• 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!

The Not So Peaceful and Loving Gays the Liberal Media Doesn't Show You

calamity said:
There is not free speech on college campus. Every thing that can be perceived as a trigger mechanism or microaggression has been banned.
Click to expand...

Not true at all.
 
ItMustBeSaid85 said:
Only two cultures in history have had gay "marriage", other than present-day "culture": Ancient Rome, prior to Constantine the Great, and the Fujian province during the Ming Dynasty. Nero was in history's first recorded gay "marriage", by the way. Having the original Anti-Christ in such a union does make sense.



States have every legal right to treat differing behaviors as unequal, or else by definition all behavior would be permitted, including mutually exclusive behaviors. The 10th Amendment gives states the right to do anything not specifically forbidden in the rest of the Constitution. However, I don't even care that much about the Constitution, because liberals trample on it, so we must have theocracy to defend God's law, which supersedes human law, Constitution or no.



Some Founding Fathers were Christians, while others were deists. Once again, however, I don't care. God's law supersedes human law in all cases.
Click to expand...

He's not very good at enforcing it.
 
ItMustBeSaid85 said:
By that standard, to use an analogy not original to me, then laws against indecent exposure discriminate against nudists. The difference (one that no liberal I ever met has grasped) is between equality of persons, which is actual equality before God (or before the nothingness you believe in, if you prefer), and pretending that all behaviors are "equal".
Click to expand...

Well, indecent exposure does not apply specifically to nudists. The act charged can range from "flashing," through "Streaking," to a guy being caught taking a leak behind a tree. In practically all instances of indecent exposure it is a victimless crime because the only harm is the offense taken by the "victim" in seeing the exposed body. I've always found it strange how so many fellow Christians find the naked human body offensive, since it is the natural state as God created us.

ItMustBeSaid85 said:
I don't care what you think America is "supposed" to be about. If you cared about the Constitution, to begin with, you would leave abortion and gay issues to the states (10th Amendment), but liberals never do this, so the gloves are off. If the Constitution is a scrap of paper to liberals, then it is to me too, and I support theocracy, and proudly at that.
Click to expand...

NO. If you believed in the Constitution, as amended by the 14th Amendment, the rights of citizens are NOT left to the States. You would like to return us to the bad old days where people could be treated differently, and denied equal rights simply because of their sex, race, religion, etc.

Read the 10th Amendment closely:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

The "IT" referred to in the second phrase is the Constitution. Do you think the follow-on amendments including the 14th did not apply?

ItMustBeSaid85 said:
Morally, God has reportedly destroyed five cities because of homosexual behavior (Catherine of Siena), and unquestionably destroyed at least one (Sodom), so the gravity of the sin is on a level matched by few commonplace behaviors. I presented irrefutable proof of the immorality of homosexual behavior based solely on secular grounds in another thread, incidentally, so one need not be a Christian to oppose it. If the great mystic I mentioned was correct in what she heard, even Satan finds sodomy repulsive, and it's easy to understand why. To call this "marriage" is an insult to every real married couple in history, and an insult to God.
Click to expand...

The thing you religious extremists fail to realize in your crusade against same sex marriage is that, just like your indecent exposure example, the only harm is the offense you take to the situation. My God is above such offense, but even if (as you claim) He is offended, then HIS is the final judgment.

If you, and others like you fear a "Sodom and Gomorrah" scenario (which personally I think has been misinterpreted by fundamentalists like yourself) why not take comfort in the knowledge that He was willing to spare the entire city if any "righteous" could actually be found. Meanwhile, the new commandments are pretty clear; judge not, render unto caesar, and love thy neighbor. None of that has been demonstrated in the anti-SSM agenda.
 
Last edited:
ItMustBeSaid85 said:
Only two cultures in history have had gay "marriage", other than present-day "culture": Ancient Rome, prior to Constantine the Great, and the Fujian province during the Ming Dynasty. Nero was in history's first recorded gay "marriage", by the way. Having the original Anti-Christ in such a union does make sense.



States have every legal right to treat differing behaviors as unequal, or else by definition all behavior would be permitted, including mutually exclusive behaviors. The 10th Amendment gives states the right to do anything not specifically forbidden in the rest of the Constitution. However, I don't even care that much about the Constitution, because liberals trample on it, so we must have theocracy to defend God's law, which supersedes human law, Constitution or no.



Some Founding Fathers were Christians, while others were deists. Once again, however, I don't care. God's law supersedes human law in all cases.
Click to expand...

Adhering to the above highlighted in red...can land you in jail. Ask Kim Davis.
 
Removable Mind said:
Adhering to the above highlighted in red...can land you in jail. Ask Kim Davis.
Click to expand...

That's fine. She's a martyr, and so would I be if it happened to me. You are aware, are you not, that true Christians are willing to die for their beliefs? It's predictable that enemies of Christianity will persecute us, just as the Romans did.
 
ItMustBeSaid85 said:
That's fine. She's a martyr, and so would I be if it happened to me. You are aware, are you not, that true Christians are willing to die for their beliefs? It's predictable that enemies of Christianity will persecute us, just as the Romans did.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Christian...thank god.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I've always found it strange how so many fellow Christians find the naked human body offensive, since it is the natural state as God created us.
Click to expand...

We find it offensive in so far as it tempts towards sin and its exposure is emotionally degrading to the person exposed.

Captain Adverse said:
NO. If you believed in the Constitution, as amended by the 14th Amendment, the rights of citizens are NOT left to the States...
Click to expand...

Equal protection refers to people, not to behavior, or else infinite absurdity. But that's a minor point (though it does point out the dishonesty of liberals), because I believe in God's law above all human law.

Captain Adverse said:
If you, and others like you fear a "Sodom and Gomorrah" scenario (which personally I think has been misinterpreted by fundamentalists like yourself)...
Click to expand...

I'm not a "Fundamentalist". I'm a Catholic. Fundamentalists are Protestants.

Also, if your God is not the God of the Bible, then your "god" is Satan, even if you don't realize it.
 
ItMustBeSaid85 said:
I am not myself a member of this Catholic group, though I am a Catholic, but I thank them for their work, and I also thank the gays and other radicals for revealing their true selves: *Warning: Disturbing and Somewhat Explicit Content* VIDEO: Attacked by "Tolerance
Click to expand...
I watch videos like these on mute because I dint care to hear political spin from lobbyist groups such as the "TFP". I made it about 10 minutes in. Much of the video was interviews with the lobbyists volunteers. There was film of one lady hitting a camera, there was a claim that a fellow from Maryland hit a lobbyist volunteer, but conveniently the video stopped right before it happened. I saw one fellow spit on the lobbyist volunteers and another guy tear up their sign, and a guy get hit in the head with a bottle.

So in ten minutes I saw only six individuals break laws. That isn't representative of any group of people.

Loads of people were talking, giving the lobbyists the finger, and arguing with them, none of which is the slightest bit intolerant. I saw a fellow tear up a bible also. If it's his bible, it's his property to do with as he pleases. If he took it, than he should replace it.

So people largely having differing opinions from a political group is intolerant? That's some liberal victim mouthing.
 
ItMustBeSaid85 said:
^ No, not all gays are violent, but I present this to balance out the liberal media's portrayal of traditional marriage supporters as the bad guys.
Click to expand...

It's really easy, you can be the "bad guy" and still be wrongfully attacked. Things simply aren't black and white.

Oh, and "marriage is 1 man + 1 woman" is not a positive message, no matter how much they want to spin it as such.
 
Alban said:
Marriage is a religious concept. It wouldn't exist as a privileged and desirable contract through which the family is empowered and societal stability is encouraged without religious teaching.

Gay "marriage" is wrong by every ethical standard of what America is supposed to be about. It's a violation of the rights of the states, infringement on religious liberty, and smiting of traditional values that threatens to debauch this country.

The truth is that marriage is a duty and steep responsibility and its promotion by the Church was integral to the West's success. Redefining it so casually is symbolically an attack on our moral fabric and concretely a perversion of religious teaching.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a religious concept. It existed long before any religion existing today and was originally pretty much a social thing. In fact, even the Christian religion wasn't involved in marriage until about the 10th Century.
 
ItMustBeSaid85 said:
We find it offensive in so far as it tempts towards sin and its exposure is emotionally degrading to the person exposed.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the naked body is neither sinful nor a universal temptation toward sin. Even if we accept that argument, then it is up to the person who feels tempted to resist, they have no "moral" right to impose restrictions on others simply because they themselves feel "tempted."

ItMustBeSaid85 said:
Equal protection refers to people, not to behavior, or else infinite absurdity. But that's a minor point (though it does point out the dishonesty of liberals), because I believe in God's law above all human law.
Click to expand...

Really? So that means your religious beliefs are not protected? Your own argument instructs us that it is not protected since it isn't a "person" but merely a "behavior" that people engage in.

ItMustBeSaid85 said:
I'm not a "Fundamentalist". I'm a Catholic. Fundamentalists are Protestants.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Fundamentalists can belong to any religion, since it applies to anyone who demands a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines. In the case of Catholics, this is often referred to as being dogmatic.

ItMustBeSaid85 said:
Also, if your God is not the God of the Bible, then your "god" is Satan, even if you don't realize it.
Click to expand...

LOL. My God is the God of the Bible. He appears in the NEW Testament in a few, specific Gospels. The OLD Testament is a record of the history of the Jews. That was a God of Wrath who protected His "chosen people." I believe he incarnated to experience humanity, which led to his softer, gentler view as expressed by Jesus Christ.

That's why I am a "Christian," not Jewish or Moslem. Looking at the tenor of your responses in this thread alone, I wonder which one of us He thinks is truly trying to adhere to His teaching?
 
The problem with the video is much the same as with the recent Planned Parenthood, "They're KILLING BABIES FOR PROFIT!!!" videos - it is selectively edited with next to zero context for any of the actions we think we are seeing. The video first appeared in 2012 (date is on the linked site in the OP), so why bring it up now?

THEN there is the ever so small matter of the history of the organisation behind the video; American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) actually began as a group in Brazil which expanded into the US as a Brazilian ex-pat group. It is seen by the Church as so conservative that some dioceses have forbidden it to fund-raise within their parishes.

Finally, for this comment anyway; unlike the OP's beliefs, the majority of American Catholics support same-sex marriage
 
JC Callender said:
What's wrong with the OP pointing out that this sort of thing happens? And why would you attack him for bringing light to it rather than go after the jerks who committed these hateful acts?
Click to expand...

If you think that the point of him posting that was to SOLELY point out that things like that happen, I have the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge in my pocket, and I'd be happy to sell it to you for $100.
 
JC Callender said:
Of course I have a problem with it, that's why I replied to your post. You're condemnation wasn't very convincing imo, you simply said that people who support SSM will condemn violence but that obviously isn't true according to the video. And it's not always violence, as you can also see in the video. But worst of all you seem to put almost all of the blame on the OP simply for shedding light on it.
Click to expand...

Shedding light on what? That violence occurs in every group and from people on every side of the issue? If you think THAT'S what the OP was trying to present, I'll reduce the price of the Brooklyn Bridge to $90, just for you.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Shedding light on what? That violence occurs in every group and from people on every side of the issue? If you think THAT'S what the OP was trying to present, I'll reduce the price of the Brooklyn Bridge to $90, just for you.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I saw totally reprehensible behavior. You obviously saw those aggressors as victims. :naughty
 
JC Callender said:
There's an old saying, " Of all the bad men, bad religious men are the worst" and I agree with that. I'm also a Christian, but have never been afraid of pointing out where Christians fall short. The thing that bothers me about those who support SSM is that there seems to almost always be a victimhood attached to gays and anyone who points out anything negative about them should be castigated immediately. It's totally obvious to me how reprehensible these acts are in the video but the obvious vitriol in this thread is reserved for those who simply point out these acts.
Click to expand...

No, you're intentionally being dishonest. The OP presented this as if it would be a reason to deny SSM, people pointed out that while this was a crime to be prosecuted, it has nothing to do with SSM. Then you proceed to spout your melodramatic strawman "I guess we can forget justice from now on".
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, you're intentionally being dishonest. The OP presented this as if it would be a reason to deny SSM, people pointed out that while this was a crime to be prosecuted, it has nothing to do with SSM. Then you proceed to spout your melodramatic strawman "I guess we can forget justice from now on".
Click to expand...

I'd love to debate an honest opponent of SSM someday. Let me know if you ever find one.
 
JC Callender said:
Sorry, I saw totally reprehensible behavior. You obviously saw those aggressors as victims. :naughty
Click to expand...

Does the reprehensible behavior of those people somehow negate pro-SSM arguments?
 
Kobie said:
I'd love to debate an honest opponent of SSM someday. Let me know if you ever find one.
Click to expand...

Doesn't exist. What could be honest or honorable about denying rights to others that you readily enjoy?

That being said, JC Callendar hasn't been honest or honorable a day on this forum, so I won't be holding my breath.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, you're intentionally being dishonest. The OP presented this as if it would be a reason to deny SSM, people pointed out that while this was a crime to be prosecuted, it has nothing to do with SSM. Then you proceed to spout your melodramatic strawman "I guess we can forget justice from now on".
Click to expand...

What "people" pointed out this was a crime? And it has everything to do with SSM as that's the subject that's being discussed, is it not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom