• 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!

Oklahoma elects first openly gay state senator

Not everyone believes it is a sin, so there's that point. Secondly homosexuality has nothing to do with incest or any perverted act, it's ignorant to say otherwise.

And lastly it is accepted as a norm, at least with my generation, and thank God for that.

And because we accept it as a norm, we are going against the values of which this country was founded on. You may practice homosexuality if you want, but you may not get married, because marriage is to be between a man and a woman.
 
And because we accept it as a norm, we are going against the values of which this country was founded on. You may practice homosexuality if you want, but you may not get married, because marriage is to be between a man and a woman.


Demonstrably untrue in nine states (thus far).
 
And because we accept it as a norm, we are going against the values of which this country was founded on. You may practice homosexuality if you want, but you may not get married, because marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

Believing that blacks aren't lesser people than whites is going against the norms of our country, but somehow THAT change in cultural norms somehow didn't destroy the country.
 
Every gay Republican I'm familiar with is more hardcore conservative than the straight ones. I think they work hard to overcompensate and prove themselves.

Anyway, it just goes to show that it takes all kinds.
 
The sin is evil, and when we as a country accept the evil of homosexuality as a norm, we accept incest, and other perverted acts as a norm.

Divorce and premarital sex are sins too. Are you going to call for the outlawing of divorce any time soon?
 
Believing that blacks aren't lesser people than whites is going against the norms of our country, but somehow THAT change in cultural norms somehow didn't destroy the country.

But those damned women voters....total disaster!!!

:2razz:
 
Believing that blacks aren't lesser people than whites is going against the norms of our country, but somehow THAT change in cultural norms somehow didn't destroy the country.

That was something good, marriage isn't meant to be for a man and man, or woman and woman.
 
That was something good, marriage isn't meant to be for a man and man, or woman and woman.

According to whom? Christians? Before they realized how utterly stupid their policy was, they didn't even allow marriage amongst Christian followers. Original Christians were meant to be hermits, aescetics, and 100% celibate. One day a guy smarter than the rest said, "wait a second. How are we going to take over ze world if we don't find a faster, more efficient way of building our following?! I guess we'll have to let 'em screw and procreate...but we'll have to limit when and how they can screw."

It was only logical progression from there to limit marriage to men and women, since they're the only ones who can screw each other to a produce children. Christians didn't invent the construct of marriage; it predates the creation of Christianty by almost 2,000 years. Further, most civilizations prior to Christianity allowed or embraced homosexual relationships.
 
According to whom? Christians? Before they realized how utterly stupid their policy was, they didn't even allow marriage amongst Christian followers. Original Christians were meant to be hermits, aescetics, and 100% celibate. One day a guy smarter than the rest said, "wait a second. How are we going to take over ze world if we don't find a faster, more efficient way of building our following?! I guess we'll have to let 'em screw and procreate...but we'll have to limit when and how they can screw."

It was only logical progression from there to limit marriage to men and women, since they're the only ones who can screw each other to a produce children. Christians didn't invent the construct of marriage; it predates the creation of Christianty by almost 2,000 years. Further, most civilizations prior to Christianity allowed or embraced homosexual relationships.

Human Nature, it isn't natual to be married to someone of the same sex.
 
Human Nature, it isn't natual to be married to someone of the same sex.

It isn't natural to dye my hair bright pink, either. Want to outlaw that?
 
That was something good, marriage isn't meant to be for a man and man, or woman and woman.

So retaining the values and cultural principles of the founders is only something that will cause the death of America if you believe its a bad thing, but if you think its a good thing then its absolutely fine.

The Founders had the potential to establish that we would be a Christian State...they choose instead to insure that the State could not be ANY type of religious state.

Now, I disagree that the Founders sought to establish a "secular" state as some people state. A secular state is one that, by definition, would require that its activities, attitudes, and laws had no spiritual or religious basis. The fact that the Constitution protects the freedom to practice religion means that any citizen, be they the average voter or a Senator or the President, absolutely is free to allow his beliefs to influence how he feels the state should act. There is nothing in the constitution that states that a Congressman can't vote on a law based on his spiritual belief structure, or even propose a law based on what he believes. What it prohibits however is the passage of laws that would prohibit the free exercise of religion or that establishes a specific religion. Suggesting that there is some kind of requirement that the state acts according to "christian principles" is suggesting the state should establish a state religion. If you PERSONALLY think that's what it should do, and you wish to push for that...that's aboslutely fine. But it is not contrary to what the founders intended to do otherwise...to the contrary, by providing Freedom of Religion rather than establishing a Christian State, the founders were directly allowing people to use whatever belief structure they wished to guide how they felt the country should go.

