• 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
He's a big government leftist. Of course he wants government telling people their personal business. He's one of those "it takes a village" folks.

Why don't you two get a room?:lamo
 
I can't help but notice you have managed to ignore the last couple responses I have to you. Your views on this are not in line with the church, nor are they in line with conservative values. You are trying to manipulate these institutions for your own twisted needs. It is sick.

I went to Catholic School for 12 years taking a class on religion in every year so I believe I know my religion better then you...........Can you expound on your ridiculous statement about me? I will never accept the views of a far left issue Liberal on this issue........sorry
 
You mean when Aaron said he wanted adulterers stoned and Timothy said where slaves should obey their masters? God didn't give Aaron authority to speak for Him. God gave Moses Authority to speak for Him, and Moses delegated that authority to Aaron even after Moses asked God if he wanted Aaron instead, and God told Moses that God chose Moses, not Aaron. God punished Aaron for making up his own rules and pretending they came from God. God never gave Timothy any authority to speak for Him, either. God 's son Jesus gave authority to Paul to speak for Jesus, and Paul delegated that authority to Timothy without Jesus' express permission. You mean when God said that wives should submit to their husbands and husbands should treat their wives the same way they treat themselves? God never said all women should submit to all men. That would be being a foolish whore, and God told women not to be foolish and not to be whores.

But...but... but... it's in the bible!

I love how the bible thumpers pick and choose the parts they like and explain away the parts that are....uh....inconvenient.
 
Yes but we were talking about the Seattle

No. You said "Its true there are some on the right who are intolerant but everyone on the left is intolerant of people on the right." and used Seattle as an example "I live in the Seattle Washington area and I can tell you none of us on the right dare to give our opinion."

Here is your original statement in it's entirety...

Its true there are some on the right who are intolerant but everyone on the left is intolerant of people on the right...I live in the Seattle Washington area and I can tell you none of us on the right dare to give our opinion.

Showing my original reply remains true and your Seattle red herring is just that.

That is such an ignorant blanket statement. I have many friends and family who are libo's and we argue politics and get along fine. So no, you can't speak about a large diverse group in those terms. It's as silly as the libo's who think all conservatives are racist.

You still have not even addressed your ignorant blanket statement as well and are just trying to obfuscate at this point.

.........I too have lived all over the USA and that info is not pertinent.

Oh really? But your limited experience in Seattle is? Hahahahaha!
 
Why don't you two get a room?:lamo

Or else what? You'll go crying to the government trying to push the issue, my left wing friend? Lmao.
 

Sure if its between a man and a woman. Should have never been blocked in the first place. Now SSM is a whole different issue.

LOL....like I said....you are sooooo predictable. You support "Activism" and support changing definitions as long as it is something that benefits you....while you love to get on your soapbox, condemn others and prevent them from enjoying the same rights. That is Bigotry at its core.
 
He's a big government leftist. Of course he wants government telling people their personal business. He's one of those "it takes a village" folks.

I would disagree. There is a difference between "it takes a village" and "Big Brother Government should control the most intimate decisions in your lives". NP and his ilk aren't about a "village" helping to create a better and more stable society....they are all about Big Brother Government forcing a radical so called "Christian" dogma onto the masses.
 
I can't help but notice you have managed to ignore the last couple responses I have to you. Your views on this are not in line with the church, nor are they in line with conservative values. You are trying to manipulate these institutions for your own twisted needs. It is sick.

NP treats Catholic doctrine like a cafeteria....he chooses and selects the teachings that he wants to follow and disregards the rest.
 
That is odd my left wing friend because I got married on March 17 1966. in the American Embasssy In Seoul South Korea:lamo:confused:

LOL...and prior to Loving v. Virginia, your marriage would not have been recognized as valid in half of the United States. You must be glad that Loving changed the definition of marriage to include yours, right NP?
 

I went to Catholic School for 12 years taking a class on religion in every year so I believe I know my religion better then you...........Can you expound on your ridiculous statement about me? I will never accept the views of a far left issue Liberal on this issue........sorry

Religion isn't about right and left. I have an idea. We can see who knows your religion better. I am a religious person, but I am not Catholic. How about you show me where in the scriptures it calls for governments of nations or Catholics to judge people for their actions. And I in turn will find where it says that you, as a Catholic, should not be judging others.

Your role as a Catholic is not to oppress or judge people. What you are doing is using the Church as a front to hide behind in order to try to progress a political agenda that doesn't even follow the basic philosophical principles of the politics you are attempting to manipulate religion to force upon others. And yes, I know that there have been many like you before who have exploited the Church and used people faith to force them to bend to your political will. You are not the first. But not being the first doesn't make it right. Nowhere in your religion does it call for you to attack those who are different or those who have different beliefs.
 
But...but... but... it's in the bible!

I love how the bible thumpers pick and choose the parts they like and explain away the parts that are....uh....inconvenient.

I love how atheists display ignorance by pretending something is in the Bible that isn't there, just to disagree. Sorry loser, there's no parts in there that are convenient to your false claim.
 
I love how atheists display ignorance by pretending something is in the Bible that isn't there, just to disagree.

Speaking of things that people pretend are in the bible... when, exactly, did God speak for himself in the Bible? I haven't found those sections. I've found a bunch of sections written by people who claimed to be speaking for God, but nothing that could accurately called "god speaking for himself". At best, Old Jehovah has always spoken through others, if the people claiming to be speaking for him are to be believed.
 
Speaking of things that people pretend are in the bible... when, exactly, did God speak for himself in the Bible? I haven't found those sections. I've found a bunch of sections written by people who claimed to be speaking for God, but nothing that could accurately called "god speaking for himself". At best, Old Jehovah has always spoken through others, if the people claiming to be speaking for him are to be believed.

burning bush is the only example that comes to mind, but then again, that is only someone claiming that GOD spoke to them via the bush.
 
That is odd my left wing friend because I got married on March 17 1966. in the American Embasssy In Seoul South Korea:lamo:confused:
There are many more states besides mine where it wasn't legal until 1967 when the SCOTUS made it legal. The laws were still on the books for years to come, though. ((I suspect Missouri finally got rid of it when we started re-writing our statutes in 1983. And, yes, we were one of the states that banned White-Asian marriages so yours would have been illegal. Had you come here for your honeymoon in 1966 you would have been thrown in jail.)) But, hey, you don't have to believe me. There's plenty of evidence out there.


Here's a good one for you, from Alabama, published November 12, 2000:

Alabama voters quietly removed one piece of arcana from their Jim Crow-era constitution: a 1901 state law banning marriage between a Negro and Caucasian. The Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1967, but until last week, when voters passed a ballot initiative to purge that law from the books, it held on as the last such state law in the nation. The margin by which the measure passed was itself a statement. A clear majority, 60 percent, voted to remove the miscegenation statute from the state constitution, but 40 percent of Alabamans -- nearly 526,000 people -- voted to keep it. Somini Sengupta
November 5-11 - Marry at Will - NYTimes.com


Take off the rose-colored glasses, man, even in 2000 40% of Alabama voters didn't want Your Kind around.
 
Last edited:
The burning bush spoke to Moses, but was it ever quoted in the bible?

not sure I follow: there are several examples give where God is quoted as speaking directly. when Jesus was baptised and Moses did quote what the bush said to him. but, since the bible was written by men, everything that God is claimed to have said is only a quote from those who claimed to have heard it.
 
there are several examples give where God is quoted as speaking directly. when Jesus was baptised and Moses did quote what the bush said to him.

Gotcha. I always thought that God spoke through angels in those cases.
 
Funny... for someone who believes in equality, you sure are awful supportive of shutting the right up because of their opinions. So much for political equality and freedom of speech...:coffeepap

They have every right to believe whatever they want. The minute try to control my life with their book of fairy tales is the minute we have a problem. It constantly surprises me that libertarians such as yourself sell themselves out to the religious whack job right.
 
Oh really? But your limited experience in Seattle is? Hahahahaha!

NP doesn't know **** about Seattle. He just tells everyone he does. Then he proves otherwise by opening his piehole.
 
I love how atheists display ignorance by pretending something is in the Bible that isn't there, just to disagree. Sorry loser, there's no parts in there that are convenient to your false claim.

And you step right up to prove Wiggen right. Nice work.
 
NP doesn't know **** about Seattle. He just tells everyone he does. Then he proves otherwise by opening his piehole.

I have lived here for 35 years my left wing friend.
 
Or else what? You'll go crying to the government trying to push the issue, my left wing friend? Lmao.

You can keep your love affair for one another private.
 
Back
Top Bottom