• 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!

Is the US a Christian country?

Is the US a Christian Country?

  • Total voters
    80
Montecresto said:
Both the institution of marriage and the LGBT community predate Christianity. It would seem therefore that Christianity has sought to redefine it.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the contention over the issue, and I'm not seeing the religions changing their doctrine and their teachings, as it's part of their core.

I don't seem to recall LGBT activist groups and lobbyists throughout history. It seems that these things are a recent invention.
 
chromium said:
Oh please, i know plenty of "breeders" who support gay marriage.....
Click to expand...

So what? That doesn't invalidate my point. Marriage wasn't the creation of homosexuals so homosexuals I don't know what makes homosexuals think they are the authority on "the word". The "breeders" that homosexuals ridicule have every right to be hung up on the word and the institution. It's theirs and you merely want to have it changed in order to co-opt it. You don't have to like the explanation. It just is what it is.
 
Papa bull said:
So what? That doesn't invalidate my point. Marriage wasn't the creation of homosexuals so homosexuals I don't know what makes homosexuals think they are the authority on "the word". The "breeders" that homosexuals ridicule have every right to be hung up on the word and the institution. It's theirs and you merely want to have it changed in order to co-opt it. You don't have to like the explanation. It just is what it is.
Click to expand...

Dude most of the "breeders" support gay marriage. Take it up with them
 
eohrnberger said:
Therein lies the contention over the issue, and I'm not seeing the religions changing their doctrine and their teachings, as it's part of their core.

I don't seem to recall LGBT activist groups and lobbyists throughout history. It seems that these things are a recent invention.
Click to expand...

They are definitely a recent development and I think the rush to embrace the fad of homosexual "marriage" is an amazing shift because we are seeing what may arguably have been the most static, traditional, permanent and up changing institutions of human social structure across the entire globe and virtually all history. Time alone will tell if the progressives are as smart as they think they are on this.
 
chromium said:
Dude most of the "breeders" support gay marriage. Take it up with them
Click to expand...

I merely explained why there are a lot that don't. I don't have to take up anything with anybody.
 
Zyphlin said:
Absolutley, but then again that's the matter with anything dealing with definitions. I noted from the very onset of my post, I was going by the commonly held definitions in the realm of Political Science.

I made the topical foundation of my argument abundantly clear by indicating the definition and mindset I was coming from was one of political science...where as the OP left it COMPLETELY open ended.

If you want to argue against my point from the actual foundation that I used, go right ahead. If you want to bitch that I didn't choose to use the definition YOU prefer, and then wish to try and take my part away based on fraudulent logic by attacking a strawman of your own creation by citing a different definition than the one I clearly indicated, then you're more than welcome to engage in your debate with the strawman, but I'm not interested in joining you.
Click to expand...

I wasn't begging for debate. What I said isn't debatable. Without agreement about what, precisely, the ambiguous language of the question means, yes and no are both equally arguable merely by insisting the only valid definition of "country" is the one being assumed.

The USA was and is a "Christian country" as much as Ireland is a Catholic Country". The word "country" doesn't require everything else in the sentence to be viewed only through a political lens.

But since you seem set to want to argue something with someone, don't let me stop you. Argue whatever you want and maybe someone will argue back.
 
Seems like it would be similar to asking, is the US a 'white' country?

I guess the majority of people are white but that doenst make it a 'white' country. IMO.

Same with Christianity. The majority of people are Christians but I dont believe it means we are a 'Christian' country.
 
Papa bull said:
. . .The USA was and is a "Christian country" as much as Ireland is a Catholic Country". The word "country" doesn't require everything else in the sentence to be viewed only through a political lens. . . .
Click to expand...

As I tried to much less succinctly explain in my previous post, I agree with this. Ask pretty much anybody what the "Christian countries" are and the USA will almost always head the list. It is a description of what the country's culture is and not a political condition or statement or formal designation.
 
Montecresto said:
Both the institution of marriage and the LGBT community predate Christianity. It would seem therefore that Christianity has sought to redefine it.
Click to expand...

Well, that assumes that Christianity is not the religion of God, but an invention of man. All religion (with the exception of scientology) presumes that the philosophy comes from God. You can't predate a creator. Keep in mind, marriage was never regulated by governments (except theocracies) prior to Henry VIII. Had he not created the Church of England and then made himself the King and Religious leader, marriage would still be a social construct and the government wouldn't be regulating marriage in violation of religious beliefs.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Well, that assumes that Christianity is not the religion of God, but an invention of man. All religion (with the exception of scientology) presumes that the philosophy comes from God. You can't predate a creator. Keep in mind, marriage was never regulated by governments (except theocracies) prior to Henry VIII. Had he not created the Church of England and then made himself the King and Religious leader, marriage would still be a social construct and the government wouldn't be regulating marriage in violation of religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Oh come now. You think that people started hooking up only after Henry the 8th made a church?
 
Papa bull said:
I merely explained why there are a lot that don't. I don't have to take up anything with anybody.
Click to expand...

Fine, but they're blaming the wrong people then. Yes, the gay marriage idea may have taken off with gay activists, but it never would've gotten any traction if not for those "breeders" you claim we have it in for.

I know it's easier to vilify the small minority than to accept that your position is no longer supported by the majority.

As for "co-opting" the word...i really don't understand this objection. A gay relationship is pretty identical to a hetero relationship, thus the word 'marriage' accurately describes both. You keep looking for some nefarious conspiracy, but even if for sake of argument you were right, like "they use the word to try and normalize homosexuality"....so? Lol, where is the harm in that?
 
chromium said:
Fine, but they're blaming the wrong people then. Yes, the gay marriage idea may have taken off with gay activists, but it never would've gotten any traction if not for those "breeders" you claim we have it in for.

I know it's easier to vilify the small minority than to accept that your position is no longer supported by the majority.

As for "co-opting" the word...i really don't understand this objection. A gay relationship is pretty identical to a hetero relationship, thus the word 'marriage' accurately describes both. You keep looking for some nefarious conspiracy, but even if for sake of argument you were right, like "they use the word to try and normalize homosexuality"....so? Lol, where is the harm in that?
Click to expand...

Whatever. People aren't always going to agree with you and you're just going to have to accept that. Where's the tolerance for opposing viewpoints you liberals like to claim you have (and absolutely don't)? More self-delusion.
 
Papa bull said:
Whatever. People aren't always going to agree with you and you're just going to have to accept that. Where's the tolerance for opposing viewpoints you liberals like to claim you have (and absolutely don't)? More self-delusion.
Click to expand...

This is a debate forum...if pointing out holes in arguments is intolerance, came to the wrong place.

The way you make it seem is as if 'liberals' are holding a gun to your head forcing you to call it marriage. I don't give a **** what you call it, just like i'll call it marriage regardless of your objections or even if it's 1970 and no one agrees, because i see it as a marriage.

But i find it telling you can't answer these points. If a committed same sex relationship is the same, why object so strongly to it being called marriage? Is it possible that just maybe you're overestimating the contempt that most homosexuals hold for "breeders"?

I can't think of anything more futile than hating 90-95% of the population
 
chromium said:
This is a debate forum...if pointing out holes in arguments is intolerance, came to the wrong place.

The way you make it seem is as if 'liberals' are holding a gun to your head forcing you to call it marriage. I don't give a **** what you call it, just like i'll call it marriage regardless of your objections or even if it's 1970 and no one agrees, because i see it as a marriage.

But i find it telling you can't answer these points. If a committed same sex relationship is the same, why object so strongly to it being called marriage? Is it possible that just maybe you're overestimating the contempt that most homosexuals hold for "breeders"?

I can't think of anything more futile than hating 90-95% of the population
Click to expand...

You are, apparently looking for an argument and there isn't one. You pretended not to know why people get hung up on "a word". I explained. The end. You're really not going to know what to so with yourself when you don't have the homosexual marriage issue to use to of draw attention, aren't you?
 
No, because a Nation is what it does, not what it says. We have exported chaos, mayhem, devastation and death on a mass production scale. Currently we are participating in conflicts in 75-150 Countries around the Globe. Millions dead in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands in Syria. It is because we are a militaristic Nation with a Goebbels type Public Relations agenda that makes average citizens think we are spreading liberty and freedom and democracy. In fact, we spread repressive governments subservient to USA Corporate interests and sustain the mantra that "War is good business, and business is good." There is nothing Christian about spreading chaos, death, and destruction, even if it is great for business.
 
DaveFagan said:
No, because a Nation is what it does, not what it says. We have exported chaos, mayhem, devastation and death on a mass production scale. Currently we are participating in conflicts in 75-150 Countries around the Globe. Millions dead in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands in Syria. It is because we are a militaristic Nation with a Goebbels type Public Relations agenda that makes average citizens think we are spreading liberty and freedom and democracy. In fact, we spread repressive governments subservient to USA Corporate interests and sustain the mantra that "War is good business, and business is good." There is nothing Christian about spreading chaos, death, and destruction, even if it is great for business.
Click to expand...

Good point Dave!
 
Wow. Hyperbole much?
 
Papa bull said:
Great minds think alike... And idiots seldom differ.
Click to expand...

Suppose you refute Dave's point, with point, instead of taking the ***** way out with a double personal, without a stitch of substance, hmm?
 
Montecresto said:
Suppose you refute Dave's point, with point, instead of taking the ***** way out with a double personal, without a stitch of substance, hmm?
Click to expand...

Since reality refutes dave's "point" (and in the loosest possible use of the word "point" in that context), I don't have to. Hyperbole of that calibre doesn't warrant "refutation". It warrants ridicule.
 
Papa bull said:
Since reality refutes dave's "point" (and in the loosest possible use of the word "point" in that context), I don't have to. Hyperbole of that calibre doesn't warrant "refutation". It warrants ridicule.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you had it in you.
 
chromium said:
This is a debate forum...if pointing out holes in arguments is intolerance, came to the wrong place.

The way you make it seem is as if 'liberals' are holding a gun to your head forcing you to call it marriage. I don't give a **** what you call it, just like i'll call it marriage regardless of your objections or even if it's 1970 and no one agrees, because i see it as a marriage.

But i find it telling you can't answer these points. If a committed same sex relationship is the same, why object so strongly to it being called marriage? Is it possible that just maybe you're overestimating the contempt that most homosexuals hold for "breeders"?

I can't think of anything more futile than hating 90-95% of the population
Click to expand...

Apparently, you are a very unusual homosexual because most seem to have a great big problem with other people using the word "civil union" to describe homosexual unions. For whatever reason, your peers insist that only"marriage" will do. You should take their hangups over these words up with them.
 
Montecresto said:
I didn't think you had it in you.
Click to expand...

Good call. When someone posts crap that is false at face value and then demands their lunacy be "refuted", I can only point and laugh.
 
Papa bull said:
Good call. When someone posts crap that is false at face value and then demands their lunacy be "refuted", I can only point and laugh.
Click to expand...

It's only perceived false at your face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom