• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

You do realize that we have higher cognitive functions than a cat or dog, right? We learn things, including the fact that there is an advantage to more than one adult providing resources/protection/guidance for our young.

Yes, we have thumbs and larger brains - that still doesn't change the fact... If anything it proves my point that humans value skills rather than "normal" alpha animal traits... Which contradicts your logic of marriage...
 
The hell they aren't! You are making people of faith ignore their moral conscience forcing them to perform services for same sex marriages which is something they find to be an abomination. Because if they don't they can go to jail, face financial ruin and lose their business. And yes if you can get away with that it isn't that far off with activist judges and a hatred on the left for people of faith whom you are already suppressing that you will soon be suppressing their places of worship forcing your discrimination BS on them too.

Oh, and most of those places where the major cases that showed a violation of accommodation laws, where people were sued for discriminating against gays, same sex marriage wasn't even legal there. So it proves that same sex marriage being legal is not at all necessary to violate state laws against not being allowed to discriminate against people, even if your religious beliefs are that you think you should.
 
Yes, we have thumbs and larger brains - that still doesn't change the fact... If anything it proves my point that humans value skills rather than "normal" alpha animal traits... Which contradicts your logic of marriage...

No, it doesn't contradict anything I stated. We learn and grow, develop. That is the main advantage we as humans have. We adapt using our brains, our intelligence. Learning what works best for us to survive. Marriage was one of those things we learned works, at least for now. It may not be necessary when we grow a little wiser.
 
Too bad. If you don't want to have your business do business with the entire public, then don't open your business to the entire public.

There are plenty of people out there who still consider interracial marriages/relationships to be an abomination. There are in fact people out there who do not feel it is right to have races eating in the same places or shopping in the same places or living in the same places. Why is your moral conscience or the moral consciences of those opposed to same sex marriage/homosexuality more valid than the moral consciences of those who are racists or against people of a certain religion or all religions or a person who doesn't respect or want to do business with people of a certain sex?

Yep see you keep making my point, you will force a person to conform and violate his moral conscience even if that means to the point of denying him a right to make a living. Disgusting
 
How does 2 Emperors marrying men (outside of the normal societal acceptance) make him "ignorant"? Emperor Caligula made his horse a Senator, but that doesn't mean that society accepted horses as having the same rights as humans. He made that decision as an Emperor.

In which societies was SSM legal, commonplace, and accepted as the norm?

Ming Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty China. Siwa Egypt, Ancient Greece, Medieval France, Two Spirit Native Americans, etc. I am not sure what qualifies as "commonplace" given that gays account for like 2-5% of any population. But there is more than enough historical record that same sex unions have been practiced throughout the world through human history and have even been officially sanctioned. You and Fenton do not actually care about true history and you would prefer to ignore it and spout nonsense because it contradicts the worldview you were taught to accept.
 
The hell they aren't! You are making people of faith ignore their moral conscience forcing them to perform services for same sex marriages which is something they find to be an abomination. Because if they don't they can go to jail, face financial ruin and lose their business. And yes if you can get away with that it isn't that far off with activist judges and a hatred on the left for people of faith whom you are already suppressing that you will soon be suppressing their places of worship forcing your discrimination BS on them too.

once again there is no fore that's is there moronic choice for breaking the law, no onw made them break the law.
Im a Christian I know how laws and rights work. If i opened up a business and choose to illegally break the law or infringe on others rights i would have to be a complete idiot to think i get treated special because of my religion. Why would i ever be stupid enough to think the laws/rules dont apply to me like they do everybody else lol Your strawman and hyperbole are complete failures.

force
activist judges
hatred on the left for people for faith
soon churches will be forced too

all complete jokes
 
I did not say you did not, I said I cannot find argument from you supporting the decision.

More straw from the horse, I never said anything of the sort.....and this is just a cheap way of avoiding the debate.

you claim to "support gay marriage"....but disagree with the basic arguments supporting it.

How does that work? To me, it is a contradiction.

Well, then, you must have missed my many posts on this issue. That's too bad.

There is no debate here. We agree on SSM. I don't oppose same sex marriage because I don't oppose any kind of marriage between consenting adults. There, there's my opinion. Are you happy now? Are we finished? You've been begging for my opinion, even though everyone else reading my posts probably already knew my opinion. No charge for typing it special for you.

You can move to PA and marry your partner now if you want to. I for one think it's great if it's that important to commit to someone you love with a certificate to solidify the union. Problem solved!

Can I move on now? I've made at least a dozen posts to you on....I have no idea what?
 
It's either add more laws or do away with accommodation laws altogether.

more laws arent needed rights are already being protected
 
I hate to disappoint you but there is support for such a thing. It is being discussed and may be coming to a town near you soon. Stay tuned

Prove it. Show that there is significant support for it. Give me some actual proof to support your claims. Proof that there is a likely chance that this will gain momentum. I'm not seeing it. I'm hearing people talk about this from fringe groups, mainly from those who are against gays getting married and looking for an alternative, which is likely not support that will last.
 
No, it doesn't contradict anything I stated. We learn and grow, develop. That is the main advantage we as humans have. We adapt using our brains, our intelligence. Learning what works best for us to survive. Marriage was one of those things we learned works, at least for now. It may not be necessary when we grow a little wiser.

Do you honestly believe you're more developed than a "caveman" (this isn't a joke either)....

Knowledge and attributes?

Do you believe you developed the ****ing internet by yourself?

This is why people who think they're smart watch Survivor.
 
Ming Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty China. Siwa Egypt, Ancient Greece, Medieval France, Two Spirit Native Americans, etc. I am not sure what qualifies as "commonplace" given that gays account for like 2-5% of any population. But there is more than enough historical record that same sex unions have been practiced throughout the world through human history and have even been officially sanctioned. You and Fenton do not actually care about true history and you would prefer to ignore it and spout nonsense because it contradicts the worldview you were taught to accept.

Well, too bad. I'm in favor of SSM,but you see boogeymen with every post. I respected your post until the lie about me at the end. Damn. Oh well.

This is the kind of nonsense that makes me wonder just how open people will be to respect opposing views. It's obnoxious to attack for no reason.
 
Yep see you keep making my point, you will force a person to conform and violate his moral conscience even if that means to the point of denying him a right to make a living. Disgusting

I support laws that do not allow discrimination in business based on traits of individuals because I recognize that we are all dependent on others for resources due to our current society.

I don't support forcing people to attend any event or perform a ceremony for anyone that they do not wish to. There is a difference between providing services that there is no real connection to besides exchanging money for that product or service and providing services that you must personally attend. However, I also think that if you sign a contract to perform a service for a couple, then try to back out for reasons of "moral conscience", then you should be held accountable for breaking that contract and that means being sued.
 
I don't oppose same sex marriage because I don't oppose any kind of marriage between consenting adults.
I did not ask you the basis of a non-existent opposition, I asked what basis you have for supporting it, since you object to the bases already discussed.

Again, you approve without saying how.
 
It's either add more laws or do away with accommodation laws altogether.


Ummmm - did you miss the part were I said instead of adding more laws and granting "special rights", that they should be repealed?



>>>>
 
Do you honestly believe you're more developed than a "caveman" (this isn't a joke either)....

Knowledge and attributes?

Do you believe you developed the ****ing internet by yourself?

This is why people who think they're smart watch Survivor.

Are you trying to claim that we aren't more advanced, more knowledgeable than a caveman?

I have no idea what the hell Survivor has to do with this discussion.
 
Well, too bad. I'm in favor of SSM,but you see boogeymen with every post. I respected your post until the lie about me at the end. Damn. Oh well.

This is the kind of nonsense that makes me wonder just how open people will be to respect opposing views. It's obnoxious to attack for no reason.

I am tired of the same bullcrap. It all comes down to people oppose same sex marriage because it is not what they were taught to view marriage as. They come out with all these half baked rationalizations of "marriage is about procreation" or "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" but even under the lowest possible scrutiny of the facts those rationalizations are clearly incorrect and wrong. What they are really saying is they cannot see a purpose for marriage if it includes same sex couples. It is their problem. They have the issue. They are too narrow minded to see beyond their preconceptions and prejudices.
 
more laws arent needed rights are already being protected

Tell that to the nurse who lost her job because of her moral conscience could not allow her to assist in an abortion.
Tell that to the doctor that was hauled into court because he refused to artificially inseminate a single woman because his moral conscience believes his services were to assist married couples wanting children.
Tell that to those who work in social welfare with a code based on religious morals who end up having to close their doors because they can no longer operate on what the "state rules" says they must. And all those organizations out there who are so willing to help the needy that no longer qualify for government assistance because their moral conscience will not allow them to compromise to the government mandates they must comply to receive funding.
Tell that to the baker who had to close up his shop because he was found violating accommodation laws and if he didn't comply faces fines and jail time even though his state constitution promised him the right to practice his moral conscience.

What you want people to do is unconscionable. You want them to forget who they are and what they believe in order to work in the public square. What you are willing to deny a person, his identity, in the name of anti-discrimination is appalling and the worst discrimination of all. After all, if a person can't freely be who they are in the public square, they have lost their freedom.
 
Are you trying to claim that we aren't more advanced, more knowledgeable than a caveman?

I have no idea what the hell Survivor has to do with this discussion.

I'm trying to assert that present day humans are no different than cavemen...

I'm saying you're not the light bulb that lit the world.

I'm saying I highly doubt your knowledge of anthropology overrides mine..
 
Ummmm - did you miss the part were I said instead of adding more laws and granting "special rights", that they should be repealed?



>>>>

No I didn't miss that part at all. :lol:
 
Tell that to the nurse who lost her job because of her moral conscience could not allow her to assist in an abortion.
Tell that to the doctor that was hauled into court because he refused to artificially inseminate a single woman because his moral conscience believes his services were to assist married couples wanting children.
Tell that to those who work in social welfare with a code based on religious morals who end up having to close their doors because they can no longer operate on what the "state rules" says they must. And all those organizations out there who are so willing to help the needy that no longer qualify for government assistance because their moral conscience will not allow them to compromise to the government mandates they must comply to receive funding.
Tell that to the baker who had to close up his shop because he was found violating accommodation laws and if he didn't comply faces fines and jail time even though his state constitution promised him the right to practice his moral conscience.

What you want people to do is unconscionable. You want them to forget who they are and what they believe in order to work in the public square. What you are willing to deny a person, his identity, in the name of anti-discrimination is appalling and the worst discrimination of all. After all, if a person can't freely be who they are in the public square, they have lost their freedom.

Can you actually post real examples of all of these hypothetical situations? It is hard for me to take someone seriously when they are claiming someone is facing jail time for violating an "accommodation" law. In what state does that occur?
 
Tell that to the nurse who lost her job because of her moral conscience could not allow her to assist in an abortion.
Tell that to the doctor that was hauled into court because he refused to artificially inseminate a single woman because his moral conscience believes his services were to assist married couples wanting children.
Tell that to those who work in social welfare with a code based on religious morals who end up having to close their doors because they can no longer operate on what the "state rules" says they must. And all those organizations out there who are so willing to help the needy that no longer qualify for government assistance because their moral conscience will not allow them to compromise to the government mandates they must comply to receive funding.
Tell that to the baker who had to close up his shop because he was found violating accommodation laws and if he didn't comply faces fines and jail time even though his state constitution promised him the right to practice his moral conscience.

What you want people to do is unconscionable. You want them to forget who they are and what they believe in order to work in the public square. What you are willing to deny a person, his identity, in the name of anti-discrimination is appalling and the worst discrimination of all. After all, if a person can't freely be who they are in the public square, they have lost their freedom.

If you can't handle the duties of the job, find a different job. It is that simple.

I expect people to do their job or find a job they can do without violating their personal conscience. You go into business, then you are agreeing to the rules that govern business in that state. And that includes future rules that may come up. This is why businesses are some of the main people we see lobbying for and against certain laws. They are affected by those laws. But everyone is affected when businesses refuse to do business with the entire public based on claimed moral objections.
 
1.)Tell that to the nurse who lost her job because of her moral conscience could not allow her to assist in an abortion.
Tell that to the doctor that was hauled into court because he refused to artificially inseminate a single woman because his moral conscience believes his services were to assist married couples wanting children.
Tell that to those who work in social welfare with a code based on religious morals who end up having to close their doors because they can no longer operate on what the "state rules" says they must. And all those organizations out there who are so willing to help the needy that no longer qualify for government assistance because their moral conscience will not allow them to compromise to the government mandates they must comply to receive funding.
Tell that to the baker who had to close up his shop because he was found violating accommodation laws and if he didn't comply faces fines and jail time even though his state constitution promised him the right to practice his moral conscience.

2.)What you want people to do is unconscionable.
3.) You want them to forget who they are and what they believe in order to work in the public square.
4.) What you are willing to deny a person, his identity, in the name of anti-discrimination is appalling and the worst discrimination of all.
5.) After all, if a person can't freely be who they are in the public square, they have lost their freedom.

1.) dotnt know if any of that is true nor do i care one single bit. IF they broke the law and violated the rights of others, that was THEIR moronic choice for thinking they are above the law.
2.) so its unconscionable for people not to be stupid and break the law, to have the same rules for us all? yep so terrible LOL
3.) i do? please qoute me saying this lie, you will fail.
4.) factually false again they are free to have thier identity lol
5.) they can be who they are in a public square nobody said otherwise lol

do you ever not make stuff up? do you think these lies and dishonesty actual work and fool anybody educated and honest?

SOrry rights and freedom bother you but I dont get SPECIAL treatment for being a christian and neither does anybody else, we all play by the same rules and rights. If this bothers you there are countries out there that dont believe in rights and freedom, you could check them out.

Try russia you might have better luck there in thier public square lol
 
Can you actually post real examples of all of these hypothetical situations? It is hard for me to take someone seriously when they are claiming someone is facing jail time for violating an "accommodation" law. In what state does that occur?

Sure I could give you examples of all that I mentioned. I'll work on it tomorrow. The recent cases of the bakers, photographers, florists etc any services pertaining to weddings in some instances through the order of the court did give fines, and with the warning if they did not comply with accommodation laws faced jail time. In any event those I have been following ended up either not doing wedding ceremonies losing major revenue or closed up shop all together. But yeah, I'll give you examples.
 
Back
Top Bottom