• 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!

Freedom of Religion vs the Mandate to Evolve [W 65]

Which is more crucial


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
This is pointless you have not proven homosexuality is wrong you have made silly statements then demand proof when someone says you are wrong, unable to provide 1 shred of proof of any of your claims and you think I should be embarrassed?

Fact SSM will not ruin "religious" marriage as defined by you it will only mean that same sex couples can enjoy the benefits of being legally married. No more no less.
Fact evolution will not cause you to die out, your own mortality will, just like everyone else.
Fact many religious denominations have no problem with SSM and will perform religious ceremonies for them
Fact the catholic church is not being forced to perform SSM

Could you enlighten us as to exactly who these "many religious denominations" are who have no problem with sam-sex marriage? Because this is quite at variance with reality.
 
There is a reason why the very first item on the agenda of the Constitution was "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This should make clear what was on the forefront of the framer's minds.
 
Far as I can tell it's to embrace the notion of same sex marriage. I'm sure there will be more to it as the expression evolves, itself.

Dude, gay people getting married doesn't threaten your "freedom of religion" any more than atheists getting married.

I don't see anyone trying to force people to marry gay people. I don't see anyone trying to force churches to marry gay people.

What you want to do is force the rest of the country to live by YOUR religion. You are the one who is against "freedom of religion."

Don't marry a gay person. There. Problem solved.
 
I was wondering the same thing. I've never heard that term before.

I haven't either, but I think it's from Obama saying his position on gay marriage was "evolving."
 
There is a reason why the very first item on the agenda of the Constitution was "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This should make clear what was on the forefront of the framer's minds.

If that was "the very first item on the agenda of the Constitution", would you care to explain why it wasn't included in the Constitution but only added later as an amendment?
 
If that was "the very first item on the agenda of the Constitution", would you care to explain why it wasn't included in the Constitution but only added later as an amendment?


Well, you've got a nice "gotcha" charm for your bracelet there now don't ya...

Bill of Rights...oops, sue me...
 
Well, you've got a nice "gotcha" charm for your bracelet there now don't ya...

Bill of Rights...oops, sue me...

No thanks, I'm not very litiguous. Just think it's nice when people know what they're talking about.
 
It's taken from Ikari's response below:

I've been hearing this kind of language quite a bit lately, so I thought I'd make a poll and see where everyone else stands on this idiotic notion.
I didn't see the word "mandate" in there, nor do I believe that was his intent. That you believe that was his intent says a lot more about you than it does him.


So, I'll ask the question another way: What exactly do YOU mean when you use the phrase "Mandate to Evolve"?
 
From pretty much an extremely tiny fringe thus. Noted.

United church of Canada alone has 2.8 million adherents I don't think you can call that an extremely tiny fringe.
 
Why can't we have freedom of religion and gay marriage? Why would we have to choose?

question: should a religious adult send his child to public school ,and the school teach that homosexual relationships are good, and nothing wrong with them.

school is mandatory, and the adult is giving his tax money to support the school.
 
"Evolve or die, there is no try".

-- Homosexual Proclamation to the World?

What say you, Ikari?
Oh , I get it! You're one of those odd people who have no clue what evolution is or means. Got it!

It's no wonder you took Ikari's post the wrong way ... :lamo
 
United church of Canada alone has 2.8 million adherents I don't think you can call that an extremely tiny fringe.

How many Christians are there in the World again?
 
question: should a religious adult send his child to public school ,and the school teach that homosexual relationships are good, and nothing wrong with them.

school is mandatory, and the adult is giving his tax money to support the school.

I'm one of those old-fashioned types who believes schools should teach children to read, write, mathematics, science, history, ... But I realize all that is optional nowadays.
 
question: should a religious adult send his child to public school ,and the school teach that homosexual relationships are good, and nothing wrong with them.

school is mandatory, and the adult is giving his tax money to support the school.
"Good"? Not any more so than any other relationship between consenting adults. "Nothing wrong with them"? Yes, there is nothing wrong with them. Schools should and usually do teach tolerance and respect for others regardless of their beliefs.
 
"Good"? Not any more so than any other relationship. "Nothing wrong with them"? Yes, there is nothing wrong with them. Schools should and usually do teach tolerance and respect for others regardless of their beliefs.

So I guess schools should also teach tolerance of polygamy or incest?
 
I'm one of those old-fashioned types who believes schools should teach children to read, write, mathematics, science, history, ... But I realize all that is optional nowadays.

back in the 50's government took tax payer money and used it to make anti-homosexual films to be shown in public schools........was it right to do that ...no.

the government is not supposed to take people's money and use it against them.
 
How many Christians are there in the World again?

2.1 billion

There are roughly 35 million Canadians so 2.8 million is not a extremely tiny %
Im not sure how many are in the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly but if it is anything like the ratio in Canada it would be roughly 10X the number so 28 million and that is just for the USA. Add all the others in and we are not talking about an extremely tiny fringe no matter how much you want it to be.
 
back in the 50's government took tax payer money and used it to make anti-homosexual films to be shown in public schools........was it right to do that ...no.

the government is not supposed to take people's money and use it against them.

That's a bit of a broad statement. The government is perfectly entitled to use your tax money to imprison you if you murder somebody.
 
2.1 billion

There are roughly 35 million Canadians so 2.8 million is not a extremely tiny %
Im not sure how many are in the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly but if it is anything like the ratio in Canada it would be roughly 10X the number so 28 million and that is just for the USA. Add all the others in and we are not talking about an extremely tiny fringe no matter how much you want it to be.

So as I said, it is an extremely tiny fringe.
 
"Good"? Not any more so than any other relationship between consenting adults. "Nothing wrong with them"? Yes, there is nothing wrong with them. Schools should and usually do teach tolerance and respect for others regardless of their beliefs.


really .....so your going to have the school teach things to my child things which I object to on a religious level.

so if the schools were to teach homosexuality is wrong, and use tax money to do it your ok with that to?
 
That's a bit of a broad statement. The government is perfectly entitled to use your tax money to imprison you if you murder somebody.

you would have committed a crime to go to prison.

can the government take your money from you and use it against you if you have broken no law?..
 
Back
Top Bottom