• 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!

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

roguenuke said:
You are quoting Paul, someone who I personally believe was very biased and not at all inspired by God or even Jesus. He had no idea what he was talking about. So yes, I will attack the "messenger" when that particular messenger was a misogynist who also believed that pretty much all forms of sex were a sin and that only sex with the sole purpose of producing children was acceptable.
Click to expand...

1. Mischaracterization of Paul
2. If you don't accept his portion of INSPIRED Scripture, that is your deal.
3. The other apostles accepted Paul's writings.
4. So did the early church and through the centuries.
5. Not Paul's views on sex.
 
roguenuke said:
It is proof that genes play a part in it. You are free to show your ignorance about how genes work in affecting our personalities all you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that they do. It is a combination of nature and nurture, just like most things, but genes (several different ones) are still part of the equation.
Click to expand...

The straight facts are:

1. Science isn't sure about the cause of homosexuality.
2. Some research "points to" hormones in the womb.
3. Other research "points to" epi-genetics rather than genetics.
4. The bottom line is that there is no factual answer, but actual genetics is not on top of the suspect list.

There has been a lot of study.... still no conclusive answers; just lots of theory. I think the reason why we don't know is because there isn't any single "cause" to isolate and identify. For many, it's just a choice, just as it was in the days when Romans and Greeks were gaily cavorting with same-sex partners willy-nilly.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
1. Mischaracterization of Paul
2. If you don't accept his portion of INSPIRED Scripture, that is your deal.
3. The other apostles accepted Paul's writings.
4. So did the early church and through the centuries.
5. Not Paul's views on sex.
Click to expand...

The other apostles didn't know Paul. He claims this, but truly there is no proof of it. Plus, there is no way that you can know even if they did know Paul that they approved because they didn't give signs of approval for what the others wrote and what got put into the Bible itself from those writings.

Yes, the early church and many churches even now believe this based on the beliefs of Paul mainly.

Yes, it is Paul's views on sex. And he absolutely is a sexist pig. He talks about women being less than men in much of his writings.

It is the
 
Somerville said:
Drop the bigotry induced blindness and take the time to read the statute as written. It it is rather specific when it states that a minister/preacher/rabbi/imam could be jailed for a period up to 180 days, if said religious functionary performs (solemnizes) a marriage ceremony that is not permitted under Indiana law They will NOT be free to perform their sick little ceremony

I'm not sure I would apply the adjective "normal" to religious bigots. More Americans approve of gay marriage than disapprove
Click to expand...

At least we're agreed that these are sick little ceremonies.
 
Oftencold said:
At least we're agreed that these are sick little ceremonies.
Click to expand...


Yeah I should have put quotes around "sick".. IMO, the mere fact that you consider a ceremony joining two persons who love each other to be "sick" indicates a non-rational belief.


Pray tell, how does legal same sex marriage harm you and yours?
 
Papa bull said:
The straight facts are:

1. Science isn't sure about the cause of homosexuality.
2. Some research "points to" hormones in the womb.
3. Other research "points to" epi-genetics rather than genetics.
4. The bottom line is that there is no factual answer, but actual genetics is not on top of the suspect list.

There has been a lot of study.... still no conclusive answers; just lots of theory. I think the reason why we don't know is because there isn't any single "cause" to isolate and identify. For many, it's just a choice, just as it was in the days when Romans and Greeks were gaily cavorting with same-sex partners willy-nilly.
Click to expand...

Everything is theories, especially when it comes to personality traits and the influence of genes on those traits. It is almost certainly a combination of many factors. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter if it is genetic or not, it still wouldn't be a choice. That is simply not how traits work, even if no genetic connection could be proven to any personality trait.

No it isn't just a choice because you still do not understand the difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior (as is obvious from your Romans and Greeks comment).
 
roguenuke said:
The other apostles didn't know Paul. He claims this, but truly there is no proof of it. Plus, there is no way that you can know even if they did know Paul that they approved because they didn't give signs of approval for what the others wrote and what got put into the Bible itself from those writings.

Yes, the early church and many churches even now believe this based on the beliefs of Paul mainly.

Yes, it is Paul's views on sex. And he absolutely is a sexist pig. He talks about women being less than men in much of his writings.

It is the
Click to expand...

2 Peter 3:14-16
 
Somerville said:
Yeah I should have put quotes around "sick".. IMO, the mere fact that you consider a ceremony joining two persons who love each other to be "sick" indicates a non-rational belief.


Pray tell, how does legal same sex marriage harm you and yours?
Click to expand...

Two persons "who love each other" can form a club and join it together. There now, they're joined.

Marriage hover, is for eligible and willing men and women. Only Moderns would need these things explained.
 
roguenuke said:
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter if it is genetic or not, it still wouldn't be a choice.
Click to expand...

It matters that it's not genetics if you're arguing that it is, in fact, genetic.

No it isn't just a choice because you still do not understand the difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior (as is obvious from your Romans and Greeks comment).
Click to expand...

We certainly see that it can be a choice. Only in recent days has there been politically motvated attempt to prove that it's "inborn". The reason for that is obvious, of course. If you can prove it's an immutable characteristic, then you can establish homosexuality as a suspect class quite easily and, therefore, be able to put forward a solid argument that the supreme court must force states to accept homosexual marriage.

But in spite of all the effort put into this, there is still no proof that homosexuality is actually inborn; just lots of debatable theory and I use the word "theory" loosely (just as you do) because it's actually not nearly so solid as true theory. We both know that a gaggle of loose theories about the cause of homosexuality can't be equated to the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution or the theory of fluid mechanics. Those are long accepted theory and not shots in the dark by modern researchers grasping for straws.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
So should all states make incest legal too? Why should family members not enter into a contract? Your argument isn't logical.
Click to expand...

Can you demonstrate harm caused by incestuous marriage?
Can you demonstrate harm caused by homosexual marriage?

Oftencold said:
Two persons "who love each other" can form a club and join it together. There now, they're joined.

Marriage hover, is for eligible and willing men and women. Only Moderns would need these things explained.
Click to expand...

You failed to answer the question about harm caused by same-sex marriage. If the government cannot show an interest in maintaining this gender-based distinction, then they shouldn't maintain it. But I guess that's just the small government, personal liberty part of me talking.
 
roguenuke said:
Everything is theories
Click to expand...

I have a theory that the less a progressive knows about a subject the more likely they are to pontificate on that subject.

There. Don't argue with me. It's a theory. Everything is a theory and, therefore, you can't dismiss anything anyone "theorizes" because... well.. it's "theory".
 
Deuce said:
Can you demonstrate harm caused by incestuous marriage?
Can you demonstrate harm caused by homosexual marriage?



You failed to answer the question about harm caused by same-sex marriage. If the government cannot show an interest in maintaining this gender-based distinction, then they shouldn't maintain it. But I guess that's just the small government, personal liberty part of me talking.
Click to expand...

Can you demonstrate harm caused by incestuous marriage?
 
Papa bull said:
The straight facts are:

1. Science isn't sure about the cause of homosexuality.
2. Some research "points to" hormones in the womb.
3. Other research "points to" epi-genetics rather than genetics.
4. The bottom line is that there is no factual answer, but actual genetics is not on top of the suspect list.

There has been a lot of study.... still no conclusive answers; just lots of theory. I think the reason why we don't know is because there isn't any single "cause" to isolate and identify. For many, it's just a choice, just as it was in the days when Romans and Greeks were gaily cavorting with same-sex partners willy-nilly.
Click to expand...

Can you find me someone who consciously chose to be attracted to the same gender?
 
Deuce said:
Can you find me someone who consciously chose to be attracted to the same gender?
Click to expand...

Cynthia Nixon, for one. For obvious reasons, most homosexuals would rather run buck nekked through a rose patch than admit that it's choice, but there are some that still will admit it.
 
Papa bull said:
Can you demonstrate harm caused by incestuous marriage?
Click to expand...

As expected, you dodged the questions.

I can't personally demonstrate harm caused by either. However, I will readily admit I haven't looked into research on the impacts of incestuous relationships and/or marriage. Feel free to post some in a different thread, because this thread is about same-sex marriage. I have read the research there.

If someone were to show me demonstrable harm from same-sex marriage, I might reconsider my opinion on it. To date, nobody has managed to do that. Even arguing before the Supreme Court, Prop 8 supporters were unable to demonstrate any harm when directly asked about it. These are the legal experts hired by the religious folks against same-sex marriage to take up the case all the way to the highest court in the land. They were asked directly whether there was any harm in same-sex marriage. They tried to avoid the question. Because they had no answer.

And neither do you.
 
Deuce said:
As expected, you dodged the questions.

I can't personally demonstrate harm caused by either. However, I will readily admit I haven't looked into research on the impacts of incestuous relationships and/or marriage. Feel free to post some in a different thread, because this thread is about same-sex marriage. I have read the research there.

If someone were to show me demonstrable harm from same-sex marriage, I might reconsider my opinion on it. To date, nobody has managed to do that. Even arguing before the Supreme Court, Prop 8 supporters were unable to demonstrate any harm when directly asked about it. These are the legal experts hired by the religious folks against same-sex marriage to take up the case all the way to the highest court in the land. They were asked directly whether there was any harm in same-sex marriage. They tried to avoid the question. Because they had no answer.

And neither do you.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me the question so why would you accuse me of dodging it. It was a non sequitur as a question to me. I did, however, think it would be interesting to hear your take on whether incestuous marriage would be "harmful" to the state. And you actually DID dodge the question. Your OWN question, no less, turned back to you just to test whether it was a rhetorical question or a true query. It appears it was nothing but rhetoric.
 
Papa bull said:
It matters that it's not genetics if you're arguing that it is, in fact, genetic.

We certainly see that it can be a choice. Only in recent days has there been politically motvated attempt to prove that it's "inborn". The reason for that is obvious, of course. If you can prove it's an immutable characteristic, then you can establish homosexuality as a suspect class quite easily and, therefore, be able to put forward a solid argument that the supreme court must force states to accept homosexual marriage.

But in spite of all the effort put into this, there is still no proof that homosexuality is actually inborn; just lots of debatable theory and I use the word "theory" loosely (just as you do) because it's actually not nearly so solid as true theory. We both know that a gaggle of loose theories about the cause of homosexuality can't be equated to the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution or the theory of fluid mechanics. Those are long accepted theory and not shots in the dark by modern researchers grasping for straws.
Click to expand...

I am arguing that there is almost certainly a genetic basis to it. I am also arguing that it doesn't matter either way because "inborn" is not a requirement of protection of our Constitution or against laws.

It is much more solid of a theory than "it is a choice for most", which has been shown to be wrong.
 
Papa bull said:
I have a theory that the less a progressive knows about a subject the more likely they are to pontificate on that subject.

There. Don't argue with me. It's a theory. Everything is a theory and, therefore, you can't dismiss anything anyone "theorizes" because... well.. it's "theory".
Click to expand...

No, you cannot simply dismiss theories just because you don't believe them or don't agree with them or don't really understand them. That is what is being said. You must show counter evidence to them. That is how science works. So far, you haven't successfully countered anything, but rather just continued to repeat past, failed arguments.
 
roguenuke said:
I am arguing that there is almost certainly a genetic basis to it. I am also arguing that it doesn't matter either way because "inborn" is not a requirement of protection of our Constitution or against laws.

It is much more solid of a theory than "it is a choice for most", which has been shown to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Try to stick to honest argumentation. It has been THOUGHT to be wrong that it is a choice. It has not yet been proven. If you want to insist that it has, then I know you're more interested in your agenda than the truth.
 
roguenuke said:
No, you cannot simply dismiss theories just because you don't believe them or don't agree with them or don't really understand them. That is what is being said. You must show counter evidence to them. That is how science works. So far, you haven't successfully countered anything, but rather just continued to repeat past, failed arguments.
Click to expand...

And you can't call anything that scientists "think" to be a theory. You know that "theory" is a lot tighter than "researchers believe" or "research seems to indicate" or "It is probable that". There is no actual theory about homosexual causation. There are just hypotheses.
 
At any rate.... does causation have some bearing on the fact that Indiana will consider it a misdemeanor for an official to actually solemnize a marriage for a couple that the official KNOWS to be unqualified to be married in the state?

Every discussion seems to come back to some fuzzy logic about why homosexuals don't want to engage in relationships with people that they would be allowed to marry.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
2 Peter 3:14-16
Click to expand...

I was wrong about the fact that none of the apostles had met Paul. (Some had.) I was not wrong about the fact that Paul never met Jesus. He claims to have had a vision of Jesus (and even that is sketchy). I'm willing to bet that he was able to convince the apostles he did meet of what he believed and then started manipulating them, considering they knew he never actually met Jesus. People were much less skeptical back then. Someone said they saw Jesus and he spoke to them, they were probably very likely to believe them (especially those who themselves believed that they saw Jesus after his death).

Things that people write are almost certainly going to have them appear to be in the right, the person on the positive or just side of a situation. We see this in the Bible. It is all just opinions of men. It includes their biases, prejudices, personal beliefs, insecurities, and faults.
 
Papa bull said:
And you can't call anything that scientists "think" to be a theory. You know that "theory" is a lot tighter than "researchers believe" or "research seems to indicate" or "It is probable that". There is no actual theory about homosexual causation. There are just hypotheses.
Click to expand...

A theory has evidence to support it and no evidence against it. The theory of genetics influencing personality traits, including sexuality and attraction, has a lot of evidence to support it and no real evidence against it. You don't want to believe it, fine. But you obviously can't refute it with real evidence.
 
Papa bull said:
And you can't call anything that scientists "think" to be a theory. You know that "theory" is a lot tighter than "researchers believe" or "research seems to indicate" or "It is probable that". There is no actual theory about homosexual causation. There are just hypotheses.
Click to expand...

No, there's scientific theories, not hypotheses. Genetics, epigenetics, and social upbringing can all play a role.
 
Papa bull said:
At any rate.... does causation have some bearing on the fact that Indiana will consider it a misdemeanor for an official to actually solemnize a marriage for a couple that the official KNOWS to be unqualified to be married in the state?

Every discussion seems to come back to some fuzzy logic about why homosexuals don't want to engage in relationships with people that they would be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

No. What has a bearing on it is the First Amendment and freedom of religion, including the freedom of any religion to perform a religious ceremony (including solemnizing a marriage of a same sex couple) when that ceremony does not harm anyone. Telling a church or clergyman that they cannot solemnize a same sex wedding violates that freedom. (Signing the marriage license is different than solemnizing a marriage.) The first time a member of any faith is brought up on charges for performing a ceremony for a same sex (or most other types of couples), there will be a federal challenge to that law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom