• 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!

When liberals tell the truth

M

Masada

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
3,142
Reaction score
939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, for all the liberals here that have continuously argued that same sex marriage would in "no way" effect marriage as an institution, I wonder what they have to say to fellow lesbian, liberal, who laughs at that "lie", and states that indeed gay activists have a motive. What does she mean, "what we're going to do with it when we get it"????

I learned something about liberalism, and activism long ago. They lie. They disguise their arguments with perverted definitions, politically correct phrasing, and outright distortions in order to advance their truly progressive agenda. Gay marriage isn't about tax breaks. If you really think it is, you're an idiot. Gay marriage isn't about adoption rights. If you really think it is, you're an idiot. Gay marriage isn't about inheritance laws either, and if you think it is, you know what you are.

This whole debate is over morality and the interpretation thereof. Gays want homosexuality to be MORALLY accepted in this society, and they believe that by forcing society to acknowledge their relationships as marital, they can accomplish this. Opponents resist accepting homosexuality morally. Gays dont just want tax breaks that hetero couples get. They want society to do an about face and embrace a lifestyle that most of society deems to be immoral. They want people to believe there is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. They want people to abandon their religious beliefs, denouncing it in essence, and say, "sure, nothing wrong with being gay." This is what they want. Therefore, they want to forever change the institution of marriage, because it's an issue near and dear to the heart's of Christians and other people of faith.

This is how despicable people can be. They want to trounce religious beliefs into oblivion, because those religious beliefs teach against THEIR lifestyle choice. Just listen to this lady, in like-minded company, tell the truth:

Gay Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen - YouTube!
 
All I hear is that this individual is "against the institution of marriage" and I don't see how that relates to your post at all.

If one persons opinion makes everyone else an "idiot", well, that makes little to no sense.

The married or partnered gay friends I have are indeed concerned with the practical benefits of marriage and "normalization" is the least of their concerns. IMHO, trouncing religious beliefs that dictate the emotions of the unaffiliated is a good thing, not a bad thing.



 

What marriage is today is much different than when the Bible was written. It trancends religion. Why does religion get to dictate what marriage is and is not when it is applicable to so many people beyond those religions. An Atheist heterosexual couple can get married, some even get marrried in a Church. Wouldn't the marriage of the non religious in a religious institution fall under the same ridiculous religious reasons that gays cannot get married? Infidelity is even more frowned upon in the bible than homosexuality is.

The answer to all this is religion and the religion have NO right to dictate peoples' lives to them. In a country where the separation of Church and State is key, and is a Republic built for the People by the People, the peoples' concerns take precedent. The majority of American support gay marriage. Therefore, the Church's opinion is irrelevant to the application of the rule of law in a secular Republic.
 

So you find one crazy polygamist (or whatever the hell she is) and assume that she speaks for all liberals? You can't tell me why I support gay marriage any more than I can say that you don't support it because you're a bigot. If you tell me that you don't support it for X, Y and Z, and if I can't prove that those aren't your reasons, then I have no reason to doubt you. Just as you have no reason to doubt me. I'm married with a kid on the way, and you're trying to argue that I support gay marriage because it will destroy traditional marriage. I love my "traditional" marriage and wouldn't give it up for anything in the world.

There's no nice way to put this. You're logic is stupid and faulty.
 
If there's one thing hard core Christians do poorly... it's making themselves out to be victims of oppression.

I ain't buying it and very few others are either.
 

Just as much right as homosexuals have trying to force society to accept their amoral behavior. Teaching kids in schools that homosexuality is "normal" and "fine". Changing the definition of marriage in the process. What right do they have to do any of those things? Just as much right as I have to say that God is the author of moral law, and what he says transcends anything and everything you think you know, and anything and everything you say. I'll teach my kids that homosexuality is amoral, and people like you will teach all the other kids that my kids are "bigots" and "closed minded". What right do you have to do that? What right do school teachers have?

You accuse me of "forcing" a religious belief on people. Nope. You don't have to agree that homosexuality is immoral. No more than I have to say it's not.

I'm not like you people. If there's a club for women, where no men are allowed, and only women, you think I'm gonna worry about being "equally" accepted??? lol...

No one is preventing people from having homosexual relationships. But this country is not, and has never been a country that disinfranchises the vast majority just to appease the minority. We're not talking about voting rights here. Gays can vote. We're not talking about workplace discrimination, because gays are allowed to work. We're not talking about freedom of speech here, or expression, because gays have every right to do both.

We're talking about gays wanting a society to "accept" their behavior as "morally good". In other words, defying morality.
 
Masada said:
When liberals tell the truth
Click to expand...


What makes you think that this Masha Gessen is a "liberal"? Do you know where she stands (if she bothers) on any other issue?


What she is saying could just as well be said by any libertarian, or any (honest) conservative - or any civilized socialist, for that matter: the 'traditional marriage' as a function of the secular State is absurd. The State is not a church.

All together now: "The State is not a church". It has no business administering the holy matrimony. Has it?
 
Jetboogieman said:
If there's one thing hard core Christians do poorly... it's making themselves out to be victims of oppression.

I ain't buying it and very few others are either.
Click to expand...

hahaha....and what are the gays doing? "oh look at us, we have to pay higher taxes....boo hoo". The majority of gays are liberals, and here I thought the majority of liberals supported higher taxes....lol....what a coincidence.

Liberals want higher taxes, just not on gay couples I suppose. Even if those gay couples earn more than $250k a year. haha...but I digress. I AM a victim, and so are you, you just don't recognize it. Because society as a whole is the victim of progressive amoral philosophies. Including the support for SSM. Listen to the lesbian in the clip. She understands exactly what I'm saying, and she wouldn't deny it either.
 

I don't believe it does. But that is a secondary argument. Either way, gays insist on same sex relationships being defined as "marital". They reject the title of "civil union", which would grant them equal secular advantage. So why do they oppose it if secular equality is their goal?????

It strips away the lies. It exposes the true motivations of gay rights advocates. If civil unions accomplishes secular equality, why do gays reject it??????

Don't give me this "seperate but equal isn't equal" BS either. Because it would be 100% equal, just identified in a different catagory, enforced identically the same. So, in THIS case, seperate but equal WOULD work. It's not the same as black water fountains and white water fountains. The government is not a church, they administer secular licenses, not holy sacraments.

So, for the final appeal to gay rights advocates, how about ALL marriage, both gay and hetero, be classified as "civil unions"????? Wait, that's been proposed before too.....and yep.....I'm afraid to say, that gays did not want that either. They insist on being classified as "marriages".

Now tell me why????? And for once liberals, tell the damn truth.
 
The bolded sentence is the crux of the matter and I happen to agree with it. This IS all about moral acceptance but I think it is has just as much to do with the way gay people see themselves as it does with the perceptions of the heterosexual community. It's all about feeling that you are "just like everyone else". Maybe allowing gay marriage will eventually have an effect on the way straight people view the homosexual lifestyle but is it going to have any effect on the way gay people view themselves? I don't know.
 
Good Grief.

She is living in Russia, she is under threat by the Russian govt of having her adopted child removed by the authorities, she is talking about her OWN views on marriage from a legal perspective, she is talking about the Russian legal system.

You get a 2 minute snippet, out of context, from rightwing ultraconservative echo chambers on a discussion from one person outside of the US talking about secular LAWS.....and believe it is an attack on religion. Religion can have whatever beliefs it wants, but this is not what you think it is.

Why not try and do just a tiny bit of research on the person to get a bit of perspective.
 

It is 110% normal. Teaching children it is normal, because it is. No one chooses to be gay. So yes, people and children need to be taught to accept homosexuality as normal and fine, it is no less valid a way a life than leading a heterosexual one.

If you truly want to teach your children that, and keep them away from the ideal that homosexuality is normal, send them to a private school that teaches otherwise.

You accuse me of "forcing" a religious belief on people. Nope. You don't have to agree that homosexuality is immoral. No more than I have to say it's not.
Click to expand...
Your insisting that marriage is only a religious rite and must stick to the Christian definition of "One man, one woman" and anyone who does not conform does not deserve marriage, is bigoted and indeed trying to force others into your ideal.

I'm not like you people. If there's a club for women, where no men are allowed, and only women, you think I'm gonna worry about being "equally" accepted??? lol...
Click to expand...

Poor analogy, as marriage applies to everyone. I'm not like you people where my ideals are stuck in the 1950's.


No one is being disinfranchised. Those who are gay are being infranchised. Nothing will happen to heterosexual marriage.
We're talking about gays wanting a society to "accept" their behavior as "morally good". In other words, defying morality.
Click to expand...

I can't even comment.
 
Last edited:
Even if SSM becomes law everywhere, the gays are still going to fail gaining acceptance of those who do not accept non-hetero relationships or those who engage in them. I simply cannot believe, however, that this trying to force people to accept them thing wasn't obvious to most all along anyway.
 
Masada said:
We're talking about gays wanting a society to "accept" their behavior as "morally good". In other words, defying morality.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is "immoral" - based on what, exactly? Some tribal taboos that got fixed into the holy scripts of a couple of major world religions? Whatever.

If you are a Jew or a Christian, and you are gay, OK - stay celibate. As an atheist heterosexual, I may admire your restraint, and I really don't care or share. You know, not interesting enough, sorry.

But when somebody tells me that the actual morality - the very freedom of choice - is not a priority at all, that the elementary desire to be left alone and treated equally with everyone else, in the face of law - that this is somehow irrelevant, comparing to the abovementioned tribal taboos - or even evil - - - I really don't know what to say.

Communication is possible only between people who share at least some basics...
 
specklebang said:
IMHO, trouncing religious beliefs that dictate the emotions of the unaffiliated is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Translated: Attack religions with moral standards that don't include homosexuality?
 
Ray410 said:
Translated: Attack religions with moral standards that don't include homosexuality?
Click to expand...

Moral standards that are flawed and outdated. The part of the Bible that most draw argument against homosexuality was written 3400 years ago. The world has changed a lot since then.
 
Marriage is a terrible idea and I don't recommend it for anyone UNLESS they are planning to have children. The usual claim for marriage is "LOVE" and it's twisted sister "Love At First Sight" so most marriages are based on the genitalia response and are rarely practical. I completely support your concept of eliminating marriage in favor of civil unions and we could probably make progress on this by eliminating any financial or tax benefits. When you die, you die alone and 100% of your assets go to the state. The only exception would be for people who a)hav children and b)have remained "married" until their death. Then, the assets could go to the children.

As one of those fearsome "pro-Gay Rights" activists, I assure you that nobody I know gives a rat's ass about "normalization". It's already normal - for them. Indeed, it is heterosexual couples that seem abnormal. 2 completely different species having sex! Revolting! Although I still sort of dig it.

I don't think that gay people are "Liberals" by nature. They get support from the "Liberal" groups so of course they are more likely to vote with them out of self-preservation. But there ae enough "Log Cabin Republicns" to make the point that who you **** has not that much to do with your attitude toward anything else.

ALL marriage, both gay and hetero, be classified as "civil unions" is the most sensible part of your post.

 
Juiposa said:
Moral standards that are flawed and outdated. The part of the Bible that most draw argument against homosexuality was written 3400 years ago. The world has changed a lot since then.
Click to expand...

That particular aspect of the world must have been the same 3400 years ago or the prohibition against homosexuality wouldn't even be in the Bible.
 

I will agree that liberals on the whole tend to be less religious than conservatives and liberals give less to charities and church based organizations than conservatives, perhaps because liberals think government should be taking care of the people with other people’s money.

Having said the above, it is pure poppycock that liberals are out to destroy the morality of the United States. The United States since it inception has always had a lot of individuals with high morals and a lot without scruples at all. But morals, outside of some basic tenets like “Thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, etc which is the basis for any society that is to function and survive, and morals can be seen in the eye of the beholder or perhaps religious faith.

Liberals tend to believe in group rights and group rights are very important to them. Gays and gay marriage seem to them to be a basic civil right of that group. Now conservatives tend to believe more in individual rights than group rights. Hence you have the struggle now taking place. Personally I have no problem with gay marriages. But I do understand where those oppose to come from. I wouldn’t have a problem if all marriages performed outside of the church became civil unions and only those performed in a religious ceremony were called marriages. In the end, it is nothing more than words. B

But no, liberals are not out to destroy the moral fabric of the United States, they just want to correct a wrong, a wrong to a certain group of people. So it may boil down to this question, is marriage a right or is marriage an institution granted to those who want to get married or not.
 
How is being born gay "immoral"?
Is it the same way left handed people were once considered to be "sinister" and perhaps "touched by the devil"?

It's how they are. Everyone should be able to accept himself for what god made him to be.
 
No, my attack on religion covers far more ground than that. Religion is nothing but a business that has an invisible product and pays no taxes on their substantial profits. To give religion any kind of voice is a mistake and a trap that we easily fall in to.

Morality is how we treat others. Lying, stealing, cheating, killing and repression are inherently immoral. True, religion was the form in which many of these original principles were codified, and I respect that. But if anything, religion now gives methods of escape from those responsibilities.



Ray410 said:
Translated: Attack religions with moral standards that don't include homosexuality?
Click to expand...
 
Ray410 said:
That particular aspect of the world must have been the same 3400 years ago or the prohibition against homosexuality wouldn't even be in the Bible.
Click to expand...


Leviticus prohibits many other things Christians still indulge in. What has changed about those things that makes them acceptable now, but somehow homosexuality has missed the boat?
 

Good question. I say probably not, because no matter what "society" thinks about something, the individual is naturally wired with a least some sort of recognition of natural law. I'm sure the legalization of same sex marriage will have some effect on the way straight peole view the homosexual lifestyle, no question. And I stand by my claim that THIS is the ultimate goal of the activist crowd. Not tax equality, not anything else. No one is prohibiting gay people from being gay, and we shouldn't. But that's not the same thing as acknowledging their relationships as "the same" as hetero relationships. They can be classified as equal secularly, fine with me. But to push society into believing that homosexual relationships are equally moral is a mistake, and one that will have consequences.
 
No, my attack on religion covers far more ground than that. Religion is nothing but a business that has an invisible product and pays no taxes on their substantial profits. To give religion any kind of voice is a mistake and a trap that we easily fall in to.

Morality is how we treat others. Lying, stealing, cheating, killing and repression are inherently immoral. True, religion was the form in which many of these original principles were codified, and I respect that. But if anything, religion now gives methods of escape from those responsibilities.



Ray410 said:
Translated: Attack religions with moral standards that don't include homosexuality?
Click to expand...
 

Yeah..they are despicable...how dare they want to be accepted!

This is what gives religion a bad name...supposedly about loving other people but only seems to be used to judge others. I honestly think half the time dealing with modern day Christians is similar to the Jews Jesus faced. An abomination and bastardization of what religion is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…