• 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]

apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely not true. Same sex marriage was legal in California, and Prop 8 was pushed for by the anti-ssm folks to remove that legalization. Prop 8 was not supported nor pushed for by pro-ssm side.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
That is absolutely not true. Same sex marriage was legal in California, and Prop 8 was pushed for by the anti-ssm folks to make remove that legalization. Prop 8 was not supported nor pushed for by pro-ssm side.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, then. I thought it was the other way around.
 
Papa bull said:
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"?
Click to expand...

Laws are based on many things, but they must based on something more than religious beliefs or any other personal beliefs. Harm of some sort must be present or a state interest being furthered by a law or restriction on a law for it to be constitutional when it comes to laws that restrict rights/freedoms of others.

The law against cockfighting does not deal with personal beliefs, but rather harm/cruelty to animals that can be shown to be in a state's legitimate interest. It is not about prohibitions from a religious or personal standpoint, but about maintaining a state interest in preventing animals, which are a vital part of our personal interests as a food source and life cycle, from being treated cruelly.
 
Papa bull said:
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"?
Click to expand...
You can try to pass anything, but if it does not pass constitutional review, it is dead.
 
disneydude said:
What is pitiful is watching the few remaining bigots desperately grasping at the final vestiges of government sponsored discrimination. Save your dignity....the war is over.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue, do you? You got your way, and people that don't agree with you are bigots.
 
Anthony60 said:
You don't have a clue, do you? You got your way, and people that don't agree with you are bigots.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that those who have opposition to SSM is primarily due to their bigoted views of homosexuals.
 
Well, one form of government-sponsored discrimination is gone. Now we just have to eliminate Affirmative Action.
 
Gipper said:
Well, one form of government-sponsored discrimination is gone. Now we just have to eliminate Affirmative Action.
Click to expand...

I can think of no company that uses affirmative action. Do you know of any?
 
To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California

roguenuke said:
Laws are based on many things, but they must based on something more than religious beliefs or any other personal beliefs. Harm of some sort must be present or a state interest being furthered by a law or restriction on a law for it to be constitutional when it comes to laws that restrict rights/freedoms of others.

The law against cockfighting does not deal with personal beliefs, but rather harm/cruelty to animals that can be shown to be in a state's legitimate interest. It is not about prohibitions from a religious or personal standpoint, but about maintaining a state interest in preventing animals, which are a vital part of our personal interests as a food source and life cycle, from being treated cruelly.
Click to expand...

Blue laws are another example for you to deny.
 
CriticalThought said:
Constitution of the United States = The Will of the People. A 51% majority vote in one state is not the will of the people. It is the document that serves as the supreme law of our land that is the will of the people.
Click to expand...

Actually the Black Robes in DC determine what the 'will of the people' will be, not the Constitution.
 
Papa bull said:
Blue laws are another example for you to deny.
Click to expand...

Blue laws are being overturned by states on their own and are not a good example because they aren't concerned with fundamental rights of individuals, but rather rights of businesses to sell a certain product on a certain day of the week. It is regulatory law. They will likely be overturned or all be gone in the not so distant future. At least those that regulate sells of products only on a certain day of the week.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are absolutely living in sin, I don't see how people can say that they aren't Biblically and then falsely rationalize that it isn't a sin because Jesus didn't say it directly.

(NASB version of the Bible)

1 Corinthaisn 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Click to expand...

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Click to expand...

Both come from the New Testament. The old Testament also teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. The Bible goes so far as to say that homosexuality is of a depraved mind, a form of sexual immorality, and those that practice it and do not repent will spend their eternity in hell. It is absolutely not permissible.

Far too many "Christians" are willfully deceived in their theology because they want to "give hearty approval to those who practice them" out of our sinful natures. Homosexual sex is a sin, it's a serious sin, and homosexuals that do not repent will go to hell for eternity. That is Biblical fact. I think, as Christians, if we love everyone and homosexuals we should accept the truth and warn them of their fate. It is not loving to idly sit by and not warn someone of their eternal hell or to deceive ourselves in thinking that it won't happen when clearly that is what the Bible says.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
They are absolutely living in sin, I don't see how people can say that they aren't Biblically and then falsely rationalize that it isn't a sin because Jesus didn't say it directly.

(NASB version of the Bible)





Both come from the New Testament. The old Testament also teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. The Bible goes so far as to say that homosexuality is of a depraved mind, a form of sexual immorality, and those that practice it and do not repent will spend their eternity in hell. It is absolutely not permissible.

Far too many "Christians" are willfully deceived in their theology because they want to "give hearty approval to those who practice them" out of our sinful natures. Homosexual sex is a sin, it's a serious sin, and homosexuals that do not repent will go to hell for eternity. That is Biblical fact. I think, as Christians, if we love everyone and homosexuals we should accept the truth and warn them of their fate. It is not loving to idly sit by and not warn someone of their eternal hell or to deceive ourselves in thinking that it won't happen when clearly that is what the Bible says.
Click to expand...

All of this is your personal interpretation of what the Bible says. Of course you believe you have it right. Just as those who believed/believe interracial relationships are a sin according to the Bible or even just natural law believe they are right. The point is that since you can't actually prove your religious beliefs are correct on either issue, then it is wrong to bring them up as reasoning for putting laws into place.

If it is okay for you or others to use it as a valid point for state/federal laws against same sex marriage, legally, then it should have been okay for those who believed interracial marriages were wrong/a sin to use as a valid point for state/federal laws against interracial marriage, legally. It cannot be good for one group, but not good for another, no matter how much either group believes they are correct in those beliefs. You need something besides religious beliefs to justify maintaining such restrictions in laws.
 
roguenuke said:
All of this is your personal interpretation of what the Bible says. Of course you believe you have it right. Just as those who believed/believe interracial relationships are a sin according to the Bible or even just natural law believe they are right. The point is that since you can't actually prove your religious beliefs are correct on either issue, then it is wrong to bring them up as reasoning for putting laws into place.

If it is okay for you or others to use it as a valid point for state/federal laws against same sex marriage, legally, then it should have been okay for those who believed interracial marriages were wrong/a sin to use as a valid point for state/federal laws against interracial marriage, legally. It cannot be good for one group, but not good for another, no matter how much either group believes they are correct in those beliefs. You need something besides religious beliefs to justify maintaining such restrictions in laws.
Click to expand...

It's the right interpretation and is absolute. God does not judge based on "personal" interpretation, it's a black and white and very clear right and wrong. By God's standards all humans will be judged, not by human standards. God's standards are given in the Bible, and the Bible very clearly says that homosexuality falls short of that as a sin.

I support SSM, I think people should be allowed to make the choice to go to hell forever and live out their sin. I strongly disagree with it morally, but I respect freedom and even in the passages of scripture I quoted God supports that freedom as well, but there will be consequences and I don't think it's God's will to force anyone into living for Him and repenting of sin. The very notion of repentance cannot be forced anyway.

And even so, if religious beliefs are all someone has they are valid in opposing something. People who support or do not support things based on their religion have just as valid of a vote and point as those who are purely secular in their thinking and reasoning.
 
disneydude said:
Yes, it was "individual members". However, anyone who knows anything about the Mormon Church knows the nod and a wink underground things that the Mormon church does to skirt? the IRS non-profit issues. The "individual members" were told in no uncertain terms that they were to do the job of the church and donate to the Prop H8 campaign. The Mormon Church DID run ads...propogandandized and told lies. Don't kid yourself. The Mormon church showed just how evil they can be in the prop H8 campaign.
Click to expand...

i'm in awe of this knowledge you have... how did you come about knowing the evil inner workings of the church?... have you been to services?
well, as a Mormon myself I know quite a bit about the Mormon church and I'm unaware of these "wink and a nod" marching orders...I don't go to regular services any longer, but i'll ask my neighbor about these nefarious activities you claim to have knowledge of... he's a bishop.

no, the Mormon church did not run any ads.. not a single one.
the opposition did run an ad attacking the church , though... a very deceitful ad that you have chosen not to decry.( imagine that)


when decrying lies, propaganda, and deceit, it's wise not to propagandize using lies and deceit yourself.....don't defend or support lies and deceit , even when they benefit you or your agenda.
 
digsbe said:
It's the right interpretation and is absolute. God does not judge based on "personal" interpretation, it's a black and white and very clear right and wrong. By God's standards all humans will be judged, not by human standards. God's standards are given in the Bible, and the Bible very clearly says that homosexuality falls short of that as a sin.

I support SSM, I think people should be allowed to make the choice to go to hell forever and live out their sin. I strongly disagree with it morally, but I respect freedom and even in the passages of scripture I quoted God supports that freedom as well, but there will be consequences and I don't think it's God's will to force anyone into living for Him and repenting of sin. The very notion of repentance cannot be forced anyway.

And even so, if religious beliefs are all someone has they are valid in opposing something. People who support or do not support things based on their religion have just as valid of a vote and point as those who are purely secular in their thinking and reasoning.
Click to expand...

It is your interpretation. And I'm not actually telling you you are wrong. I am saying that it is not right to use anyone's interpretation of the Bible or any other religious book to justify laws or to tell others they are wrong. You honestly don't really know what God judges people on. You simply believe as such and everyone is entitled to their beliefs, whatever they may be, including believing that interracial or interfaith marriages are wrong. They aren't entitled to using those beliefs as justification for maintaining a law in our country, even if just a state law. But this goes for interpretations of the Bible that say that same sex relationships are wrong or marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Those beliefs are valid for opposing something. They are not valid for maintaining those laws or allowing those laws to remain.
 
To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California

roguenuke said:
Blue laws are being overturned by states on their own and are not a good example because they aren't concerned with fundamental rights of individuals, but rather rights of businesses to sell a certain product on a certain day of the week. It is regulatory law. They will likely be overturned or all be gone in the not so distant future. At least those that regulate sells of products only on a certain day of the week.
Click to expand...

They are proof morality and religious concepts can be incorporated into law where they are community standards.
 
Papa bull said:
They are proof morality and religious concepts can be incorporated into law where they are community standards.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. They are proof that people have and even still do use those concepts to get laws put into place. It is not any sort of proof though that those laws are valid laws if challenged. Those laws simply lack a person to have challenged them that has legitimate standing and wishes to do so. In order for any law to be declared unconstitutional, it must be challenged first. And in order to challenge, a person/group must be able to show standing.
 
apdst said:
It's the will of the people in which the referendum will serve as law.
Click to expand...

Constitution > your will.

Sorry. You can't vote to take away someone else's rights.
 
digsbe said:
They are absolutely living in sin, I don't see how people can say that they aren't Biblically and then falsely rationalize that it isn't a sin because Jesus didn't say it directly.

(NASB version of the Bible)





Both come from the New Testament. The old Testament also teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. The Bible goes so far as to say that homosexuality is of a depraved mind, a form of sexual immorality, and those that practice it and do not repent will spend their eternity in hell. It is absolutely not permissible.

Far too many "Christians" are willfully deceived in their theology because they want to "give hearty approval to those who practice them" out of our sinful natures. Homosexual sex is a sin, it's a serious sin, and homosexuals that do not repent will go to hell for eternity. That is Biblical fact. I think, as Christians, if we love everyone and homosexuals we should accept the truth and warn them of their fate. It is not loving to idly sit by and not warn someone of their eternal hell or to deceive ourselves in thinking that it won't happen when clearly that is what the Bible says.
Click to expand...

Aren't their disagreements on the translations? After all, Jesus didn't speak English. So it becomes tricky to declare things as "absolute."
 
You cannot make hard arguments using the bible because it is unfalsifiable. It is no different than two children arguing over which superhero of theirs would win in a fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom