• 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

vesper said:
But people are losing their jobs if they refuse to participate in things that violate their moral conscience especially small business owners that the state has made law. By you stating that we should get rid of the law proves you realize this to be a fact.
Click to expand...

Actually my point on changing the law refers to the business owner having the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Your point of a person losing their job because they refuse to do something against their conscience however...well, I have no problem with someone being fired for refusing to do the work that they voluntarily signed up for. If they were forced to work in that business that would be one thing. But they are there voluntarily. As such I have no problem with them being fired for refusing to do the work because of a moral decision that they no doubt had before even applying for the job. For instance any Muslim that works at a grocery store is inevitibally going to have to handle pork and beer. Yet knowing that they still willingly apply for the job. If they refuse then it is their fault for applying for a job that they knew involved handling those two products that went against their religion. There are a billion jobs out there. There is no valid reason to apply to one that you know is going to conflict with your beliefs. And to get all pissy about it after the fact is just BS.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't believe judges are infallible. And I believe the argument in support of marriage for all would resonate better if it came from people's own beliefs and not those of judges, unless you or anyone else plans to never question the rulings of any judges on anything again. Me, I would never commit to that.

I'll be asleep later (soon) so have a good night and we'll talk again soon!
Click to expand...

I'm under no illision as to the fallibility of judges. I fully believe that Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional and state it often. But I think we're getting mixed up in what we are talking about here. 1 judge I have no problem contesting. A panel of 9 judges I have no problem contesting. But I do start to think that maybe my reasoning may be off when 30+ judges that are not related or associated with each other in any way shape or form other than their rulings and them being a judge says that I'm wrong. I apply the same reasoning to many subjects. For instance climate change. I doubt that climate change is due to the result of mankind for various reasons which I won't get into here as this thread is not about that. But I rarely participate in that section on these forums because there are so many scientists saying that I'm wrong. I still believe that I'm right, but there is still a chance that I'm wrong also. Because I am human and fallible also. As such I pretty much keep my mouth closed except on rare occasions.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually my point on changing the law refers to the business owner having the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Your point of a person losing their job because they refuse to do something against their conscience however...well, I have no problem with someone being fired for refusing to do the work that they voluntarily signed up for. If they were forced to work in that business that would be one thing. But they are there voluntarily. As such I have no problem with them being fired for refusing to do the work because of a moral decision that they no doubt had before even applying for the job. For instance any Muslim that works at a grocery store is inevitibally going to have to handle pork and beer. Yet knowing that they still willingly apply for the job. If they refuse then it is their fault for applying for a job that they knew involved handling those two products that went against their religion. There are a billion jobs out there. There is no valid reason to apply to one that you know is going to conflict with your beliefs. And to get all pissy about it after the fact is just BS.
Click to expand...

And my point was directed mainly to the small business owner who does not answer to another. And to the health care provider that faces multiple moral dilemmas within that profession or to those who work in social welfare positions where state/federal mandates force them to close their doors or because of moral conscience can no longer meet the mandates for funding so they shut down at the loss to society. All facets where moral conscience is not being protected.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Thanks. Please point out anything in this passage that cant be applied to a gay couple as well?

"The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple). There are a number of aspects to this new union.

As far as emotional attachments are concerned, the new unit takes precedence over all previous and future relationships (Genesis 2:24). Some marriage partners continue to place greater weight upon ties with parents than with the new partner. This is a recipe for disaster in the marriage and is a perversion of God’s original intention of “leaving and cleaving.” A similar problem can develop when a spouse begins to draw closer to a child to meet emotional needs rather than to his or her partner.

Emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, financially, and in every other way, the couple is to become one."
Click to expand...

It mentions 'husband and wife' or 'man and woman' more then a few times but, never man and man or woman and woman.

Catch the drift.
 
tres borrachos said:
The difference between me & you, Deuce, is I pointed out your hypocrisy. As I said (and you apparently missed), you are free to insult them all you want. But be prepared to have it called out that you are insuting their protected Constitutional rights.

I don't expect you to understand the distinction.
Click to expand...

You are the one misunderstanding. I'm not insulting their right. I'm not suggesting it's bad that they express their opinion. I'm suggesting their opinion is bad. Quit trying to play the victim card about someone else's right that isn't being attacked. They get to talk all day long about how much they hate gay people. I encourage them to express their opinions, in fact, because every GOP candidate who goes rabidly anti-equality is just another potential target in the next election. The social ultraconservatives keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for the Republicans.

How come you haven't said one word about those types insulting people like me? Or homosexuals? How come you haven't cried about them attacking my rights? How come you are attacking my rights right now?
 
vesper said:
Quit being intellectually dishonest. It wasn't just one word. The judge clearly made it about hurt feelings in part. You have a peaceful night too WorldWatcher. Peace
Click to expand...

No, he didn't say it was just about "hurt feelings."
 
Deuce said:
No, he didn't say it was just about "hurt feelings."
Click to expand...
And read what I said AGAIN. I said his ruling was in PART based of "hurt feelings". geesh
 
roguenuke said:
Who cares? It doesn't matter. Those laws are still against the US Constitution. Many are realizing that and pushing back against those who decided to prevent same sex couples from marrying because it scared them. The Constitution is on our side with this one. It doesn't matter the support of the majority or the amount who pushed back (in the past).

The majority did not support interracial marriage in the 1960s. Support nationwide for allowing blacks and whites to marry each other was around 20%. That is below the support for same sex marriage. Heck, that is below the support for same sex marriage in the 1990s, when these bans started getting enacted.
Click to expand...

For future reference (as repeated on numerous occasions) I reject any comparison of Gay unions and interracial marriage. IMO they're simply not the same in the eyes of God.

There is no Biblical sin in interracial marriage.
 
vesper said:
And read what I said AGAIN. I said his ruling was in PART based of "hurt feelings". geesh
Click to expand...

Then why are you ignoring the rest of it?
 
WCH said:
For future reference (as repeated on numerous occasions) I reject any comparison of Gay unions and interracial marriage. IMO they're simply not the same in the eyes of God.

There is no Biblical sin in interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

For future reference, I reject any reference to God as a basis for law. Sharia Law is unacceptable in this country.
 
WCH said:
So what.

Now how many push back? How many bothered to go to the polls and cast their vote against allowing SSM in their state?
Click to expand...

All four votes went to the marriage equality side in 2012.
 
tres borrachos said:
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?
Click to expand...

And if y'all notice, the Roman empire crashed and burned.
 
WCH said:
And if y'all notice, the Roman empire crashed and burned.
Click to expand...

Do you think this was because of the gays? Do you think the gays will make America crash and burn?
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm under no illision as to the fallibility of judges. I fully believe that Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional and state it often. But I think we're getting mixed up in what we are talking about here. 1 judge I have no problem contesting. A panel of 9 judges I have no problem contesting. But I do start to think that maybe my reasoning may be off when 30+ judges that are not related or associated with each other in any way shape or form other than their rulings and them being a judge says that I'm wrong. I apply the same reasoning to many subjects. For instance climate change. I doubt that climate change is due to the result of mankind for various reasons which I won't get into here as this thread is not about that. But I rarely participate in that section on these forums because there are so many scientists saying that I'm wrong. I still believe that I'm right, but there is still a chance that I'm wrong also. Because I am human and fallible also. As such I pretty much keep my mouth closed except on rare occasions.
Click to expand...

I never engage in the Climate Change discussions either, mostly because they don't interest me.

Don't get me wrong - I think the decisions of these judges are fine too, but it's because of my own personal Libertarian-type attitudes about people being able to do whatever they want. The Constitution gives us individual liberties first and foremost, so individual liberties to do whatever you want are primary to me. Marriage liberties aren't the issue IMO - it's individual liberty that makes it all a moot point.
 
Deuce said:
You are the one misunderstanding. I'm not insulting their right. I'm not suggesting it's bad that they express their opinion. I'm suggesting their opinion is bad. Quit trying to play the victim card about someone else's right that isn't being attacked. They get to talk all day long about how much they hate gay people. I encourage them to express their opinions, in fact, because every GOP candidate who goes rabidly anti-equality is just another potential target in the next election. The social ultraconservatives keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for the Republicans.

How come you haven't said one word about those types insulting people like me? Or homosexuals? How come you haven't cried about them attacking my rights? How come you are attacking my rights right now?
Click to expand...

Attacking your rights? Okay, now I understand your passion for the topic. I didn't know you were gay. So you have a vested interest in the topic, which explains your passion. Passion is a good thing when it's channeled in a positive direction.

I may have missed the posts by WCH and Vesper where they say all day long that they "hate gay people". Where are they? I've really only seen them articulate why their views differ from yours.
 
Deuce said:
Do you think this was because of the gays? Do you think the gays will make America crash and burn?
Click to expand...

Lust, greed and gluttony etc. definitely brought Rome down and Yes I do thinks acceptance of sin in this country will be it's demise.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Then why are you ignoring the rest of it?
Click to expand...
Who is ignoring the rest of his ruling? No one. You missed the point completely. It is the fact that a judge is basing any part of his ruling on "feelings" rather than strictly focused on law, is questionable at the very least.
 
WCH said:
I'm talking about the voting public, not the courts.
Click to expand...

Uhh, yeah dude. So was I. There were four ballot measures on the subject in 2012. Your side lost all four. Three states voted to legalize same sex marriage, and Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. (Same sex marriage legalized legislatively later)

Another state has abandoned its 2014 ballot measure to ban same sex marriage. Indiana? I forget which.
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
Lust, greed and gluttony etc. definitely brought Rome down and Yes I do thinks acceptance of sin in this country will be it's demise.
Click to expand...

And on what historical facts or documents do you base the idea that lust brought down Rome?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom