• 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!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

Tucker Case said:
But you do not require absolute proof in order to hold and promote your view of morality. This is a hypocritical stance.
Click to expand...

It doesn't end there. The hidden hypocrisy is that mac views marriage as a religious institution and he is a divorcee. :roll:
 
CriticalThought said:
It doesn't end there. The hidden hypocrisy is that mac views marriage as a religious institution and he is a divorcee. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, whether or not divorce is immoral religiously speaking would depend on whether or not his wife was unfaithful in their marriage, which is none of our business, really.

An argument can be made, though, that remarriage is always adulterous and immoral, regardless of infidelity in the previous marraige.

But that's not a universal belief.
 
CriticalThought said:
It doesn't end there. The hidden hypocrisy is that mac views marriage as a religious institution and he is a divorcee. :roll:
Click to expand...

imo, marriage is and should be a religious institution. any marriage not blessed by a church is a civil union, whatever we may choose to call it. therefore, gays should be allowed civil unions just as heterosexuals are. chrusches don't have to perform any ceremony they don't want to perform, just as it is now. anyone who objects to THIS, imo, is bigoted.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, whether or not divorce is immoral religiously speaking would depend on whether or not his wife was unfaithful in their marriage, which is none of our business, really.

An argument can be made, though, that remarriage is always adulterous and immoral, regardless of infidelity in the previous marraige.

But that's not a universal belief.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he said he is on his second marriage.
 
CriticalThought said:
You want scientific evidence disproving your religous beliefs?
Click to expand...

mac said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

You do realize the absurdity of citing a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's existence, right? By presenting a theory that by its very definition cannot be disproved and then demanding others to disprove it, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof with an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 
TheBook said:
You do realize the absurdity of citing a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's existence, right? By presenting a theory that by its very definition cannot be disproved and then demanding others to disprove it, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof with an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Click to expand...

At this point he has used appeals to normality, appeals to nature, appeals to tradition, appeals to the majority, appeals to faith, etc. to argue his point. He doesn't do basic logic.
 
CriticalThought said:
At this point he has used appeals to normality, appeals to nature, appeals to tradition, appeals to the majority, appeals to faith, etc. to argue his point. He doesn't do basic logic.
Click to expand...

Well, duh.

At this point it's about half me brushing up on my debating skills and half curiosity as to how he will justify obvious illogical arguments.
 
Your Star said:
Having marriage for straight couples, and civil unions for LGBT couples is redundant, and is unconstitutional, you know separate but equal.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, due to the religious difference.

You are wrong.
Click to expand...

am not.

So your whole argument against denying people equality under law is because society wants too?
Click to expand...

no more so than your argument is "because I said so"

Like I said, that isn't good enough.
Click to expand...

Whatev
 
TheBook said:
You do realize the absurdity of citing a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's existence, right?
Click to expand...

Where did I ask anyone to prove God does or doesn't exist? What I said was that I need there to be scientific evidence concerning homosexuality to overcome my religious belief on the issue. Without it there is no more reason to believe your theory than mine.

By presenting a theory that by its very definition cannot be disproved and then demanding others to disprove it, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof with an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Click to expand...

That's not what I am doing. I'm asking that my religious beliefs on this particular issue be steadfastly countered. As you point out, I can't prove that God exists, and so I can't prove what he says is right. If something can be proven that scientifically contradicts my religion, than I will believe the science, not ignore it in favor of the religion.
 
mac said:
As you point out, I can't prove that God exists, and so I can't prove what he says is right. If something can be proven that scientifically contradicts my religion, than I will believe the science, not ignore it in favor of the religion.
Click to expand...

The Bible does not say why homosexuality is wrong, only that it is wrong. Nobody can disprove why the God in the Bible thinks homosexuality is wrong if nobody knows exactly why the God in the Bible thinks that homosexuality is wrong.
 
mac said:
I'm asking that my religious beliefs on this particular issue be steadfastly countered. As you point out, I can't prove that God exists, and so I can't prove what he says is right. If something can be proven that scientifically contradicts my religion, than I will believe the science, not ignore it in favor of the religion.
Click to expand...

Then what exactly is your religion's statement that would need to be contradicted scientifically?
 
mac said:
I don't think so, due to the religious difference.
Click to expand...

Why should your religious view have an impact on law and not mine? This is precisely the reason why our laws aren't based on religion. Your argument holds no validity.


am not.
Click to expand...

No, your wrong, if there was a public vote on such issues it would have been shot down.


no more so than your argument is "because I said so"
Click to expand...

That's not my argument, you just wish that was my argument, when in reality that is your argument. The irony here is amazing.

Whatev
Click to expand...

You can't counter what I say, or defeat it logically so you dismiss it, noted.
 
mac said:
In some ways, in others not. Very few things are as cut and dry as you like to think.
Click to expand...

It's not cut and dry for people who would like to legislate morality. It is cut and dry for taxpaying citizens who are considered equal to all others under their constitution.
 
CriticalThought said:
The Bible does not say why homosexuality is wrong, only that it is wrong. Nobody can disprove why the God in the Bible thinks homosexuality is wrong if nobody knows exactly why the God in the Bible thinks that homosexuality is wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think God would make people homosexual then tell them not to be. Free will is one thing, but that would just be cruel.
 
theplaydrive said:
It's not cut and dry for people who would like to legislate morality. It is cut and dry for taxpaying citizens who are considered equal to all others under their constitution.
Click to expand...

Rape, murder, theft...all morality.
 
Your Star said:
Why should your religious view have an impact on law and not mine? This is precisely the reason why our laws aren't based on religion. Your argument holds no validity.
Click to expand...

Because mine is in majority, laws are definitely based on religion and morality.

No, your wrong, if there was a public vote on such issues it would have been shot down.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, maybe not.

That's not my argument, you just wish that was my argument, when in reality that is your argument. The irony here is amazing.
Click to expand...

The Irony here, is that I was implying that it was NOT your argument, but you got defensive anyway. Proof that you're only interested in opposing anything I say rather then trying to understand it.

You can't counter what I say, or defeat it logically so you dismiss it, noted.
Click to expand...

Why would you think I would try to counter "That ain't good enough."? That's you're opinion...you're entitled to it.
 
TheBook said:
Then what exactly is your religion's statement that would need to be contradicted scientifically?
Click to expand...

It's not that simple.

Like I've said several times now, any conclusive proof that people are born homosexual or learn to be homosexual through no choice of their own.
 
mac said:
Because mine is in majority, laws are definitely based on religion and morality.
Click to expand...

Not in America, you can't base laws off of religion in America.

The Irony here, is that I was implying that it was NOT your argument, but you got defensive anyway. Proof that you're only interested in opposing anything I say rather then trying to understand it.
Click to expand...

You said my argument was "because I said so", no way else to take your statement.

Why would you think I would try to counter "That ain't good enough."? That's you're opinion...you're entitled to it.
Click to expand...

By trying to prove that it is good enough? But you can't, so....
 
Your Star said:
Not in America, you can't base laws off of religion in America.
Click to expand...

That's not true. The people that vote for the legislatures, and the legislatures themselves are religious. Therefor, the laws they make are influenced by religion.

You said my argument was "because I said so", no way else to take your statement.
Click to expand...

No, I said "no more so than your argument is because I said so." Please re-read the original post.

By trying to prove that it is good enough? But you can't, so....
Click to expand...

I can't prove that it doesn't meet your approval? Why would I want to do that?
 
theplaydrive said:
Rape, murder, theft...all invasions of security and freedom.
Click to expand...

Same Sex Marriage, not an invasion of security and freedom, that is what mac doesn't seem to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom