• 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!

Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

Do you think the belief that homosexual sex is a sin should be banned?

Should priests be forced to marry gay couples?

1: I have said nothing at all like that

2: This has nothing to do with your fixation on sodomy.
 

Dude read your own article:

COPENHAGEN - Denmark, a pioneer in gay rights, on Thursday saw its parliament vote overwhelmingly in favour of allowing homosexuals to marry in the state Evangelical Lutheran Church.

snip

Pastors in the state church will however not be obliged to marry homosexual couples if they feel it goes against their personal beliefs, according to an annex to the bill.
 

from your own link; "Pastors in the state church will however not be obliged to marry homosexual couples if they feel it goes against their personal beliefs, according to an annex to the bill." Also, of course this Bill was passed in Denmark, and American Laws would govern a similar Bill in America, so what first amendment? No Danish Constitution has ever been amended, so this Bill doesn't go against any Constitutional Amendments. I'm almost tempted to assume you're trying to imply that allowing churches to choose whether gay couples can get married in their church, infringes on the Churches' Constitutional right to choose what religion they believe ?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by bubbabgone

I was asking you why you think the rest of the pro-SSM crowd here doesn't appear to have the courage or intellectual commitment to answer the way you did..

You'd have to ask them, wouldn't you? ...

I tried that.
No answer.
It's like they're not true-believers ... not willing to accept all the implications of their position ... like they have unspoken motivations.
So I figured I'd ask you what you thought since you're of the same mind about SSM ... at least up to a point.
Maybe you think you'd be selling them out if you were honest.
 
What does that have to do with your fixation on sodomy. Hint: stop watching gay porn, it is not an accurate representation of the sex lives of gays.

Then what would be? ... hey wait ... how do you know? ... you have to be pretty familiar with both to make that kind of sweeping judgement.
 
Last edited:
The original question posed (yes, perhaps regrettably) was what if you found out that etc.
That's a whole lot different than the question you posed about a big fat fraud getting elected.
The foundation for my question actually exists in the findings of some studies.
So if the findings are accepted the question can be answered.
True ... I could have said up front that statistical evidence exists ... but where's the fun in that?
Your question required speculation while mine asked for a reaction.

Actually until you provide evidence, I stand by my statement. What if scenarios are pointless. If you have evidence to what you are saying, then present it. Otherwise I'm not going to indulge you on what-if scenarios as they can't be proven true nor false.
 
You're sounding like a Fascist. Your morality is another man's sin. We have a First Amendment in the United States. Just because you're a Godless Atheist doesn't mean you have the right to censor thought and morality other than your own. Gays are demanding to change the definition of marriage since it's been known since the beginning of time. There are very real moral objections to this which is why it should left to the states to determine what they want their definitions of marriage to be.

how do you interpret that saying this:

I'm tolerant of any moral position which can be rationally justified. Believing in things handed down from an imaginary friend in the sky is not rational. Funny how the religious who claim that homosexuality is a sin ignore the parts in their own book that say that eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are a sin, or refuse to stone their own misbehaving children. Amazing what happens when you can pick and choose your own morality.

makes someone a fascist?

you also talk about godless atheists censoring morality other than their own. Can you tell me what gives YOU the right to force your morality on others?



If you want to mock religious belief that's fine. Only shows your lack of respect and tolerance for views that are not your own. It's called Fascism.

no it is not


In your opinion stupid because you have a different morality than people of religious faith. Government is now intruding on morality and freedom of religious expression. You are intolerant of people who do not share your beliefs.

no it is not.
 
Do you think it should be against the law to believe that homosexual sex is a sin?

No, much like it isn't illegal to be a racist. I know I have one down the block. He believes all blacks are worthless niggers. No one has arrested him. Same with gays, you are free to think homosexuality is a sin.
 
Are you people serious?

It was a serious response to Bronson's statement. If gays are forcing heterosexuals to experience sodomy ... it seems like a few heteros are engaging in this without any encouragement ..... so I was asking Bronson what, in his opinion, their reasoning might be ....
 
You bet poor parenting is a problem. The point was that all families can have problems and that adopted children of SSM couples have an additional layer of problems to contend with ... including the very possible sexual identity confusion of those children.

yes poor parenting IS a problem. If having gay parents contributes to that, it is due to social attitudes, not having gay parents.

Do you have any evidence that it contributes to sexual identity confusion?
 
It was a serious response to Bronson's statement. If gays are forcing heterosexuals to experience sodomy ... it seems like a few heteros are engaging in this without any encouragement ..... so I was asking Bronson what, in his opinion, their reasoning might be ....

It's doesn't make any more sense than forcing whites to wear black makeup so they "understand" what it's like to be black. I don't see how there is understanding to be had in such a superficial thing.
 
It's doesn't make any more sense than forcing whites to wear black makeup so they "understand" what it's like to be black. I don't see how there is understanding to be had in such a superficial thing.

I think you miss the parody in the response to Bronson. Point being, Bronson's statement was idiotic.
 
It's doesn't make any more sense than forcing whites to wear black makeup so they "understand" what it's like to be black. I don't see how there is understanding to be had in such a superficial thing.
So I can't be forced to be "green"? This is good news. I'm going to throw out all of those non-functioning curly que light bulbs made in China.
 
It's doesn't make any more sense than forcing whites to wear black makeup so they "understand" what it's like to be black. I don't see how there is understanding to be had in such a superficial thing.

of course it doesn't.

and further more, to think that having the same sexual experience will help anyone to understand what it means to be gay is beyond ridiculous.

It shows why the poster concerned has absolutely NO CLUE about what it means to be gay, and why gay people might want to marry.

I think he must be one of these people who think behind closed doors all gay people do is have sex, and that is ALL they do.
 
So I can't be forced to be "green"? This is good news. I'm going to throw out all of those non-functioning curly que light bulbs made in China.

A chick once put her finger in my butt. I didn't like it and I don't think it gave me any insight or inclination to gayness. I think people would get upset if I was all "Oooh, I know what it's like to be gay!" because of that incident.
 
No one is gonna challenge my personal anecdote? Case closed?
 
You're sounding like a Fascist. Your morality is another man's sin. We have a First Amendment in the United States. Just because you're a Godless Atheist doesn't mean you have the right to censor thought and morality other than your own.
Exactly how is anyone here doing that?Has anyone gone to one of the moderators or the site owners and demanded that the Anti-SSM posters not be allowed to post their views here?
Gays are demanding to change the definition of marriage since it's been known since the beginning of time.
So what?They aren't the only ones.Plenty of us parents of gay children are calling for the definition to be changed.
I know plenty of my fellow caterers and banquet hall owners are calling for a definition change also.Allowing gays to marry would generate millions of dollars the way civil unions just don't.No one pays me thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to cater a civil union.

There are very real moral objections to this which is why it should left to the states to determine what they want their definitions of marriage to be.

By "moral objections,aren't you really saying "religious objections", and by "religious objections" don't you mean "Christian objections"? I'm sure there are buddhists,Jews,Muslems,etc that are are members of this forum,yet we really haven't heard anything from them,have we?
Even still,we live in a republic,not a theocracy.

If you want to mock religious belief that's fine. Only shows your lack of respect and tolerance for views that are not your own. It's called Fascism.

If that's called "Fascism",what you are doing is probably called a whole lot worse.
It may suck for you,but people in America are required to respect someones right to have opposing views.They are not required to respect the views themselves.It may be rude of someone here to say "screw your beliefs",but no one here is trying to prevent you from having them.That would be "fascist" (notice the quotation marks) of someone to deny someone a right to their beliefs,or even the abilty to use a certain word....oh wait,isn't that what the Anti-SSM crowd is trying to do?

In your opinion stupid because you have a different morality than people of religious faith.
Funny,but I thought opinions are something a person has and tells others.
Not the other way around?
Do you make it a habit of telling people what their opinions are?
It's a very nasty habit.

Government is now intruding on morality and freedom of religious expression.
Care to explain how the government or anyone else is intruding on you freedom of religious expression?
Are black helicopters hovering over your house?
Are "the Men In Black" harrassing you at church?
Are the government mind control lasers interfering with your prayer?

Christians don't own morality, the government isn't stopping anyone from expressing their religion.,it isn't forcing the religious to become gay.
By that same token,we don't live in a theocracy either.
Being gay isn't illegal
A person doesn't automatically get make the rules for everyone else JUST because that person follows a religion.
 
So I can't be forced to be "green"? This is good news. I'm going to throw out all of those non-functioning curly que light bulbs made in China.

Good evening, Humbolt! :2wave:

i missed you today...working outdoors?

I dislike those curly-que bulbs! The amount of light they emit is too little to read by, plus the light makes people look like vampires...except I think we got 'em all in the last roundup... :thumbs:
 
Good evening, Humbolt! :2wave:

i missed you today...working outdoors?

I dislike those curly-que bulbs! The amount of light they emit is too little to read by, plus the light makes people look like vampires...except I think we got 'em all in the last roundup... :thumbs:
Evening to you, mam. I am getting a garden ready. I have another much larger I haven't even started yet. New ground. Screw those light bulbs. I bought all the incandescents I could a while back, and I'm ditching the others. I'm putting LED's everywhere else I reasonably can. The older I get, the more fussy I am about light, among other things.
 
A chick once put her finger in my butt. I didn't like it and I don't think it gave me any insight or inclination to gayness. I think people would get upset if I was all "Oooh, I know what it's like to be gay!" because of that incident.
Heh. That is more information than I require.
 
The data just isn't there.

Explain how you get valid data by a sample that is a fraction of less than 2% of the population. Note ... I said a fraction of less than 2% ... The SAMPLE is not 2 %. The BASE is less than 2% ... the sample is much less.

If the data isn't there, then how can you justify concluding that there is a problem?
 
No, much like it isn't illegal to be a racist. I know I have one down the block. He believes all blacks are worthless niggers. No one has arrested him. Same with gays, you are free to think homosexuality is a sin.

Believing that homosexual sex is a sin is not racist

Gay marriage is not a Civil Right
 
Back
Top Bottom