Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had plans and tickets to the visit relatives in NC in October...I cancelled those plans tonight.
I refuse to set foot in the state of North Carolina.
I don't think that's a good move. We're only going to become more divided if we refuse to talk to each other. What's next? Dividing up the country over same-sex marriage?
I had plans and tickets to the visit relatives in NC in October...I cancelled those plans tonight.
I refuse to set foot in the state of North Carolina.
This is a really pathetic reason to not visit your relatives. I have relatives in Seattle - which is in a state where gay marriage is legal. I will be visiting my relatives next year.
North Carolina is a swing state. You should just take my word for it. Or, you could pay attention a little closer to politics. The importance of Barack Obama winning North Carolina in November cannot be understated. Why? Because it's a swing state. Swing states don't reward for the sake of rewarding. That's how swing states operate. A pendulum if you will. Liberals won in 2008, conservatives won tonight. Why? Because North Carolina is a swing state.
Get it now?
You're sounding desperate. "Just take my word for it?" I presented you with detailed data showing historical similarities between all three states, and "just take my word for it" is s the best response you have?
Fine, since you're so caught up on this, let's take some swing states.
Missouri approved a same sex marriage ban in 2004 by a 71-29 margin. Eight years later, North Carolina's margin was over 10 points better. Florida, which is much more of a swing state than North Carolina, voted to prohibit same sex marriages in 2008 with 62% of the vote. However, a 2011 poll in Florida suggests that 67% of voters support either civil unions or same sex marriage.
I could choose to be gay but do not - so I have chosen to be straight. You have chosen to be gay - there is no "gay" gene. Sexual orientation is a choice and therefore homosexuals cannot equate themselves with people who have bene historically persecuted because of natural characteristics such as gender or skin color.
You could choose to be gay? Really? So you could just as easily be attracted to someone of the same sex? I don't believe that for one minute. If you have an attraction to both sexes, then I believe that is inherent within you. The choice comes in regarding whether you choose to act on it or not. But that's true for everyone. Nobody, straight, gay, bisexual or anything else has to act on their attraction to another person. That part is a choice. But the actual attraction, no it's not a choice. Why do you think people would choose to be gay when they have to put up with this type of ignorance day in and day out? I have never heard anybody say they "chose" to be straight except for people who have an attraction to the same sex who are forcing themselves to deny that attraction. Otherwise, the thought of "choosing" a gender to be attracted to isn't really an issue.
Not attacking you, just pointing out that the UK Telegraph isn't the best citation to use for this discussion. It's not the most well regarded news source and isn't from this country. Gay adoption in other countries is another topic all together.
I had plans and tickets to the visit relatives in NC in October...I cancelled those plans tonight.
I refuse to set foot in the state of North Carolina.
Im a hardcore Madonna fan and everytime she goes on a tour (the new one is going to start in the US in September) i go to several cities around the country to see her and NC was one of them, but no after tonight. I dont want to leave my money in a backwards country that refuses to progress.
I could choose to be gay but do not - so I have chosen to be straight. You have chosen to be gay - there is no "gay" gene. Sexual orientation is a choice and therefore homosexuals cannot equate themselves with people who have bene historically persecuted because of natural characteristics such as gender or skin color.
I must admit, I really, really, REALLY doubt based on your posts throughout this thread that you could EVER "choose" to be gay. You have made a lot of posts in this thread that are just straight up (slight pun intended) hostile towards the very idea of homosexuality. It makes me have a hard time picturing you making a conscious, voluntary choice to become aroused at the thought of two men having hot, sweaty, passionate sex with each other.
Quote:
Marriage is not a right.
I guess you missed it the first time, but the Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with you.
You could choose to be gay? Really? So you could just as easily be attracted to someone of the same sex? I don't believe that for one minute. If you have an attraction to both sexes, then I believe that is inherent within you. The choice comes in regarding whether you choose to act on it or not. But that's true for everyone. Nobody, straight, gay, bisexual or anything else has to act on their attraction to another person. That part is a choice. But the actual attraction, no it's not a choice. Why do you think people would choose to be gay when they have to put up with this type of ignorance day in and day out? I have never heard anybody say they "chose" to be straight except for people who have an attraction to the same sex who are forcing themselves to deny that attraction. Otherwise, the thought of "choosing" a gender to be attracted to isn't really an issue.
The entire argument that people are "naturally" attracted to one gender or another is just a smokescreen used in an attempt to provide normality and legitamacy to an unnatural lifestyle that every human civilization agrees is immoral.
Homosexuality is abberant and is a choice. If one chooses to be gay - that is fine with me - I am generally libertarian in my positions concerning laws - and while I find homosexuality to be morally wrong - I am not willing to regulate by law what two consenting individuals can do in private. I do draw the line at the legal sanction of marriage.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman - period. Homosexual relationships consist of two members of the same gender - they cannot be married. They can get a civil union - and I will shed blood to defend the ability for that contract to be enforced. I will not condone the term marriage being applied to such a relationship.
You're not making a point. You're attempting to use my words against me to try to give reason to why the gays should be allowed to marry one another. That is not playing Devil's Advocate, that is playing mind games. I have no time for that.
You are incapable of being straightforward in addressing my points. Instead you would rather beat around the bush for pages on end. Now you want to claim you're having a simple debate about same sex marriage when all you've done is rant about my hesitations with sibling marriage. How about you talk about why you support gay marriage rather than asking me what hesitations I have about sibling marriage? I have clearly stated why I am against both. This topic is about gay marriage. If you need to express your support for brother and brother to marry, please create your own thread and we can go from there. Until then, stay on topic and stop trying to play games.
Oy, do I really have to explain this in detail to you? Okay, here we go, step by step:
Playing Devil's Advocate: to put forward arguments against or objections to a proposition-which one may actually agree with-purely to test the validity of the proposition.
Therefore, in post #185, when you said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
What would then stop a brother and sister or brother and brother, for that matter, from screaming that they're two adults who love each other from getting married? Absolutely nothing. If the gays only defense for their right to marry is that they're two people who love each other, there is no reasoning for blocking anyone else with that defense.
I countered with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eevee
And to play devil's advocate, how would it affect you, or anyone else, if a brother or sister DID want to marry? If they're two grown adults that love each other, what's the issue? And yes, I know the biological reason why w/ the increase risk of birth defects, so let's just pretend that they won't have any children.
to argue that, in the same way that a sibling marriage wouldn't affect you, how would a gay marriage affect you?
You, in turn, argued that sibling marriage was harmful due to the risk of genetic defects from inbreeding:
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
This is life, so how about let's not pretend. Two people in a relationship will have sex and some will bear offspring. The offspring will have an extremely likely chance of being retarded. Should we risk this just to allow people who love each other to get married? Is it fair to the children they produce who can't function in normal society to be forced to live day-to-day life because we've allowed this. No. There is a reason that these children come out like they do. It's because these unions aren't natural at all.
And I, in turn argued this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eevee
Not everyone conceives children after a sex act. There are infertile heterosexual couples who can't and don't want to have children.
Not all children born from incest have severe disabilities. Inbreeding only enhances undesirable, recessive traits. Healthy siblings w/ no troublesome recessive traits would produce healthy offspring. To give an example, every single purebred animal, from Golden Retrievers to Siamese cats to Shetland ponies were produced and enhanced through inbreeding.
And, going along w/ your post, should straight couples w/ genes for genetic disorders/abnormalities like dwarfism and hemophilia not be allowed to get married b/c any children they produce will have physical and mental disabilities?
So, ONCE AGAIN, if an infertile brother and sister in love wanted to marry, how does that affect you or anyone else?
And so on and so on, you can find the rest of the conversation. Point being, I questioned your position on gay marriage by using your opposition to sibling marriage to argue that neither of these would have an affect on you. You countered that the ill children born out of an incestuous marriage is enough of a deterrent and I countered this opposition by stating that sibling marriage shouldn't be banned for this reason alone for multiple reasons such as infertile siblings.
Look, don't bother in debating if you can't follow along and don't bring up pointless strawman arguments about why gay marriage should be banned if you aren't willing to back up your assertions in debate. YOU brought up the idea of sibling marriage as if it was this aberration that would be allowed if gay marriage was allowed and I simply argued that, like gay marriage, it not only didn't affect you in any way, but that there was no real reason to ban either. In all of this back-and-forth, you still haven't produced a valid reason why either gay marriage or sibling marriage should be outright banned. And, to reiterate the definition of "devil's advocate", I'm not advocating for the legalization of sibling marriage, but simply took your opposition to explore your similar opposition to same sex marriage.
The end.
Again, I apologize if you got confused along the way. I wouldn't have gone down the road of devil's advocacy if I had thought it would have gone over your head.
Not attacking you, just pointing out that the UK Telegraph isn't the best citation to use for this discussion. It's not the most well regarded news source and isn't from this country. Gay adoption in other countries is another topic all together.
I meant the Telegraph when I referred to attacking the source. I understand your point about the Telegraph - however I argue that you will not find many news sources that are neccesarily "regarded" so as to be more trustworthy then any other - also this event did occur - the fact that you find the newspaper suspect for some reason does not change that.
As for this occurring in another country - that is entirely irrelevant. The homosexual agenda is not somehow different because there are imaginary lines dividing two land areas or a body of water between them. The "gay rights" people want forced acceptance of their lifestyle - and that story illustrates this motive perfectly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