My stance has been for some time that I believe that we should remove it from the federal government completely. And, barring that, then the government should remove the term "marriage" from the law completely and transition to a civil union system that allows any two people to enter into marriage due to my belief that, based on the constitution...which is what I believe should be the basis and foundation for our laws and what our government can do...there is sexual discrimination with regards to our current marriage laws and as a conservative I can not rightly support maintaining a law that I believe to be unconstitutional.

However, I believe that it's ludicrous to suggest that the establishment of Gay Marriage would somehow lead to destruction of our o****ry. America is a far greater nation with far more resolve than to allow itself to be destroyed over something so amazingly trivial as to whether or not two men can get a tax break.

I do not worry about the "Judeo-Christian" values of our Founders. I worry about the Constitutional Values of our founders. Mandating a "Christian morality system" upon the population through the force of government is not a constitutional value, but one that actually works against it.
 
Marriage isn't "natural". Its a societal creation.

Religious folk might disagree though. Similar to the concept of natural (in other words "God-given") rights, some see marriage as a sacred and divine institution.
 
Religious folk might disagree though. Similar to the concept of natural (in other words "God-given") rights, some see marriage as a sacred and divine institution.

I think something can be a societal creation that is also divine institution or sacred.

However, unless one is a young earth creationist I have a difficulty imagining how you could argue that the notion of marriage is inherently given down to man by God unless you think he was acting through "false" deities prior to the point where belief in the "True" god began. The idea and occurence of marriage has been recorded in human history long before the Judeo-Christian religion had came into being.

There are numerous things that are "sacred" that are not specifically "natural" things.

Actually...thinking on this, I'll take it back...

In the sense of using "natural" in the notion of an inherent sense of "rightness" and "wrongness" then I could conceed the notion that while marriage isn't inherently natural, that one could believe a specific type of marriage is the "natural" type. That said, it relies far more on the definition of "natural" that is based around individualized opinion rather than catagoric fact.
 
Last edited:
Human Nature, it isn't natual to be married to someone of the same sex.

To you maybe, but to me, it's for sure as hell my nature.
 
According to whom? Christians? Before they realized how utterly stupid their policy was, they didn't even allow marriage amongst Christian followers. Original Christians were meant to be hermits, aescetics, and 100% celibate. One day a guy smarter than the rest said, "wait a second. How are we going to take over ze world if we don't find a faster, more efficient way of building our following?! I guess we'll have to let 'em screw and procreate...but we'll have to limit when and how they can screw."

It was only logical progression from there to limit marriage to men and women, since they're the only ones who can screw each other to a produce children. Christians didn't invent the construct of marriage; it predates the creation of Christianty by almost 2,000 years. Further, most civilizations prior to Christianity allowed or embraced homosexual relationships.

Actually this isn't accurate, celibacy didn't become part of church doctrine until much later, and the thought of marriage being between one man, and one woman, and the whole sacrament of marriage thing didn't come around until well after Charlemagne.
 
Actually this isn't accurate, celibacy didn't become part of church doctrine until much later, and the thought of marriage being between one man, and one woman, and the whole sacrament of marriage thing didn't come around until well after Charlemagne.

I love girls who know their history.
 
Prove it! Then again, you can't even defend evolution. ;)

Rome adopted Christianity in 313 A.D.
Rome fell in 476 A.D.

Now I know it's hard, but I'm gonna have to ask you to do a little math and figure out which came first.

Is that okay for your little conservative mind?
 
Rome adopted Christianity in 313 A.D.
Rome fell in 476 A.D.

Now I know it's hard, but I'm gonna have to ask you to do a little math and figure out which came first.

Is that okay for your little conservative mind?

Christianity had nothing to do with the fall of Rome. Greedy little chits that couldn't work together was the reason that Rome fell. They just had to have more land.
 
That was something good, marriage isn't meant to be for a man and man, or woman and woman.

That is according to RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, and before you regurgitate that crap again about America being founded on Judeo-Christian values, I present exhibit A as evidence that you are wrong.

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson

If you want a Theocracy, then move to Iran.
 
Last edited:
Christianity had nothing to do with the fall of Rome. Greedy little chits that couldn't work together was the reason that Rome fell. They just had to have more land.


I wasn't saying Christianity caused the fall of Rome. Amigo claimed that Rome had turned Secular, and caused it to fall.

I was pointing out that Rome had adopted Christianity, and it had fallen while it was still Christian.
 
I wasn't saying Christianity caused the fall of Rome. Amigo claimed that Rome had turned Secular, and caused it to fall.

I was pointing out that Rome had adopted Christianity, and it had fallen while it was still Christian.

Then I apologize. In my defense though your post did come off that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom