• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Deuce said:
Now you're picking and choosing which things you morally approve should be illegal and which ones should be legal. :lamo
Click to expand...

It's funny that he mentions fornication as an example of unnatural and against natural law...I forget where in nature they handed out marriage licenses a thousand yrs ago? Or legitimized it in anyway?
 
Lursa said:
We already discussed this. There is no such thing as natural law, it is just an obvious workaround for the religious to make an argument that 'nature' is guided by a higher being or force.

It's not so your entire argument is null and void.
Click to expand...

There is natural law.
 
Lursa said:
It's funny that he mentions fornication as an example of unnatural and against natural law...I forget where in nature they handed out marriage licenses a thousand yrs ago? Or legitimized it in anyway?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the act of fornication is unnatural. It is irrational because humans naturally have permanent mates.

Marriage occurred 1000 years ago.
 
Paleocon said:
I didn't say that the act of fornication is unnatural. It is irrational because humans naturally have permanent mates.

Marriage occurred 1000 years ago.
Click to expand...

And the first marriages were group marriages and could be dissolved at will, which contradicts your whole "humans naturally have permanent mates". For the most part, humans have not been mate for life animals, where the first person they mate with is their permanent mate from then on. In fact, most are more into serial monogamy or polygamy than absolute monogamy. Other humans who gained power attempted at various times in history to force others to live by a standard or convinced others that they should live by a standard where humans should have permanent mates, but it is not truly in our nature to do this. You cannot prove that it is. The vast majority of human history contradicts this belief that it is in our nature.

Oh, and marriages occurred in at least some form over 10000 years ago. They have existed for quite a long time, much longer than "1000 years".
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
I have never advocated a theocracy.
Click to expand...

Actually, you have. You want to impose your view of 'natural' law at a minimum. It's theocracy, whether your religion is libertarianism or Catholicism or whatever you call yours. I don't much care, but when you make moral judgments, then want law to reflect YOURS and ONLY YOURS, that's theocracy, if not in name then in practice.
 
JasperL said:
Actually, you have. You want to impose your view of 'natural' law at a minimum. It's theocracy, whether your religion is libertarianism or Catholicism or whatever you call yours. I don't much care, but when you make moral judgments, then want law to reflect YOURS and ONLY YOURS, that's theocracy, if not in name then in practice.
Click to expand...

The dictionary is your friend.

I advocate a Catholic confessional state, not a theocracy.
 
Paleocon said:
The dictionary is your friend.

I advocate a Catholic confessional state, not a theocracy.
Click to expand...
A Catholic confessional state sounds a lot like a type of theocracy to me.
 
Paleocon said:
There is natural law.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

You are not discussing biology, you are discussing subjective issues related to natural acts.
 
Paleocon said:
I didn't say that the act of fornication is unnatural. It is irrational because humans naturally have permanent mates.

Marriage occurred 1000 years ago.
Click to expand...

It is not irrational because humans naturally shop around before picking a permanent mate.

And I was not being particularly accurate with 1000 yrs, I meant since humans evolved.
 
Paleocon said:
The dictionary is your friend.

I advocate a Catholic confessional state, not a theocracy.
Click to expand...

OK, that's fine, but you're an ideologue and I find debating with religious ideologues sort of pointless. There can be no compromise with them - something is true because it's true. Gay sex is wrong because it's wrong. Laws that restrict recognizing those who engage in gay sex are virtuous because gay sex is wrong. End of inquiry. No point trying to move you off that stool.
 
JasperL said:
OK, that's fine, but you're an ideologue and I find debating with religious ideologues sort of pointless. There can be no compromise with them - something is true because it's true. Gay sex is wrong because it's wrong. Laws that restrict recognizing those who engage in gay sex are virtuous because gay sex is wrong. End of inquiry. No point trying to move you off that stool.
Click to expand...

Your withdrawal from the argument is accepted.
 
Paleocon said:
No it's not.
Click to expand...

"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group"
 
Deuce said:
And how can you have a "Catholic confessional state" if Catholocism isn't defining laws?
Click to expand...

The civil government would be run by laypersons.
 
Deuce said:
Ahh, so you want non-catholics to institute Catholic law for you :lamo
Click to expand...

The government would be run by Catholic laypersons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom