorders presented, as already discussed.

I recall saying that if it's a matter of choice or developmental maladjustment, it's a mental disorder. I never said a word about giving a crap about it. I said, since it's a genetic defect, or a developmental disorder, or a personal choice, what the hell has been accomplished to be proud about?

No, being homosexual is not a different aspect of normality. It's a defect.

So I ask you, do you believe homosexuality is caused by:

A) Genetic defect?
B) Developmental deviation caused by environmental factors?
C) Personal choice of freewill?

I've already explained the implications of each.

Which option do you choose? Are you able to invent a fourth option? That would be entertaining.

No, I'm the kind of man that makes statements based in logic and common knowledge.

Is there a fourth alternative to the cause of homosexuality?

It's either an inherited defect, and developmental defect, or a personal choice, which indicates a psychological defect of uncertain origin.

Are you going to put a fourth option on the table?

This is an impressively ignorant body of work, even for you, Scarecrow...and usually the inaccuracies and ignorance of your posts is quite substantial. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about, but that should not surprise anyone. Your posts always reek of that.

But, tell you what, I'm in the mood to educate those that have little knowledge on the topic we are discussing...and you have shown yourself to fit that description perfectly.

So, let's start with your first fallacious statement, the origin of the ignorance of your position:

Homosexuality is a mental problem, isn't it?

No, it's not, and it has been proven with research and valid, peer reviewed studies to not be a mental disorder. But please, post some valid, peer reviewed studies that prove your position...with links.

What's that I hear. Oh yes, that is the sound of you failing...as usual.

Now let's move on to your next erroneous statement, a false choice, bolstered by an inaccurate hypotheses:

So I ask you, do you believe homosexuality is caused by:

A) Genetic defect?
B) Developmental deviation caused by environmental factors?
C) Personal choice of freewill?

Your error, and the error of most who behave like bigots is in your question. It is not, "what is homosexuality caused by", but it is, "what is human sexuality caused by". So please, tell us which of the three choices you gave cause human sexuality, either hetero or homo.

Also, your choices are a logical fallacy...the "complex question" logical fallacy to be precise. This is not surprising, as your posts are usually devoid of logic. Further, you assume that homosexuality is a deviation. Now, since all research shows that this is inaccurate, not only is your question a complex question logical fallacy, but it is also a false premise logical fallacy, Impressive display of a lack of logic, Scarecrow, even for you.

But wait, since all sexuality falls under the same research umbrella, according to your logic, please tell us whether heterosexuality is a genetic defect, a developmental deviation, or a choice. See, how silly you look now.

But please, show us some valid, peer reviewed studies that support your position, that homosexuality falls under any of these classification...but heterosexuality does not.

What's that I hear. Oh yes, that is the sound of you failing...as usual.

Now, to continue my education of the non-knowledgeable on this issue like you, Scarecrow, here are some facts on homosexuality and gay marriage. Since you claim to know something (though you have proven the opposite), I dare you to dispute any of the points below. Please do so with evidence from valid studies. You can be sure I have mine flied and ready.

1) Homosexuality is not a disorder.
2) Homosexuality was declassified by the APA because an overwhelming amount of valid, peer reviewed research was shown to prove this. Most research prior to much of this was determined to be faulty methodologically, because of bias, or both.
3) The only politicizing that went on when the APA declassified homosexuality was the politicizing to get the research admitted.
4) We do not know conclusively what causes sexual orientation. Researchers theorize that it comes from genetic, biological, and developmental factors. What combination of these factors is unknown.
5) Sexual behavior is the acting on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot be changed; sexual behavior can be changed.
6) Conversion therapy is unethical.
7) Trauma can NOT alter one's sexual orientation, but it can assist in altering one's sexual behavior.
8) Those who act in contradiction to their sexual orientation may be suffering from some sort of psychological disorder; this disorder is often related to impulse control.
9) Prisoners who exhibit homosexual behavior have not changed their sexual orientation; they have changed their sexual behavior.
10) Gay couples rear children that perform as well emotionally, academically, and socially as straight couples that rear children.
11) Children who are raised by gay couples are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straight couples.
 
Last edited:
I have to say Mon Capitan there are many reason why I am not Homophobic, I live to learn, I have just learned a new one from a different perspective. I would not like my arse to be so fragrantly kicked in public, I have my pride dont you know;)

Also this is a first for me, this forum has taught me not to be pavlovian and view all mods as my natural enemy:)
 
Last edited:
I have to say Mon Capitan there are many reason why I am not Homophobic, I live to learn, I have just learned a new one from a different perspective. I would not like my arse to be so fragrantly kicked in public, I have my pride dont you know;)

An open mind allows for learning and possibilities. A closed mind allows for neither.

Also this is a first for me, this forum has taught me not to be pavlovian and view all mods as my natural enemy:)
Yeah, the mods here are pretty cool. :cool: ;)
 
My position isn't against allowing homosexuals to marry. It's defending and promoting the institution of marriage regardless of whether or not homosexuals are allowed to participate in it. As I noted earlier, I am fully in favor of the government recognizing homosexual and polygamous unions.

Then we agree.


I think it's relevant, especially with so many people arguing that the government should get out of the marriage business in the first place. In order to determine properly who should or should not be allowed to married, it makes sense that we should keep in mind why we're allowing it in the first place. Government programs should be organized according to their intended purpose.

That's fine, but like I maintained, there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from the institution. Perhaps I need a clearer picture of where exactly you disagree with my position; your arguments seem to reinforce what I believe and what i've been saying.
 
Wow you just totally ignored everything I said. Well go **** yourself then.

Your objection is bull ****. It's not a convincing argument because it's heavily flawed as demonstrated. Every time you make it, only you are convinced.



Yeah, check this out: Morality is not allowed in law. You're question is thus invalid.



Yes, I have the power to prohibit, by my own word alone, anything :roll:



You're confused because you aren't paying any attention at all.

Marriage is about raising children. I'm closed to debating rather or not it is, so anyone who disagrees can piss-off. It is, end of debate.

Since marriage is about raising children, I am willing to cast my vote to open the door to any significant demographic who is raising children. Any demographic. Gays. Polygamists. Incest. Any.

In order to win Conservative and Moderate support for gay-marriage (not just civil union) you must show how gay-marriage supports the family in raising children even if that's not what you believe marriage is about; because you aren't trying to get your vote, you're trying to get mine.

Jerry;

First off, calm down, brother. There is no reason to get bent out of shape simply because I disagree with your position. I'm not sure if you were just having a bad day or what, but there were a number of things you were saying that I just don't buy into, which is why I had this discussion in the first place. Trust me, I wasn't setting out to see if I could rile you up like this. Like I said, I was merely disagreeing with you.

You make a lot of good points, dude. Your argument is well thought out and I like the way you think, even if I disagree with it on this particular issue. So if this discussion upset you, then I apologize. Again, this wasn't my intent. I'm just here to discuss politics is all, just like you.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Conservatives make good arguments. You are certainly no exception. I simply disagree with a lot of them, but so what? I'm just an everyday average liberal who tries to be as open minded and accepting as I can, and that's why I embrace gay marriage. Nevermind the philosophical arguments. At the end of the day, I guess it's all about what each of us feel is right, you know? Well, that's the gay marriage issue for me. I feel it's the right thing to do.

Anyhow, i'll get off my soapbox now, but I didn't mean to upset you. I just disagreed is all.

Have a good 'un.
 
Last edited:
Jerry;

First off, calm down, brother. There is no reason to get bent out of shape simply because I disagree with your position. I'm not sure if you were just having a bad day or what, but there were a number of things you were saying that I just don't buy into, which is why I had this discussion in the first place. Trust me, I wasn't setting out to see if I could rile you up like this. Like I said, I was merely disagreeing with you.

You make a lot of good points, dude. Your argument is well thought out and I like the way you think, even if I disagree with it on this particular issue. So if this discussion upset you, then I apologize. Again, this wasn't my intent. I'm just here to discuss politics is all, just like you.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Conservatives make good arguments. You are certainly no exception. I simply disagree with a lot of them, but so what? I'm just an everyday average liberal who tries to be as open minded and accepting as I can, and that's why I embrace gay marriage. Nevermind the philosophical arguments. At the end of the day, I guess it's all about what each of us feel is right, you know? Well, that's the gay marriage issue for me. I feel it's the right thing to do.

Anyhow, i'll get off my soapbox now, but I didn't mean to upset you. I just disagreed is all.

Have a good 'un.

You feign civility while ignoring the argument.

That's the insult you keep issuing.
 
1) Homosexuality is not a disorder.
2) Homosexuality was declassified by the APA because an overwhelming amount of valid, peer reviewed research was shown to prove this. Most research prior to much of this was determined to be faulty methodologically, because of bias, or both.
3) The only politicizing that went on when the APA declassified homosexuality was the politicizing to get the research admitted.
4) We do not know conclusively what causes sexual orientation. Researchers theorize that it comes from genetic, biological, and developmental factors. What combination of these factors is unknown.
5) Sexual behavior is the acting on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot be changed; sexual behavior can be changed.
6) Conversion therapy is unethical.
7) Trauma can NOT alter one's sexual orientation, but it can assist in altering one's sexual behavior.
8) Those who act in contradiction to their sexual orientation may be suffering from some sort of psychological disorder; this disorder is often related to impulse control.
9) Prisoners who exhibit homosexual behavior have not changed their sexual orientation; they have changed their sexual behavior.
10) Gay couples rear children that perform as well emotionally, academically, and socially as straight couples that rear children.
11) Children who are raised by gay couples are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straight couples.

All the same is true for heteros, yet we still have a 50% divorce rate.

How will gay-marriage be any different?

If gay-marriage will have all the same cancers that hetero-marriage has, then imo paying any attention to gay-marriage is to ignore the real problems.
 
All the same is true for heteros, yet we still have a 50% divorce rate.

How will gay-marriage be any different?

If gay-marriage will have all the same cancers that hetero-marriage has, then imo paying any attention to gay-marriage is to ignore the real problems.

Personally I don't see how marriage is such a sacred thing that we all need to protect. People get married, some get divorced. Who cares? Marriage in this country is a joke and it always will be. So considering that marriage won't be viewed as sacred anytime soon, I fail to see why it's such a big deal to allow gays to marry.
 
Personally I don't see how marriage is such a sacred thing that we all need to protect. People get married, some get divorced. Who cares? Marriage in this country is a joke and it always will be. So considering that marriage won't be viewed as sacred anytime soon, I fail to see why it's such a big deal to allow gays to marry.

Some of us want children to grow up in intact homes.

I guess if you don't care about that you're not much of a human being at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom