• 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

WCH said:
I posted it on the forum if you'd like to respond. :)
Click to expand...

I read it but have to admit I don't fully understand it. But that may come from me not knowing what the differences between marriage & civil unions are in the UK.
 
WCH said:
Deuce said:
WCH said:
So what.

Now how many push back? How many bothered to go to the polls and cast their vote against allowing SSM in their state?
Click to expand...
All four votes went to the marriage equality side in 2012.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the voting public, not the courts.
Click to expand...


Those were the voting public during General Elections in 2012, in each case Same-sex Civil Marriage won in the voting booth.


>>>>
 
tres borrachos said:
I knew that but for the second time a post of yours made me laugh out loud. :thumbs: I think you have a funny spell checker or something. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
you're welcome
so now you can answer the question
 
WCH said:
It mentions 'husband and wife' or 'man and woman' more then a few times but, never man and man or woman and woman.

Catch the drift.
Click to expand...

But NOTHING it attributes to them is anything that cannot be attributed to a same sex couple, which was my point.

It's exactly the same for them, but you used the whole 'one flesh' thing in a previous post to demonstrate how straight relationships were 'different.'

According to this, they are not. Back to the drawing board big guy!
 
Lursa said:
But NOTHING it attributes to them is anything that cannot be attributed to a same sex couple, which was my point.

It's exactly the same for them, but you used the whole 'one flesh' thing in a previous post to demonstrate how straight relationships were 'different.'

According to this, they are not. Back to the drawing board big guy!
Click to expand...

They are different because, in the same book, they considered sinful
 
WCH said:
They are different because, in the same book, they considered sinful
Click to expand...

We already know you said the Bible claims it's a sin. But you used it to support this argument:

WCH said:
Bottom line is marriage is a solemn promise before God between one man and one woman so, nothing was denied. And nothing was 'allowed'. It's not for the state to have a say in the matter

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Two men or two women can not be "one flesh" no matter how politically correct you or anyone else thinks it can be.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
A man and a woman cannot be 'one flesh' either. C'mon.

Or explain that one for me.
Click to expand...

You did not explain it and the link you gave me didnt either. The same applies to gays. So this is another argument that does not work...just made up because it seems people will say anything to deny gays have the same feelings about love and marriage.


Lursa said:
Thanks. Please point out anything in this passage that cant be applied to a gay couple as well?

"The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple). There are a number of aspects to this new union.

As far as emotional attachments are concerned, the new unit takes precedence over all previous and future relationships (Genesis 2:24). Some marriage partners continue to place greater weight upon ties with parents than with the new partner. This is a recipe for disaster in the marriage and is a perversion of God’s original intention of “leaving and cleaving.” A similar problem can develop when a spouse begins to draw closer to a child to meet emotional needs rather than to his or her partner.

Emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, financially, and in every other way, the couple is to become one."
Click to expand...
 
WCH said:
For future reference (as repeated on numerous occasions) I reject any comparison of Gay unions and interracial marriage. IMO they're simply not the same in the eyes of God.

There is no Biblical sin in interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter to you because you reject SSM on any and all grounds.

However on planet Earth, this affects real people's lives and they deserve equal protection under the law in the US, the country we are discussing. A country where laws are not based on religious beliefs but on equality and personal liberty.

And the injustices affecting interracial couples that were refused marriage are the same injustices affecting gay couples.
 
WCH said:
For future reference (as repeated on numerous occasions) I reject any comparison of Gay unions and interracial marriage. IMO they're simply not the same in the eyes of God.

There is no Biblical sin in interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you "reject". And in reality, I am comparing the feelings of others against interracial marriage to your feelings of being against same sex marriage. Those feelings or beliefs are what are being compared here, not the marriages themselves.
 
Lursa said:
We already know you said the Bible claims it's a sin. But you used it to support this argument:





You did not explain it and the link you gave me didnt either. The same applies to gays. So this is another argument that does not work...just made up because it seems people will say anything to deny gays have the same feelings about love and marriage.
Click to expand...


Interesting you used the term 'WE'

Is this some sort of group effort or are you delusional?
 
AGENT J said:
you're welcome
so now you can answer the question
Click to expand...

Which part of my post did you need calcified:

You haven't violated their rights. Nor have they violated anyone else's rights.

It isn't a contest. Each side is right. Each side is protected by the Constitution.

Let me know.
 
tres borrachos said:
Which part of my post did you need calcified:

You haven't violated their rights. Nor have they violated anyone else's rights.

It isn't a contest. Each side is right. Each side is protected by the Constitution.

Let me know.
Click to expand...

the bolded part

I dont know who they is and what scenario you are talking about
 
tres borrachos said:
"They" are the posters on here who oppose SSM for religious reasons.
Click to expand...

and you would have to define oppose in your meaning

are you talking

feeling its wrong
thinking its wrong
saying its wrong
preaching its wrong
believing its wrong

or are you talking about

voting to stop it
discriminating against those who are gay
 
AGENT J said:
and you would have to define oppose in your meaning

are you talking

feeling its wrong
thinking its wrong
saying its wrong
preaching its wrong
believing its wrong

or are you talking about

voting to stop it
discriminating against those who are gay
Click to expand...

All of the above, although I'd like to know what specific acts of "discrimination" any of them committed. Being opposed to something doesn't mean you necessarily discriminate against people. It means you oppose their behaviors, and that happens all of the time. I don't consider people who oppose my right to own a gun as "discriminating" against me. I think they're wrong, but they aren't discriminating.

You may not like it, but they have freedom to practice their religion.
 
clownboy said:
Why vote? We can just do away with it altogether and have the Judiciary decide everything.
Click to expand...

Why should bigots have the right to vote is the better question
 
clownboy said:
We're no longer a republic either. And we have effectively done away with any need for the vote. The robed Ayatollahs rule now.
Click to expand...

And when liberals in oregon vote to ban firearms and prayer, you'll be crying to no end about tyranny of the majority
 
tres borrachos said:
1.)All of the above, although I'd like to know what specific acts of "discrimination" any of them committed.
2.) Being opposed to something doesn't mean you necessarily discriminate against people.
3.) It means you oppose their behaviors, and that happens all of the time.
4.) I don't consider people who oppose my right to own a gun as "discriminating" against me.
5.) I think they're wrong, but they aren't discriminating.
6.) You may not like it, but they have freedom to practice their religion.
Click to expand...

1.) then your statment would be factually false then if you are including "all of the above"
2.) i agree that why i didnt say that and i asked you what you meant
3.) true and it could also mean more, again why i asked you what you meant because i didnt want to assume
4.) because you have no reason too depending on what form the opposition takes
5.) they may not be but they also may be
6.) lol why would you ever think i dont like thier freedom to practice thier religion? as a Christian thats NEVER an issue for me in fact if that constitutional right was ever under attack you'd find me fighting it tooth and nail
 
tres borrachos said:
How do you vote to ban prayer?
Click to expand...

"Amendment 2: This amendment establishes a lifetime prison sentence for any form of prayer within state territory"

Pretty simple i guess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom