• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%

  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%
  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Southern Man said:
Well for one thing, it has been linked to oral cancer.
Click to expand...

The chance of getting oral cancer from oral sex is incredibly remote. Roughly 13k cases total in the US from oral sex in a population over 300 million.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
The chance of getting oral cancer from oral sex is incredibly remote. Roughly 13k cases total in the US from oral sex in a population over 300 million.
Click to expand...

Not all of those 300 million engage in oral sex, and if they don't their chances of developing oral cancer is reduced.
 
Southern Man said:
Not all of those 300 million engage in oral sex, and if they don't their chances of developing oral cancer is reduced.
Click to expand...

Even if we go with 1/3, which is probably low, we are still looking at at chance of getting oral cancer being .0013 %.
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
Think of it this way. No one is restricting your right to practice your religious beliefs. But you are trying to restrict other people's rights to practice their legal rights, free from the influence of YOUR religion. And that's not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Very well stated. Spot on, Mate.
 
Redress said:
Even if we go with 1/3, which is probably low, we are still looking at at chance of getting oral cancer being .0013 %.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably a very high number. We have lots of children, lots of old folks, lots of religious folks and lots of folks whose culture forbids it.
 
Southern Man said:
Well for one thing, it has been linked to oral cancer.
Click to expand...

So we should probably outlaw cunnilingus since that too is oral sex.

Just to make sure people aren't hurting themselves, we should probably outlaw marriage between a man and a woman as well.

I mean, that's the logic you used, so this is a reasonable solution, no?
 
Alastor said:
So we should probably outlaw cunnilingus since that too is oral sex.

Just to make sure people aren't hurting themselves, we should probably outlaw marriage between a man and a woman as well.

I mean, that's the logic you used, so this is a reasonable solution, no?
Click to expand...

I don't advocate banning anything here, even if it was very unsafe. In fact if someone wants to kill themselves all I ask for is that they dig an appropriate size hole first to make it easy for clean-up and burial. All I'm asking for is for folks to be honest and not lie about the nature of a homosexual relationship.
 
Southern Man said:
Not all of those 300 million engage in oral sex, and if they don't their chances of developing oral cancer is reduced.
Click to expand...

This isn't an argument against gay marriage, is it? Because then you certainly would have to be against anything that, if done and, has a negative result of any kind... right? Otherwise you are picking and choosing when to apply logic and when to suspend it. Smoking. Spanking. Driving. If less people drove, then less people would be killed by cars, hence, driving should not be legal... right? Right.
 
Southern Man said:
Not all of those 300 million engage in oral sex, and if they don't their chances of developing oral cancer is reduced.
Click to expand...

The risk of oral/pharyngeal cancer comes from having certain strains of the hpv virus in one's mouth and throat.
Unless one's partner is infected with the hpv virus, oral sex does not increase the risk of oral cancer.
 
Southern Man said:
I don't advocate banning anything here, even if it was very unsafe. In fact if someone wants to kill themselves all I ask for is that they dig an appropriate size hole first to make it easy for clean-up and burial. All I'm asking for is for folks to be honest and not lie about the nature of a homosexual relationship.
Click to expand...

Except you seem to be confused about the nature of homosexual relationships, and of heterosexual ones.
 
Southern Man said:
I don't advocate banning anything here, even if it was very unsafe. In fact if someone wants to kill themselves all I ask for is that they dig an appropriate size hole first to make it easy for clean-up and burial. All I'm asking for is for folks to be honest and not lie about the nature of a homosexual relationship.
Click to expand...

But this comment of yours (about oral sex causing cancer) is not about homosexual relationships.

It's about all relationships.

Yet it seems to me you'd like to apply your point only to the discussion in regards to homosexuality.
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
That's. exactly. what. a. civil. marriage. is. A civil contract recognized by the state. And I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over again. This is a discussion of civil marriages recognized under the law. This is NOT a discussion about a union brought together by God. Sacramental marriage is a union brought together by God. Civil marriage, which is what we are discussing, is a union brought together by the state. That's why I don't understand why you keep bringing up holy matrimony and religious reasons. If you oppose secular gay marriage, you should have a legitimate secular reason. My whole point is that holy matrimony IS separate from civil marriage.
Click to expand...

No WE are not discussing any “civil marriage” and I am not in the mood for silly word games. I am saying a civil union is NOT a marriage and would not agree to have it recognized as such, period.

My religious marriage ceremony could not be preformed for a certain amount of time (days) had passed for the state license to be recognized. My pastor could not perform the service until it was recognized by the state.

In this day and age holy matrimony is NOT separate as you cannot have one without the other, period. It is illegal in every state, period.

sweEt Mauritius said:
That doesn't make what right? Atheists getting married under secular law and receiving legal benefits?
Click to expand...

No. I said it is the way our system works as in secular, and we have to work within that legally.

sweEt Mauritius said:
I'm honestly confused about what point you're trying to make. Having a legally recognized marriage by definition means you have a license from the state. There is a separation of church and state though because: 1) I can be legally married (with a license from the state) without proof of a religious marriage 2) I can receive sacramental marriage without being legally married (a fundamental Mormon wedding including more than two people could be a sacramental marriage without being recognized by the government with a separate civil marriage license). How can you argue against that?
Click to expand...

You cannot legally have a religious ceremony without the state license first. What part of this are you missing? I have repeated this 3 times and you keep making the same incorrect statement.

The main point you are missing is that gay marriage or even gay sex is a sin. As a Christian I cannot sanction, condone or support the life style. A civil union is not a marriage, otherwise the term and legal definition of civil union would not exist.

Civil Union:

Civil unions are legal contracts between partners that are recognized by a state or government as conferring all or some of the rights conferred by marriage, but without the implicit historical and religious meaning associated with the word "marriage."

In the United States, some states have legalized civil unions as an option for same-sex couples who cannot legally marry.

Civil unions were once distinct from domestic partnerships, but the terms are now used more-or-less interchangeably.

That should clear it up.

sweEt Mauritius said:
By voting for laws that are drenched in your own religious values and morals, you are forcing people to comply with them. You seem to just ignore the fact that other people have different religious beliefs than you, and that they deserve as much respect as yours. You think something is wrong that other people may not agree. Other people may think something is wrong that you don't think are, and it would be unfair to you for them to vote those beliefs into law simply because THEY belief that it is right. An American Muslim who believes that women should wear veils may think women who don't are sinning, but in good conscience they should not vote for laws that force women to wear veils or face legal consequences. It's the same thing with your views.
Click to expand...

So what?

The Muslim, Christian or atheist in our society is free to work within the system for changes they would like. This does not mean they will succeed, but it is the American way.

sweEt Mauritius said:
Really? Because that exact right does exists in several nations, states, and municipalities around the world.
Click to expand...

Since when does the US Constitution not trump the laws of other countries in the US?

This is not the rest of the world. So what they think is completely irrelevant on this issue.

sweEt Mauritius said:
The fundamental problem I have with your arguments are that they seem to suggest that your views are the only correct ones and the only ones that deserve to be respected. When you say "don't tell me a same-sex couple is marriage, it's not," do you not understand that to other people, it is? It's not to you because, correct me if I'm wrong, your religion says it isn't. Well, there are churches where same-sex couples ARE in fact marriage, and there are Americans who DO view same-sex couples as marriage. Where are their rights? Your rights are not restricted if same-sex marriages are legalized. But other people's rights are restricted if they are banned.
Click to expand...

Your 4th paragraph is exactly the same question worded differently, and I have already answered it.



sweEt Mauritius said:
Sorry, I must have lost it in the shuffle lol. I don't think prostitution should be illegal, in fact, because people have the freedom to do with their bodies what they like. There's no one else affected by that decision so it should be the person's decision if they choose to be a prostitute. My personal views, which are admittedly based in my religious upbringing, are that being a prostitute is a sinful occupation. But sinful by MY definition does not equal sinful to everyone, and it should not equal illegal for everyone.
Click to expand...

1 Corn 27-28: If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you want to go, eat whatever is served without asking questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This is from a sacrifice,” do not eat, because of the one who told you and because of conscience.

According to the God you say you worship, he would not agree.

sweEt Mauritius said:
If they are coerced into prostitution that is different, but only because I have a problem with coercion. Polygamy within a religious context should be legal because of the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

You mite want to read Corin 5 as well.

So you would condone all that which is immoral and considered wrong by the God you worship?

We are to respect the government, not condone that which we see as sinful.

sweEt Mauritius said:
But there are serious legal obstacles in state recognition of a polygamist marriage. I mean, how would you work out things like child custody, inheritance, taxes, etc. if everyone in the union were to be treated equally, especially if there were no limit to the number of "spouses" able to enter into the union? People could create giant unions of millions of people. So I'm against legal polygamist marriage because I just honestly don't know how that would even be possible.
Click to expand...
 
