• 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, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

You do realize those "bible thumpers" are usually Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't like their aggressive behavior either.

The Bible thumpers showed up around here plenty during the period leading up to our vote on SSM. Mainstream Christians.

They also show up to bring around petitions on other issues, like pot legalization.

There are all over the grocery store entrances.
 
Really? We've already discussed, in depth, that there is no driving force behind nature with a higher purpose. NONE.

And exactly who is doing all that 'damnation' then? lol

It is not necessary to prove God's existence to prove Hell's existence.

Those who commits grievous sins in their life, will naturally experience suffering in the afterlife, since they cannot be perfect.

Since this suffering would be eternal in character, it would involve the absolute despair which is indicated by damnation.
 
It is not necessary to prove God's existence to prove Hell's existence.

You cannot prove hell exists.

Those who commits grievous sins in their life, will naturally experience suffering in the afterlife, since they cannot be perfect.

Since this suffering would be eternal in character, it would involve the absolute despair which is indicated by damnation.

You cannot prove this as fact. It is just your opinion. That is what you really hate, not being able to force people to follow your opinion.
 
I'm sure whatever you just said was very nice.
 
The Bible thumpers showed up around here plenty during the period leading up to our vote on SSM. Mainstream Christians.

They also show up to bring around petitions on other issues, like pot legalization.

There are all over the grocery store entrances.

Yeah, most of the ones that come my way formally lived under communist regimes... I'm a Catholic but the "save your soul" usually turns into a WWII and Eastern European anti-communist discussion and I end up learning more from first hand accounts/experiences than I ever could out of a book.
 
Wqg0jwO.jpeg
 
It is not necessary to prove God's existence to prove Hell's existence.

Those who commits grievous sins in their life, will naturally experience suffering in the afterlife, since they cannot be perfect.

Since this suffering would be eternal in character, it would involve the absolute despair which is indicated by damnation.


LOLOLOL

Neither can be proven. Neither has any substance at all except in your mind.

I would hate to live with that over my head. So I dont :mrgreen:
 
Yeah, most of the ones that come my way formally lived under communist regimes... I'm a Catholic but the "save your soul" usually turns into a WWII and Eastern European anti-communist discussion and I end up learning more from first hand accounts/experiences than I ever could out of a book.

Not here. Just people living in town and going to church on Sundays.

And often, not practicing what they hear preached.
 
LOLOLOL

Neither can be proven. Neither has any substance at all except in your mind.

I would hate to live with that over my head. So I dont :mrgreen:

I don't worry about false potentials.
 
No. Mainly because the people would not approve of such an act just because. However, if some movement came along and gained enough popularity to show how harmful tanning salons were, gaining enough votes to outlaw them, then yes, the government (not just a single person in government, but a majority) could close down all tanning establishments, and there would be nothing the owners could do about it.

How many legally operating opium dens do you see today in the US?
Well of course government can regulate, but that doesn't mean that "there is also no constitutional right to own a business that is open to the public,..."
 
It is not necessary to prove God's existence to prove Hell's existence.

Those who commits grievous sins in their life, will naturally experience suffering in the afterlife, since they cannot be perfect.

Since this suffering would be eternal in character, it would involve the absolute despair which is indicated by damnation.

There is no afterlife. You're terrified of nothing. I guess that's okay, you bow down to nothing too.
 
It is not necessary to prove God's existence to prove Hell's existence.

Those who commits grievous sins in their life, will naturally experience suffering in the afterlife, since they cannot be perfect.

Since this suffering would be eternal in character, it would involve the absolute despair which is indicated by damnation.

No one is "perfect" man - we're all flawed and at least in my religion Jesus sacrificed himself knowing that we are all flawed and will commit sin.

I suppose intent is really what makes a sin a sin...
 
There is no such thing as same sex marriage. It can no more be legalized than square circles.

Actually, there is. Your denial or reality is quite irrelevant.
 
Well of course government can regulate, but that doesn't mean that "there is also no constitutional right to own a business that is open to the public,..."

There isn't one written into the Constitution. Wasn't that the logic behind "there is no constitutional right to equal protection", it wasn't actually written in the Constitution?
 
No one is "perfect" man - we're all flawed and at least in my religion Jesus sacrificed himself knowing that we are all flawed and will commit sin.

I suppose intent is really what makes a sin a sin...

In the afterlife, the just will be made perfect.
 
In the afterlife, the just will be made perfect.

Nope, you'll just be dead like the rest of us. Deal with reality for once.
 
That's very nice.

Yeah, it would be, but we have no real expectations that you'll just deal with the way things actually are instead of the way you wish they were in your wildest dreams.
 
In the afterlife, the just will be made perfect.

Perfect is overrated, and that even assumes we can agree on perfect is. I prefer imperfections.
 
There isn't one written into the Constitution. Wasn't that the logic behind "there is no constitutional right to equal protection", it wasn't actually written in the Constitution?
No, that wasn't the logic.

We cannot be deprived of liberty without due process of law, this includes the liberty to conduct business and secure private contracts. This right is not like unlimited, but it is secured by the Constitution; the government cannot infringe on this right in an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious manner.

The "right to be served" is a legal right; it is not secured by the Constitution, but by legislation enacted by Congress. It is a right in the same sense that a lemon law gives us the "right" to a replacement or refund on a bad car. These rights can be taken away as quickly as they were created.
 
As the Supreme Court prepares to decide the future of same-sex marriage--an institution described as "newer than cellphones or the internet by one justice last year--two things are clear.
Despite this year's breathtaking string of lower court victories, the battle for marriage equality hasn't been swift or easy. To the lawyers who devised the legal strategy decades ago, the journey has been arduous, the setbacks plentiful, and the battle scars deep.

And even after the high court rules--most likely striking down state bans on gay marriage at the end of its term in June--the fight won't be over. Another clash looms over the issue of religious freedom.

Read the article here: Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

It looks like this battle has reached an important point.I don't believe that the 1st Amendment will stop this from happening.

Churches will be able to do what they want to do, but businesses will have to obey the law whether they like it or not.

There is something about the idea that "business" is an activity that requires permission that seems wrong. Do we not have the right to engage in commerce or refrain as we see fit? Also to "obey" assumes an act, to not act seems fair with respect to ones own conscience.
 
Back
Top Bottom