• 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!

Far Right Common with ISIS

What point is having a religion if you don't think your's is the only true one? You also sound like a fool broad brushing what you think are the beliefs of all conservatives or Christians. Your game is broad brushed character assassination and it says much about the values YOU hold.

Sounds to me like I maybe hit a little too close to home.
 
Horsesh*t. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we just want to be left alone to live our lives. Liberals want to run our lives for us and demand that we agree with their social agenda or be called "Taliban" or some other BS. Don't agree with gay marriage? Taliban!! Homophobe!! Don't agree with abortion up to delivery day? ISIS!!! Misogynist!! There is no way to have rational dialogue with such people. The only course that can be taken is to oppose them and defeat them at every turn and that is what we will do.

If you want to be left alone to live your life, why do you care if gays get married?

Do explain.
 
You couldn't hit the side of a barn with a howitzer from 10 feet away.

lol...your spittle spewing response in post 24 disagrees
 
Yes, it is not Fox.
It's not fact either. Or logic. Fanciful stringing together of dis-related information to create a laughable (to be generous) hypothesis.
 
If you want to be left alone to live your life, why do you care if gays get married?

Do explain.

Simple, because over 1,000 years of Western history had already given marriage a definition and it was not the one you foisted upon it. Marrying gays says that the state gives it the same moral sanction as marrying men and women. If one cares about such a thing, then they cannot support gay marriage. That is wholly different from caring what gays do otherwise or how they live.
 
Simple, because over 1,000 years of Western history had already given marriage a definition and it was not the one you foisted upon it. Marrying gays says that the state gives it the same moral sanction as marrying men and women. If one cares about such a thing, then they cannot support gay marriage. That is wholly different from caring what gays do otherwise or how they live.

So, you really do not want to be left alone to live your life. You want to tell people who they should or should not marry.

Why did you lie?
 
lol...your spittle spewing response in post 24 disagrees

Post 24 is merely a description of you and your cohorts. Trying to use the moral high ground, to which you have no claim, as a cudgel to attack conservatives, is as cynical and dishonest as it can possibly get. What it says is that YOU have decided what's moral and then chastised conservatives for not abiding by your construction. I'm sorry but I will take no moral disciplining from people who know not from where it comes.
 
Post 24 is merely a description of you and your cohorts. Trying to use the moral high ground, to which you have no claim, as a cudgel to attack conservatives, is as cynical and dishonest as it can possibly get. What it says is that YOU have decided what's moral and then chastised conservatives for not abiding by your construction. I'm sorry but I will take no moral disciplining from people who know not from where it comes.

American Taliban fits, as you post 33 makes very clear.
 
So, you really do not want to be left alone to live your life. You want to tell people who they should or should not marry.

Why did you lie?

You do not understand, not surprisingly. It is not a question of who one marries but of what the state sanctions and values. If two people of the same sex have a Constitutional right to marry then ANY two people or combinations of people have the same right because we are all citizens. IOW, marriage has ceased to mean much of anything.
 
You do not understand, not surprisingly. It is not a question of who one marries but of what the state sanctions and values. If two people of the same sex have a Constitutional right to marry then ANY two people or combinations of people have the same right because we are all citizens. IOW, marriage has ceased to mean much of anything.

Why do you cling to ancient traditions? After all, that is exactly what the Taliban do.
 
American Taliban fits, as you post 33 makes very clear.

No, because I will accept the decision of the law, wrong as I think it is. The Taliban will come and kill you. THAT is the difference you insist on erasing, and most dishonestly and intentionally.
 
Why do you cling to ancient traditions? After all, that is exactly what the Taliban do.

So do lots of other religious and tribal groups. Are they all identical to the Taliban? Your comment is worthy of a grade schooler.
 
You do not understand, not surprisingly. It is not a question of who one marries but of what the state sanctions and values. If two people of the same sex have a Constitutional right to marry then ANY two people or combinations of people have the same right because we are all citizens. IOW, marriage has ceased to mean much of anything.

Marriage is simply the union of two individuals.
 
And is there a problem with that?

Of course. Marriage was intended for the propagation of children and the strengthening of the nuclear family. Making it available to any two people (or more) who can fog up a mirror, shows that it is totally devalued much beyond whatever tax benefits can be gained by it. There was a reason for the exclusivity of marriage and that has been shoved aside.
 
Of course. Marriage was intended for the propagation of children and the strengthening of the nuclear family. Making it available to any two people (or more) who can fog up a mirror, shows that it is totally devalued much beyond whatever tax benefits can be gained by it. There was a reason for the exclusivity of marriage and that has been shoved aside.

Are you intentionally making my point?


Inquiring minds need to know.
 
Are you intentionally making my point?


Inquiring minds need to know.

You have no point other than to demonstrate the need to run your yap about things beyond your understanding.
 
Of course. Marriage was intended for the propagation of children and the strengthening of the nuclear family. Making it available to any two people (or more) who can fog up a mirror, shows that it is totally devalued much beyond whatever tax benefits can be gained by it. There was a reason for the exclusivity of marriage and that has been shoved aside.

Ah the nuclear family, the bastion of traditional values and essential to the American way of life.....


The amount of sarcasm in my previous statement could fill two Olympic sized swimming pools.

Look I get the appeal of the nuclear family, but I don’t think it is necessarily the universal way of raising a family.
 
Back
Top Bottom