• 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!

When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant one?

  • Total voters
    45
Perotista said:
I think you meant polygamy. Sure there are still countries where polygamy is still legal. My papasan who ran the apartments where I lived on Soi I, Sukumvit had 5 wives. This was as late as 1976. But he did have 5 wives, he didn't have 5 men he was married to. I see nothing wrong with polygamy either. It wouldn't work for me, I have enough problems with the one I got.
Click to expand...

No....I meant monogamy. There was a time when polygamy was the norm.
 
MoSurveyor said:
- You missed stealing.
- Though most state laws against Sunday business activities are now gone it hasn't been that long (I still remember them) and a ton of businesses are closed on Sunday.
- Public swearing is still verbotin (to some extent, though it usually doesn't involve God) but in most places it's a social taboo to swear in God's name.
- Cheating, while not illegal, is grounds for divorce.
- Parents are still responsible for their children (we won't get into modern abuses) and, yes, parents expect their children's obedience. I seem to remember some states have laws (or used to have) that touch on this as well, but I don't know if they're still on the books.


Christians broke the graven images law the minute they started using the Cross with Jesus on it. I would think the cross itself would be OK, as is the Fish. Both are symbols, not depictions.

I always thought #10 (coveting) was virtually impossible. I think they threw that one in there as a catch all so they wouldn't miss anyone. ;)
Click to expand...

I do too, Sunday’s was a no no for any business to stay open. Even most of the gas stationed closed on Sundays where I grew up. For some reason I have never been able to figure out, everything also closed at noon on Wednesday’s.

Yeah, covetness is an impossibility to get rid of. It does seems everyone wants to keep up with the Jones or have what they have. It doesn’t just mean wanting his wife, but if she is rich?
 
wolfsgirl said:
The US is not leading the way on SSM.
There is The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Mexico, and I believe Uruguay. England is voting on it now, as is France. We are hardly "leading the way".
Click to expand...

I did not know that. I must live a very sheltered life.
 
Perotista said:
I think you meant polygamy. Sure there are still countries where polygamy is still legal. My papasan who ran the apartments where I lived on Soi I, Sukumvit had 5 wives. This was as late as 1976. But he did have 5 wives, he didn't have 5 men he was married to. I see nothing wrong with polygamy either. It wouldn't work for me, I have enough problems with the one I got.
Click to expand...

Good moring, Pero. :2wave:

As Mangas would say...HA! That one's easy...just do what she suggests.... :yes:
 
Navy Pride said:

But gays do its the only way they could ever win.
Click to expand...

Again, they are seeking the removal of government force. You are requesting that government force remain applied. I guess I'll never understand you big government communists.
 
polgara said:
Good moring, Pero. :2wave:

As Mangas would say...HA! That one's easy...just do what she suggests.... :yes:
Click to expand...

Exactly, I always have the last words in any argument with the wife, "Yes Dear!"
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
can you give an example of this asssertion?
Click to expand...

How about taxes? Hiring practices? Inheritance laws? Immigration?

It seems to me Democrats are all about equality provided it's the type of equality with different standards that they get the better of. The party certainly doesn't want the same tax rates for a corporate CEO or a unionized postal worker, right? They certainly don't want government jobs to go to the best applicant regardless of race, right? They certainly don't want a person to leave his stuff to anyone free from taxes, right? They certainly don't want high skilled professionals more likely to vote Republican coming to this country legally, do they?

Just look at the topic you're in right now. The extremely heavy Democrat population of gays certainly aren't the only group not to have all the legal benefits of marriage but have you heard a Democrat leader push for "equal" rights for other single people who don't belong to an extremely liberal group?

I don't have a problem with gay marriage but don't tell me it's about securing equal rights. It's about securing better rights for Democrats.
 
Navy Pride said:

Sorry that is so much bull****. When different races were allowed to marry it did not change the definition of marriage.l
Click to expand...

interracial marriage.png

Prior to Loving v. Virginia, NP....the definition of "marriage" would not have included YOUR marriage in any of the states in Red. Prior to 1948, the DEFINTION of Marriage would have not allowed YOUR marriage in any of the states in Yellow.

In other words, before the definition of Marriage was changed to allow marriages like yours, there were only a handful of states that would have recognized the validity of YOUR marriage.


hmmmm....sound a little familiar?

See, NP, Bigotry is Bigotry....whether it be the bigots who opposed inter-racial marriages like yours or Bigots who oppose the marriages of loving gay couples today. The result is the same.
 
Navy Pride said:

Nice try but that was not what prop 8 was about.
Click to expand...

Also...its interesting that you always try to run away from the logical comparisons between inter-racial marriage bans and gay marriage bans. Here is what Mildred Loving, the black female plaintiff in Loving v. Virgina has to say on the issue:


“ I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. "
 
Dapper Andy said:
How about taxes? Hiring practices? Inheritance laws? Immigration?

It seems to me Democrats are all about equality provided it's the type of equality with different standards that they get the better of. The party certainly doesn't want the same tax rates for a corporate CEO or a unionized postal worker, right? They certainly don't want government jobs to go to the best applicant regardless of race, right? They certainly don't want a person to leave his stuff to anyone free from taxes, right? They certainly don't want high skilled professionals more likely to vote Republican coming to this country legally, do they?

Just look at the topic you're in right now. The extremely heavy Democrat population of gays certainly aren't the only group not to have all the legal benefits of marriage but have you heard a Democrat leader push for "equal" rights for other single people who don't belong to an extremely liberal group?

I don't have a problem with gay marriage but don't tell me it's about securing equal rights. It's about securing better rights for Democrats.
Click to expand...

Okay, now give me nonfictional examples. This is apolitical debate forum, and this is not the conspiracy theory thread.
 
Navy Pride said:
It will never be legal in the eyes of God.
Click to expand...

Anything else from God you'd like to pass along? It takes balls the size of basketballs to presume to speak for God.
 
disneydude said:
Also...its interesting that you always try to run away from the logical comparisons between inter-racial marriage bans and gay marriage bans. Here is what Mildred Loving, the black female plaintiff in Loving v. Virgina has to say on the issue:


“ I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. "
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should consider using Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877) and give up that whole "gays are oppressed" schtick and stick to the more relevant comparison.
 
Wiggen said:
Anything else from God you'd like to pass along? It takes balls the size of basketballs to presume to speak for God.
Click to expand...

It takes balls the size of chick peas to pretend God hasn't spoken for himself on an issue when you just don't like what he did say on that issue. Some people like to pretend that homosexual sex is a mega-sin because God used the word abomination to describe it. God also used the word abomination to describe being a nosy jerk about something that's a sin but is not hurting anybody. If abomination means no right to marry, then everyone opposed to allowing gays the legal right to marriage, has no right to marry. Some people like to pretend that God opposes gay marriage because God opposes gay sex. But sex outside of marriage is entirely possible and legal in the United States. What does God say about having sinful sex when you're not married? He says to get married and then it's less sinful.
 
earthworm said:
You cannot be serious, NP.
A god that would allow , over the ages, tens of billions of people to be tortured and murdered.....
He surely gives not a hoot about marriage.
And, that we do NOT have a god running things, is a very good thing..
It could be that the Islamic nations are jealous of us and our freedoms.
Click to expand...

God lets his people make decisions and when they are the wrong ones they must on judgment day pay the price....He does not interfere. Sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin be you straight or gay. Anyone who has a mortal sin on his sould can not enter the kingdom of heaven and will burn in hell. Christians don't hate gays. They hate the sins that gays commit as they do straights.
 
Wiggen said:
Anything else from God you'd like to pass along? It takes balls the size of basketballs to presume to speak for God.
Click to expand...

I would never speak for God. I speak for Christians.
 
Navy Pride said:
God lets his people make decisions and when they are the wrong ones they must on judgment day pay the price....He does not interfere. Sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin be you straight or gay. Anyone who has a mortal sin on his sould can not enter the kingdom of heaven and will burn in hell. Christians don't hate gays. They hate the sins that gays commit as they do straights.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but I don't see you trying to ban Divorce or Out of marriage sex...
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
The people who are opposed to equal rights for gays-- and yes, that includes marriage-- are the intolerant ones. Period, full stop. It's stupid this is even a question.
Click to expand...
This isn't an "equal rights" issue.

It's a definitive propriety issue.

For example, is it an equal rights issue that cat-owners aren't allowed to enter their cats in a dog show?

Of course not, because definitive propriety is always the foundational test to resolve an issue, and a cat is simply not a dog, and thus cat-owners have no right to enter their cats in a dog show.

Definititive propriety is tested first, and only if its conditions are satisfied do rights and equality come into play as the next questions.

The same is true with respect to topical relevance.

A marriage has always been, for over 12,000 years, from just before the agricultural revolution, predating religion, predating modern history, up to the present, between a man and a woman as husband and wife, the definition of marriage, isolated pocketed violations being meaningless with respect to the definition, just like people calling their cats dogs is meaningless, obviously.

So, is it an equal rights issue that SS couples aren't allowed to enter into a marriage, a marriage having always been between a man and a woman as husband and wife, the definition of marriage?

Of course not, because definitive propriety of what marriage is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- excludes SS couples right off the bat.

Thus the matter, logically, rationally, never moves to the next question of equal rights, as the matter was solved by the foundational appeal to definitive propriety.

50 years ago, gay activists realized this reality, and so they began the oxymornic brainwashing campaign of simply using the phrase "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage" for three generations, until it as a phrase is now so engrained in the minds of many that, instead of thinking rationally and reasoning for themselves, people have simply been psychologically seduced to accept these terms as if they were true, when, obviously, they are not, and the seduction is to the ideological degree, with an emotional underpinning and effect, and a pre-conceived ideological seed has thus been planted in the minds of the seduced.

When we think reasonably, rationally, according to the general guidelines for problem resolution in such matters, this matter is solved at the first and foundational test of definitive propriety, and thus there's no need to even consider the secondary tests of rights and equality.

But those brainwashed by the generations of hearing and reading the aforementioned oxymoronic phrases, their rational reasoning ability has been compromised.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
So what you're saying is you dislike the constitution and the system the founders have established in this country where we ware not a direct democracy, but a representative republic with three bodies of government with checks and balances...with one such check being the court system?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with that....Nice try though.
 
Jetboogieman said:
That's all well and good, but I don't see you trying to ban Divorce or Out of marriage sex...
Click to expand...

why don't you go for it? I condemn out of marriage sex. God will punish those that do it.
 
Ontologuy said:
This isn't an "equal rights" issue.

It's a definitive propriety issue.

For example, is it an equal rights issue that cat-owners aren't allowed to enter their cats in a dog show?

Of course not, because definitive propriety is always the foundational test to resolve an issue, and a cat is simply not a dog, and thus cat-owners have no right to enter their cats in a dog show.

Definititive propriety is tested first, and only if its conditions are satisfied do rights and equality come into play as the next questions.

The same is true with respect to topical relevance.

A marriage has always been, for over 12,000 years, from just before the agricultural revolution, predating religion, predating modern history, up to the present, between a man and a woman as husband and wife, the definition of marriage, isolated pocketed violations being meaningless with respect to the definition, just like people calling their cats dogs is meaningless, obviously.

So, is it an equal rights issue that SS couples aren't allowed to enter into a marriage, a marriage having always been between a man and a woman as husband and wife, the definition of marriage?

Of course not, because definitive propriety of what marriage is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- excludes SS couples right off the bat.

Thus the matter, logically, rationally, never moves to the next question of equal rights, as the matter was solved by the foundational appeal to definitive propriety.

50 years ago, gay activists realized this reality, and so they began the oxymornic brainwashing campaign of simply using the phrase "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage" for three generations, until it as a phrase is now so engrained in the minds of many that, instead of thinking rationally and reasoning for themselves, people have simply been psychologically seduced to accept these terms as if they were true, when, obviously, they are not, and the seduction is to the ideological degree, with an emotional underpinning and effect, and a pre-conceived ideological seed has thus been planted in the minds of the seduced.

When we think reasonably, rationally, according to the general guidelines for problem resolution in such matters, this matter is solved at the first and foundational test of definitive propriety, and thus there's no need to even consider the secondary tests of rights and equality.

But those brainwashed by the generations of hearing and reading the aforementioned oxymoronic phrases, their rational reasoning ability has been compromised.
Click to expand...

"Straight" people kind of lost the whole argument when, after the flurry of sociological, historical, "hygienic", "morality" et al points, they played their ace in the hole: "Our collective imaginary friend thinks homosexuality is nasty too".......................
 
disneydude said:
Also...its interesting that you always try to run away from the logical comparisons between inter-racial marriage bans and gay marriage bans. Here is what Mildred Loving, the black female plaintiff in Loving v. Virgina has to say on the issue:


“ I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. "
Click to expand...


Inter racial is male female........SSM is not the same.
 
Ikari said:
Again, they are seeking the removal of government force. You are requesting that government force remain applied. I guess I'll never understand you big government communists.
Click to expand...

I don't want federal gov. involved in SSM. You want that because its the only way you could ever win.
 
Let's let nature (or God) decide which pairs of organisms were meant to screw each other. The simple answer is those who can procreate. This includes interracial couples, or a labrador and poodle, but not a same-sex pair for any type of organism.
 
Mathematician said:
Let's let nature (or God) decide which pairs of organisms were meant to screw each other. The simple answer is those who can procreate. This includes interracial couples, or a labrador and poodle, but not a same-sex pair for any type of organism.
Click to expand...

Problem is that nature continually asserts that isn't the case. For example, male lions in multi-male prides engage in intercourse in order to develop emotional bonds that prevent them from killing each other for control of the pride, as their instincts compel them to.

Among mammals in particular, sex is as much a matter of developing a lasting emotional impression to facilitate social interaction as a means of creating offspring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom