• 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 SSM a "dead" issue, now?

Is SSM a "dead" issue, now?


  • Total voters
    64
:shrug: well, I'm not much on mind-reading. Can you link to where they recognized it was useless and they were just doing it out of spite?


That's correct. And, contra his claims, traditional marriage advocates then did not sue to try to overturn the will of the populace because they didn't like the result.

I cant read their minds either, I just had to listen to their proselytizing in parking lots and on TV, etc as they attempted to sway public opinion. They sounded pretty butt-hurt and unChristian to me.

A public opinion that was made clear in the vote.
 
I cant read their minds either, I just had to listen to their proselytizing in parking lots and on TV, etc as they attempted to sway public opinion. They sounded pretty butt-hurt and unChristian to me.

I rather suspect you are projecting negative internals onto others with whom you disagree, here.

A public opinion that was made clear in the vote.

Yup. And, then, contra his claims, the traditional marriage lobby did not start suing the state to get the judiciary to overturn the result.
 
As someone who vehemently supports SSM I completely agree with this. We've created an industry out of righteous indignation and victimhood in this country and I cannot begin to imagine that those who have built their careers out of advocacy will simply drift into different lines of work. Its why while I know advocacy groups are necessary I generally dislike them.

But I don't think it will be the advocacy groups for SSM who will be behind the push to keep this fight front-and-center in the social conscientiousness. I think it will be those who oppose the SCOTUS ruling who will do the fighting. Just look at what the likes of former Gov. Perry, Rick Santorum, Gov. Scott Walker, Gov. Jindal, Mike Huckabee and so many others among the GOP 2016 presidential field had to say immediately following the ruling.

This issue won't go away anytime soon just because the SCOTUS made it lawful any more than the abortion fight continues to this day long after the SCOTUS ruled on Row -v- Wade.
 
:raises eyebrow: I think you have confused "the west" with "the world". Christianity is exploding across much of the globe, and is likely to continue to grow for some time.

1. Yes, Will, we know that some people around the world are turning to religion as others--particularly in developed societies such as the US--cast it off. :roll: Overall, Christianity is struggling to keep up with world population growth.
2. Meanwhile, Islam is the fastest-growing major religion. (see source above)
3. And nice conflation of anti-LGBT attitudes with Christianity--you sure you wanna stick with that?
 
I rather suspect you are projecting negative internals onto others with whom you disagree, here.


Yup. And, then, contra his claims, the traditional marriage lobby did not start suing the state to get the judiciary to overturn the result.

Well their words were nasty and very hurtful if you were a gay person. I found their words offensive...they denigrated gays and their love. Is that my personal perspective? yes.

And ok, they didnt sue, but they did try to over turn the popular vote by other legal and timewasting means. It harmed people...gay people that wanted to get married as soon as the vote was determined...but they couldnt.
 
As far as I am concerned it is over. If I hear any more whining about it I'll just turn and walk away. You (gays) have had your day, you got what you stated you wanted, it's over.
 
Well their words were nasty and very hurtful if you were a gay person. I found their words offensive...they denigrated gays and their love. Is that my personal perspective? yes.

:shrug: I still think you are likely projecting negative internals onto others with whom you disagree.

And ok, they didnt sue, but they did try to over turn the popular vote by other legal and timewasting means. It harmed people...gay people that wanted to get married as soon as the vote was determined...but they couldnt.

No, they didn't. They tried to overturn the Legislature with a popular vote. IOW, his claim that traditional-marriage advocates would respond to losing in a legislature by appealing away from rule by the people towards rule by a judiciary was the exact opposite of the case.
 
1. Yes, Will, we know that some people around the world are turning to religion as others--particularly in developed societies such as the US--cast it off. :roll: Overall, Christianity is struggling to keep up with world population growth.

1. Christianity is projected to roughly keep it's portion of the global populace. Which means it is projected to continue to grow in raw numbers. Which means that your claim that it is dying out is incorrect.

2 Meanwhile, Islam is the fastest-growing major religion. (see source above)

Ah. And it is your theory that Islam does not share his beliefs when it comes to homosexuality?

3. And nice conflation of anti-LGBT attitudes with Christianity--you sure you wanna stick with that?

I was under the impression that you were the one making that conflation. However, I am happy to state that it is the Christian position that those who are tempted with homosexual urges should resist, and, when they fail, take that to Christ in a spirit of repentance. That may be anti-homosexuality, but it is certainly not anti-homosexual; a distinction that those who want to holler about this and accuse any who disagree of bigotry seem unable to grasp.
 
Probably not.

Neither liberals nor conservatives seem to have much issue ignoring federal law.

Personally I would rather discuss S&M. That seems like a way more fun topic.
 
The SSM debate has only just begun. They're not done pushing the envelope yet. Stay tuned.
 
:shrug: I still think you are likely projecting negative internals onto others with whom you disagree.



No, they didn't. They tried to overturn the Legislature with a popular vote. IOW, his claim that traditional-marriage advocates would respond to losing in a legislature by appealing away from rule by the people towards rule by a judiciary was the exact opposite of the case.

Yes, you are right, we voted after the Legislature signed it. I forgot the sequence.

However the campaigning by 'traditional family organizations' backed by so-called Christians was nasty, mean-spirited, and not very Christian at all. It was a disgusting display and they often had their kids with them, spreading what basically amounted sometimes to hate speech.

In those instances I took every opportunity when confronted to humiliate them in front of their children and point out their hate and/or unChristian actions.

Personal perspective? yes, I already said so. But it wasnt imagined. In some cases it was vile and I am appalled sometimes at the words and actions of people that call themselves "Christians." Was my reaction to them particularly "Christian?" Maybe not but I felt I was being constructive.
 
(Numbering off your points to make them easier to reference; I have left your post otherwise intact. Thanks, Agent J, for the idea. :) )

1. Christianity is projected to roughly keep it's portion of the global populace. Which means it is projected to continue to grow in raw numbers. Which means that your claim that it is dying out is incorrect.

2. Ah. And it is your theory that Islam does not share his beliefs when it comes to homosexuality?

3. I was under the impression that you were the one making that conflation. However, I am happy to state that it is the Christian position that those who are tempted with homosexual urges should resist, and, when they fail, take that to Christ in a spirit of repentance. That may be anti-homosexuality, but it is certainly not anti-homosexual; a distinction that those who want to holler about this and accuse any who disagree of bigotry seem unable to grasp.

1. Stop distorting my words. I clearly implied that I was referring to Christianity in America. Here, it is fading, rapidly. :) It's also dying out in many other developed societies. The growth of Christianity--and Islam, too, it seems--is disproportionately happening in less developed societies. I wonder why this is? ;)
2. This red herring is summarily dismissed.
3. I'll bet that you are a straight person. If so, you have the privilege of saying this. It is hate speech, pure and simple. Pouring syrup on **** doesn't make it pancakes, will. Oh, and speaking of beliefs dying out, anti-LGBT attitudes are also doing precisely that in the USA. :)
 
Yes, you are right, we voted after the Legislature signed it. I forgot the sequence.

However the campaigning by 'traditional family organizations' backed by so-called Christians was nasty, mean-spirited, and not very Christian at all. It was a disgusting display and they often had their kids with them, spreading what basically amounted sometimes to hate speech.

In those instances I took every opportunity when confronted to humiliate them in front of their children and point out their hate and/or unChristian actions.

Personal perspective? yes, I already said so. But it wasnt imagined. In some cases it was vile and I am appalled sometimes at the words and actions of people that call themselves "Christians." Was my reaction to them particularly "Christian?" Maybe not but I felt I was being constructive.

So... you responded to people you disagreed with by attacking them and hoping to humiliate them in front of their children... because you wanted to defend "Christianity".

I'm thinking for most folks you probably only reinforced negative opinions of your side as being shrill, offensive, and intolerant of opposing beliefs.
 
(Numbering off your points to make them easier to reference; I have left your post otherwise intact. Thanks, Agent J, for the idea. :) )

It keeps things simpler to follow :)

1. Stop distorting my words. I clearly implied that I was referring to Christianity in America.

No you did not. You stated :

Phys251 said:
How does it feel to know that your beliefs are literally dying out? [/I]

In order to be literally dying out, his beliefs would have to be literally dying out.

If you now wish to amend your statement and claim that you meant Joe-Biden-Literally, and that you only meant Here-in-the-US, then that's fine :)

Here, it is fading, rapidly.

Not as much as you'd think. Those who don't believe simply feel more comfortable saying so.

It's also dying out in many other developed societies. The growth of Christianity--and Islam, too, it seems--is disproportionately happening in less developed societies. I wonder why this is?

People who are wealthy and comfortable often tend to seek out self-pleasure as a purpose and think that they can seek wealth for security. In the West, we've also generally rejected the idea of Sin, for which both Christianity and Islam offer solutions. You can't gratefully receive forgiveness and salvation from your sins if you think you are already wonderful, and see no need to limit your self-focus.

2. This red herring is summarily dismissed.

It's not a red herring. EITHER you were referring to "Christianity" when you said "his beliefs", OR you were referring to his position on homosexuality. Since you then responded by pointing out the relative growth of Islam, your statement becomes self-contradicting if the latter, which is what you suggested when you attempted to impute a conflation of "anti-LGBT" and "Christianity" on me.

3. I'll bet that you are a straight person. If so, you have the privilege of saying this. It is hate speech, pure and simple. Pouring syrup on **** doesn't make it pancakes, will. Oh, and speaking of beliefs dying out, anti-LGBT attitudes are also doing precisely that in the USA.

:lol: it is nothing close to hate speech, and only the simple and paranoid would find it such :)
 
So... you responded to people you disagreed with by attacking them and hoping to humiliate them in front of their children... because you wanted to defend "Christianity".

I'm thinking for most folks you probably only reinforced negative opinions of your side as being shrill, offensive, and intolerant of opposing beliefs.

Oh such assumptions! I was much more subtle....I would sweetly and directly address the kids and talk about God's Love and judging and hate and loving thy neighbor and ask them questions.....the parents were horrified and yes, it was a sin to take pleasure in that horror but I did focus rational and polite questions on the kids...quietly. It even took awhile for the parents to figure out what I was doing.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar....didnt anyone ever teach you that?
 
Oh such assumptions! I was much more subtle....I would sweetly and directly address the kids and talk about God's Love and judging and hate and loving thy neighbor and ask them questions.....the parents were horrified and yes, it was a sin to take pleasure in that horror but I did focus rational and polite questions on the kids...quietly. It even took awhile for the parents to figure out what I was doing.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar....didnt anyone ever teach you that?

Indeed they did. But the behavior you are describing now is not better - it is simply passive aggressive.

It is also pretty creepy. If some strange lady came up and started targeting my child for some kind of session like that, I do believe I'd intervene.
 
Indeed they did. But the behavior you are describing now is not better - it is simply passive aggressive.

It is also pretty weird. If some strange lady came up and started targeting my child for some kind of session like that, I do believe I'd intervene.

No...they approached me, with petitions. I had every right to disagree with them (& express my opinion, politely) after that initiation. (Plus my intent was to sway the kids to a better path, the aggravation of the parents was just a bonus)

And I asked for forgiveness, so it's all good.
 
No...they approached me, with petitions. I had every right to disagree with them (& express my opinion, politely) after that initiation. (Plus my intent was to sway the kids to a better path, the aggravation of the parents was just a bonus)

Ah. Well if they sent the kid to you, then I think you're free to explain why you wouldn't. I revoke the creepy claim and retain the passive aggressive claim.

And I asked for forgiveness, so it's all good.

:) Well if you're repentant then hey - that's the beauty of Christ :D
 
Ah. Well if they sent the kid to you, then I think you're free to explain why you wouldn't. I revoke the creepy claim and retain the passive aggressive claim.

:) Well if you're repentant then hey - that's the beauty of Christ :D

The kids were with their parents. Probably supposedly with the intent of seeing their parents 'doing the Lord's Work.'

And yes, belief in Christ is beautiful, even for us less than perfect. :)
 
It keeps things simpler to follow :)

No you did not. You stated :


In order to be literally dying out, his beliefs would have to be literally dying out.

If you now wish to amend your statement and claim that you meant Joe-Biden-Literally, and that you only meant Here-in-the-US, then that's fine



Not as much as you'd think. Those who don't believe simply feel more comfortable saying so.



People who are wealthy and comfortable often tend to seek out self-pleasure as a purpose and think that they can seek wealth for security. In the West, we've also generally rejected the idea of Sin, for which both Christianity and Islam offer solutions. You can't gratefully receive forgiveness and salvation from your sins if you think you are already wonderful, and see no need to limit your self-focus.



It's not a red herring. EITHER you were referring to "Christianity" when you said "his beliefs", OR you were referring to his position on homosexuality. Since you then responded by pointing out the relative growth of Islam, your statement becomes self-contradicting if the latter, which is what you suggested when you attempted to impute a conflation of "anti-LGBT" and "Christianity" on me.



it is nothing close to hate speech, and only the simple and paranoid would find it such

Here you go again with the attitude, will. In all the engagements I have had with you on DP, I have yet to recall a single instance when you did not quickly descend into an attitude of arrogance. You wanna preach to me about your superiority? Then start demonstrating it already through your actions. Why are you unable to have a rational, attitude-free discussion with me? Because you disagree with me? Because you see my views as a "threat" to you? How Christlike. :roll:

1. Stop splitting hairs about my quote. Christianity is dying in the United States. Get over it already. The burden is on Christians to figure out why. But I am not holding out hope.
2. Nope, the West is rejecting religion because they realize that reason trumps religion, not this whole "sin" construct that you are preaching. It's exposing itself as being antiquated. And the internet is helping that process along. In fact, dare I say that the internet is one of the single worst things that has ever happened to religion. :) You ever watched some of those videos about religion? There are reasons that religion is getting CRUSHED by those videos.
3. More Christlike attitude. :roll: Seriously, man, I might take your comments more seriously if you would stop with the ATTITUDE. You wanna worship Jesus? Fine, nobody is stopping you from doing that. But the minute that you try to push your religion on us, in the form of laws and other policies, we will stand up to you. Fiercely. So keep on blathering about your Jesus. In the United States of America (since you apparently need this spelled out explicitly), your views are literally dying out. :)
4. To **** on LGBTs and their perfectly normal and natural desires is hate speech, pure and simple. Protip: LGBT intolerance is a major problem with Millennials, and it is a significant reason why they are running from religion in droves. Unlike older generations, more and more of them are not gonna put up with that ****.
 
Here you go again with the attitude, will. In all the engagements I have had with you on DP, I have yet to recall a single instance when you did not quickly descend into an attitude of arrogance. You wanna preach to me about your superiority? Then start demonstrating it already through your actions. Why are you unable to have a rational, attitude-free discussion with me? Because you disagree with me? Because you see my views as a "threat" to you? How Christlike. :roll:

1. Stop splitting hairs about my quote. Christianity is dying in the United States. Get over it already. The burden is on Christians to figure out why. But I am not holding out hope.
2. Nope, the West is rejecting religion because they realize that reason trumps religion, not this whole "sin" construct that you are preaching. It's exposing itself as being antiquated. And the internet is helping that process along. In fact, dare I say that the internet is one of the single worst things that has ever happened to religion. :) You ever watched some of those videos about religion? There are reasons that religion is getting CRUSHED by those videos.
3. More Christlike attitude. :roll: Seriously, man, I might take your comments more seriously if you would stop with the ATTITUDE. You wanna worship Jesus? Fine, nobody is stopping you from doing that. But the minute that you try to push your religion on us, in the form of laws and other policies, we will stand up to you. Fiercely. So keep on blathering about your Jesus. In the United States of America (since you apparently need this spelled out explicitly), your views are literally dying out. :)
4. To **** on LGBTs and their perfectly normal and natural desires is hate speech, pure and simple. Protip: LGBT intolerance is a major problem with Millennials, and it is a significant reason why they are running from religion in droves. Unlike older generations, more and more of them are not gonna put up with that ****.

IMO, most precepts of Christianity dovetail nicely with the Constitution and civil rights. Hence, I have no problem with not creating any laws specifically based on a Christian belief. I see the hurdles still before us with some of the SSM/businesses citing religious objections but they too shall pass, just like segregation and Jim Crow in the South.

I really consider most of what I've read of those objections so far to be BS anyway, because as I've written, who here has read of bakers and photographers or other businesses refusing service to adulterers or fornicators? It's a matter of their outrage, not their beliefs. And it's hypocritical.

I would like to see numbers on the dying out of Christianity in the US tho....you may be right. Kind of a bummer tho but hey, I will always be able to practice what I believe under the Const. and I'd rather see quality rather than quantity in my religion.
 
Settled as in official law of the country? Yes.
Settled as in people will still fight against it being the law of the country? No. People will still act like the sun is going to explode if gays can continue to marry.
 
IMO, most precepts of Christianity dovetail nicely with the Constitution and civil rights. Hence, I have no problem with not creating any laws specifically based on a Christian belief. I see the hurdles still before us with some of the SSM/businesses citing religious objections but they too shall pass, just like segregation and Jim Crow in the South.

I really consider most of what I've read of those objections so far to be BS anyway, because as I've written, who here has read of bakers and photographers or other businesses refusing service to adulterers or fornicators? It's a matter of their outrage, not their beliefs. And it's hypocritical.

I would like to see numbers on the dying out of Christianity in the US tho....you may be right. Kind of a bummer tho but hey, I will always be able to practice what I believe under the Const. and I'd rather see quality rather than quantity in my religion.

1. Which principles? "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Blessed are the poor"? Or "put to death anyone who works on the Sabbath" and "a virgin woman who is raped must marry her rapist and never divorce her"? Two of these beliefs I have respect for. Two of them I do not. All four are found in the Bible.

2. A point of clarification here--what objectors? But if I'm reading it right, yeah, where is the outrage against straight couples having sex outside of marriage? And what about divorce, which Jesus clearly condemned in every case except for cheating?

3. My previous post contained a study that already answered your question. And you call it a "bummer"; I call it liberation. People are learning that they don't have to answer to an invisible figure just to behave as decent human beings. They can just choose to behave decently just because it is the rational thing to do.
 
IMO, most precepts of Christianity dovetail nicely with the Constitution and civil rights. Hence, I have no problem with not creating any laws specifically based on a Christian belief. I see the hurdles still before us with some of the SSM/businesses citing religious objections but they too shall pass, just like segregation and Jim Crow in the South.

I really consider most of what I've read of those objections so far to be BS anyway, because as I've written, who here has read of bakers and photographers or other businesses refusing service to adulterers or fornicators? It's a matter of their outrage, not their beliefs. And it's hypocritical.

I would like to see numbers on the dying out of Christianity in the US tho....you may be right. Kind of a bummer tho but hey, I will always be able to practice what I believe under the Const. and I'd rather see quality rather than quantity in my religion.

I wish you could go back in time and tell that to all the Christians who believed the Bible supported the Divine Right of Kings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

The Declaration of Independence reads differently when you realize how unChristian it was for its time.
 
Back
Top Bottom