1069 said:
The risk of oral/pharyngeal cancer comes from having certain strains of the hpv virus in one's mouth and throat.
Unless one's partner is infected with the hpv virus, oral sex does not increase the risk of oral cancer.
Click to expand...

There's also herpes, HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B...
 
Alastor said:
But this comment of yours (about oral sex causing cancer) is not about homosexual relationships.

It's about all relationships.

Yet it seems to me you'd like to apply your point only to the discussion in regards to homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Oral and anal are what queers do; they can't have natural sex.
 
Except that your last three posts prove me right. All those diseases you list can be transmitted by strictly heterosexual sex. They have nothing to do with being gay. In fact, many gay sex practices(mutual masturbation, frotting and so on) are safer than traditional strait sex. Those things are what many "queers" do. This is why you appear to be confused on the subject. You do not seem to understand that "queers" do not adhere to your preconceived notions.
 
SouthernMan - I believe you're off topic. The question is, should it be stopped. If people choose to act is risky ways that affect their health, so be it so long as it doesn't affect others. That's there freedom as a United States citizen. you can have unprotected sex with a woman and that can be very dangerous too. You can't illegalize these acts for that reason. So your point isn't a point on this topic.

So the question is: do we have a right to stop them from marriage? Do we as a society have any reason to restrict their freedom to choose to marry someone of the same sex? I say what people choose to do in their lives is their choice. It won't affect my day-to-day living and it will make them happy. so why not?

To those concerned with the religious aspect of marriage: I don't understand what you're worried about. If it goes against the religion, then they won't be married under that religion by definition. So... what's your point exactly? Religion defines marriage a certain way, yes. But that doesn't mean we can't change the definition of marriage in the government. seperation of church and state.
 
Blackdog said:
No WE are not discussing any “civil marriage” and I am not in the mood for silly word games. I am saying a civil union is NOT a marriage and would not agree to have it recognized as such, period.

My religious marriage ceremony could not be preformed for a certain amount of time (days) had passed for the state license to be recognized. My pastor could not perform the service until it was recognized by the state.

In this day and age holy matrimony is NOT separate as you cannot have one without the other, period. It is illegal in every state, period.
Click to expand...

Example: Islam permits polygyny under certain circumstances. That is ILLEGAL under American CIVIL marriage laws, but it’s permitted under Islamic RELIGIOUS marriage laws. And you’re telling me that a Muslim who has multiple wives under Islamic law (not American civil law) can be arrested because it’s illegal in every state to practice your religious beliefs, including your religious beliefs about marriage??? That’s blatantly false! And that’s because there is a separation of civil law and religious law in this country (meaning religious law has no bearing on civil law and vice versa). A man may have 4 recognized wives under ISLAMIC marriage law, but he can only have one recognized wife under CIVIL marriage law. That’s the separation right there! How can you deny that again and again and again??


Blackdog said:
You cannot legally have a religious ceremony without the state license first. What part of this are you missing? I have repeated this 3 times and you keep making the same incorrect statement.
Click to expand...

See my example about polygyny in Islam, which is proof that you CAN indeed have a religious ceremony without a state license first. It’s undeniable.

Blackdog said:
The main point you are missing is that gay marriage or even gay sex is a sin.
Click to expand...

Nope, I’m not missing that point. I completely disagree, in fact. Not like your definition of sinful should be injected into my laws anyway. Do you believe that sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex should be legal? You would call it sinful, but do you deny that people have the personal freedom to do that in the privacy of their own homes if they are both consenting adults?

Blackdog said:
As a Christian I cannot sanction, condone or support the life style. A civil union is not a marriage, otherwise the term and legal definition of civil union would not exist.

Civil Union:

Civil unions are legal contracts between partners that are recognized by a state or government as conferring all or some of the rights conferred by marriage, but without the implicit historical and religious meaning associated with the word "marriage."

In the United States, some states have legalized civil unions as an option for same-sex couples who cannot legally marry.

Civil unions were once distinct from domestic partnerships, but the terms are now used more-or-less interchangeably.

That should clear it up.
Click to expand...

That’s a fine definition, but it doesn’t apply to states like Massachusetts. There is no legal definition for civil union there because they don’t exist under the law and have never existed under the law.

Blackdog said:
So what?

The Muslim, Christian or atheist in our society is free to work within the system for changes they would like. This does not mean they will succeed, but it is the American way.
Click to expand...

If they did succeed, would you have a problem adhering to Islamic laws that you did not believe in, such as the rule about veils (pretending that you were a woman)? They are not your religious beliefs, but without a separation of church and state, people can impose their own beliefs on others who do not share them.

Blackdog said:
Since when does the US Constitution not trump the laws of other countries in the US?

This is not the rest of the world. So what they think is completely irrelevant on this issue.
Click to expand...

Fine, ignoring international municipalities, there are 5 states plus the District of Columbia that allow same-sex marriage. Additionally, 1 state (California) recognizes same-sex marriages that were performed there legally before Proposition 8 passed. Also, 3 states recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states. I know it’s not at the federal level of the U.S. Constitution, but same-sex marriage is a right in several places within the U.S. at a state level.

Blackdog said:
1 Corn 27-28: If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you want to go, eat whatever is served without asking questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This is from a sacrifice,” do not eat, because of the one who told you and because of conscience.

According to the God you say you worship, he would not agree.

You mite want to read Corin 5 as well.

So you would condone all that which is immoral and considered wrong by the God you worship?

We are to respect the government, not condone that which we see as sinful.
Click to expand...

I don’t need you to tell me what parts of the Bible to read or preach to me. I have my own religious beliefs and I’m quite content with them, thank you.
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
Example: Islam permits polygyny under certain circumstances. That is ILLEGAL under American CIVIL marriage laws, but it’s permitted under Islamic RELIGIOUS marriage laws. And you’re telling me that a Muslim who has multiple wives under Islamic law (not American civil law) can be arrested because it’s illegal in every state to practice your religious beliefs, including your religious beliefs about marriage???
Click to expand...

U.S. laws concerning polygamy:
Gregory Brower, the Arizona U.S. Attorney, said during a Senate hearing in 2008-JUL that there is no federal law against polygamy. He commented that the federal government has a number of traditional resources at its disposal to investigate polygamists, including FBI, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, IRS, and other inspectors.
However, polygamy is illegal in all 50 states under state laws. - http://www.religioustolerance.org/polylaw.htm

According to the laws of all 50 states it would appear so.
sweEt Mauritius said:
That’s blatantly false! And that’s because there is a separation of civil law and religious law in this country (meaning religious law has no bearing on civil law and vice versa). A man may have 4 recognized wives under ISLAMIC marriage law, but he can only have one recognized wife under CIVIL marriage law. That’s the separation right there! How can you deny that again and again and again??
Click to expand...

And like many LDS found out they can be arrested and prosecuted. So no they can’t under US law.

sweEt Mauritius said:
See my example about polygyny in Islam, which is proof that you CAN indeed have a religious ceremony without a state license first. It’s undeniable.
Click to expand...

US law overrides church law, period. They can say they are married all they like but it will not be considered legal under US law.

Your point it not lost on me, but it in no way applies to my argument.

sweEt Mauritius said:
Nope, I’m not missing that point. I completely disagree, in fact. Not like your definition of sinful should be injected into my laws anyway. Do you believe that sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex should be legal? You would call it sinful, but do you deny that people have the personal freedom to do that in the privacy of their own homes if they are both consenting adults?
Click to expand...

It would be almost impossible to enforce. In most cases it would by one person’s word against another. So it would be a waist of time for the state to get involved on that level.

This does not mean we as Christians should support or condone it in anyway, period.

sweEt Mauritius said:
That’s a fine definition, but it doesn’t apply to states like Massachusetts. There is no legal definition for civil union there because they don’t exist under the law and have never existed under the law.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant to my argument or the debate at hand. We are talking about a hypothetical Federal Civil Union law vs. legal homosexual marriage. So that definition most definitely applies.

sweEt Mauritius said:
If they did succeed, would you have a problem adhering to Islamic laws that you did not believe in, such as the rule about veils (pretending that you were a woman)? They are not your religious beliefs, but without a separation of church and state, people can impose their own beliefs on others who do not share them.
Click to expand...

That would not be a problem. As we are free to say no or fight against it. The chances of anything even close to that happening are highly improbable to say the least.

sweEt Mauritius said:
Fine, ignoring international municipalities, there are 5 states plus the District of Columbia that allow same-sex marriage. Additionally, 1 state (California) recognizes same-sex marriages that were performed there legally before Proposition 8 passed. Also, 3 states recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states. I know it’s not at the federal level of the U.S. Constitution, but same-sex marriage is a right in several places within the U.S. at a state level.
Click to expand...

So what? 23 states have amended their state constitutions to outright ban same sex marriage. 6 more states have outright banned it. The other 16 have either not made it legal or are working towards constitutional amendments or voting on banning it outright.

We can play a numbers game all day, but you will lose every time.

sweEt Mauritius said:
I don’t need you to tell me what parts of the Bible to read or preach to me. I have my own religious beliefs and I’m quite content with them, thank you.
Click to expand...

YOU asked a question which I was kind enough to answer. Instead of thanks, you give me attitude.

sweEt Mauritius said:
I really don't understand the "I support civil unions but not the word 'marriage'" argument at all. You think that the word "marriage" would legitimize same-sex relationships, but "civil unions," with the exact same legal rights and social acceptance, somehow doesn't legitimize them? Marriage over civil unions is not primarily about legitimization, (that is simply an eventual by-product in my opinion.) It's about constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that separate but equal is unconstitutional (and because of that ruling, for example, racial integration has been legitimized, thank God.) So a separate institution from marriage with equal rights (aka civil union) is not constitutional, and frankly it's not necessary.
Click to expand...

So you are welcome, and God bless.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
U.S. laws concerning polygamy:
Gregory Brower, the Arizona U.S. Attorney, said during a Senate hearing in 2008-JUL that there is no federal law against polygamy. He commented that the federal government has a number of traditional resources at its disposal to investigate polygamists, including FBI, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, IRS, and other inspectors.
However, polygamy is illegal in all 50 states under state laws. - Laws in the U.S. governing polygamy

According to the laws of all 50 states it would appear so.


And like many LDS found out they can be arrested and prosecuted. So no they can’t under US law.
Click to expand...

Yeah, polygamy under U.S. marriage law is illegal, since it is defined as one man and one woman. Therefore, it would be illegal for someone to attain marriage licenses that legally marry them to more than one person. But reading over that link you provided as well as the Wikipedia page on Polygamy in the U.S., it is not illegal to hold private religious marriage ceremonies. Those religious polygamous marriages aren’t recognized by the law because it is illegal to be married under the law (civilly) to more than one person in all 50 states, but you can’t be arrested for having a private religious ceremony separate from a civil marriage ceremony. However, arrests can be (and have been) made for related charges such as child abuse.

Blackdog said:
US law overrides church law, period. They can say they are married all they like but it will not be considered legal under US law.
Click to expand...

“They can say they are married” but “it will not be considered legal under U.S. law.” Exactly. People are free to say they are married according to their own religious laws, but that does not mean that they are married legally. That’s because there is a separation between civil marriage and religious marriage! The state is not forced to recognize religious marriages (including polygamous ones) and religions are not forced to recognize state marriages (including same-sex ones).


Blackdog said:
That would not be a problem. As we are free to say no or fight against it. The chances of anything even close to that happening are highly improbable to say the least.
Click to expand...

No, you would not be free to say no, unless you think that being arrested, jailed, fined, etc. for disobeying the law counts as “free to say no.” It would definitely be a problem for me since the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state; if I don’t believe in Islamic law, the secular government shouldn’t force me to follow those laws legally. I am free to follow Islamic law in my own life if I wish, but I am not and should not be forced to follow Islamic law in order to avoid legal penalties. Same applies to Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and all other religions that are practiced in this country. And I’m speaking hypothetically so it doesn’t matter the chances of it actually happening. But take into account atheists who see it happening already due to the Christian influence in this secular country. When people use their religion as justification for civil laws, people who do not follow that religion are forced to follow those laws by default. And they have a right to be upset about it, as I would be upset if I were forced to obey secular laws based in the Islamic religious beliefs of an elected representative.

Blackdog said:
So what? 23 states have amended their state constitutions to outright ban same sex marriage. 6 more states have outright banned it. The other 16 have either not made it legal or are working towards constitutional amendments or voting on banning it outright.
Click to expand...

You previously said that you weren’t aware of a right for people of the same sex to marry in the U.S. I was giving you examples of places where that is a legal right. I never claimed that it was a majority of places, I was just informing you that the right does exist in the U.S. in multiple places.

Blackdog said:
YOU asked a question which I was kind enough to answer. Instead of thanks, you give me attitude.

So you are welcome, and God bless.
Click to expand...

I apologize if I came off that way. I love to debate and I’ve enjoyed having this discussion with you. It’s certainly made me think about certain points that I haven’t given much thought to in the past.
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
Yeah, polygamy under U.S. marriage law is illegal, since it is defined as one man and one woman. Therefore, it would be illegal for someone to attain marriage licenses that legally marry them to more than one person. But reading over that link you provided as well as the Wikipedia page on Polygamy in the U.S., it is not illegal to hold private religious marriage ceremonies. Those religious polygamous marriages aren’t recognized by the law because it is illegal to be married under the law (civilly) to more than one person in all 50 states, but you can’t be arrested for having a private religious ceremony separate from a civil marriage ceremony. However, arrests can be (and have been) made for related charges such as child abuse.
Click to expand...

You can have a private religious ceremony but it would mean nothing. The state would not recognize it as legal and so no operating room visits etc.

It’s not the same.

sweEt Mauritius said:
“They can say they are married” but “it will not be considered legal under U.S. law.” Exactly. People are free to say they are married according to their own religious laws, but that does not mean that they are married legally. That’s because there is a separation between civil marriage and religious marriage! The state is not forced to recognize religious marriages (including polygamous ones) and religions are not forced to recognize state marriages (including same-sex ones).
Click to expand...

The specifications for obtaining a marriage licence vary between states. In general, however, both parties must appear in person at the time the licence is obtained; be of marriageable age (i.e. over 18 years; lower in some states with the consent of a parent); present proper identification (typically a driver's licence, state ID card, birth certificate or passport; more documentation may be required for those born outside of the United States); and neither must be married to anyone else (proof of spouse's death or divorce may be required, by someone who had been previously married in some states).
Many states require 1 to 6 days to pass, between the granting of the licence and the marriage ceremony. After the marriage ceremony, both spouses and the officiant sign the marriage licence (some states also require a witness). The officiant or couple then files for a certified copy of the marriage licence and a marriage certificate with the appropriate authority. Some states also have a requirement that a licence be filed within a certain time after its issuance, typically 30 or 60 days, following which a new licence must be obtained. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence

You cannot have a religious cerimony without the license. If you do it will not be legal, as I said before.
sweEt Mauritius said:
No, you would not be free to say no, unless you think that being arrested, jailed, fined, etc. for disobeying the law counts as “free to say no.” It would definitely be a problem for me since the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state; if I don’t believe in Islamic law, the secular government shouldn’t force me to follow those laws legally. I am free to follow Islamic law in my own life if I wish, but I am not and should not be forced to follow Islamic law in order to avoid legal penalties. Same applies to Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and all other religions that are practiced in this country. And I’m speaking hypothetically so it doesn’t matter the chances of it actually happening. But take into account atheists who see it happening already due to the Christian influence in this secular country. When people use their religion as justification for civil laws, people who do not follow that religion are forced to follow those laws by default. And they have a right to be upset about it, as I would be upset if I were forced to obey secular laws based in the Islamic religious beliefs of an elected representative.
Click to expand...

You have missed my point completely.

You are free to vote, protest etc to have any law changed you wish. Separation of church and state means no law shall be based on religious laws. This does not mean people cannot lobby or vote for laws that are similar. I mean murder is against biblical law, and it is also against the law in the US. So because they are similar, laws against murder are unconstitutional? Of course not.

So we are free to lobby etc for changes and work within the system for that change. If you don’t like it you can take it to court to see if it will withstand the challenge.

sweEt Mauritius said:
You previously said that you weren’t aware of a right for people of the same sex to marry in the U.S. I was giving you examples of places where that is a legal right. I never claimed that it was a majority of places, I was just informing you that the right does exist in the U.S. in multiple places.
Click to expand...

I was speaking strictly from a Federal perspective. I should have probably been clearer.

Even so, a state or two passing a law does not make it a right

sweEt Mauritius said:
I apologize if I came off that way. I love to debate and I’ve enjoyed having this discussion with you. It’s certainly made me think about certain points that I haven’t given much thought to in the past.
Click to expand...

I am seeing new things myself.

I really appreciate your efforts to remain civil on such a hot button issue.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
There is no logical reason or non-bigotted reason to try and stop gay marriage. Marriage is not a Christian domain, it is a human domain. How close minded... seriously. pff
 
Bodhisattva said:
There is no logical reason or non-bigotted reason to try and stop gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes there is, it is wrong. Has nothing to do with bigotry.

Bodhisattva said:
Marriage is not a Christian domain, it is a human domain.
Click to expand...

No one said it was a “Christian Domain” it is however a religious one.

Bodhisattva said:
How close minded... seriously. pff
Click to expand...

Yes! Because there is nothing subjective about people morals. :doh

Using the definition:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Please point out how any of my statements can have this applied to them?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom