Is The Leftosphere Politic Of Gender Equality More Insane Than The Gender Insanity of LGBTQQIAAPP ?? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is The Leftosphere Politic Of Gender Equality More Insane Than The Gender Insanity of LGBTQQIAAPP ??
in Science

By GrafixGrafix 230 Pts edited March 24

You'll need to watch the video to discover what the acronym  LGBTQQIAAPP  stands for.  


No need for an acronym.  


It really stands for social engineering to normalize sexual promiscuity and proclivities of depravity.
.

If the Video won't play for whatever reason here's the live link :  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MGOVKxvW0

Yes.   Whatever did happen to craft days and puppet shows for kids at the local library?


Are there really more than two genders?  Science says not.  So, what's REALLY going on with all of this?

PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473We_are_accountable
The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    You'll need to watch the video to discover what the acronym  LGBTQQIAAPP  stands for.  No need for an acronym.  It really stands for social engineering to normalize sexual promiscuity and proclivities of depravity..
    .
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 1565 Pts
    edited March 23
    Everyone who thinks there are only two genders doesn't speak English, because the English language has 3. (technically 4)

    Masculine, feminine, neuter.

    Gender has nothing to do with sex, it is a linguistic term which modifies a word, in theory a language can have as many as necessary and a lot of languages have many, such as Tuyuca which has 140. Those who try to push the narrative that there are only 2 genders forget or never realize this, and if they try to complain I challenge them to answer to me which gender a toaster should be.
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473We_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    I would argue neuter is not a gender.  Science would agree with me.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    Nope.

    Image result for asexual animals
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    That's not discussing genders though.  It's discussing a reproductive process.
    .
    We_are_accountable
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    If what you mean is "sex" you are wrong because asexual animals exist.

    If you are talking about noun modifiers, then you are still wrong because "neuter" genders exist.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/activist-mommy/

    Alt-right propaganda sux.
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    Actually, I stand corrected.  On thinking about it we do have neuter gender when we use the pronoun "it", referring to something which is inanimate such as an object, as in he tossed the ball and it went out of bounds.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    We do not have an asexual "gender" of people, though and we are only speaking about people here.  People are not described as an "it", in the neuter gender nor are they described as having an asexual gender.  There is no such thing as an asexual gender.  It is merely a descripor for a lack of sex drive in people and not defined as a gender.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    Making some progress here, but guess again on the asexual:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMhix4nr_0g
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    @Happy_Killbot - The propaganda is all on the side of the delusions of the leftist, cratered craniums, trying to REVISE and socially engineer how the words "sex" and "gender" differ.  For centuries no-one was ever asked "What sex are you?"  All government forms provided only two boxes to tick and only ever asked what  G E N D E R   are we.  Female or male?  The word "sex" only EVER referenced the act of sexual copulation and not gender at all.  But now the fake-sake of the gender-bake has wormed its way into the discourse to change ...  

    Y E T    A N O T H E R    L O N G - S T A N D I N G     D E F I N I T I O N     I N     E N G L I S H

    T H E    S A M E    W A Y     T H E Y     A L T E R E D     T H E     D E F I N I T I O N    O F    M A R I A G E

    It's all about twisting the norm to the sub-normal, to normalize  the weird, the wrong, the depraved, the degenerate, the  el sicko, the craven, you name it.   Read my lips, dude ....


    I  T        A  I  N  '  T        N  O  R  M  A  L

    .
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    Since when do you get to decide what is an isn't normal?

    Last I checked you are not in charge. Frankly, marriage is an affront to human nature. What exactly makes marriage normal then?
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    @Happy_Killbot - I don't and have never claimed to DECIDE what is culturally normal.  The general populace instinctively decides its norms.  How else could we judge a criminal act and march someone off to prison?  How else as parents could we correct our children for doing things that are not right, that are wrong, that are not    N O R M A L.?   HUH?    How esle does general rejection prevail in any social structure of certain activities?  These are   determined by social NORMS.   What are social norms?  Practises which are considered by the general populace to fall within the realms of acceptable behaviour.

    This is really what this argument has slowly and inexorably been leading up to right from the get go, when the argument of "discrimination" was applied to gay marriage.   I could never quite work out how gays were ever discriminated against on that one, given that  NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY PERSON  in society could enter a gay marriage at all.  Not even heterosexuals.  So where was the discrimination, eh?  The biggest scam of all time.

    It's simply social engineering to have people believe that they are no longer capable of even assessing the normal and non-normal, like you're trying to argue right now, twisting the sub-normal back onto those of us who  A R E    normal and trying to kid us that we have no   R I G H T   to have a concept of  N O R M AL.    Well, I'm sorry bud, but we actually  D O.   If you want to pretend that society has no concept of normal social practises then maybe you had better go and live on an island all by your little lonesome, because the reality is that it  D O E S.    To believe otherwise is just a truckload of inculcated LEFTY, SOCIALIST, MARXIST .....   

      B U L L S H I T E     A N D    B A L O N E Y
    .
    We_are_accountable
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 23
    I just use the "LGBT" acronym: it is easy to pronounce and write, everyone knows what I am talking about, and nobody, in my experience, gets upset. "LGBT" is the acronym that sticks, and I doubt it will go out of fashion any time soon.

    I do not see anything wrong with promiscuity; if anything, humanity could benefit a lot from relaxing its stance on sexuality. People are way too prudish and uptight. No fun allowed; just be dead serious, conform with stone age traditions and wear a robe. Or a burqa, depending on which brand of traditionalists you belong to.

    The "more than two genders" stuff is pretty bizarre, but there is no harm from it. If someone wants to believe that they are a third, or an 23476842nd, or an infinite gender, or a multidimensional gender or whatever - it is their right. All people have their quirks, and I certainly have mine, so I am not going to judge others for theirs.
    The only thing I make fun of is the pronouns. Whenever I hear the "Ze/Zir" pronouns or other things like this, I always tell the joke I read on Youtube, "I identify as the King of the World, so I will ask you to please refer to me as Your Highness". To be fair though, I have never heard any pronouns but the regular ones in real life; it seems to either be a purely Internet thing, or maybe just a very marginal one.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    @MayCaesar - You wrote ....
    I just use the "LGBT" acronym: it is easy to pronounce and write, everyone knows what I am talking about, and nobody, in my experience, gets upset. "LGBT" is the acronym that sticks, and I doubt it will go out of fashion any time soon.
    That's just a nothingburger statement and not addressing the topic.  You fail to recognize how Cultural Maxism works.  It's a politic of stealth and uses "social creep", a bit like tax bracket creep.  It creeps up on society without society noticing.  That's its modus operandi.  If you go back in time, we only ever had two words to describe all of this crap - bi-sexual and homosexual. There was no need for any long-winded acronym.  Then we got the feminist shite, followed closely by "Lesbian".  So now we had three words. I was nearly 20 years old before I even knew what a freakin' lesbian was.  That's how new to the discourse it is in terms of eons of the age of humankind.  They keep adding to the list, one by one, now a ridiculous acronym.  That's called social creep and it's all coming from the Marxist school of propaganda.  Then you wrote ...
    I do not see anything wrong with promiscuity; if anything, humanity could benefit a lot from relaxing its stance on sexuality. People are way too prudish and uptight. No fun allowed; just be dead serious, conform with stone age traditions and wear a robe. Or a burqa, depending on which brand of traditionalists you belong to.
    Yeh, well.  It's not for any man to judge another, but an absence of societal moral compass has historically seen societies quickly descend into unbridled, undisciplined degeneracy and depraved proclivities destroying  themselves.  "Fun" doesn't have to be sexually-centred at all.  That's a twisted and debauched attitude.  "Fun" can be had in multiple ways outside of the bedroom.  Are you trying to pretend that straight couples have no sense of humor, no sense of fun, have drab, dreary lives?  I don't think so.  Ridiculous claims which can never be substantiated, so try again.   Besides, it seems to me that you don't understand the true nature of a loving respectful and tender relationship, which is the most fun of all.  It doesn't need black leather, studs, whips, kinky toys, back channelling, same sex, multi-party threesomes at all.
    The "more than two genders" stuff is pretty bizarre, but there is no harm from it. If someone wants to believe that they are a third, or an 23476842nd, or an infinite gender, or a multidimensional gender or whatever - it is their right. All people have their quirks, and I certainly have mine, so I am not going to judge others for theirs.

    At least you have your brain matter sorted in recognizing how bizarre it is, however there is heaps of harm in it, because this crap is being used as a platform to debauch and sink our Western culture into a chaotic, immoral, barbaric, cave man abyss, where everything goes, with no respect for one another, no respect for societal norms, no respect for the family unit, just trash it and destroy it, in other words.  Destroy the family unit and you destroy the very foundation of every society and that is the intent with all of this filth.  The goal is to ultimately destroy the supremacy of the Western culture.  Marxism is a politic of envy, as are both Socialism and Communism, with each manifested in absolute and totally twisted control of the masses.  That's their purpose.  That's the intent.  That's the goal.   Wake up.

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix
    Grafix said:
    @Happy_Killbot - I don't and have never claimed to DECIDE what is culturally normal.  The general populace instinctively decides its norms.  How else could we judge a criminal act and march someone off to prison?  How else as parents could we correct our children for doing things that are not right, that are wrong, that are not    N O R M A L.?   HUH?    How esle does general rejection prevail in any social structure of certain activities?  These are   determined by social NORMS.   What are social norms?  Practises which are considered by the general populace to fall within the realms of acceptable behaviour.

    This is really what this argument has slowly and inexorably been leading up to right from the get go, when the argument of "discrimination" was applied to gay marriage.   I could never quite work out how gays were ever discriminated against on that one, given that  NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY PERSON  in society could enter a gay marriage at all.  Not even heterosexuals.  So where was the discrimination, eh?  The biggest scam of all time.

    It's simply social engineering to have people believe that they are no longer capable of even assessing the normal and non-normal, like you're trying to argue right now, twisting the sub-normal back onto those of us who  A R E    normal and trying to kid us that we have no   R I G H T   to have a concept of  N O R M AL.    Well, I'm sorry bud, but we actually  D O.   If you want to pretend that society has no concept of normal social practises then maybe you had better go and live on an island all by your little lonesome, because the reality is that it  D O E S.    To believe otherwise is just a truckload of inculcated LEFTY, SOCIALIST, MARXIST .....   

      B U L L S H I T E     A N D    B A L O N E Y
    .

    Alright, so then LGBTQ marriage is normal because a majority of people support it and the general populace has instinctively decided it is normal.

    Image result for public support for LGBTQ

    Image result for public support for LGBTQ

    Image result for public support for LGBTQ

    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    @Happy_Killbot - Well done.  You have very nicely vindicated and validated every one of my statements on how Cultural Marxism infiltrates and targets a society and then inculcates the general populace in order to replace that society's social norms with other "norms" that were never previously accepted as "norms", instead were viewed outside of the norm.  Your post illustrates this beautifully.

    The evidence of the absolute and total inculcation over gay marriage is that around 52% or thereabouts voted in support of gay marriage.  That means that 52% of society did not have their wits about them when they were led to believe and to accept without question, the claim that gays were being discriminated against, due to the fact that they could not marry one another.  That is 52% of the population were dumbed down unable to think for themselves, joined the Marxist groupthink, UNABLE to realize that there was not a whit of discrimination against gays on that score at all.  Why not?   

    B E C A U S E    N O T    A     S I N G L E    S O L I T A R Y     P E R S O N    C O U L D    C O N T R A C T     T O     M A R R Y     A     P E R S O N     O F     T H E     S A M E      S E X

    S O ,    W H E R E     W A S     T H E     D I S C R I M I N A T I O N?

    THE BIGGEST SCAM AGAINST DUMB PEOPLE OF ALL TIME.   THAT'S HOW INCULCATION WORKS
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    The how is it possible that you can have an opinion against it?

    Isn't it possible that people came to the conclusion to support or to oppose LGBTQ rights independently?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    @Happy_Killbot - You ask?
    Isn't it possible that people came to the conclusion to support or to oppose LGBTQ rights independently?

    Looking at the vigorous campaign in support of the lie CLAIMING that our marriage law was "discriminatory" answers that question immediately    The marriage law 

    W A S N ' T    D I S C R I M I N A T O RY    A G A I N S T    G A Y S   W A S    I T ?

    S O    W H A T    D E C E P T I O N    L E D     P E O P L E    T O     B E L I E V E     T H A T     I T     W A S ?

    T H E    D I S H O N E S T     G A Y     M A R R I A G E     L O B B Y I S T      G R O U P S

    Have you any idea how much funding was injected into that scurrilous campaign to infuence peddle that fabrication?   B I L L I O N S.  So what vested interests would finance a fringe group?  There's your answer.

    .

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Grafix

    This "Cultural Marxism" thing seems to be some sort of conspiracy theory. I am aware of identity politics and its ills, but the LGBT stuff in itself has a very loose connection to it, although the way it is used in politics is different.

    Why not have fun outside and inside the bedroom? For that matter, why only bedroom? There are also beaches, public parks, trains, cars, yachts. People should loosen up and stop following ancient rituals all the time.
    We do not "need" many things in life. But if you only do things that you need to do, then your life is going to be very pale and monotonous, and the question then arises on what the point of your life is at all. You hardly really live then; you just exist.
    I prefer to have a vibrant life, with a lot of unique experiences - laughing at everything in the process. Prudes can live their lives the way they want, but not everyone has to be like them.

    Good: chaos is everything! The more ancient traditional institutions are eroded, the more interesting life will become. As it is now, we are entering the age of artificial intelligence and space colonisation, yet we still have some traditions from 8,000 years ago. It is time to spice things up!
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    @MayCaesar - You wrote ....
    This "Cultural Marxism" thing seems to be some sort of conspiracy theory. I am aware of identity politics and its ills, but the LGBT stuff in itself has a very loose connection to it, although the way it is used in politics is different.
    That's just naive, May.  The entire "Identity Politic" concept was introduced by the New Left, (the cover name for the politic of Cultural Marxism), in order to buttress and bolster the LGBQT Agenda, followed by the drive for social acceptance of gay marriage - a multi-billion dollar systematic campaign waged over nearly a decade.  The whole purpose of the Identity politic is to serve at the altar.of the depraved.
    Why not have fun outside and inside the bedroom? For that matter, why only bedroom? There are also beaches, public parks, trains, cars, yachts. People should loosen up and stop following ancient rituals all the time.
    We do not "need" many things in life. But if you only do things that you need to do, then your life is going to be very pale and monotonous, and the question then arises on what the point of your life is at all. You hardly really live then; you just exist.  
    I prefer to have a vibrant life, with a lot of unique experiences - laughing at everything in the process. Prudes can live their lives the way they want, but not everyone has to be like them.
    That completely ignores everything I've written.  As I said claiming a respectful, loving and tender relationship is not heaps of fun is just a debauched attitude.  It's far more fun than a loveless one, more stable and enduring too with a better environment for children to grow up in and be nurtured with natural, biological mothering and parenting.  Nothing, absolutely NOTHING equals a mother's love for her children.  Then you go into a silly diatribe about fun outside the bedroom. I already pointed out your flawed argument that straight couples are dreary and drab.  Now you are agreeing with me.  They enjoy those past-times too as I said, so they're not dreary and drab.
    Good: chaos is everything! The more ancient traditional institutions are eroded, the more interesting life will become. As it is now, we are entering the age of artificial intelligence and space colonisation, yet we still have some traditions from 8,000 years ago. It is time to spice things up!

    Inculcated beyond belif and totally ignorant of history. Why am I not surprised?  Cultural Marxism preys upon the ignorant.  The knowledgeable just look around and see the flaws in that argument and see the empirial  evidence against it, including historical evidence against it.  Societies decay, crumble and implode into lawlessness without a moral compass.  Go back to school - not the one that has already de-educated you.

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    So are homosexuals allowed to marry everywhere then, if you are arguing there is no discrimination?

    What about all the funding against it, such as the far-right propaganda video in the OP?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Grafix

    If this ""left" faction is new, then how can you attribute its views to Marxism, when Marxism has been around for nearly a century and a half? That is not new; that is old.
    Marxists have been around for a very long time; welcome to the real world.

    Then what are you disagreeing with? If for some couple fun can be achieved by non-traditional means, then let them do that, if fun is what you truly care about.

    Where did I ever say that societal stability was my goal? I said "chaos", man; chaos. It means everything but stability. Blood War was always meant to be won by Tanar'ri!
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 23
    @Happy_Killbot - Where is the "far-right" wing "propaganda" in the two passages below, taken from earlier posts of mine?  I think the empirical facts show very clearly who  ran the propagandist scam here.  Take another look and this time  L E T    I T    S I N K    I N  .......

    Grafix said :   @Happy_Killbot

    B E C A U S E    N O T    A     S I N G L E    S O L I T A R Y     P E R S O N    C O U L D    C O N T R A C T     T O     M A R R Y     A     P E R S O N     O F     T H E     S A M E      S E X

    S O ,    W H E R E     W A S     T H E     D I S C R I M I N A T I O N?

    THE  BIGGEST  SCAM  AGAINST  DUMB  PEOPLE  OF  ALL  TIME.   THAT'S  HOW  INCULCATION  WORKS
    .

     A N D

    Grafix said:  @Happy_Killbot - You ask?
    Isn't it possible that people came to the conclusion to support or to oppose LGBTQ rights independently?

    Looking at the vigorous campaign in support of the lie CLAIMING that our marriage law was "discriminatory" answers that question immediately    The marriage law 

    W A S N ' T    D I S C R I M I N A T O RY    A G A I N S T    G A Y S   W A S    I T ?

    S O    W H A T    D E C E P T I O N    L E D     P E O P L E    T O     B E L I E V E     T H A T     I T     W A S ?

    T H E    D I S H O N E S T     G A Y     M A R R I A G E     L O B B Y I S T      G R O U P S

    Have you any idea how much funding was injected into that scurrilous campaign to infuence peddle that fabrication?   B I L L I O N S.  So what vested interests would finance a fringe group?  There's your answer..






    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    The propaganda is in the OP. (OP = original post)

    LET THAT SINK IN...
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 25
    @MayCaesar - You wrote ....
    If this ""left" faction is new, then how can you attribute its views to Marxism, when Marxism has been around for nearly a century and a half? That is not new; that is old.
    Marxists have been around for a very long time; welcome to the real world.
    I've already given that information to you under another topic.  It was the result of a group of Marxists getting together at Frankfurt University, following the failure of Classical Marxism, in order to review the reasons for its failure and to revise Marxism, with new goals and via a different route - not based on economics but on cultural and social issues.  That's the Liberal left's platform today.  They called it either neo-Marxism or Cultural Marxism.  It first vented its envy upon Western societies across the board in the early 1960s.  I lived through it.  We had to put up with slogans like, "comparisons are odious",(dumbing down of the school curricula, removing teacher marking of tests and no segregating of classes into Levels A, B, or C, etc.), also  "competition is odious" (paving the way for globalism which eradicates competition in the market place)"free love", (freedom to have multiple partners, sex outside marriage and abolition of marriage - de facto cohabitation), all of that and more including the  emergence of the pot-smoking hippies, rampant drug use, the absence of a work ethic, touring the nation in their flower-power vans, with no sense of any obligation to support themselves.  The New Left left-wing governments of the day allowed them to go on Social Welfare, etc 

    I could list a heap more of such cultural so-called "norms" which flooded in from the radical leftist universities, the beginning of the break-down of every traditional discipline in education and life generally.  For the first time rampant rioting, boozing, undisciplined sex lives on university campuses became trendy, students sleeping with teachers, too.  It shocked the entire Western hemisphere.   The "New Left" was their claim, rebellious, disrespectful, dirty and was associated with the "great unwashed" for their long dirty hair, dirty fingernails and bare feet.  It was the new agenda, a new policy platform for left wing political parties. A baptism of fire. This  platform was engaged right across the Western hemisphere by every democracy's left wing. We suddenly realised that left wing Parties had no control over their policy platform, that it was dictated from higher ups - bought and paid for.  Here are some definitions of how the elites water it down.

    "In theoretical terms, the New Left’s major contribution was to a process of revision and diversification within Marxism and related doctrines, especially with regard to concepts of class, agency, ideology, and culture." - Enclyclopaedia Brittanica

    "Many prominent neo-Marxists, such as Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School, have historically been sociologists and psychologists. Neo-Marxism comes under the broader framework of the New Left. In a sociological sense, neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's broader understanding of social inequality, such as status and power to Marxist philosophy."  - Wikipedia

    Below is a paragraph from a lecture given by Isaac Deutscher in1967 to students at Berkley.



    "It is obvious even to the most casual observer that you call yourselves New Left not because you have a new philosophy, but because you want to be distinguished from the previous generation of Marxists, or Leninists, or Trotskyists; you think, quite rightly, that your elders have done badly and you want to make a new start. This sounds very tidy: new people make a new beginning and call themselves New Left. But in what sense are you the ‘new people'? You are young? Young people can be very old if they start with very old ideas, and surely this is a more important consideration than the age group to which you belong. I suggest that you have, first of all, to define what is the new idea you stand for. In what way are you opposed to your elders, and to which of their ideas are you opposed? If you just announce ‘this is the end of ideology’, you start from their own bankruptcy, and bankruptcy cannot be a starting point.

    "It is also obvious that what unites you, the New Left, is really an emotional alienation from, and opposition to, this self-satisfied, complacent, well-fed and yet '' bourgeois society."

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Grafix

    Something does not add up here; your document refers to a group formed in 1930s, while these state-expansion processes had been happening for two decades before then (Woodrow Wilson started the trend). If it is New Left who are responsible for this, then they must have been formed far before then. And if it is Marxists, then that is what it is, not "New Left" or "neo-Marxists".
    For that matter, I do not see what is so Marxist about putting sexual minorities collectively under the LGBT label. We put people in collective groups all the time; you do the same thing when calling people with a certain range of views collectively "New Left". Are you a Marxist too then?

    Identity politics is a part of Marxism, but Marxism is not the only ideology where identity politics arises. And further, not any separation of people into groups by their identity is identity politics; treating those groups as meaningful political factions is.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    @MayCaesar -
    Something does not add up here; your document refers to a group formed in 1930s, while these state-expansion processes had been happening for two decades before then (Woodrow Wilson started the trend). If it is New Left who are responsible for this, then they must have been formed far before then. And if it is Marxists, then that is what it is, not "New Left" or "neo-Marxists".
    Philosophies aren't developed overnight.  These early formulators had many long arguments and debates over what they believed personally about Classical Marxism's failure, about their own ideas on why, what might be the way to identify the flaws, let alone how to address them, many a disagreement on how their own ideas differed, whether there were any solutions, if there were how should they be applied, what was the purpose of their research and what direction should it take, etc.  They argued for decades.  New people came and went, others were more influential than others, etc.  It took decades for anything to "take shape" with a common core and then a common definition, then a common purpose, goal and methodology of teaching it and finally putting it into practise within a cohesively master-minded platform of indetectable dissemination.
    For that matter, I do not see what is so Marxist about putting sexual minorities collectively under the LGBT label. We put people in collective groups all the time; you do the same thing when calling people with a certain range of views collectively "New Left". Are you a Marxist too then?
    Putting people in boxes and labelling them passively is one thing.  Cultural Marxism is not about that.  Marxism has always been pro-active and subjective, UNLIKE any other philosophy ever devised.  Most philosophies are  hands-off, intellectual research, merely delivering a collection of objective  observations, arguments and opinion.  Marxism has always been about 'CHANGE'.  Cultural Marxism targets cultural expressions of a society and weaponzes them against that society in order to alter the value set to change that society, via its central function of "criticl theory".  The modus operandi  is to empower professional and authoritative opinion, (academia and think tanks), to critique a society's cultural norms and pursuade the populace that these are undesirable, or harmful, or can be "improved" until society abandons them.  As it is inculcative, it is an information war.

    A classic example is we took two hundred years to arrive at racial freedom for non-whites, delivering to them emancipation, abandoning segregation, manifested in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only to now find Marxism exercising reverse racism against whites, against the very roots of Western civilization, against those who are typical and representative of it, turning our own society against ourselves, by using Identity Politics.  At every possible turn, every opportunity, in every nuance that can be possibly exploited, the Caucasian identity is damned with  white "supremacy" to blame, white this, white that, white racist phobia this phobia that, etc. all anti white rhetoric, damning ourselves for everything under the sun, seeking to segregate black from white, race from race, gender from gender, religion from religion, etc.  An Agenda of D I V I S I O N, not unity.  Chaos not harmony.

    That's because Identity Politics always and very deliberately focuses on   O U R    D I F F E R E N C E S   rather than on what we share in common  and can build upon.  It always lays blame at the feet of the CAUCASIAN, only ever that one class, one type, one demographic, one people, one race, one ethnicity, inculcating everyone to not only hate this majority, but to self-hate, to loathe our history, our own heroes, our very own culture itself, while applauding and lauding minority fringe groups, which are  N O T  representative of our Western culture.  Always advocating for their rights, their needs, for laws which pander to them and take away from the majority. 

    It's almost mainstream now inside every leftie's head, despite the fact it is all a fiction, made up nonsense, using them as little pawns to destroy their very own lifestyle, culture, society and the privileges their own demographic worked hard to build as a Western society to make all available TO ALL.  However, if anyone is under-privileged the only demographic to blame is these white privileged supremacists, to which they themselves belong.  All invented by Cultural Marxism, a self-destruction, not from without, but from within by infiltration, inculcation.  Divide and conquer and the target implodes, with only itself to blame. Extremely clever, but insidiously evil.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    @Happy_Killbot - When you can prove the propaganda in the OP, I'll start listening.  You're clinging to the propaganda, like shite clings to a blanket.  Why can't you see the obvious empirical evidence which proves the propagandist lie claiming that the Marriage Act discriminated against gays, when it actually discriminated against no-one.   It was agaisnt the law for ANY person to marry another of the same sex.  What part of that don't you understand?  It's not rocket science.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix Already done. The video is right wing propaganda, It is obvious.

    The fact that is was against the law for same-sex couples to marry is discrimination, don't you get it? It's not rocket science.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    Who was discriminated aganst by the marriage law prohibiting same sex marriages?  Heterosexuals?  Lesbians? Bi-sexuals? Homosexuals?  Trangenders? Christians? Muslims? Buddhists? Atheists? 

    A L L   were prohibited from doing so.

     W H O     W A S    D I S C R I M I N A T E D     A G A I N S T      U N F A I R L Y       W H E R E      A      D I F F E R E N T     D E M O G R A P H I C     W A S     N O T?

    If we argue that the Marriage Act was discriminatory then we would also have to argue that prohibiting murder is discriminatory against murderers, or prohibiting rape is discriminatory against rapists, prohibiting paedophilia is discriminatory against paedophiles.  The gay argument was simply that we want to break the law and the fact that the law won't allow us to break it is discrimination against us.  Don't you get it?  It's not rocket science.
    .
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix You draw a false comparison.

    It would be more akin to if white people were allowed to murder non-whites but anyone of another race would not be allowed to murder at all.

    It is discriminatory because there are some people who want to marry each other but can't because a law prevents it. That is textbook discrimination, there is no denying it.

    The Law is discriminatory, your argument is one of the dumbest things I have ever read, even by your standards, you have no argument here whatsoever.


    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot - Do you always leave your logic at home when on holiday or in a debate?  Just look at what you wrote ....
    @Grafix You draw a false comparison.
    It would be more akin to if white people were allowed to murder non-whites but anyone of another race would not be allowed to murder at all.
    It is discriminatory because there are some people who want to marry each other but can't because a law prevents it. That is textbook discrimination, there is no denying it.
    The Law is discriminatory, your argument is one of the dumbest things I have ever read, even by your standards, you have no argument here whatsoever.

    Yours is the false comparison because we can immediately see that  N O T    A L L    were prohibited from murdering others in your example.   Whereby the Marriage Law was not like that at all. 

    I T    P R O H I B I T E D    E V E R Y O N E    F R O M     E N T E R I N G      A     S A M E - S E X      M A R R I A G E.     I    R E P E A T     E V E R Y O N E    N O     E X C E P T I O N S

    YOUR COMPARISON IS THE FALSE EQUIVALENT BECAUSE IT ALLOWS   E X C E P T I O N S


    Definition of discrimination:   To isolate, to single out, to treat differently, because of a difference.  How and who was being treated differently or singled out by the marriage law?  Answer that.

    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix ;

    People not being able to enter same sex marriage is the discrimination!

    Get it?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    That's not the definition of discrimination though, because NO-ONE was allowed to enter a same-sex marriage.  Get it?
    .
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix ;

    So is homosexuality different from heterosexuality?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    Below  is an explanation of how, where and who really committed the biggest crime in the history of mankind by enacting the Amendment to the Marriage Act and thereby allowing same-sex marriages, given to you from the stand-point of sound lawmaking.

    1.  No single person, no entity, no identity, no demographic, no religion, race, color or creed, not a solitary soul was permitted to enter into a same-sex marriage under the law.  It was prohibited for all.

    2.  In spite of that the gay lobby pretended it was somehow discriminatory against them, because they sought to change that law so that they could legally do what was previously prohibited.

    3.  The law is confirmed by the Courts, which are not empowered to MAKE NEW LAWS, but entrusted with the sole purpose, role and duty of interpreting and UPHOLDING the law.

    4.  Legislators have a position of trust also, to not only uphold the law but to introduce new legislation which is sound, practical and which protects the people.

    5.  The Courts must uphold those laws and do so by referencing   P R E C E D E N T    L A W  which proves  E X I S T I N G    L A W  and hand down rulings according to precedent law.

    6.  When Legislators introduce and enact a law which   S E T S    A    P R E C E D E N T   for all other law which must follow it, they need to be sure that it will not impact upon society in a detrimental manner.

    7.  Lawmakers in amending The Marriage Act did so on the false premise, upon the false argument that the Marriage Act discriminated against the LGBQT community, ALTHOUGH it did not.

    8.  Consequently, because it can now be argued that the Marriage Act was discriminatory against   E V E R Y   S I N G LE   demographic, although it was not,  then the following precedent at law is automatically set ....

    A.  That ANY  demographic can LAWFULLY plead discrimination, BASED ON PRECEDENT LAW simply because it does not like the current law, regardless that EVERYONE is prohibited from that same activity.  Nevertheless it constitutes discrimination against that demographic, simply because the demographic can't indulge in that activity, subsequent to how discrimination has been re-denfined.by the law and on the record in gay marriage law.

    B.  That immediately means that paedophiles can wail discrimination, that child sex traffickers can wail discrimination, that murderers can wail discrimination, that rapists can wail discrimination, that thieves can wail discrimination, because the definition of  D I S C R I M I N I T I O N  has been corrupted by the law to mean something which it does not actually mean.

    C.  The corrupted meaning now attributed to the word "discrimination" under the law, as a consequence of amending the Marriage Act to pander to the desires and wants of the LGBQT brigade, has set the precedent that if we want to break a certain law, although it prohibits everyone from engaging in that action, we can do so through the Courts by arging the precedent law set by the Gay Marriage law and that we can expect to succeed to have our unlawful desires upheld by the law by simply demanding that the law  M U S T    B E    C H A N G E D  based on no other reason than precedent law already set in stone by errant Lawmakers.  As a result, there is absolutely nothing a bench of Judges can argue in the defence of upholding   A N Y  law we disagree with.  It means that EVERY law is now discriminatory against everyone.  Get it?

    So what does that mean for society?  It means that paedophiles, rapists, murderers, child-sex traffickers, pimps, prostitutes, you name it, can claim the law is discriminatory against them.  It means that Muslims can demand that Marriage Law is discriminatory against them and it therefore  M U S T    B E     C H A N G E D   to allow them polygamous marriages.  Same applies to incestuous marriages.  Same applies to bestiality being permitted in marriage.  Same applies to any law that any particular demographic does not like, even though that law   APPLIES TO EVERYONE.   

    So what have these lawmakers effectively done?     D E S T R O Y E D     O U R     J U S T I C E     S Y S T E M .  What is the historically recognized strategy to bring a nation to its knees?  Destroy its Justice system and you people laugh at the knowledge and scholarship which is fully aware of the devil in the deep - Cultural Marxism?   This odious, evil and sinsiter politic engages "Agents" from within a targeted culture to act against its own culture via the methodology of infiltration and inculcation.  The following demographics are recognized agents of Cultural Marxism, already known to "awake" scholarship, investigators, politicians, Churchmen and analysts ....
    • The LGBQT lobby
    • The feminist lobby
    • Identity Politics
    • Social Justice Warriors
    • Atheism
    • Islam
    • The False Prophets in the Churches - Using altered Bibles and preaching non-Christian dogma
    • The False Prophet in the Anti-Christian Pope Francis
    • The Democratic Party of the U.S.A
    • The Social Democrat Party of the U.S.A.
    • George Soros and his 250 propagandist Internet web sites, think tanks, news media, etc. all under the umbrella of the Open Society Foundation
    • The mainstream corporate media
    • Establishment Academia
    • Establishment science
    • Hollywood and the entertainment industry
    • Traitors in the Dept. of Justice
    • Traitors in the FBI
    • Traitors in the Intelligence Community - the CIA and Black Budget Ops and the blanket surveillance of every U.S. citizen by NSA, facilitated by Obama
    • Silicon Valley Tech giants - Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, etc. etc.
    • CERN
    These are but half of the true reflection of the networking of the octopus of Cultural Marxism, the unseen, undeclared politic of stealth and chaos, of division and hatred. It has successfully dismantled our Justice System via the Amendment to the Marriage Act by setting a legal precedent which disempowers legislators, Courts, the DOJ and law enforcement, if ever challenged.   Get it?
    .
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    Are Homosexuals different from Heterosexuals or not? 

    Answer the question!
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    Why on earth do you ask that?   Of course they are.  Are rapists different from non-rapitsts?  Are the religious different from non-religious?  Are men different from women?  Are Red Indians different from Caucasians?  Are Asians different from Caucasians?  Are blacks different from whites?  Are thieves different from non-thieves?  Are murderers different from non-murderers?  What's your point, Einstein?
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    ??????
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix
    Alright, now lets logic:

    Definition of discrimination:   To isolate, to single out, to treat differently, because of a difference.

    1.) homosexuals are a different group

    2.) homosexuals are not allowed to marry under the marriage act

    3.) therefore, homosexuals are being treated differently by the marriage act

    4.) therefore, the marriage act is discrimination!
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    WHY IS THE VIEWS COUNTER GOING BACKWARDS FOR THIS TOPIC?

    I HAVE WATCHED IT DECLINE FROM 36 TO 31, FROM 67 TO 55 AND OTHER SIMILAR REDUCTIONS RUNNING NON-STOP AND CONTINUOUSLY IN THE NUMBER OF VIEWS.  THE REDUCTIONS HAVE KNOCKED OUT OVER A 100 VIEWS.  WHY IS THIS HAPPENING SO BLATANTLY ONLY IN THIS TOPIC, AARONG?  i SUSPECT IT HAS HAPPENED WITH OTHERS BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT I SHALL BE RECORDING AND WATCHING FROM NOW ON.
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix

    How about you send him a message instead of complaining about it here?

    Also, why do you care? It is just a number and doesn't reflect anything.

    If it is a glitch, then you just know that it is low.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 1565 Pts
    edited March 24
    @Grafix

    You know what? I know why you are complaining.

    It is because you have finally realized that you are completely in the wrong here, now you are looking for anything to distract yourself from your new insight.

    That's what is happening here, isn't it?

    You have finally awoken from your dream, now you realize that everyone who was screaming that everything else is fake news and propaganda were the real agents trying to change the narrative, trying to keep you oblivious and ignorant.

    Now maybe you can finally move forward.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    @Happy_Killbot - Yeah let's get some logic into your head.  There is none in your logic.  You wrote ...
    Alright, now lets logic:
    Definition of discrimination:   To isolate, to single out, to treat differently, because of a difference.
    1.) homosexuals are a different group
    2.) homosexuals are not allowed to marry under the marriage act
    3.) therefore, homosexuals are being treated differently by the marriage act
    4.) therefore, the marriage act is discrimination!
    1.)   As are all of those I mentioned in the different demographics representative of different groups, subjected to exactly the same law as Homosexuals.  Your statement is stoopid, therefore.
    2.)   Not true. They are  allowed to marry under the Marriage Act, just like everyone else is permitted to on the same basis.  
    3.)   NO they are not being treated differently by the Marriage Act at all.  They are being treated the SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.   You conflate the fact that they choose to pretend they are not male and female somehow entitles them to claim they are not included in the Marriage Law.  They are because they are males and are allowed to marry females.   The fact they keep up a pretence that there are more than two genders and pander to a fake claim is not our problem nor is it a problem for the law.  It is THEIR OWN problem which they created for themelves.   If we allow that rapists have some mental disorder which must therefore excuse them from the law against rape, does that mean we should pass a law saying they can lawfully rape people?  That's your argument.
    4. )  Therefore your argument is flawed.  Your logic is flawed and you have no idea what the definition of "discrimination" means.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    Grafix said:
    That's not the definition of discrimination though, because NO-ONE was allowed to enter a same-sex marriage.  Get it?
    Consider this argument:

    "The law prohibiting people from walking past a black person without kneeling to them and saying, 'Long live the African race!', is not discriminating, because NO-ONE is allowed to do that."

    Does this make a lot of sense? It is essentially the same type of argument you are making.

    When the law specifies a rule guiding interaction between two individuals, then posing any conditions on inherent properties of these individuals is discriminatory. A law in Saudi Arabia prohibiting people of different genders from riding a train in the same cab is discriminatory, for example. Or do you disagree with that as well? Legalised gender segregation is not discriminatory, in your opinion?
  • @Grafix

    Homosexuality is a demographic. Homosexuals were not allowed to marry until the marriage act was amended in 2017. And yes, Homosexuals were being treated unfairly by being denied marriage rights,

    It's plain as day, you can deny all you want, but that's water under the bridge, because homosexuals can marry, they should be allowed to, most people agree, and you are the only person who thinks your argument holds any water (It doesn't)

    You have to contradict yourself in order to claim premise 1 isn't true. Here you are agreeing that homosexuals are a different group:
    Why on earth do you ask that?   Of course they are.  Are rapists different from non-rapitsts?  Are the religious different from non-religious?  Are men different from women?  Are Red Indians different from Caucasians?  Are Asians different from Caucasians?  Are blacks different from whites?  Are thieves different from non-thieves?  Are murderers different from non-murderers?  What's your point, Einstein?
    Now you contradict yourself:
    As are all of those I mentioned in the different demographics representative of different groups, subjected to exactly the same law as Homosexuals.  Your statement is stoopid, therefore.
    Such double-think, you ought to make your Marxist-overlords proud!

     NO they are not being treated differently by the Marriage Act at all.  They are being treated the SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.   You conflate the fact that they choose to pretend they are not male and female somehow entitles them to claim they are not included in the Marriage Law.  They are because they are males and femailes who are allowed to marry one another.   The fact they keep up a pretence that there are more than two genders and pander to a fake claim is not our problem nor is a problem for the law.  It is THEIR OWN problem which they created for themelves.   If we allow that rapists have some mental disorder which must therefore excuses them from the law against rape, does that mean we should pass a law saying they can lawfully rape people?  That's your argument.
    This is so simple to debunk you would have to be mentally deranged not to see the problem. you are literally arguing that "allowed to marry" = "not allowed to marry"
    Therefore your argument is flawed, you logic is flawed and you have no idea what the definition of "discrimination" means.
    LOL! Sorry buddy, I used YOUR definition of discrimination! You played yourself!

    Here is proof:
    @Happy_Killbot - Do you always leave your logic at home when on holiday or in a debate?  Just look at what you wrote ....Yours is the false comparison because we can immediately see that  N O T    A L L    were prohibited from murdering others in your example.   Whereby the Marriage Law was not like that at all. I T    P R O H I B I T E D    E V E R Y O N E    F R O M     E N T E R I N G      A     S A M E - S E X      M A R R I A G E.     I    R E P E A T     E V E R Y O N E    N O     E X C E P T I O N SYOUR COMPARISON IS THE FALSE EQUIVALENT BECAUSE IT ALLOWS   E X C E P T I O N S
    Definition of discrimination:   To isolate, to single out, to treat differently, because of a difference.  How and who was being treated differently or singled out by the marriage law?  Answer that.

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    I think Grafix just has a very reductionist understanding of discrimination, thinking it only applies to what one person can do. But there are many other types of discrimination including such topics as:

    - What other people can do to the person.
    - What two people can do between themselves.
    - What three people can do between themselves.
    - What other people can do to two people.

    And so on. A law stating that it is legal to kill the Welsh people with a longbow after midnight is discriminatory (real law in one of the cities in the UK). A law stating that two people with age difference of over 5 years are not allowed to kiss in public is discriminatory. A law stating that five people cannot play Dungeons and Dragons if they all study at the same university is discriminatory.

    Non-discriminatory laws do not make references to the people's attributes and only make references to their actions. A law prohibiting murder is not discriminatory, as it only concerns action and does not concern individual attributes of participants. But a law prohibiting murder of Gypsies specifically would be discriminatory.
    Happy_Killbot
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 24
    @MayCaesar ; -  You wrote ....
    Consider this argument:
    "The law prohibiting people from walking past a black person without kneeling to them and saying, 'Long live the African race!', is not discriminating, because NO-ONE is allowed to do that."
    What?  So is it law or isn't it?  First you propose a hypothetical law which requires the reverence of the African race, alone, which would be discriminatory, naturally, against all other races.  Then you claim it is not discriminatory because the law does not exist.   What?  May that is gobbledegook.  Are you arguing that the law, if it were enacted, would or would not be discriminatroy?  If enacted it WOULD BE discriminatroy.
    Does this make a lot of sense? It is essentially the same type of argument you are making.
    No.  It makes absolutely no sense, because I cannot even deduce what the argument is that you are even advancing there.  It is confused babble.   Then you say ....
    When the law specifies a rule guiding interaction between two individuals, then posing any conditions on inherent properties of these individuals is discriminatory.  
    There are no "properties" imposed on a single individual, given that every single individual in the human race is either female or male and therefore every individual is permitted to marry.  This law is silent on all other cultural nuances.  LGBQTs are all also either female or male and entitled to marry anyone of the opposite gender, so there is no discrimination at all.   It's their business, alone and no-one else's if they choose not to, but they are not prevented from doing so, therefore there is no discrimination.  If we removed the qualifiers of female and male then it would be meaningless.  To try to move the definition of marrige to something which is suddenly not a reflection of our Western culture at all, but reflects some other culture  which is not Western,  then it does not serve the interest of we Western people or our culture, and that is the point.
    A law in Saudi Arabia prohibiting people of different genders from riding a train in the same cab is discriminatory, for example. Or do you disagree with that as well? Legalised gender segregation is not discriminatory, in your opinion?
    The Marriage Act has no legalised gender discrimination in it.  It includes the two scientifically and biologically known genders of the human race.  There are no others.  Therefore it includes every human who is a citizen of this nation, so you are peddling a lie to mount a duplicitous argument.  Besides, we are not talking about other cultures' practises or their law.  We are talking about our Western culture and its law. 

    But seeing you brought up practises of segregation, then should we allow boys in girls' bathrooms, toilets and lockerooms?  Girls in boys' bathrooms, toilets and lockerooms?  This is where this is heading.  It's precisely what Obama attempted to introduce, he the clandestine Marxist, whose mentor, Frank Marshall, was a Communist.  Obama's parents were active registered members of the Communist Party.  Evidence of the Cultural Marxist Agenda is everywhere.  We only have to look at the Marxists on University campuses, in the teaching fraternity and in the Democratic Party to know where it is all coming from.   This is the Agenda to destroy the moral codes, the moral ethos of our culture, to destroy our System of Justice and thereby destroy the global supremacy of our Western culture. Marxism is a politic of envy, weaponizing gender aginst our culture and you buy into it.
    .
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 24
    @Grafix

    But that is what you said: "It is not discrimination, because NO-ONE is allowed to do that". I provided a hypothetical law in which also NO-ONE is allowed to do something. By your prior logic, it is not a discriminatory law. Now you are saying it is. Which is it?

    If every individual is permitted to marry, and marriage occurs between two individuals, then, for the absence of discrimination, any two individuals must be permitted to marry. What culture it serves or does not serve is absolutely irrelevant with regards to the terminology question.

    You have not answered my question: is legalised gender segregation discriminatory? Is the mentioned Saudi law discriminatory?
  • @MayCaesar Grafix's arguments are completely empty, again...

    It's actually kind of disappointing because if there is a serious argument here we might never know because he doesn't know it for sure, assuming it even exists.
    MayCaesarDee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch