• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Sigh, wade through all this and ask yourself: was there a violation of The NJ Methodist Church's first amendment rights?

No there wasn't because they got their religious exemption.
 
...You don't really understand the concept of consent, do you? Of those three examples, only the first can have consent. You do know that both (or all) participants in a marriage have to consent, right? Dead people, animals, or whatever else cannot consent. We absolutely can define marriage. We just can't definite it so as to violate the constitution...

...

What's marriage then? SSM couples, hetro couples, groups of 3 or more that are all living? What if the couple or group has one member 16 years of age?

Another SSM advocate who thinks they can define marriage... How do you think your 'DOMA' is gonna hold up in court?
 
What's marriage then? SSM couples, hetro couples, groups of 3 or more that are all living? What if the couple or group has one member 16 years of age?

Another SSM advocate who thinks they can define marriage... How do you think your 'DOMA' is gonna hold up in court?

Consenting adults agreeing to marry one another. That's the whole definition. Whether or not it's only two consenting adults or more than that is an issue still to be resolved, but it doesn't need to be anything more complex than "consenting adults agreeing to marry one another."
 
When you use the term gay people, I think you misuse the term. The proper term is sodomite. It is impossible for these people to offer any child a stable, loving environment since their entire lifestyle is based on a degenerate perversion of marriage, which was established by God and cannot be rightfully changed by an man.

Ah, the "god" justification. Nice. It's not like any of "his" books justify marrying your rapist or anything. Oh, but wait:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV) said:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Talk about a degenerate, perversion of marriage.
 
Well, it's Monday again and still no decision. My prediction, SCOTUS will find some place safe to hunker down for a while after they finally do announce a decision.
 
No there wasn't because they got their religious exemption.

You're not saying there was any 1st amendment rights violations, you and the NJ courts are saying there wasn't any 'greenhouse' violations. You're saying they already got an exemption. Was there a 1at amendment rights violation?

What's the greenhouse issue, anyway?
 
Last edited:
Consenting adults agreeing to marry one another. That's the whole definition. Whether or not it's only two consenting adults or more than that is an issue still to be resolved, but it doesn't need to be anything more complex than "consenting adults agreeing to marry one another."

Consenting adult tomatoes agreeing to marry each other?
 
Actually, it is a losing proposition for children, people and society.

Quantify this for me. What harm is done to you by two men marrying. Don't give me this vague "moral fabric" stuff. I need to know how this actually affects your life.
 
Well, it's Monday again and still no decision. My prediction, SCOTUS will find some place safe to hunker down for a while after they finally do announce a decision.

My prediction is that they'll issue a ruling specific only to California, overturning Prop 8. DOMA section 3 will also likely fall. (but not the rest, as only this section is challenged in this case)
 
When you use the term gay people, I think you misuse the term. The proper term is sodomite.

I already corrected you on this term on another thread. You, of course, ran away from that thread because you knew you couldn't refute it.

It is impossible for these people to offer any child a stable, loving environment since their entire lifestyle is based on a degenerate perversion of marriage, which was established by God and cannot be rightfully changed by an man.

This has been proven false by research. Now look, I know that you don't care about facts, and considering your posts on this topic, it is obvious that you have none. It might be a good idea if you educated yourself somewhat, so at least you would have a basic understanding of the facts.
 
Actually, it is a losing proposition for children, people and society. To allow those who proclaim deviant behavior as benefiting society, while destroying the family unit would be a joke if it were not so serious and sad.

Actually, all research proves you wrong. We know that you don't care about facts. That makes refuting the dumb things you say especially easy.
 
Actually, all research proves you wrong. We know that you don't care about facts. That makes refuting the dumb things you say especially easy.

I will not use the word dumb in addressing you. I found out recently what happens when some people answer in ways you don't like.

BTW, if you actually checked out what the word sodomite meant in 1611,you would see that it had nothing to do with opposite gender sex.

We will never see eye to eye on this, and to continue to say the same thing is fruitless, this is the last thing I will say to you concerning th origin of the word sodomite.
 
I will not use the word dumb in addressing you. I found out recently what happens when some people answer in ways you don't like.

BTW, if you actually checked out what the word sodomite meant in 1611,you would see that it had nothing to do with opposite gender sex.

We will never see eye to eye on this, and to continue to say the same thing is fruitless, this is the last thing I will say to you concerning th origin of the word sodomite.

Only factually, he's correct and you're not. :shrug:
 
Only factually, he's correct and you're not. :shrug:

You people keep saying this. I have shown that as far back as 1828 Webster's dictionary did not say anything about sodomy being an act between those of the opposite sex. It is an act of homosexuality, period.
 
This could make for the worst Monday in history. Its Monday, have 5 days of work ahead of me, and...oh yeah...I'm a second class citizen. Anxiously awaiting...

You are not second class, you have the same rights as everyone else.
 
You people keep saying this. I have shown that as far back as 1828 Webster's dictionary did not say anything about sodomy being an act between those of the opposite sex. It is an act of homosexuality, period.

It's a good thing that most people have grown up and matured a great deal since 1828. Maybe the religious zealots ought to give it a shot.
 
It's a good thing that most people have grown up and matured a great deal since 1828. Maybe the religious zealots ought to give it a shot.

No thanks, I will stay with the truth.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 KJV
 
I will not use the word dumb in addressing you. I found out recently what happens when some people answer in ways you don't like.

BTW, if you actually checked out what the word sodomite meant in 1611,you would see that it had nothing to do with opposite gender sex.

We will never see eye to eye on this, and to continue to say the same thing is fruitless, this is the last thing I will say to you concerning th origin of the word sodomite.

As a Biblical scholar I can verify this.
 
You people keep saying this. I have shown that as far back as 1828 Webster's dictionary did not say anything about sodomy being an act between those of the opposite sex. It is an act of homosexuality, period.

So, when heterosexuals do those acts, what do you call it? Because they do.
 
Link one what?

A religious scholar. But let me link one:

"Sodomy" and "sodomite" are some of the ugliest words in the English language. They of course are derived from the Canaanite city of Sodom, whose destruction along with Gomorrah is related in Genesis 19. Most people assume that homosexuality was the grounds for this divine retribution and that this is the reason that gay men have been branded "sodomites." The word itself, used as implying a sexual sin, does not appear until A.D. 395 in letters between Saint Jerome and a priest Amandus, but the details of the act and the nature of the sin are not explained.

(Snip)

Interestingly enough, Jesus did not interpret the sin of Sodom as sexual. First, Jesus says nothing specific about the sin of homosexuality anywhere in the Gospels. He does of course speak of sexual sins, but all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation, commit a few of these. Second, when Jesus instructs his disciples to preach in the towns of Israel, Jesus warns that those who do not receive them peacefully will be judged more harshly than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10: 5-15).

Jesus joins other ancient authorities in viewing the sins of the Sodomites as the abuse of strangers, neglecting the poor and needy, and the stigmatizing of outsiders. For example, Ezekiel says that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah "had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy" (16:49-50); and the Wisdom of Solomon says that they "refused to receive strangers when they came to them" (19.14). On the other hand, an early Christian book I Clement states that Lot was saved "because of his hospitality and piety" (11.11). It is significant that when Leviticus condemns "men who lie with men," it does not mention the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

(Snip)

Jesus joins other ancient authorities in viewing the sins of the Sodomites as the abuse of strangers, neglecting the poor and needy, and the stigmatizing of outsiders. For example, Ezekiel says that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah "had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy" (16:49-50); and the Wisdom of Solomon says that they "refused to receive strangers when they came to them" (19.14). On the other hand, an early Christian book I Clement states that Lot was saved "because of his hospitality and piety" (11.11). It is significant that when Leviticus condemns "men who lie with men," it does not mention the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Real Meaning of Sodomy
 
Back
Top Bottom