• 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

1.) then your statment would be factually false then if you are including "all of the above"
2.) i agree that why i didnt say that and i asked you what you meant
3.) true and it could also mean more, again why i asked you what you meant because i didnt want to assume
4.) because you have no reason too depending on what form the opposition takes
5.) they may not be but they also may be
6.) lol why would you ever think i dont like thier freedom to practice thier religion? as a Christian thats NEVER an issue for me in fact if that constitutional right was ever under attack you'd find me fighting it tooth and nail

As soon as I learn that any of them are perpetrating acts of discrimination, I'll point that out. So far all I've seen is them expressing their religious beliefs, which they are entitled to have and which are protected by the Constitution.
 
They weren't racists, no, bigoted against homosexuals yes

Or maybe they were simply expressing their rights to have religious beliefs that are protected by the Constitution and differ from any beliefs you & I have.
 
"Amendment 2: This amendment establishes a lifetime prison sentence for any form of prayer within state territory"

Pretty simple i guess

So there's a good chance that progressives/liberals may try to pass a law in a state that makes it a punishable offense to pray in the privacy of one's own home? Good luck with that. I thought progressives/liberals valued privacy?
 
1.)As soon as I learn that any of them are perpetrating acts of discrimination, I'll point that out.
2.) So far all I've seen is them expressing their religious beliefs, which they are entitled to have and which are protected by the Constitution.

1.) my example provide that but you said all of the above, are you saying that was a mispost now?
2.) again this would simply depend on where you were looking, examples/analogies were brought up in this thread, at least i thought they were, that were not people expressing thier religious beliefs but breaking the law and violating rights hence why they paid the price.
 
1.) my example provide that but you said all of the above, are you saying that was a mispost now?
2.) again this would simply depend on where you were looking, examples/analogies were brought up in this thread, at least i thought they were, that were not people expressing thier religious beliefs but breaking the law and violating rights hence why they paid the price.

Which posters here broke the law? I may have come in late to this thread but the posts I read didn't give anything up that would make me believe any of them were committing crimes.
 
Or maybe they were simply expressing their rights to have religious beliefs that are protected by the Constitution and differ from any beliefs you & I have.


again to be clear about what im talking about


if one VOTES to deny others rights based on sexual orientation they are factually a bigot
there motivation for said vote doesnt change that fact
 
70% of those bigots in California who voted in favor of Prop 8 in 2008 voted for Barack Obama.

Bull ****.....you are pulling numbers out of your ass. Sure there were people who voted in favor of Prop 8 and voted for Obama but not even close to the numbers that you are claiming. DOH!
 
So there's a good chance that progressives/liberals may try to pass a law in a state that makes it a punishable offense to pray in the privacy of one's own home? Good luck with that. I thought progressives/liberals valued privacy?

I don't care about any of that, only exposing certain posters of obvious contradictions. When a ballot initiative coincides with their own beliefs despite violating the constitution and previous SCOTUS rulings, it's "our great democracy at work"; when a ballot drive takes away their guns or other things they desperately cling to it's "tyranny of the majority / unconstitutional"
 
1.)Which posters here broke the law? I may have come in late to this thread but the posts I read didn't give anything up that would make me believe any of them were committing crimes.

didnt say posters i said examples analogies and like i said i thought who your original qoute was to gave those analogizes or was replying to them

and you still havent clarified your statement "all of the above" yet, are you taking that back now?
 
70% of those bigots in California who voted in favor of Prop 8 in 2008 voted for Barack Obama.


Additionally....just because you vote for a black candidate doesn't make you a non-bigot....bigotry goes beyond color and race.
 
Bull ****.....you are pulling numbers out of your ass. Sure there were people who voted in favor of Prop 8 and voted for Obama but not even close to the numbers that you are claiming. DOH!

Sorry, what I meant to post was that 70% of the black bigots who voted for Obama voted in favor of Prop 8.
 
Obviously they weren't bigots if they voted for the black man.

Voting for a certain person, even someone of a certain race, does not exempt someone automatically from being a "bigot". There are plenty of people who aren't racist but still are bigots.

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

big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

There are bigots who are black, women, gay, crippled, white, straight, men, in interracial marriages, Christians, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, married, single, and all kinds of other labels. If someone has a negative view of someone solely for a single characteristic/trait of that person, and refuses to accept anything good about that person and/or feels that person should be treated differently (won't do business with them, won't serve them, believes they shouldn't be allowed to vote or marry or live in certain places, etc.) because of that trait, then that qualifies them as a bigot, no matter what other things they may do that are unrelated to their treatment of these "types" of people.
 
They are different because, in the same book, they considered sinful

Too bad in the eyes of the law this is irrelevant because "separation of church and state" and all

Amazing you can't get this simple concept. Move to saudi arabia if you want to live in theocracy
 
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.

Any lin between Gays and:

#1 Lust (which goes for everyone not just Gays)

#2 Greed

#3 gluttony (this means habitual greed, do you not know English?)

Sin varies per person, what you think is sin I consider is not sin. But of course this is all opinionated so no one is right or wrong.
 
didnt say posters i said examples analogies and like i said i thought who your original qoute was to gave those analogizes or was replying to them

and you still havent clarified your statement "all of the above" yet, are you taking that back now?

I was talking only about the posters in this thread in the post you asked me to calcify/clarify.

"All of the above" were rights that the posters in this thread who were being attacked had/have.
 
I don't care about any of that, only exposing certain posters of obvious contradictions. When a ballot initiative coincides with their own beliefs despite violating the constitution and previous SCOTUS rulings, it's "our great democracy at work"; when a ballot drive takes away their guns or other things they desperately cling to it's "tyranny of the majority / unconstitutional"

So then it's a moot point because there isn't a chance that states will try to ban prayer and/or guns.

We can come up with examples all day long of things that will never happen. They may put a proposal on my state's ballot banning dogs or prohibiting the eating of pizza on Tuesdays too. I'll worry about all of that when it happens.
 
So then it's a moot point because there isn't a chance that states will try to ban prayer and/or guns.

We can come up with examples all day long of things that will never happen. They may put a proposal on my state's ballot banning dogs or prohibiting the eating of pizza on Tuesdays too. I'll worry about all of that when it happens.

We've had states try to ban guns several times (although it happens more often that it is cities/communities rather than entire states), and those laws were struck down by the SCOTUS.
 
I was talking only about the posters in this thread in the post you asked me to calcify/clarify.

"All of the above" were rights that the posters in this thread who were being attacked had/have.

so it was not all of the above because that would still make it false since my list in all of the above included illegal discrimaintion and thats not a right
 
so it was not all of the above because that would still make it false since my list in all of the above included illegal discrimaintion and thats not a right

Okay, you and I see differently on this. You see them as bigots. I see them as people exercising their First Amendment rights and not breaking any laws.

In America we won't always see things the same way.
 
So then it's a moot point because there isn't a chance that states will try to ban prayer and/or guns.

We can come up with examples all day long of things that will never happen. They may put a proposal on my state's ballot banning dogs or prohibiting the eating of pizza on Tuesdays too. I'll worry about all of that when it happens.

Actually gun bans have been tried many times, and prayer banned at a school or attempts to use a loudspeaker at high school football field to pray, or a "ten commandments" granite block at the state government building. The conservatives always launch into hysteria at these rulings despite some of them are constitutionally correct.

Just pick anything, realistic or not, that clownboy wouldn't approve of and imagine it's put into law by oregon voters and there you have it, "tyranny of the majority"

That's why it's impossible to take these pleas for "more democracy/less activist judges" seriously. BTW, how many judges have to make this ruling for that complaint to die off? Is 13 in a row enough? Maybe next year, when the SCOTUS makes the same ruling? I'll take educated judges over the mob any day, especially when it comes to actually upholding the constitution!
 
Interesting you used the term 'WE'

Is this some sort of group effort or are you delusional?

Everyone in this and other SSM threads has seen you use the BIble to prop up your stance on SSM. That is the 'we.'

They post direct questions to you disputing the validity of using that to base law on. Have you missed that, or are you delusional?


Now, the diversion didnt work: can you explain how this passage (from your link) doesnt apply just the same to gays or not? Otherwise, that is another argument that does not work.

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."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom