• 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]

tererun said:
I do hope that the supreme court recognizes that after you toss out the religious argument against a government contract and recognize it has no place in a constitutional debate because no one is forcing homosexuality on the church in a legal sense, then there is nothing left to oppose the partnering of 2 people of the same gender, just like in any legal partnership. I am not holding my breath they will do it, but i am wondering what the hell is up with them delaying this announcement by another weak. News outlets are having a hell of a time recycling their speculations over and over again.
Click to expand...

I think they will rule favorably. But regardless, it's jut a matter of time before same sex marriages are recognized.
 
Boo Radley said:
As a hobby. Which is more than I can say for some. I do appear to know more than say, you. ;):peace
Click to expand...

Since you condone both the murder of the unborn and the perversion of sodomy, I would say you have no idea what the bible teaches. If you remember your bible verses you should know what Jesus Christ says about people like you.

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. John 5:37-40 KJV
 
Texmex said:
Since you condone both the murder of the unborn and the perversion of sodomy, I would say you have no idea what the bible teaches. If you remember your bible verses you should know what Jesus Christ says about people like you.

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. John 5:37-40 KJV
Click to expand...

First, you don't know my position on abortion. Second, I merely corrected your misunderstanding of the bible.

And you may find one day God more upset with you than me. Jesus brought compassion to the law, not judgmentalism. I suggest you're like the person who has made the same mistake for 40 years and can't see the truth.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
First, you don't know my position on abortion. Second, I merely corrected your misunderstanding of the bible.

And you may find one day God more upset with you than me. Jesus brought compassion to the law, not judgmentalism. I suggest your like the person who has made the same mistake for 40 years and can't see the truth.
Click to expand...

If you are pro-life I apologize. Are you?

What do you think is the truth concerning these things we have been discussing? Speak up, don't be ashamed.
 
Texmex said:
If you are pro-life I apologize. Are you?

What do you think is the truth concerning these things we have been discussing? Speak up, don't be ashamed.
Click to expand...

I am. But choose to win the argument by means other than demonizing others. I prefer to help those in need over calling them names.

As for homosexuality. I don't believe the Bible speaks to it all. Much of it has been misinterpretation, some deliberate (king James) to fit ideas outside the Bible. I also think we freely let things go we don't accept as time has changed, like with women and vales. The Bible was the beginning of the discussion and not the end.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I am. But choose to win the argument by means other than demonizing others. I prefer to help those in need over calling them names.

As for homosexuality. I don't believe the Bible speaks to it all. Much of it has been misinterpretation, some deliberate (king James) to fit ideas outside the Bible. I also think we freely let things go we don't accept as time has changed, like with women and vials. The Bible was the beginning of the discussion and not the end.
Click to expand...

I cannot justify your positions with what God says in the bible, so it is pointless to continue this conversation.
 
Texmex said:
I cannot justify your positions with what God says in the bible, so it is pointless to continue this conversation.
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with a closed mind, it can't see beyond it's own misunderstandings.
 
Texmex said:
I don't expect someone who is a child of Satan to understand.
Click to expand...

It is Lucifer, get it right.
Texmex said:
You will have to decide who's side you are on. The bible will count when you stand before God and give account of your life.
Click to expand...

That is nice, but it is not a legal argument, and the US doesn't have any sway over god's decision nor is it endorsing god's word. Oh, and if i were you i would spend a little more time working on your hatred and prejudice. Word has it if jesus is up there he might not take to kindly to your lack of love and understanding. before you worry about my soul, you might want to make sure you are not sitting next to me on the bus to hell. Especially if i happen to be doing the bidding of the great and powerful Lucifer it might work out poorly for you to offend him because i might just be assigned to sodomize you in hell considering who you think i am working for.
 
Texmex said:
I've been studying the bible for over 40 years; I doubt you have ever read through it even once. I believe I know a little more about it than you.
Click to expand...

Seriously, if you had actually studied the Bible at all, instead of just embraced what you already believe about it, you'd know what a crock of crap the Bible and all of Christianity actually is.

You haven't studied the Bible.
 
Texmex said:
I cannot justify your positions with what God says in the bible, so it is pointless to continue this conversation.
Click to expand...

Mostly because he's got you dead to rights and even worse, you've got no evidence that God even exists, much less said anything in the Bible. It's about as foolish as claiming that Harry Potter books are holy writ because you have faith in Dumbledore.
 
Paschendale said:
There is a mountain of evidence. There are decades of research on the subject of same sex couples. There's basically no difference in outcomes for the couple or their children. Nor is there any documented detrimental effect of same sex relationships on hetero ones. Since marriage in general and private sexual conduct are protected by strict scrutiny, gender discrimination is protected by intermediate scrutiny, and same sex conduct is protected by at least intermediate scrutiny, the burden is on opponents to show proof, not on supporters. By all means, show us all the evidence you have of what legitimate (or maybe compelling) interest is furthered by prohibiting SSM, and how prohibiting SSM furthers that interest.

.....

No, we don't. Once you get past rational basis, the burden is on the government to prove why it can/should restrict liberty. Not on the people to prove why they should have it. So no, we do not have to figure any of this out.
Click to expand...

Two strawmen in a row. No one's liberty is being restricted by the Government handing out marriage licenses, and I have not in this thread argued that homosexual couples do not raise children as well as hetero ones.
 
Texmex said:
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.
Click to expand...

The definition is based on a faulty translation from the Bible. I have shown the accurate translation. Because we have become far more enlightened that those in 1611, the definition is now different to reflect that knowledge... as I have shown you. As I said, you have been shown this before. Your refusal to accept accurate information is not my problem.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I can tell you that the original languages did in fact mean homosexuality and condemned them.
Click to expand...

And I can tell you that the original languages did NOT mean homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gommorah in the original languages reference homosexual rape as used for intimidation.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It is a word for homosexuality as it describes homosexual acts. Did you not read my entire post? I'm sorry if you can't handle the truth.
Click to expand...

Homosexual acts and homosexuality are two different things. You do know the difference between orientation and behavior, correct?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I'm sorry, but that is people who are twisting the original languages to fit the homosexual agenda.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are twisting the original languages to fit the anti-homosexual agenda.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The definition is based on a faulty translation from the Bible. I have shown the accurate translation. Because we have become far more enlightened that those in 1611, the definition is now different to reflect that knowledge... as I have shown you. As I said, you have been shown this before. Your refusal to accept accurate information is not my problem.
Click to expand...

Arguing over biblical meaning is ultimately pointless, because it's a closed loop of non-logic that can't really be broken. The underlying belief (gays icky!) changes perception (God agrees with me, says so in this book!) Throw in the alleged infallibility of the book, and you have an unshakeable belief in what was originally a biased perception. Gays are icky, says the bible, and the bible can't be wrong. Two different people will come up with two different understandings of biblical meaning, but both will be steadfast in their belief. It's probably why we have a dozen different flavors of each of the Abrahamic religions despite them all starting from the same sets of books.

Even the most simple commands found in each of those religions (DON'T KILL) manages to get twisted. Killing is bad, but God's will is always good. So if killing someone is God's will, that killing is totally ok. So now all you have to do is convince yourself God wants the other guys dead, and since you already wanted to kill them, you'll manage to perceive some scripture or other as supporting that urge.
 
Last edited:
Two decisions coming down today looks like. SCOTUSblog live blog is excellent, learning alot about clerkship and the possibilities of new justices should one retire soon.
 
Boo Radley said:
We can play hat game if you like, so it's your side twisting the original languages to fit their hate agenda.

I've linked those who say wha many books on the issue say. You say you're a scholar, so you should know of such books. If you don't, than your study has been incomplete.
Click to expand...

You should also know just because you find something in a book, one or two books, doesn't mean it is correct. Hundreds of scholars believe the exact opposite of your links.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And I can tell you that the original languages did NOT mean homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gommorah in the original languages reference homosexual rape as used for intimidation.
Click to expand...

Newsflash: Homosexual acts are still homosexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom