• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

For all things relative to politics.

Porygandrew

Well-Known Member
Now by the same token by your belief we should allow judges to legalize Pedophillic Marriages, we should allow judges to legalize Incestrial Marriages, we should allow judges to legalize Bestial Marriages. We should allow judges to legalize pollimic *sp * marriages. All of these are technically people's rights.

  • Pedophilia - The U.S. recognizes an adult at the age of 18. Anything under that needs a parent or guardian to sign. This is because it is believed that by the age of 18, a person is mature enough to make rational, well-thought-out decisions by themselves. On top of being sexually immature up until that point (some late bloomers is a given), "Children/Teenagers" are incapable, under law, of understanding the consequences of their decisions or to make rational decisions. That is why there are laws protecting children. Children are immature idiots (kidding!)
  • Incestual - Incestuous relationships harbor genetic deficiencies in offspring - inbreeding. Although an incestuous homosexual coupling will not produce offspring, the laws assume heterosexual acts and - as a personal view, I am not quite that open-minded to allow 2 adult siblings to marry.
  • Bestial - Animals cannot consent nor understand what "marriage" is about - the mutual caring of and consensual pact between two adults in love.
  • Polygamous - Some countries allow Polygamous marriages. Some places and religious sects consent to said marriages. Personally I can't see how there isn't a conflict of interest when everyone is equal. When husband/wife #2 has to submit to husband/wife #1, then there isn't equality. If one of, say, a marriage of three gets injured and sent to the hospital, what happens when the other two argue over life support? This happens between a spouse and the parents of the injured person. Under the law, the spouse has the say because they are closer to their spouse than the parents.

Marriage as a "consensual agreement between two adults" sounds fine for me. (It also has the added benefit of getting rid of "non-consensual marriages". No more shot-gun weddings! lol)

Edit: Went back and read the first post. Guess "Gay Marriage" is banned, but technically this reply is more about the bolded topics than specifically gay marriage :p
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
Pedophilia - The U.S. recognizes an adult at the age of 18. Anything under that needs a parent or guardian to sign. This is because it is believed that by the age of 18, a person is mature enough to make rational, well-thought-out decisions by themselves. On top of being sexually immature up until that point (some late bloomers is a given), "Children/Teenagers" are incapable, under law, of understanding the consequences of their decisions or to make rational decisions.

Of course the problem with that is that the sexual disfunction is that the person is attracted to the child while their body is young. If you are going to put restrictions on marriage then it goes back to the argument that gays can still marry some one of the opposite sex.

Incestual - Incestuous relationships harbor genetic deficiencies in offspring - inbreeding. Although an incestuous homosexual coupling will not produce offspring, the laws assume heterosexual acts and - as a personal view, I am not quite that open-minded to allow 2 adult siblings to marry.

Mind you inbreeding does not always create a genetic problems in the offspring, there is how ever a heightened risk. But if we are going to base marriage on the result of their offsprings then we would not allow anyone with genetic problems to marry, nor would we allow gays to marry as they cannot produce a off spring.

Bestial - Animals cannot consent nor understand what "marriage" is about - the mutual caring of and consensual pact between two adults in love.

That is very true, but again you are placing restrictions on what can and cannot be considered marriage.

Polygamous - Some countries allow Polygamous marriages.

Yes but we are talking about U.S. law.

Some places and religious sects consent to said marriages.

* Points to the above reply *

Personally I can't see how there isn't a conflict of interest when everyone is equal. When husband/wife #2 has to submit to husband/wife #1, then there isn't equality. If one of, say, a marriage of three gets injured and sent to the hospital, what happens when the other two argue over life support?

Same thing as the person's family and spouse arguing over life support. You have a written out will stating who makes the decision.

This happens between a spouse and the parents of the injured person. Under the law, the spouse has the say because they are closer to their spouse than the parents.

I wouldn't say that as there were millions of dollars spent in court cases fighting that argument in the case of Terri Schiavo
 

Porygandrew

Well-Known Member
Of course the problem with that is that the sexual disfunction is that the person is attracted to the child while their body is young. If you are going to put restrictions on marriage then it goes back to the argument that gays can still marry some one of the opposite sex.
But then you're arguing sexual dysfunction versus not. Plus the argument against pedophilia is for the safety of the child - an undeveloped person in every sense of the term.
Mind you inbreeding does not always create a genetic problems in the offspring, there is how ever a heightened risk. But if we are going to base marriage on the result of their offsprings then we would not allow anyone with genetic problems to marry, nor would we allow gays to marry as they cannot produce a off spring.
Nor would we allow infertile people to marry, nor would we allow marriage without an offspring being born immediately thereof - if marriage was all about children and raising kids. As for heightened risk - Incest / "Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected." Look up Inbreeding on Wikipedia. On top of that, you're arguing "Heightened Risk of Genetic Deficiency" with "No Risk of Genetic Deficiency"? On that basis alone, same-sex marriage is the safest way of being married without running the risk of having defective offspring.

That is very true, but again you are placing restrictions on what can and cannot be considered marriage.
Of course there are restrictions - to protect the parties involved and to make sure they understand the responsibilities bestowed upon them. Children aren't physically nor mentally mature enough and animals cannot understand the responsibilities marriage brings (as well as monogamy, one can argue)

Yes but we are talking about U.S. law.

* Points to the above reply *
Look at the trouble Mormons and the "Polygamist Compound" in... Texas? caused. One can argue who is to say which country's laws are "correct". The Netherlands allows gay marriage whereas there are less freedoms for women than men in notable Muslim countries (doing my best not to stir that pot).

Same thing as the person's family and spouse arguing over life support. You have a written out will stating who makes the decision.
But like I stated, that automatically puts one spouse above the other, thus creating inequality, even if consensual. Partners in Marriage are said to be equals ("Better Halves" of the other, etc).

I wouldn't say that as there were millions of dollars spent in court cases fighting that argument in the case of Terri Schiavo
That case was sad and unfortunate. but as one of the rights gained through marriage: "next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims"

Here's a hypothetical case for you: The Pregnant Man: Man or not? Now with that being said, if homosexuals have the same rights to marry (albeit not the right to marry the one they love), then if one physically-born-woman of a homosexual relationship gender-identifies himself as a man, can the two get married? What about a woman who went through surgery to become a man; can that ex-woman marry a man? What makes the gender-identified man different than the ex-woman? What allows one to marry instead of the other? Is one allowed to marry while the other one isn't?
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
But then you're arguing sexual dysfunction versus not. Plus the argument against pedophilia is for the safety of the child - an undeveloped person in every sense of the term.

Well problem is you get into the argument as to what is and isn't a sexual dysfunction. You could argue that finding a member of the same sex is a sexual dysfunction. As for the safety and welfare of the child, you could also reasonably argue that many children including such child has already begun having sex at the age of say 14. In which case the child is not at any more of a risk than any other sexually active 14 year old. Infact you could say the child is safer because of the STD testing usually given before you get married.

Nor would we allow infertile people to marry, nor would we allow marriage without an offspring being born immediately thereof - if marriage was all about children and raising kids.

Exactly which is why marriage is not about raising/producing children. Thus your argument becomes mute.

As for heightened risk - Incest / "Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected." Look up Inbreeding on Wikipedia.

A: Remember that MAY is the key word in it.

B: Wikipedia isn't a useable source in a debate, check the rules.

On top of that, you're arguing "Heightened Risk of Genetic Deficiency" with "No Risk of Genetic Deficiency"? On that basis alone, same-sex marriage is the safest way of being married without running the risk of having defective offspring.

That is very true but as we already stated marriage isn't about the production of a healthy off spring.

Of course there are restrictions - to protect the parties involved and to make sure they understand the responsibilities bestowed upon them. Children aren't physically nor mentally mature enough and animals cannot understand the responsibilities marriage brings (as well as monogamy, one can argue)

Ahh but then again neither of those cover incest or polygamy. As for a child being physically or mentally mature enough that is relative, as a child can be physically capable of marriage anywhere between 12 to 18, and mentally a 14 year old child could be more mentally capable to marrage than a 18 year old. As for animals, you could argue that many humans do not understand the responsibilities marriage brings. Infact judging by the divorce rate I would say most humans do not understand the responsibilities that marriage brings.

Look at the trouble Mormons and the "Polygamist Compound" in... Texas? caused.

Yes but the trouble was brought about by the abuse of children, forcing them into marriages at the age of 13. I also remember that the state decided to give the children back.

One can argue who is to say which country's laws are "correct". The Netherlands allows gay marriage whereas there are less freedoms for women than men in notable Muslim countries (doing my best not to stir that pot).

Yes but we are not talking about which laws are 'correct' nor are we talking about the Netherlands, we are focusing on US law, and how change to it should be brought about, and if that change should also apply to other "sexual dysfunctions". Try to keep focused.


But like I stated, that automatically puts one spouse above the other, thus creating inequality, even if consensual. Partners in Marriage are said to be equals ("Better Halves" of the other, etc).

Except Partners in Marriage while equal in theory are not equal in reality nor ever have been.

Here's a hypothetical case for you: The Pregnant Man: Man or not? Now with that being said, if homosexuals have the same rights to marry (albeit not the right to marry the one they love), then if one physically-born-woman of a homosexual relationship gender-identifies himself as a man, can the two get married? What about a woman who went through surgery to become a man; can that ex-woman marry a man? What makes the gender-identified man different than the ex-woman? What allows one to marry instead of the other? Is one allowed to marry while the other one isn't?

Genetics is your answer. While you can surgically alter yourself to be a man or woman, you are still genetically the sex that you were born with under the state law.

See 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland for a case involving this in Florida

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-107743939.html

"The controlling issue in this case is whether ... the Florida statutes governing marriage authorize a postoperative transsexual to marry in the reassigned sex," the court wrote. "We conclude they do not."

Florida's Legislature needs to decide if transgender people can marry, the court said. Until lawmakers recognize sex-reassignment procedures in marriage law, the court said, a person's biological sex at birth is what must be considered when determining if a marriage is valid.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
A: No it isn't, no where in the constitution, bill of rights, or any other founding document is marriage a right.
Well, you got me there... but what about the clause they used for the Brown v. Board of Education (sorry I forgot what Amendment it was in)?

B: Gays can still get married under the letter of the law they just have to marry a woman.
Wait, huh? You mean like a gay man marry a woman? What would the point be? I hope I'm misinterpreting this.

C: Marriage rights in this country have ALWAYS been restrictive. From Mormons, to Incest, to a million other types of sexual differences that go outside the normal one man one woman. I do not see anyone sticking up for their rights. That is if Marriage is a right as you say.
Sure, I'll stick up for Mormons, but I'm not sure about incest. There are actual logical arguments for them. Incest would essentially be promoting.. well, weird babies.
 
BigLutz, I'll try to reply to you ASAP. I'm already experiencing lag, but I just HAD to comment on this really quick.

Ah, yes. Russia and China. Even at this point, I admittedly have no idea which scenario disturbs me more: the collapse of America, or the collapse of everybody else after America. Already has Obama bowed before, of all monarchs, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, and Obama might have a new headache to deal with later this week. (See my new "Tea Parties for Tax Day" thread for more information.) Maybe all we need is some group of Islamic terrorists from somewhere to attack America, and Obama's weakness will be complete. Those Somali pirates might not qualify as strongly after the release of Captain Richard Phillips, but I wouldn't doubt that the other major powers of the world -- from Brazil to Turkey to China -- harbor at least some jealousy toward the United States. Soviet communism may be gone, but civilizational conflict has taken its place, especially international jihadism. It's a good thing that Pope Benedict XVI has decided to encourage some real hope and change for the world, so that all can know what genuine virtue is. If Benedict can still favor one-man, one-woman marriage and designate abortion as murder to preserve the family, then I'll be happy to support him.
You can't really say that Obama is "bowing down" to Saudi Arabia, when you have to remember Bush had way too of a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia. One thing I can't stand when people say Obama backs down too easily is that just take a look at Bush and Cheney. They lit EVERYTHING slide in for corporate greed and big business and oil. If anyone actually thinks Cheney cared about this country, you have it wrong. At least Obama CARES about America, and his priority isn't big oil like the Bush Administration's was. Bush made stem cell research and abortion and marriage more of an issue than the war in Iraq, and used scare tactics. Two, I could care less about the Pope. This pope seems like an idiot if you ask me. The fact that he had the audacity to say "condoms are the problem" to the AIDs stricken people of Africa is just outstanding. Just another example of religion getting in the way of progress and society.
 

BigLutz

Banned
BigLutz, I'll try to reply to you ASAP. I'm already experiencing lag, but I just HAD to comment on this really quick.

Take your time, I wont be around much tomorrow till the afternoon.

You can't really say that Obama is "bowing down" to Saudi Arabia, when you have to remember Bush had way too of a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia.

I assume you are talking about the holding hands thing. That is a bit different than a bow which is a sign of showing superiority to another person or something along those lines. I do wonder where the outrage over this is in the media. When Clinton did it in the 90s the NYT utterly skewered him.

"But the “thou need not bow” commandment from the State Department’s protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years. Administration officials scurried to insist that the eager-to-please President had not really done the unthinkable."

NYT Circa 1994

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/w...ent-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html

One thing I can't stand when people say Obama backs down too easily is that just take a look at Bush and Cheney. They lit EVERYTHING slide in for corporate greed and big business and oil. If anyone actually thinks Cheney cared about this country, you have it wrong.

I assume you can name plenty of examples. As for Cheney caring for this country. Yes he does, just as Joe Biden does. You cannot devote that much public service, go through that much hell, and not care for this country. The work of anyone in the White House is very long hours in which your life is absolutely cut off from any kind of interaction with family or friends. You cannot hold such a job, go through such stress, with out caring for this country.

At least Obama CARES about America, and his priority isn't big oil like the Bush Administration's was.

Now you are just talking out of your *** again.

Bush made stem cell research and abortion and marriage more of an issue than the war in Iraq, and used scare tactics.

A: Bush found a bi partsian approach to Stem Cell Research that was worked out for agreement on both sides. A Bi Partisan Agreement that Obama shredded in his first months in office.

Edit: Just a reminder that compromise was also reached not only before Iraq, but before 9/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/04/u...Diseases, Conditions, and Health Topics/Blood

B: Abortion and Marriage were key topics in the past 8 years, both brought up by the Congress of course the President has to address him. Saying that he cared more about them than Iraq, is either stupidity or political bigotry at it's highest.

C: As for scare tactics, lets play guess which President said this: "Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."

And

"Doing a little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence. Those are deficits that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe."

I will give you one guess.
 
Last edited:

ccangelopearl1362

Well-Known Member
Bush Dancing with Saudis
Obama’s Abominable Obeisance: Cultural Perspectives

That sword-dance routine between Bush and the Saudis may have been silly at best, but at least we in the United States could see it as such. By contrast, there's only one possible way to see Obama's bow, and it's not good at all. Since oil and Wahhabism are the only things the House of Saud can possibly export around the world, that bow will most likely symbolize why America would be much better off producing its own sources of energy. Fortunately for us, Bush's penchant for dancing might be consistent with his performance with those African dancers during an event about malaria awareness -- and Karl Rove's debut at the 2007 Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner as MC Rove.:

George Bush Doing Wild African Dance
MC Rove

As for me, well, those were just a few moments in which I took note of music's ability to intersect with politics. Even now, there are numerous other examples coming to my mind, pleasant as some of them are, serious as others are. Something immediately serious to my mind... is the possibility that the United States military will attack land bases for those Somali water jihadists, er, pirates to put an end to their villainy against the shipping lanes around and in that region.:

U.S. Military Considers Attacks on Somali Pirates’ Land Bases

I'll be willing to give President Obama credit for authorizing this attack -- if he actually did so. I would say that it's about time the right kind of action was taken to take down these criminals. It's a good start to this week, and it can only get more interesting as this Wednesday approaches.
 

Porygandrew

Well-Known Member
You caught me, I didn't read the rules and regulations of the Debate forums, mainly because I didn't expect to actually engage in any discussions. I rarely, if ever, visit these forums because this is a Pokemon Forum. I look to discuss and read topics about Pokemon. Anything else I can look elsewhere.

And thanks for the intelligent debate! You're making me defend my point of view in a manner that really makes me think (again, I'm not seriously debating these points. If I were, I'd have done a better job at it - on a Non-Pokemon forum). Also, I'm glad you haven't gone down the road of religious argumentation. That's a dead end right there.

Also, forgive me for not returning a reply/debate for all points listed. I feel like we're starting to micromanage and, while probably appropriate for serious debates, I just wanted to keep things broad and less complicated.

Well problem is you get into the argument as to what is and isn't a sexual dysfunction. You could argue that finding a member of the same sex is a sexual dysfunction.

But there you go. I think this is the heart of the matter. Homosexuality is not a sexual dysfunction. It was removed from the list of disorders/dysfunctions decades ago. Now you can say that one can argue that it may have been a wrong decision, but it still stands as unlisted, therefore not a disorder. On top of that, as you argue about what is and isn't, if any group involved in Pedophilia, Incest, or Bestiality argued for delistment, you can bet that both homosexuals and heterosexuals will stand united against them. (in opposition to Catholic priests, lol)
And for the Florida decision denying a transgender person the ability to marry (Right to Equality), There are two possibilities: The judge based his decision on personal beliefs (unlikely and unprofessional), or the judge read what current laws stated and ruled that as the law stands, the marriage wasn't permitted (likely scenario). But with that said, laws change all the time as well as become outdated - such as the Florida law stating that unmarried couples cannot cohabit (798.02). Technically since it's on the books, it's still law and should be punished as such, but it shows a case of an outdated law unenforced today (or would you have me believe that it is being enforced, but no one has challenged it, or that a challenge to that particular law hasn't gained national attention? All unlikely possibilities).
Or this doozie:
"The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Which clearly is a slap-in-the-face to the separation of church and state. One cannot hold a public office unless one states there is a "Supreme Being"?


Again, as it stands in the books, Homosexual behavior is not illegal [Lawrence v. Texas (2003)] whereas the activities you point out are illegal. That's the difference. The behavior of two, genetically different, consenting adults is different than the behavior of Adult-child, Adult-animal, & Relative-Relative.

So as for the case of Marriage, the problem lies in saying that one genetically different legal adult couple is different/unequal than another genetically different legal adult couple.
 
Last edited:

ccangelopearl1362

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards has increasingly begun tilting the balance of power in Iran to its favor, consequently diminishing the mullahs' power.:

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards: Arm of Oppression Within and Terrorism Without

President Obama will need a memo about any Iranian negotiating partners he may wish to contact in the future. Already, the IRG has attacked American and British troops in Iraq and is training and funding Hezbollah and Hamas, and it opposes Mohammed Khatami's little Dialogue among Civilizations, as if that might accomplish anything toward real liberty and peace. They have bank accounts in Europe, and I might have already guessed as to whether or not those accounts operate using Sharia finance rules. With these movements, the IRG has oppressed women and even certain ayatollahs who disagree with their apocalyptic agenda, and outrageously enough, they're now getting help with their wiretapping capabilities from Nokia Siemens.:

Euro telecom building Iran’s wiretap capabilities
Shariah bankers: West ready for faith-based alternative

There will be nothing preventing the IRG from turning these new wiretaps against Nokia Siemens if they perceive that company to be a threat to the Islamic Revolution, which can only amplify Ed Morrissey's point about freedom's role in expanding the ability of Nokia and other companies to prosper and grow in accordance with the products they're selling. Taken together with the expansion of Sharia finance's role in imposing submission to Allah upon the world's markets, I'd say that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards -- and other jihadists out there to my recollections -- will know exactly what they're doing in order to reach their new world order.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
Also, forgive me for not returning a reply/debate for all points listed. I feel like we're starting to micromanage and, while probably appropriate for serious debates, I just wanted to keep things broad and less complicated.

Thats fine although I tend to take a debating style of micro managing so that I can address each point.

But there you go. I think this is the heart of the matter. Homosexuality is not a sexual dysfunction. It was removed from the list of disorders/dysfunctions decades ago. Now you can say that one can argue that it may have been a wrong decision, but it still stands as unlisted, therefore not a disorder.

Well you are right it is the heart of the matter, as for the disorder list that was probably more under political pressure than the scientific nature of the situation. Just as various disorders and dysfunctions have their names changed through out the years because of the political pressure associated with the word.

That being said we should look at what proper sexual function is. I believe we can both agree that the overall goal of sex is reproduction of the race, in that sex is a reproductive act. Mind you I am talking about sex here and not masturbation which is only self pleasure. Now in this case a sexual disorder would be some one who is sexually attracted to some one or some thing that can absolutely not reproduce under any circumstances. For example a young child or a animal. In this case the desire and urges to have sex with that person or thing would not yeld a child. Thus by the strictest terms they have a sexual dysfunction or problem or what ever you want to classify it. Because their sexual drive which is supposed to be geared toward finding a suitable reproductive mate, has been screwed up by hormones or genetics or what ever.

Using that definition, then homosexuality would fall in that exact same catagory.

On top of that, as you argue about what is and isn't, if any group involved in Pedophilia, Incest, or Bestiality argued for delistment, you can bet that both homosexuals and heterosexuals will stand united against them.

I wouldn't say stood united, but mind you that when Homosexuals were delisted, I would think Heterosexuals stood up against it as well.

And for the Florida decision denying a transgender person the ability to marry (Right to Equality), There are two possibilities: The judge based his decision on personal beliefs (unlikely and unprofessional), or the judge read what current laws stated and ruled that as the law stands, the marriage wasn't permitted (likely scenario)

Well the judge looked at the current law, as well as court cases on this already filed in four states and made his ruling from that. As the article says:

The Lakeland appeals court cited rulings in Kansas, Ohio and Texas and New York and said in all cases the courts have either invalidated or refused to allow transsexuals to marry.

But with that said, laws change all the time as well as become outdated - such as the Florida law stating that unmarried couples cannot cohabit (798.02). Technically since it's on the books, it's still law and should be punished as such, but it shows a case of an outdated law unenforced today (or would you have me believe that it is being enforced, but no one has challenged it, or that a challenge to that particular law hasn't gained national attention? All unlikely possibilities).

Yes but that is also a very poor rebuttal. There are millions of laws out there that you could cite that are no longer enforced. That does not mean that this one will be.

Or this doozie:
"The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Texas Constitution is a poor example because it was written in haste after the Civil War when the first one was overturned. It is very poorly constructed and written and has caused numerous headaches here over the years.

Which clearly is a slap-in-the-face to the separation of church and state. One cannot hold a public office unless one states there is a "Supreme Being"?

That really isn't a church and state violation, as it does not designated which "Supreme Being" it could be Allah, Jesus, or any number of other beings. Church and State laws tend to refer to the State pushing one type of religion such as say Christianity, upon the populous.

Again, as it stands in the books, Homosexual behavior is not illegal [Lawrence v. Texas (2003)] whereas the activities you point out are illegal. That's the difference. The behavior of two, genetically different, consenting adults is different than the behavior of Adult-child, Adult-animal, & Relative-Relative.

Ahh but I should remind you that in many states Homosexuality has also been illegal in the past. While it may not change in the future, that isn't to say that affording Gay Marriage to one group that is scientifically speaking a sexual dysfunction will not allow other groups to push for it.

Either way I will close in that we are off topic, this is a Political Thread, it has been fun but I would suggest steering this back toward Obama, and not toward a discussion on gays.
 

~Magic Thunderbolt~

Well-Known Member
A problem I see with your President is his rather lack of political will... is he spending too much time pandering to everybody?
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Using that definition, then homosexuality would fall in that exact same catagory.
I don't see how this can be logically done even today.

Animals show homosexual behavior and it's as natural as ever. One could also argue that it controls population.

Another thing is that just because reproduction is what is done naturally, doesn't mean it's what SHOULD be done naturally. There are plenty of things us humans don't support even if they're scientifically sound. Look at Evolution for example. The rich live and the poor die. Thus, it's survival of the fittest. Yet, we help the poor anyway. Is cannot be equated to ought.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I don't see how this can be logically done even today.

Animals show homosexual behavior and it's as natural as ever. One could also argue that it controls population.

I never said that Homosexuality was not natural, nor is it wide spread enough for it to be considered population control. But the fact is that sexual intercourse is used for reproduction. It was designed by nature for reproductive purposes. For some one to want sexual intercourse with another man or animal or child in which reproduction is not capable, does go against the natural function of it.

Another thing is that just because reproduction is what is done naturally, doesn't mean it's what SHOULD be done naturally. There are plenty of things us humans don't support even if they're scientifically sound. Look at Evolution for example. The rich live and the poor die. Thus, it's survival of the fittest. Yet, we help the poor anyway. Is cannot be equated to ought.

I really cannot see how the two can be equated. The need to reproduce is something basic in all species, something that must be done for a species to continue on. On the other hand helping the poor is not a basic urge, but one created out of guilt, your upbringing, the environment, and a variety of other factors. Not everyone helps the poor, infact most people do not. On the other hand everyone has the urge to reproduce ( Unless of course you have that small minority of Unisexuals but that would fall under Sexual Dysfunction if we are using the previous definition of a sexual dysfunction).
 

pocketmunster

munster in my pocket
I never said that Homosexuality was not natural, nor is it wide spread enough for it to be considered population control. But the fact is that sexual intercourse is used for reproduction. It was designed by nature for reproductive purposes. For some one to want sexual intercourse with another man or animal or child in which reproduction is not capable, does go against the natural function of it.
I dont understand what merriage has to do with having children in all reality. Its not like your forced to do so if your merried. Therfor your argument dosent make much sense except for you trying to prove homosexuality goes against nature. When in fact their are many other animals that exibit homosexual behavior, even porcupines are know to rub against certain things for the sole purpose of masturbation.
I really cannot see how the two can be equated. The need to reproduce is something basic in all species, something that must be done for a species to continue on. On the other hand helping the poor is not a basic urge, but one created out of guilt, your upbringing, the environment, and a variety of other factors. Not everyone helps the poor, infact most people do not. On the other hand everyone has the urge to reproduce ( Unless of course you have that small minority of Unisexuals but that would fall under Sexual Dysfunction if we are using the previous definition of a sexual dysfunction).
Yes its true we do need to reproduce but no one says you have to. Birth control is even created for the sole purpose of being able to have sex without the result of a child. Is birth control "unnatural"? Should we stop using it because some people have a certain mind set that makes it "unnatural"? Bottom line, Merrige does NOT mean reproduction.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I never said that Homosexuality was not natural, nor is it wide spread enough for it to be considered population control.

BigLutz said:
But the fact is that sexual intercourse is used for reproduction. It was designed by nature for reproductive purposes.
In this argument, you use nature to convince the other party that homosexuality is a dysfunction.. against nature, but in my above post, I used nature against nature.

If you think homosexuality is natural and could possibly be something that helps reproduction, then how is it a dysfunction if it is something that actually helps nature or is normal in it?

On the other hand helping the poor is not a basic urge, but one created out of guilt, your upbringing, the environment, and a variety of other factors.
True enough, but if we're going to use science alone to control our government, we must admit that some parts of it take some feelings as well, and I don't see why gay marrige can't possibly be one of them.
 

ccangelopearl1362

Well-Known Member
Indeed. If we're talking about the politics of homosexuality, then I'm willing to reaffirm Pope Benedict's position of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Then again, rightly or wrongly, the most prominent gay/lesbian politician I know of is... Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts. His role in the current economic downturn I find disturbing enough, but more interesting to me at the moment is the United Nations version of a civil war. I certainly don't envy Ban Ki-Moon's position, given what I remember of the villainy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, but perhaps the OIC will be content to sit back as the UN's bureaucrats attack Ban's reform initiatives.:

U.N. Secretary General Embroiled in Civil War Over Do-Nothing Bureaucracy

The Oil-for-Food program was disastrous already, but the United Nations' other spending programs are inconsistent, as well. To top it all off, when this story was revealed, "the United Nations apparently cut off access to its public Web site via the links referenced in the article. Accordingly, FOX News has replaced those links with PDF copies of the documents mentioned." Executive editor George Russell may already suspect that someone is trying to hide something at the United Nations, and I will be eager to track this as it unfolds.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I dont understand what merriage has to do with having children in all reality. Its not like your forced to do so if your merried. Therfor your argument dosent make much sense except for you trying to prove homosexuality goes against nature. When in fact their are many other animals that exibit homosexual behavior, even porcupines are know to rub against certain things for the sole purpose of masturbation.

I never said Marriage had to specifically be for children, it was a argument set up for Incestrial Marriage. As for Homosexuality I never said it was un-natural, it's a event caused by hormones or genetics or whatever. And if you get millions and millions of animals in zoos, you are going to find a few with different sexual behaviors, it is just odds. That being said homosexuality does go against the inherent biological need to reproduce. Just as Pedophillia, Beastiality, and a number of other sexual preferences in which people are only attracted to one thing in which the end result will never produce a child. We list those sexual preferences under the category of sexual dysfunction. Seeing how homosexuality is NO different except that it has a larger and more sympathetic political base I see no reason why scientifically it shouldn't be classified as such as well.

Yes its true we do need to reproduce but no one says you have to. Birth control is even created for the sole purpose of being able to have sex without the result of a child. Is birth control "unnatural"? Should we stop using it because some people have a certain mind set that makes it "unnatural"? Bottom line, Merrige does NOT mean reproduction.

I never said it did, nor do you seem to be able to follow it. Yes we have Birth Control, but taking it does not automatically switch off the function of the brain saying "I want to have sex with a adult woman". That function does not know or care you are on birth control, that instinct, that primal function is a drive for reproduction.

GhostAnime said:
True enough, but if we're going to use science alone to control our government, we must admit that some parts of it take some feelings as well, and I don't see why gay marrige can't possibly be one of them.

I will restate my original point before we went off topic. I have no problem with Gay Marriage, I have no problem with Incestrial Marriage, or Pedophillic Marriage, or any other type of Marriage that could come from changing the language of marriage. I do how ever have a problem with the courts bringing about the marriage in a way that goes against how the courts were designed. Lets bring it about, but lets bring it about the right way.

ANYWAY to get this subject back on topic, two things have happened while I was asleep.

A: Homeland Security Department has sent out a PDF file on "Right Wing Extremism" part of which is particularly scary as it has echos of how dictatorships treated political opponents. Such as classifying "Opposing Immigration" which as we all know means "Opposing Illegal Immigration" or "Opposing the Obama Administration" or my favorite "Opposing the expansion of social programs to minorities"

I do wonder, since ACORN is currently attacking foreclosures and actively breaking the law, where is the Homeland Security Document on Left Wing Extremism?

Or you know, when protests were taking place during the beginning of the Iraq War, where was a Homeland Security Document on Left Wing Extremism back then?

B: Rick Perry the Governor of Texas yesterday is backing a bill in Texas backing "State Sovereignty" basically reaffirming state's rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

He made a statement saying: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."

Now he is about to enter a very messy re-election race, and this could just be him trying to play to the base. But it could also be the steps toward the nuclear option, something I very hope won't happen. And that Texas exercising it's power to leave the Union. Now I am sure idiots will come in here and scream how Texas doesn't have anything but cows and oil. I do want to remind everyone that Texas has one of if not the largest amount of Fortune 500 companies that are based here due to our low taxes.
 
Last edited:

pocketmunster

munster in my pocket
I do wonder, since ACORN is currently attacking foreclosures and actively breaking the law, where is the Homeland Security Document on Left Wing Extremism?
So your going to defend right wing extreamism? None the less, with the childish rebuttle of "But mommy they did it to!".
Or you know, when protests were taking place during the beginning of the Iraq War, where was a Homeland Security Document on Left Wing Extremism back then?
So people arent allowed to protest with out being labled extreamist? Thats BS. Extreamist would be alot more of a radical act then a protest.
or my favorite "Opposing the expansion of social programs to minorities"
Your favorite...?
 

BigLutz

Banned
So your going to defend right wing extreamism? None the less, with the childish rebuttle of "But mommy they did it to!".

I do expect some fairness if they are going to be this dangerous and this broad when targeting Political Views. Or should I repeat my point that this is exactly what dictatorships tend to do?

So people arent allowed to protest with out being labled extreamist? Thats BS. Extreamist would be alot more of a radical act then a protest.

I am sure you haven't noticed but there have been Tea Party protests all over the country which have protested many of the things that have been mentioned in this document as "Extremists". Do you think it is a coincidence that this document comes out within days that the largest set of Tea Parties are set to take place?

Your favorite...?

Well that and the Immigration one. Because they try to paint it as if the opposition of social programs is because we hate minorities and not because it puts more people on the Government teet which is very hard to get off of, and wastes even more money to create a Welfare state.
 
Top