• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Why wouldnt I think that 70% of black people were smart enough to see he was the best candidate?

I do think the majority of Americans are lazy and ignorant tho, esp. when it comes to politics. I'd say on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm only a 7-8 on that scale myself (with 10 being the most informed). It depends on the type of issue, social, economic, public policy, environmental, equal rights, etc.

Exactly. Nor do I. I assume they knew something about all of the options they were voting on.

I try to read up on all the options when I go into the voting booth, even on the smallest level (town bonds and the like) but I never really know or fully understand the goods and bads of the outcomes. I would consider myself the same as you, probably a 7 to 8 on the scale. And then there are some issues that no amount of research will help me with because I just don't understand the issue at hand.
 
Exactly. Nor do I. I assume they knew something about all of the options they were voting on.

I try to read up on all the options when I go into the voting booth, even on the smallest level (town bonds and the like) but I never really know or fully understand the goods and bads of the outcomes. I would consider myself the same as you, probably a 7 to 8 on the scale. And then there are some issues that no amount of research will help me with because I just don't understand the issue at hand.

That's because there's nothing to understand. There's no amount of research that would lead one to conclude that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
 
Why the hell are people talking about California's SSM shenanigans in a thread about Pennsylvania's SSM shenanigans?
 
Yea right .

" Christians come to your door " huh ?

Yea right.

How about you just do what everyone else does when this happens ?

Dont answer your door.

But lets say Christians really did come to your door and talk to you about the Gospels. ( Which they havn't)

Do they go to great lengths to expose your identity publicly when you disagreed ?

Did they purposely try to do you harm when you wouldn't bend to their agenda ?
Cause you to lose your job ?

Publicly try to humiliate you ?

Because thats what the LGBT activist did and would do in a micro second if you disagree with their agenda.

So spare me your manufactured outrage over Christianity's "activist".

rofl they absolutely do this, even in rural area. Not too often, like once a year or so, but i certainly never saw a gay-straight alliance member show up to recruit, which i'm sure you would bitch endlessly about if this happened to you.

You're so full of it about "LGBT activist". I'm sure you'd consider me to fall in that category yet all i do when running into these types is nod politely till they shut the **** up and leave. I couldn't be bothered with trying to stalk demented thumpers and get them fired even if i was so inclined. I didn't accuse them of being rude asses who crave confrontation either, only that they're "annoying" and (in this post) "demented" and refuted your claim that christian activists don't exist.

Anyone can see that they do. What do you call that whole missionary crap where they go to 3rd world country and lie like hell about LGBT? How do you think most of Ghana and Uganda is christian and wants to murder gays? Oh yeah christian activism doesn't exist *at all* :roll:
 
Um....if you support the concept and practice of civil marriage, you do not denigrate the civil law it represents by calling the license issued "a piece of paper". It makes no sense to supposedly support SSM while putting down the law and structure that makes it possible.

It is not "opinion", it is a matter of logic. What comes out of the horses mouth is contradictory....ie it is not believable.

"Rights" are a matter of civil law, marriage is a civil contract, it is completely exclusive to argue there should not be civil marriage in the first place, and the con we are discussing has not expressed the idea that she rejects civil marriage....in the first place.

It is opinion. There are lots of reasons people support things and to different degrees. I dont know what exactly she believes but just because there are reasons people can have the opinion a marriage is a simple peace of paper and support equalitiy in who gets that paper.
 
It is opinion. There are lots of reasons people support things and to different degrees. I dont know what exactly she believes but just because there are reasons people can have the opinion a marriage is a simple peace of paper and support equalitiy in who gets that paper.
Your logic is a confused as your grammar.

It is illogical to denigrate the foundation of the thing you support, it is contradictory. For an opinion to make sense, it should be based on reason, logic....not to undercut itself.

Her argument of "supporting SSM" is undercut further by calling people "gay" to get a rise, to insult.
 
Back
Top Bottom