• 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!

Oregon Gov. hopeful links gay marriage with murder

ksu_aviator said:
Ok...so then we will make murder, theft, and lying legal?
Click to expand...

Murder, theft and lying were illegal in society long before the Christian bible ever existed.

Deuce said:
You're not seriously under the impression that the bible is the only reason to make laws against those things, are you?

Well. Except lying. That's legal, I don't know if anyone told you.
Click to expand...

Perjury isn't.
 
Kobie said:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes me intolerant. Well, alrighty then.
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as the "Whoever smelt it dealt it" defense.
 
Kobie said:
You know the right-wing meme. Conservatives are the only ones with jobs.
Click to expand...

There's way more Democrats collecting welfare than Republicans.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Don't you think that we feel the same way? Do you think we want to be forced to recognize (and in some cases participate in) a bastardized version of a ceremony and institution that is deeply rooted in our beliefs?
Click to expand...

No, the institution of marriage is not deeply rooted in your beliefs. Christians didn't invent the concept. If anything, your beliefs are deeply rooted in the institution, and so many American Christians have taken the "it's ours and the gays can't have it" stance.

A gay couple getting married does not affect you in any way, shape or form.
 
Kobie said:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes me intolerant. Well, alrighty then.
Click to expand...

It cracks me up that the right wing loons feel as though two gay people they don't know, will never meet, have nothing to do with their lives...that their getting married somehow impacts them in any way.

It's all about suppression. And yet they immediate suggest others are victimizing them? ****ing hilarious.
 
Did you miss the explanation of the difference between "very" versus "likely" and "lean"?
Have you been tracking these changing Demographics since they've been available on line .
apdst said:
Didn't The One win Oregon?
Click to expand...
 
Got a link?
apdst said:
There's way more Democrats collecting welfare than Republicans.
Click to expand...
What about those who don't vote?
How big is that percentage ?
 
Kobie said:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes me intolerant. Well, alrighty then.
Click to expand...

You're being intolerant of people who think different than you. We NEVER hear Libbos bitch about Left Wing racism.

Bull**** excuse in 3...2...1...
 
digsbe said:
Already happened. We have abortion and taxation :lol:
Click to expand...

Don't we have a forum for Abortion digs?
While you're on it, when does life begin IYO?

And why do you oppose the 16th amendment ?
 
Kobie said:
When gay couples are prevented from getting married, that's discrimination.
Click to expand...

The thing is they're not. The issue is redefining marriage to fit relationships that they prefer. They aren't denied the ability to marry, it's just the definition of marriage isn't in line with what they want in some places.
 
Top Cat said:
Let's not start making **** up now shall we?
Click to expand...

I didn't make any stuff up. You said:


Top Cat said:
You don't get to decide what is right based on your religious beliefs. It is based upon laws. Those laws are not about religion.
Click to expand...

Is that not an attempt to suppress my opinion? You did say I am not allowed to decide (I.e.vote) based on my religious beliefs. Why not?

Ed? is that you?
Click to expand...

Sally?

Well other than that little gay marriage thing. No. None at all. Yawn.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Always has been. Gay people can marry anyone of another sex. But my opinion is government shouldn't regulate marriage. That would eliminate any violations of any rights, perceived or real. But I'm sure you'll find some reason to force Christians, Jews and Muslims to tolerate the bastardization of their beliefs.

Careful now, if you are calling a difference of opinion a lie, then you would be lying yourself. And I do believe that is a sin, at least according to your little book of fairy tales.
Click to expand...

You said there was a discrimination when there isn't. You may think that's an opinion, but when your opinion equates to 1+1=blue I'm going to call it a lie.
 
NIMBY said:
Don't we have a forum for Abortion digs?
While you're on it, when does life begin IYO?

And why do you oppose the 16th amendment ?
Click to expand...

It was a joke...
 
digsbe said:
The thing is they're not. The issue is redefining marriage to fit relationships that they prefer. They aren't denied the ability to marry, it's just the definition of marriage isn't in line with what they want in some places.
Click to expand...

Yeah -- they're free to marry outside of their sexual orientation. Super.
 
Northern Light said:
How is "I believe it is sin" an argument worth any merit? No one cares about what you believe, least of all your bigoted views which have no rational explanation.

Would hardly call this individual a hopeful. I'm sure people will vote for her because hate begets hate but in Oregon she's not going to get much support.
Click to expand...

When asked about some of the issues potentially facing voters, such as same-sex marriage, the 52-year-old business owner laid out her position.

“I would have to say, I definitely believe that that is wrong,” she said during the four-minute videotaped interview. “I believe it’s a sin, just the same as murder’s a sin.”
 
ksu_aviator said:
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Always has been.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and for a long time, marriage was between two people of the same race. And for centuries, adultery was not a sex crime but a property crime.

Definitions change. It's just now the definition is changing to include something that a bunch of Bronze Age primitives said was a "sin."

Too bad. This is a secular nation, and your book is not the be all and end all. Marriage is two people entering into a contract. There is no discernible reason that same-sex couples shouldn't have that ability.
 
Tell me the last time Seattle was in Oregon ludin. :lamo
ludin said:
seattle which is one of the largest cities there is very blue and very liberal.
Click to expand...
Since you're geographically challenged with Seattle, how would you know how "very blue" and "liberal" they are in Washington.
Let alone Oregon, the topic of the OP .
 
digsbe said:
The thing is they're not. The issue is redefining marriage
Click to expand...

According to Websters it has already been "redefined"

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
 
NIMBY said:
Tell me the last time Seattle was in Oregon ludin. :lamo

Since you're geographically challenged with Seattle, how would you know how "very blue" and "liberal" they are in Washington.
Let alone Oregon, the topic of the OP .
Click to expand...

Seattle is in fact very blue. WA is a strong blue state as well.
 
Kobie said:
Yeah -- they're free to marry outside of their sexual orientation. Super.
Click to expand...

Yup, just like the guy who's religion allows for polygamy can't have multiple wives. No one is stopping them from having sex or living together, it's just the legal union of marriage that does not have a definition that caters to those relationships in some areas.

I'm all for SSM, but I'm also against the progressive hypocrisy constantly shown on the issue and the slander that those against SSM face pretty constantly.
 
Kobie said:
Yeah, and for a long time, marriage was between two people of the same race. And for centuries, adultery was not a sex crime but a property crime.

Definitions change. It's just now the definition is changing to include something that a bunch of Bronze Age primitives said was a "sin."

Too bad. This is a secular nation, and your book is not the be all and end all. Marriage is two people entering into a contract. There is no discernible reason that same-sex couples shouldn't have that ability.
Click to expand...

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom