• 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!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

agreed, but that stuff seems to be out of style, especially in California.... the mob can vote on anything out there ( ballot initiatives) if they can find 500k signatures ( 800k for constitutional amendments)

no way in hell will they restrict voting on human rights or equal treatment though..... the only qualifier for a ballot initiative is signatures..content/substance is not restricted

As I understand it, this is not the case. There is, in fact a review process. It obviously isn't perfect, but it's there.
 
All of those have recanted, I believe, and they also say the Bible doesn't directly speak against it. However, the Bible does speak against homosexuality. It's not the same, you compared apples and oranges.

It doesn't matter whether they "recanted" or not (but no, many of them did not recant and believed that until they died). They held this beliefs, and there are still a lot of people in the South who hold the belief that the Bible is against interracial marriages. You have no place to tell them they are wrong just because you believe differently, otherwise you are a hypocrite telling others who believe the Bible speaks against temple prostitution/sex involving same sex partners and divorce, not homosexuality, same sex relationships, or same sex marriages. It is their interpretation of the Bible, and under the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, they have a right to that belief. But, their beliefs nor yours belong in our laws, so that is why restrictions on laws should be based on legitimate state interests, not the pure vote of the people nor tradition, but especially not what the Bible or any other religious beliefs say on an issue.
 
All of those have recanted, I believe, and they also say the Bible doesn't directly speak against it. However, the Bible does speak against homosexuality. It's not the same, you compared apples and oranges.

Do you proclaim to be "Christian" David? Please show where the man you claim to worship said anything about homosexuality. We will be waiting to see if you can support your imagined "Christian" beliefs.
 
It doesn't matter whether they "recanted" or not (but no, many of them did not recant and believed that until they died). They held this beliefs, and there are still a lot of people in the South who hold the belief that the Bible is against interracial marriages. You have no place to tell them they are wrong just because you believe differently, otherwise you are a hypocrite telling others who believe the Bible speaks against temple prostitution/sex involving same sex partners and divorce, not homosexuality, same sex relationships, or same sex marriages. It is their interpretation of the Bible, and under the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, they have a right to that belief. But, their beliefs nor yours belong in our laws, so that is why restrictions on laws should be based on legitimate state interests, not the pure vote of the people nor tradition, but especially not what the Bible or any other religious beliefs say on an issue.
At this point we weren't talking about legal issues. However, interracial marriage is not in the Bible as a sin, however, homosexuality is in black and white as not only being a sin, but an abomination.
 
Do you proclaim to be "Christian" David? Please show where the man you claim to worship said anything about homosexuality. We will be waiting to see if you can support your imagined "Christian" beliefs.

I have provided that numerous times on these boards actually. It is in Corinthians, Galatians, Leviticus, Romans, need I go on?
 
As I understand it, this is not the case. There is, in fact a review process. It obviously isn't perfect, but it's there.

No....I think that pretty much is the case. We have had all kinds of stupid initiatives make the ballot, because they are almost always written by special interests who haven't a clue about the law....the state has spend billions defending clearly unconstitutional initiatives that have been placed on the ballot by these fools.
 
I have provided that numerous times on these boards actually. It is in Corinthians, Galatians, Leviticus, Romans, need I go on?

Leviticus...seriously? The whole....shellfish, clothing of two fibers abominations? I'm asking about the man you claim to worship....where did Jesus Christ ever condemn homosexuality? Please.....we will all wait for your response.
 
At this point we weren't talking about legal issues. However, interracial marriage is not in the Bible as a sin, however, homosexuality is in black and white as not only being a sin, but an abomination.

You bible thumpers are hilarious. You cafeteria pick the things that you want and then attempt to proclaim moral superiority? I bet the clothing you are wearing right now is an abomination.
 
Leviticus...seriously? The whole....shellfish, clothing of two fibers abominations? I'm asking about the man you claim to worship....where did Jesus Christ ever condemn homosexuality? Please.....we will all wait for your response.

Jesus condemned sin repeatedly.
 
Your failure is duly noted. LOL....as I said before....those who are quickest and loudest to proclaim their "Christianity" to the world are without question the ones who know the very least about the man they claim to worship.
 
All of those have recanted, I believe, and they also say the Bible doesn't directly speak against it. However, the Bible does speak against homosexuality. It's not the same, you compared apples and oranges.

Actually the Bible speaks against same sex rape, not homosexuality. But that is a matter of interpretation. Some day you will recant when it becomes clear your interpretation is just as baseless as theirs was.
 
Actually the Bible speaks against same sex rape, not homosexuality. But that is a matter of interpretation. Some day you will recant when it becomes clear your interpretation is just as baseless as theirs was.

The ignorant rarely recant because they are blinded by their imagined moral superiority. They can only see the sliver in their neighbors eye because they are blinded by the beam in their own.
 
Actually the Bible speaks against same sex rape, not homosexuality. But that is a matter of interpretation. Some day you will recant when it becomes clear your interpretation is just as baseless as theirs was.

That actually is not true, read Romans.
 
At this point we weren't talking about legal issues. However, interracial marriage is not in the Bible as a sin, however, homosexuality is in black and white as not only being a sin, but an abomination.

Whether you want to interpret things in the Bible a certain way or not, others believed wholeheartedly that the Bible said that interracial relationships are a sin. (Some still believe this.)

And you cannot tell others that they cannot believe that, however wrong you may find their beliefs to be.
 
Jesus condemned sin repeatedly.

But never homosexuality nor same sex relationships specifically. Nor does it fall under his "do unto others" rule that he said was the foundation for all the other rules of what is sin.
 
Whether you want to interpret things in the Bible a certain way or not, others believed wholeheartedly that the Bible said that interracial relationships are a sin. (Some still believe this.)

And you cannot tell others that they cannot believe that, however wrong you may find their beliefs to be.

Except you can show them that it isn't written there.
 
But never homosexuality nor same sex relationships specifically. Nor does it fall under his "do unto others" rule that he said was the foundation for all the other rules of what is sin.

Jesus did not have to address every sin. That wsn't his purpose. And the do unto others is a bit taken out of context. He never said to condone sin.
 
That actually is not true, read Romans.

Depends on your interpretation. Some argue that whose natural desire was for other men (born gay) would be exempted from Paul's condemnation of homosexual behavior among men who do not naturally desire men.

Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was arguably used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men.

The fun thing about the Bible is it has been reinterpreted so many times in history and yet every person thinks they are interpreting it as it has always been interpreted.

Right now, you have an interpretation that is extremely LIBERAL compared to how it has been interpreted in the past. Go back 300 years and the Bible was used to justify slavery, subjugation of women, and the castration of gay men. Were they wrong? Because they would be just as adamant as you that their interpretation is right and infallible.
 
Except you can show them that it isn't written there.

And they will argue when they show you certain passages that they mean something that you don't agree with. The same way that you and others argue that those passages you use against same sex relationships say what you believe they say, regardless of the counters against them. This is why it is hypocritical to say they are wrong and you are right and that should somehow have an affect on how marriage is legally viewed. (Because we are discussing legal marriage here, not just personal opinions on marriage.)
 
Jesus did not have to address every sin. That wsn't his purpose. And the do unto others is a bit taken out of context. He never said to condone sin.

He addressed every sin though, in his statement about the laws of the prophets coming down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Homosexuality nor same sex relationships break this rule so they aren't a sin.
 
He addressed every sin though, in his statement about the laws of the prophets coming down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Homosexuality nor same sex relationships break this rule so they aren't a sin.

That is not what Jesus said at all. He did not say that anything that doesn't conform to that is not sin. Glad you like to makeup stuff though.
 
That is not what Jesus said at all. He did not say that anything that doesn't conform to that is not sin. Glad you like to makeup stuff though.

He did. Interpretation is everything. And that is the point. You cannot tell others that legally they cannot believe the Bible said certain things about whatever. You are free to believe they are wrong, just as many believe you are wrong. But none of those beliefs can be part of or considered in our laws.
 
Right, because homophobic conservatives didn't get their way, therefore the people must have not had a voice. How about the voice of the same sex couples in California and around the nation?

It was the pro-gay marriage folks that wanted prop 8 on the ballot to begin with, because the good and righteous people of California will pass it. When they voted it down, they all became homophobes.
 
Then your problem is with those additional laws and policies, so you cannot legitimately claim it is same sex couples getting married that affects you, but those additional laws and policies, which you are completely free to complain about. You cannot use them against ssm though because that is not how the laws on equality and rights work.

well that's what i said before already, two gay people being married does not affect me, ...its government action that effects me......and that's what i dont like.

if a government just made gay marriage legal, and then created no more laws or polices in its institutions, ...most people would not care about gay marriage ,however government does not.... they create more, becuase it is the nature of government to continue to create laws and grow.
 
He did. Interpretation is everything. And that is the point. You cannot tell others that legally they cannot believe the Bible said certain things about whatever. You are free to believe they are wrong, just as many believe you are wrong. But none of those beliefs can be part of or considered in our laws.

They most certainly can be considered. Laws are based on community standards and those standards can be derived from religious morality as much as anything else. If you believe that cockfighting is immoral, you can pass a law prohibiting it. Should a passage in some holy scripture saying "thou shalt not cockfight" prohibit you from passing the law that meets community standards of morality, i.e. "no cockfighting"?
 
Back
Top Bottom