• 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!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

it's just me said:
If you do, you're up against centuries of philosophical and theological thought.

Do you know that when I was your age homosexuality was in the DSM III as a personality disorder? This whole "gay rights" thing, perpetrated by a tiny minorty by design, is a new concept. It is more of a political movement than it is a moral or philosophical movement. Some of us see it for what it is. Some of us don't.

You want to present yourself as a critical thinker on these forums but going along with pop culture is not critical thinking, it's just front running.
Click to expand...


And the question then is why was it put into the DMS III (and earlier versions) to begin with. Was it because it was a mental disorder that inhibited the individuals ability to function in society, or was it philosophical, social, and theological thought against homosexuals that justified and resutled in it's placement there.


Many are willing to question the removal of sexual orientation from the DSM, I've rarely seen anyone question it's placement there to begin with.


>>>>
 
it's just me said:
On the contrary, politics and the law are often very separate things.

I didn't set this course for you, I am just following your lead.

The fact that we even have to argue this point is counterproductive. Why is it your way or the highway? Many have suggested alternate strategies, but the left has rejected all of them.

It's actually dropping.
Click to expand...

No, politics and the law are pretty well entwined, no matter whether you wish to recognize this fact or not.

You did set the course by bringing up sex lives when we are discussing relationships, marriages. They are not the same thing for the majority of people. A person likely has sex within their relationship, but most relationships, particularly marriages, do not revolve around sex.

There are no viable, fair alternatives when it comes to marriage.

Show evidence it is dropping significantly. I haven't even seen a legitimate "drop" in support, not overall. More older people are growing supportive, more Republicans, more minorities (that were less likely to be supportive), even more Christians.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

Heck, even more Republican politicians are supporting it.
 
it's just me said:
No, I want to know how YOU know that God is not on anybody else's side, it's your claim to defend.
Click to expand...

Nope. I know that you can't prove that any god is on yours or anyone else's side, so then that means that any such claim is ridiculous to begin with and can be countered with just as unprovable assertions.
 
it's just me said:
As a minister of the church my choice of who I marry is now limited if not nonexistent.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Ministers are always free to turn away any couple when it comes to conducting a marriage ceremony. There is absolutely no proof that this is going to change or has changed anywhere in the US. Ministers still turn away couples of different races and religions, even as recently making the news for doing so just last year.
 
roguenuke said:
Except, God's not really on your side. You simply believe He is.
Click to expand...

well all right to be fair that post went to far since it declared god was not on his side since we don't know if no gods are on the side of wch

yet to see anything to counter the

you simply believe he is bit
 
roguenuke said:
No, it isn't. Ministers are always free to turn away any couple when it comes to conducting a marriage ceremony. There is absolutely no proof that this is going to change or has changed anywhere in the US. Ministers still turn away couples of different races and religions, even as recently making the news for doing so just last year.
Click to expand...

I feel bad, actually. I think somebody told him that's how same-sex marriage was going to work. "Government is going to come into your church and force you!" Poor guy, no wonder he's so opposed to it. Got lied to and used. :(
 
not that I see why a god has to be right or how ones word alone justifies anything
 
it's just me said:
1.)I call BS on that. If it is a LAW, then let the legislature vote on it, and let the governor sign it. Oh, wait, they already did. So a judge comes in and turns over the will of the people with one stroke of the pen.

2.)That is not "Constitutional".
3.) It is oligharchy, rule by a few, not of the people, not by the people, not for the people.
4.) THAT, my friend, is what we object to, a point that you fail to address over and over again.
5.)Many of us do not subscribe to your left wing notions about made up "rights", not when they come against rights that have been delineated since the beginning of the country, LIKE freedom of religion.
6.) And don't bother equating sexual preference to civil rights for blacks and women, let's dispense with that right now.
7.) You can't even define sexual preference, it's not fixed. Even the science says it is a continuum.
8.) The opinion of an unelected judge changes nothing, the man is not an expert in human sexuality.
9.)This little crusade yours is not "Constitutional". It is a tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...

1.) correct thats how our government works LMAO
State overstepped its reach and infringing on individual rights, fed stepped in and fixed it. Thats what the fed is supposed to do.

2.) actually it is,facts, law, rights , constitution and court cases all prove this
3.) once gain your mistake, people/state dont get to infringe on the individual rights of others
4.) not only has it been address that failed and delusional straw man has been destroyed many times. agaian facts, law, rights , constitution and court cases all prove this. What supports your claim again?
5.) freedom of religion is not impacted by equal rights its strengthened LMAO
6.) so you want to skip over facts, rights and courts precedents? gotcha but that wont help your failed argument
7.) meanignless to equal rights lol
8.) good thing that too has nothing to do with e equal rights
9.) repeating this lie wont work, nobody honest,educated and objective will buy it since . . again . . facts, law, rights , constitution and court cases all prove your false claim wrong lol

facts win again
 
Deuce said:
I feel bad, actually. I think somebody told him that's how same-sex marriage was going to work. "Government is going to come into your church and force you!" Poor guy, no wonder he's so opposed to it. Got lied to and used. :(
Click to expand...

could be confused by story's from other nations where the state has an official church that is less free to discriminate
 
it's just me said:
It restricts my liberty right now as a minister of the church. Your ignorance of that fact doesn't change it.
Click to expand...

100% false
there are ZERO facts to support your claim and make it true

if you disagree simply provide those facts that make your claim true right now. lol we'll wait
 
blarg said:
not that I see why a god has to be right or how ones word alone justifies anything
Click to expand...

This is another good point. Isn't it juvenile to do something just so that someone bigger or stronger or more powerful than you will be "on your side"?

This is one of the reasons that when someone tells me that God will judge me harshly because of my support for gays my counter normally includes something to the effect of "well then that God is not one I wish to worship".
 
it's just me said:
As a minister of the church my choice of who I marry is now limited if not nonexistent.
Click to expand...


Your claim is that as of now, as a minister of your church your ability to decide to perform or not perform a religous ceremony is not restricted or nonexistent, now it's time to back up this claim:

1. Please present an example where the minister of a church was required under either Public Accommodation law (administrative) or Criminal Law was required by the government to perform a religious ceremony for an interracial couple if, according to that minister, such a ceremony was in conflict with that ministers religious dogma.

2. Please present an example where the minister of a church was required under either Public Accommodation law (administrative) or Criminal Law was required by the government to perform a religious ceremony for an inter-faith couple if, according to that minister, such a ceremony was in conflict with that ministers religious dogma.

3. Please present an example where the minister of a church was required under either Public Accommodation law (administrative) or Criminal Law was required by the government to perform a religious ceremony for a couple where one (or both) of the couple were divorced if, according to that minister, such a ceremony was in conflict with that ministers religious dogma.

4. And since same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal in at least one State for over a decade, please present an example where the minister of a church was required under either Public Accommodation law (administrative) or Criminal Law was required by the government to perform a religious ceremony for a same-sex couple if, according to that minister, such a ceremony was in conflict with that ministers religious dogma.​



Any which meet the criteria will do...



>>>>
 
year2late said:
And your putting your metaphysical belief system and as well as your religious belief out there stating that divorce should be illegal because of it and there for imposing your belief systems on the rest of us is endorsing a type of theocracy.
Click to expand...

I can't help it if you don't know what the word "theocracy" means.
 
Paleocon said:
I can't help it if you don't know what the word "theocracy" means.
Click to expand...

Do you think that our laws should be made specifically to reflect the word of God?
 
Cardinal said:
Do you think that our laws should be made specifically to reflect the word of God?
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean? They should not contradict divine law.
 
Cardinal said:
Sooo, laws should be in strict adherence to divine law?
Click to expand...

Yes, just as state laws should adhere to federal laws. That doesn't mean that the federal government runs the states, nor does adherence to divine law mean that the Church runs the government.
 
Paleocon said:
Yes, just as state laws should adhere to federal laws. That doesn't mean that the federal government runs the states, nor does adherence to divine law mean that the Church runs the government.
Click to expand...

What if I want to use my holy book instead of yours?
 
Paleocon said:
Yes, just as state laws should adhere to federal laws. That doesn't mean that the federal government runs the states, nor does adherence to divine law mean that the Church runs the government.
Click to expand...

If divine law determines state law, what is the effective difference between that and the church running the government?
 
Cardinal said:
If divine law determines state law, what is the effective difference between that and the church running the government?
Click to expand...

That the government has it's own legislators and other officials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom