• 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

Straight men live to have sex....the less strings attached the better. So your comments on 'fornicators' is completely wrong. Unless you have a different definition of fornication than I do.

Of course, women enjoy sex outside of marriage too.

We are discussing marriage and the married
 
That's not the least bit obvious.

I have no problem with government punishing adulterers and abandoners.

So the govt should be intruding into people's lives and telling them who not to sleep with, who they must live with, and use force to do it? That they have to staying potentially MORE damaging relationships just because you say so?

Since when does the govt, or you, or your God (I am Christian and your rigidity and judgment do not fit *my God*) the right to tell others how to live? Certainly who says you or the govt are right? God judges, not you.
 
So the govt should be intruding into people's lives and telling them who not to sleep with, who they must live with, and use force to do it? That they have to staying potentially MORE damaging relationships just because you say so?

Since when does the govt, or you, or your God (I am Christian and your rigidity and judgment do not fit *my God*) the right to tell others how to live? Certainly who says you or the govt are right? God judges, not you.

They have to stay in those relationships because they agreed to.

I strongly suspect that *your God* is just a bigger and more powerful version of yourself.
 
It is correct that my being Catholic is why I believe divorce should be illegal.

Right. So just say that. Don't try to hide it behind some "natural state" argument.
 
They have to stay in those relationships because they agreed to.

I strongly suspect that *your God* is just a bigger and more powerful version of yourself.

Funny you should say that. Don't you think it's interesting how everyone's God so conveniently mirrors his own beliefs?
 
They have to stay in those relationships because they agreed to.

I strongly suspect that *your God* is just a bigger and more powerful version of yourself.

People can change their minds, and they can also legally get out of contracts. Life changes, people change. No one else is justified in judging their reasons. Certainly not you or the govt.

Forcing people to remain in relationships can do more harm than good...more abuse, more violence, more children seeing and continuing the cycle.

You extend your religious beliefs into fantasy. That is scary.

And 'my God' is the God of the New Testament. Loving and forgiving. Not vengeful and petty.
 
Right. So just say that. Don't try to hide it behind some "natural state" argument.

I didn't make a "natural state" argument.

Funny you should say that. Don't you think it's interesting how everyone's God so conveniently mirrors his own beliefs so perfectly?

That is rather interesting.
 
Simply by their unnatural existence. They are like a blight on the citrus crop....a stye on your eye....the nasty last sip of a cheap beer.

Note that you haven't actually specified any sort of detriment. Any number of things humans do and create are arguably "unnatural." Any number of choices we make aren't "natural." That's not an argument, that's a cop out. A way to declare homosexuality as harmful without any actual rationale for that opinion, and it's a way to avoid rebuttal.
 
People can change their minds, and they can also legally get out of contracts. Life changes, people change. No one else is justified in judging their reasons. Certainly not you or the govt.

Forcing people to remain in relationships can do more harm than good...more abuse, more violence, more children seeing and continuing the cycle.

You extend your religious beliefs into fantasy. That is scary.

And 'my God' is the God of the New Testament. Loving and forgiving. Not vengeful and petty.

Most divorces aren't because of abuse.
 
Heteros are by nature non-fornicating but, I do indeed dislike adulterers.

You have a different definition of "fornicating" than the conventional one.
 
And why is legal separation insufficient?

Because you can't get remarried if you are still married to your abuser. Why would you want someone to stay married to their abuser?
 
Because you can't get remarried if you are still married to your abuser. Why would you want someone to stay married to their abuser?

Because it is not possible ontologically to terminate such a marriage.
 
Because it is not possible ontologically to terminate such a marriage.

People do it all the time. They break ties and move on with their lives, sometimes never even having contact with the ex again. In every manner of reasoning, that is a relationship that is ended. What you are attempting to describe is your ideal situation, not reality.
 
He uses the 'natural law' premise to try and get around his Catholic beliefs and using God. He has admitted he knows however, that the 'natural law' philosophy also appeals to a higher authority and nature being driven by a higher purpose.

I am not criticizing but explaining his use of 'natural', which he has written here himself.

It is his way of making it seem like he is not advocating for a theocratic like rule.
 
It is correct that my being Catholic is why I believe divorce should be illegal.

You do understand that our government is made for people of all faiths (and people who have no religion as well).

You want to impose your faith on others by pushing for a law that is founded in your faith.

Why not let YOUR faith guide YOUR actions?

Outlawing divorce. Seriously?
 
Because it is not possible ontologically to terminate such a marriage.

That is your belief and your faith. Stop trying to apply it to law that is meant to apply to all. Let your faith and your belief guide your actions. Advocating for a law that applies to your belief and faith (and not to the rest of us who are not faithful to YOUR beliefs) is the going towards theocracy.
 
It is reality, that I happen to acknowledge.

Your faith is your perception of reality.

You seem to lack the ability to separate faith from fact and reality. The only true reality, is that it is your faith and wanting your faith to be applied to others in a governmental way is at the heart of theocracy.
 
People can change their minds, and they can also legally get out of contracts. Life changes, people change. No one else is justified in judging their reasons. Certainly not you or the govt.

Forcing people to remain in relationships can do more harm than good...more abuse, more violence, more children seeing and continuing the cycle.

You extend your religious beliefs into fantasy. That is scary.

And 'my God' is the God of the New Testament. Loving and forgiving. Not vengeful and petty.

unless you continue to sin ....then hes not that loving.
 
Note that you haven't actually specified any sort of detriment. Any number of things humans do and create are arguably "unnatural." Any number of choices we make aren't "natural." That's not an argument, that's a cop out. A way to declare homosexuality as harmful without any actual rationale for that opinion, and it's a way to avoid rebuttal.

How about their being a horrible example.for our young people? How about we would eventually die out if everyone decide to be Gay? How about God detroying us for allowing it to be normalised?
 
Back
Top Bottom