• 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!

What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

What say you?


  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
Yes. And you can't prove any differently.
You can't prove to the contrary, so you don't get to tell me that no one actually communicates with God.

Gosh, for a self professed believer in God, you certainly fight pretty hard to tell me that He doesn't exist.
 
Mine actually has a set of conditions that I must follow if I want to become like Him.

And again....just because you don't like or believe what others believe theirs must be wrong, eh?
 
And again....just because you don't like or believe what others believe theirs must be wrong, eh?
When I know something, especially through personal experience, there's no point in kowtowing to the opposition.
 
When I know something, especially through personal experience, there's no point in kowtowing to the opposition.

See that's just it. If I were to meet a being from a different planet (not even claiming to be any kind of deity), yet I am the only one who actually sees said being, you would claim that I could not of seen it because I can't provide proof it exists thus it must not. Yet I still had the experience, no matter how much you want to believe I didn't. Simply because you have one experience, does not mean that others' experiences are any less real. But you will say it. You know of your experiences, but in the end you have no real definable and repeatable proof. We at best have to take your word on it. We have to take it on faith. But what makes your word any more valid than another's?
 
See that's just it. If I were to meet a being from a different planet (not even claiming to be any kind of deity), yet I am the only one who actually sees said being,
See, that's your problem. I'm not the only one who claims to have had communication with his maker. Literally millions of others will attest to the same thing I am claiming. I respect your tenacity, maquiscat, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. Roguenuke's responses were incoherent, and I called her out, as she has no idea what she's talking about, either.

I think you're both much more interested in catching me in my own words than you are discovering the actual truth.
 
You can't prove to the contrary, so you don't get to tell me that no one actually communicates with God.

Gosh, for a self professed believer in God, you certainly fight pretty hard to tell me that He doesn't exist.

Given the crap that generally comes out of the mouths of those claiming to communicate with God, I'm willing to bet they aren't actually communicating with any higher power.
 
Given the crap that generally comes out of the mouths of those claiming to communicate with God, I'm willing to bet they aren't actually communicating with any higher power.
"Generally" is too broad. You could say some Christians, or sometimes Christians, but not generally. And I wouldn't be leaving out the words some of your atheist friends use against my side of the spectrum, especially when you're attacking us Christians.
 
"Generally" is too broad. You could say some Christians, or sometimes Christians, but not generally. And I wouldn't be leaving out the words some of your atheist friends use against my side of the spectrum, especially when you're attacking us Christians.

I'm going to have to go with Dobble on this one. Maybe better to say the crap that generally comes out of the highly visible Christians, because we can say that the high profile ones do spew more hatred and crap than the rest of us.
 
See, that's your problem. I'm not the only one who claims to have had communication with his maker. Literally millions of others will attest to the same thing I am claiming. I respect your tenacity, maquiscat, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. Roguenuke's responses were incoherent, and I called her out, as she has no idea what she's talking about, either.

I think you're both much more interested in catching me in my own words than you are discovering the actual truth.

So again I say, what makes your claim any more, or less, valid than any other claim?
 
See, that's your problem. I'm not the only one who claims to have had communication with his maker. Literally millions of others will attest to the same thing I am claiming. I respect your tenacity, maquiscat, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. Roguenuke's responses were incoherent, and I called her out, as she has no idea what she's talking about, either.

I think you're both much more interested in catching me in my own words than you are discovering the actual truth.

No, you are much more interested in trying to tell me my beliefs are bull just because they don't agree with your personal beliefs. I have different beliefs than you. I don't care if you have yours, but you have no right to try to claim mine are bull just because you personally believe differently. You have no more proof for your beliefs than I do for mine. You simply have faith that other people were telling you the truth. Nothing more.
 
I have different beliefs than you.
You have the perfect setup, roguenuke. A god that exists only in your head, and it's given you all the tools you need to please the atheists.
 
Or we could just get the government out of marriage, and make being "married" a status determined by those involved, as well as any church or community that they choose to make it a part of. That solves all issues regarding legality, but people would still need to learn to accept others' desires in a life partner. Still, I think that getting government out of marriage would make that easier to accomplish.
 
You have the perfect setup, roguenuke. A god that exists only in your head, and it's given you all the tools you need to please the atheists.

This is one of my favorite quotes and it describes most hardcore advocates of most major religions.

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott

I don't aim to please anyone. I just believe as I do and don't expect nor care if others believe that way or not. However, I do care if others are using their beliefs to try to condemn others for nothing more but those beliefs, whether it is extremist Christians or Muslims or any other members of major religions.
 
Or we could just get the government out of marriage, and make being "married" a status determined by those involved, as well as any church or community that they choose to make it a part of. That solves all issues regarding legality, but people would still need to learn to accept others' desires in a life partner. Still, I think that getting government out of marriage would make that easier to accomplish.

As long as the government recognizes legal family members (such as giving birth certificates and/or being involved in legal adoption), then they should too be involved in marriage. Churches nor any religion owns marriage.
 
This is one of my favorite quotes and it describes most hardcore advocates of most major religions.

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott

I don't aim to please anyone. I just believe as I do and don't expect nor care if others believe that way or not. However, I do care if others are using their beliefs to try to condemn others for nothing more but those beliefs, whether it is extremist Christians or Muslims or any other members of major religions.
Correction: your god has given you the tools to please the entire planet. All except faithful Christians, of course. We simply cannot watch destructive forces impose their will on society. ;)
 
Correction: your god has given you the tools to please the entire planet. All except faithful Christians, of course. ;)

On the contrary, Christians are fine in my beliefs. It is those of any religion that wish to push their religion on others, who claim that their religion is the correct religion and should be supported by laws above other beliefs.
 
On the contrary, Christians are fine in my beliefs. It is those of any religion that wish to push their religion on others, who claim that their religion is the correct religion and should be supported by laws above other beliefs.
Your beliefs are pc compliant, and that's fantastic for pleasers and enablers. The atheists love you, and every radical on this planet should be able to call you "friend". Well done.
 
Your beliefs are pc compliant, and that's fantastic for pleasers and enablers. The atheists love you, and every radical on this planet should be able to call you "friend". Well done.

My beliefs are my beliefs. If you don't approve, fine. But they are mine. And no, not all atheists nor all religions (especially the radicals or extremists) love my religion because it completely contradicts their "my religion is the only possible truth" beliefs. You are proof of this very fact.
 
My beliefs are my beliefs. If you don't approve, fine. But they are mine. And no, not all atheists nor all religions (especially the radicals or extremists) love my religion because it completely contradicts their "my religion is the only possible truth" beliefs. You are proof of this very fact.
Your beliefs are harmless. I'm just trying to figure out how you justify the existence of a supreme being (even if it exists only in your mind) when it doesn't even communicate with you.
 
See, that's your problem. I'm not the only one who claims to have had communication with his maker. Literally millions of others will attest to the same thing I am claiming. I respect your tenacity, maquiscat, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. Roguenuke's responses were incoherent, and I called her out, as she has no idea what she's talking about, either.

I think you're both much more interested in catching me in my own words than you are discovering the actual truth.

What does it matter how many people might claim to have talked to your god? Roguenuke's god is just as likely (or unlikely) as your god. As an atheist, I shake my head at people claiming somehow they have the "true" god and everyone else is wrong.

At least Roguenuke doesn't try to push his/her belief on to other people. From the recent threads (admittedly I haven't read all the pages) it sounds like you are ok pushing your "truth" on to other people. But I might be misinterpreting.

But to tell Roguenuke that their god doesn't exist while you claim yours does just based on the number of people who agree with you... sorry, you can't will a god into existence through sheer numbers.

If I've misunderstood the arguments, I apologize. I also am not sure how they fit into this thread, but again, I didn't read through all the pages so they might.

But saying your god is god and Roguenuke's isn't and thinking that proves anything... sorry, that doesn't hold any weight.
 
What does it matter how many people might claim to have talked to your god? Roguenuke's god is just as likely (or unlikely) as your god. As an atheist, I shake my head at people claiming somehow they have the "true" god and everyone else is wrong.

At least Roguenuke doesn't try to push his/her belief on to other people. From the recent threads (admittedly I haven't read all the pages) it sounds like you are ok pushing your "truth" on to other people. But I might be misinterpreting.

But to tell Roguenuke that their god doesn't exist while you claim yours does just based on the number of people who agree with you... sorry, you can't will a god into existence through sheer numbers.

If I've misunderstood the arguments, I apologize. I also am not sure how they fit into this thread, but again, I didn't read through all the pages so they might.

But saying your god is god and Roguenuke's isn't and thinking that proves anything... sorry, that doesn't hold any weight.
Keep reading.
 
As long as the government recognizes legal family members (such as giving birth certificates and/or being involved in legal adoption), then they should too be involved in marriage. Churches nor any religion owns marriage.

Of course they don't, my point was that everything in regard with marriage should be a matter of choice by the people, not being restricted or run by the government. I simply used churches as an example of who they could share their marriage with. To address the other part of your argument, being born is quite different than being married. It is necessary to have birth certificates to provide citizen status as well as to have a way to determine eligibility for certain programs. Government involvement is also necessary in legal adoption, to prevent kidnapping, adopting an illegal immigrant or other abuses of the system. However, the government should not have any say in who you love or how it is recognized, and that was my only point. I was not making a religious argument, or anything other than that simple one thought.
 
Of course they don't, my point was that everything in regard with marriage should be a matter of choice by the people, not being restricted or run by the government. I simply used churches as an example of who they could share their marriage with. To address the other part of your argument, being born is quite different than being married. It is necessary to have birth certificates to provide citizen status as well as to have a way to determine eligibility for certain programs. Government involvement is also necessary in legal adoption, to prevent kidnapping, adopting an illegal immigrant or other abuses of the system. However, the government should not have any say in who you love or how it is recognized, and that was my only point. I was not making a religious argument, or anything other than that simple one thought.

Marriage provides a way to gain citizenship status as well. And marriage protects not only the individual spouses within a marriage from each other, but also from other legal family members, such as parents and even children. Spouses are legally a person's closest relative and that comes with special recognition in the law.
 
There's no reason to. Only a bitter gay rights activist would ask such a thing.

Then you reject the very premise of your claim that marriage is about creating and raising children.

Thanks for admitting you are not only dishonest, but you will turn on your own claims.

Because gays don't have the "other half" component that kids need for effective parenting. At least polygamists have that.

Who says that you need a male and a female for effective parenting? Making stuff up as usual eh Dooble?
 
There's no reason to. Only a bitter gay rights activist would ask such a thing.

Because gays don't have the "other half" component that kids need for effective parenting. At least polygamists have that.

Well, that is just balony:

Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics the week before the court case, arguing that three decades of research concur that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,”

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

Also, loads of single parent families exist, your nonsense reasoning would also mean that any kid of a single parent family would not get "effective parenting". Having one pervert dad and 5 mothers does not mean that the kids have effective parenting.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom