• 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!

Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

Bigfoot 88 said:
Or people can leave them alone.
Click to expand...

So long as their beliefs don't affect others, nobody bothers them. It's when they insist on pushing their religion on the rest of society that people take notice. If people don't want to be ridiculed for their beliefs, they shouldn't have such ridiculous beliefs.
 
joG said:
Forcing people to behave against their religious beliefs,when they are doing nobody physical harm is revolting, certainly.
Click to expand...

How is this forcing people to act against their religious beliefs?
 
joG said:
You mean you really don't know the sin of Onan? You are joking.
Click to expand...

The sin of Onan was about pulling out before "spilling his seed". What does that have to do with baking a wedding cake?
 
Amandi said:
The sin of Onan was about pulling out before "spilling his seed". What does that have to do with baking a wedding cake?
Click to expand...

Maybe these people bake some pretty disgusting cakes?
 
Cephus said:
So long as their beliefs don't affect others, nobody bothers them. It's when they insist on pushing their religion on the rest of society that people take notice. If people don't want to be ridiculed for their beliefs, they shouldn't have such ridiculous beliefs.
Click to expand...

"Pushing" is subjective term. Government force, however, is undeniable.

We should adopt tolerance and let people agree to disagree. Are you against being pro-choice?
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
"Pushing" is subjective term. Government force, however, is undeniable.

We should adopt tolerance and let people agree to disagree. Are you against being pro-choice?
Click to expand...

I'm entirely for choice, so long as it is equal, honest and equitable for all. If one group has to be tolerant, all groups have to be tolerant. Most groups don't want that though, they want their way and only their way.
 
Cephus said:
I'm entirely for choice, so long as it is equal, honest and equitable for all. If one group has to be tolerant, all groups have to be tolerant. Most groups don't want that though, they want their way and only their way.
Click to expand...

And if you want to forcibly change their minds, you are not tolerant, you are simply an authoritarian who can't win the argument or move on when you don't.
 
shrubnose said:
Churches will be able to do what they want to do, but businesses will have to obey the law whether they like it or not.
Click to expand...

This would be the ideal outcome imho
 
northwinds said:
Well now........I guess we can look forward to legalized polygamy now......
Click to expand...

How and who people choose to love and spend their lives with is no concern of mine.

That the government gives second class treatment to a large minority of its citizens is a concern of mine.
 
northwinds said:
Well now........I guess we can look forward to legalized polygamy now......
Click to expand...

Since you support a man marrying a woman, surely you also support a man marrying a couch.
 
It just shows how powerful public opinion can sway justice and legal outcomes.
 
Deuce said:
I'm sorry you hate states rights so much.
Click to expand...

You tried to be clever but this post is pretty stupid.

First of all, states have powers, not rights. And second, supporting the concept of federalism does not mean that I agree with every action that state governments take.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
And if you want to forcibly change their minds, you are not tolerant, you are simply an authoritarian who can't win the argument or move on when you don't.
Click to expand...

I don't much care about changing their minds, for some it will happen with time, for others, it will take their death to wipe it out. However, I do care about controlling their actions. We don't care if people are racist, we do care if they exercise their racism openly. We don't care if people are sexist, we do care if they exercise their sexism openly. The same goes for religious bigotry. I don't care what mental poison goes on inside their heads, I care how it informs their actions. We don't allow people to be racist or sexist openly, we should not allow people to be bigoted toward gays or those of other religions either.
 
Cephus said:
Then maybe those people shouldn't have such asinine religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

That is what a number of monarchs had thought and was why many of our ancestors crossed the sea.
 
Cardinal said:
How is this forcing people to act against their religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

The bakery people seem a good example, though I am sure we could find many more, if we gave it some thought.
 
Amandi said:
The sin of Onan was about pulling out before "spilling his seed". What does that have to do with baking a wedding cake?
Click to expand...

Think about it instead thinking so much in a cast.
 
Cephus said:
We don't allow people to be racist or sexist openly, we should not allow people to be bigoted toward gays or those of other religions either.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Show me the law that says a person who hates blacks has to date them or have them to dinner parties at his house, or that requires a lesbian nut who thinks men should be made slaves to do those things with men. And I'd like to know just what part of the Constitution you think prevents people from discriminating against homosexuals by law. Is there possibly some kind of Freedom of Buggery Clause my copy of the Constitution is missing?
 
matchlight said:
Oh, really? Show me the law that says a person who hates blacks has to date them or have them to dinner parties at his house, or that requires a lesbian nut who thinks men should be made slaves to do those things with men. And I'd like to know just what part of the Constitution you think prevents people from discriminating against homosexuals by law. Is there possibly some kind of Freedom of Buggery Clause my copy of the Constitution is missing?
Click to expand...

So you think people are forced to invite gay people to dinner parties or have sex with them or whatever?

I think the most egregious example is people might have to do business with them like the racist may have to do business with a person of another race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom