• 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!

Why do people care about the sexual orientation or sexual tastes of others

X Factor said:
Your OP and question were not specific. You just asked about "sexual tastes" and asked why anyone would care. I gave you one reason.
Click to expand...

I am not criticizing your post. I am clarifying mine.
 
It's no different than my neighbors, who are so concerned with everything my family does, and has complained to the county tax office over a dozen times crying that I'm not paying enough in taxes. They also got mad when I put up a three rail white PVC fence around my horse pasture. They thought I had placed it on their land. Had to get a surveyor to come out and survey the line. The idiot came out of his house and argued with surveyor (found out my neighbor had built his driveway with half of it on my land). They call animal control anytime one of my animal gets close to their land (including the horses in my own dang pasture / they don't like the poop smell).

My point? Misery loves company. Some people don't understand the meaning of "All men are created equal." And because of that, they feel that they are better than some, and by some omnipotent anointment, have the duty and right to decry against others having the same rights as they. It's been that way all through history. Slavery, women's suffrage and even begrudging others success and wanting to tax them down to their level. Yup, even the Liberal's are guilty of it, too.

The only potentially reasonable position against gay's would be on a religious basis. That however doesn't give a person the right to discriminate against gays.

Hell, I told my wife a few years back that I had made a profound discovery about myself. We were in Key West walking near the man made beach and walked up on three young ladies in... well... you know. For some reason, my legs wouldn't work, and my wife kept pulling on my arm until they did. After walking a little further, I turned to my wife, and declared that I was most definitely a Lesbian. Thank God she laughed.

As long as what a person does, doesn't harm or impede upon me, anyone else, or our rights as a citizen, then they can have at it.
 
opendebate said:
I am not criticizing your post. I am clarifying mine.
Click to expand...

So are you conceding that there is, at least, one good reason why someone might be concerned with someone else's sexual tastes?
 
opendebate said:
How do you feel about teaching tolerance.
Click to expand...


what is that?

its the same as saying things have to be fair.

what is fair, its subjective to the person, something might be fair to you, but not to me.

i am not for anyone being hurt, or discrimination against anyone , however other people do not have to power to dictate what my behavior is going to be, i can be a bigot, a racist, what ever i wish, its when i take the hate from those things and apply by force to people, when i am stepping outside the law, and government can curtail my rights.

tolerance to me means , somebody wants to do something and they want approval of it by voluntary consent at first, and if they dont get it...use force to achieve... to get it.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It's no different than my neighbors, who are so concerned with everything my family does, and has complained to the county tax office over a dozen times crying that I'm not paying enough in taxes. They also got mad when I put up a three rail white PVC fence around my horse pasture. They thought I had placed it on their land. Had to get a surveyor to come out and survey the line. The idiot came out of his house and argued with surveyor (found out my neighbor had built his driveway with half of it on my land). They call animal control anytime one of my animal gets close to their land (including the horses in my own dang pasture / they don't like the poop smell).

My point? Misery loves company. Some people don't understand the meaning of "All men are created equal." And because of that, they feel that they are better than some, and by some omnipotent anointment, have the duty and right to decry against others having the same rights as they. It's been that way all through history. Slavery, women's suffrage and even begrudging others success and wanting to tax them down to their level. Yup, even the Liberal's are guilty of it, too.

The only potentially reasonable position against gay's would be on a religious basis. That however doesn't give a person the right to discriminate against gays.

Hell, I told my wife a few years back that I had made a profound discovery about myself. We were in Key West walking near the man made beach and walked up on three young ladies in... well... you know. For some reason, my legs wouldn't work, and my wife kept pulling on my arm until they did. After walking a little further, I turned to my wife, and declared that I was most definitely a Lesbian. Thank God she laughed.

As long as what a person does, doesn't harm or impede upon me, anyone else, or our rights as a citizen, then they can have at it.
Click to expand...

:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
X Factor said:
So are you conceding that there is, at least, one good reason why someone might be concerned with someone else's sexual tastes?
Click to expand...

Sure. I guess I considered those cases self evident. I adjusted my OP to be more clear.
 
opendebate said:
It is.
Click to expand...

Just like how the openings in a chess match are commonly seen, I have to respond with the typical question. What makes SSM a right and not every type of marriage others want a right?
 
opendebate said:
Yes, that however is a loosing battle regardless of the issue. I wonder sometimes though if people don't hide behind the righteousness of having a religious reason for their judgement when much of their repulsion has more to do with their own discomfort.
Click to expand...

I'm sure sometimes that's the issue. But on the other hand I'm sure there are many who do actually believe that homosexuality or other sexual ideas are wrong for religious reasons. It's not what I believe, but if I concede the religious belief against homosexuality for instance, then the disapproval makes sense.
 
Mathematician said:
Just like how the openings in a chess match are commonly seen, I have to respond with the typical question. What makes SSM a right and not every type of marriage others want a right?
Click to expand...
If the "others" involve just two adults and a marriage license issued by the state, they are the same. Anything else starts to break the rules, and usually has 'consent' issues.
 
ernst barkmann said:
what is that?

its the same as saying things have to be fair.

what is fair, its subjective to the person, something might be fair to you, but not to me.

i am not for anyone being hurt, or discrimination against anyone , however other people do not have to power to dictate what my behavior is going to be, i can be a bigot, a racist, what ever i wish, its when i take the hate from those things and apply by force to people, when i am stepping outside the law, and government can curtail my rights.

tolerance to me means , somebody wants to do something and they want approval of it by voluntary consent at first, and if they dont get it...use force to achieve... to get it.
Click to expand...

That is not what it means. It means to each their own. That people are free to make their own choices or be genuinely who they are and I will not judge them for the life they lead. I would ad the caveat... so long as it does not harm anyone. )i.d.: You want to won a bunch of guns, fine, just don't shoot me.)
 
opendebate said:
It is.
Click to expand...

Actually, SSM, like other marriage, is not a right. Freedom of Association is a right. The problem is that when the government issues licenses to enter into a contract (marriage) and gives certain benefits and protections under the law for one group of people, they cannot deny granting the same to other groups wanting to enter into the same contractual relationship with all benefits that the contract and license provide.

Homosexuality is not a protected class under US law. It shouldn't have to be, but maybe it needs to be. Just like other minority groups.

Race, creed, color and sex are protected classes. Sexual preference is not. Strange to me that it should even have to be, but maybe that's what it will take.
 
TiredOfLife said:
If the "others" involve just two adults and a marriage license issued by the state, they are the same. Anything else starts to break the rules, and usually has 'consent' issues.
Click to expand...

Why do you get to choose just two adults? What if my buddy and I want to play wife swap every night and would prefer the four of us be considered "married" for our reasons?
 
Mathematician said:
Why do you get to choose just two adults? What if my buddy and I want to play wife swap every night and would prefer the four of us be considered "married" for our reasons?
Click to expand...
We could, but don't, allow group marriage. It's an option however.
 
Mathematician said:
Just like how the openings in a chess match are commonly seen, I have to respond with the typical question. What makes SSM a right and not every type of marriage others want a right?
Click to expand...

You can marry a tree for all I care, except that the tree can not consent. If two consenting adults of the same gender believe they love one another and want to make a lifetime commitment who am I to tell them no? And why would I? If one man wants to marry three women and they want to marry him, why do I care? Why do you see this as a problem?
 
opendebate said:
Sure. I guess I considered those cases self evident. I adjusted my OP to be more clear.
Click to expand...

Ok, so say there's incest in a family and it's been going on for years. It's just what this family does. By the time it's discovered, both parties are of legal age and both consent to it.

Any reason for concern there or is it none of our business?
 
Anagram said:
I'm sure sometimes that's the issue. But on the other hand I'm sure there are many who do actually believe that homosexuality or other sexual ideas are wrong for religious reasons. It's not what I believe, but if I concede the religious belief against homosexuality for instance, then the disapproval makes sense.
Click to expand...

I can't argue that. The problem, of course, is that it makes sense "for them" to then impose that on others is another issue.
 
opendebate said:
That is not what it means. It means to each their own. That people are free to make their own choices or be genuinely who they are and I will not judge them for the life they lead. I would ad the caveat... so long as it does not harm anyone. )i.d.: You want to won a bunch of guns, fine, just don't shoot me.)
Click to expand...

what you say is good ,i like it, however you will find 99% of the problems of the world are cause by people trying to force other people to do things against their will.

as a libertarian, government is here to secure the rights of the people, and then " leave them alone"

government is not a moral authority to teach us such things, if they could, they could dictate smoking, drinking, sex, eating, anything that concerns us in our individual life's.

if governments wants to make gay marriage legal, fine, just do not tell me i must accept it, because i dont have to, i have the freedom to reject it..........but some people dont like that, and will use force if necessary on those who choose to reject it, we have already seen it with governments using that force.
 
X Factor said:
Ok, so say there's incest in a family and it's been going on for years. It's just what this family does. By the time it's discovered, both parties are of legal age and both consent to it.

Any reason for concern there or is it none of our business?
Click to expand...
Incest has a 'yuck" factor and an increased biological risk if they produce children. Otherwise, marry on.
 
Mathematician said:
Why do you get to choose just two adults? What if my buddy and I want to play wife swap every night and would prefer the four of us be considered "married" for our reasons?
Click to expand...

then have a blast.
 
X Factor said:
Ok, so say there's incest in a family and it's been going on for years. It's just what this family does. By the time it's discovered, both parties are of legal age and both consent to it.

Any reason for concern there or is it none of our business?
Click to expand...

You are assuming a child is capable of actual consent. I don't believe that is the case.
 
Why in the world would anyone ever equate homosexuality with pedophilia or incest. That's like comparing the Dali Lama to a member of the US Congress...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom