• 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? (PART II)

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

  • Total voters
    154
winston53660 said:
Okay why don't you just come out and say it instead of this cat and mouse game?

It is normal for homosexuality to occur in nature.
Click to expand...

i can only render personal opinion, thats all,HOWEVER my personal opinion NEVER overrides rights.....there are many things i do not like in our society ....but i dont have authority to change them (rights of people), and i would not try even if i had ...becuase it will be against the founding constitutional principles.

now i can petition to change the law, but i cannot petition to use force on other people or deny them their rights...........that is why america does not have democratic government,....but republican government.

constitutional principles are what i live for.

sure i have side on the issue, but i am not against two people marrying, i not against two people engaging in an activity they wish to engage in.

but when the moral behavior of people be that straight or gay, come into the public arena by governments, i am applauded...its not a duty of government.

as to your question... i think its abnormal....however again, thats only opinion , and it bares no weight on rights, ......so what i think about someone's sexual preference.....is mute!
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
i can only render personal opinion, thats all,HOWEVER my personal opinion NEVER overrides rights.....there are many things i do not like in our society ....but i dont have authority to change them (rights of people), and i would not try even if i had ...becuase it will be against the founding constitutional principles.

now i can petition to change the law, but i cannot petition to use force on other people or deny them their rights...........that is why america does not have democratic government,....but republican government.

constitutional principles are what i live for.

sure i have side on the issue, but i am not against two people marrying, i not against two people engaging in an activity they wish to engage in.

but when the moral behavior of people be that straight or gay, come into the public arena by governments, i am applauded...it not a duty of government.

as to your question... i think its abnormal....however again, thats only opinion , and it bares no weight on rights, ......so what i think about someone's sexual preference.....is mute!
Click to expand...

Idealism is well... I think it would be an extreme disservice if not out right dangerous were not education not compulsory. In sex ed kids learn about various things like HIV and other STD's . On the question of homosexuality it seems your concern is is it normal and natural? My response is it is normal for homosexuality to happen in nature.
 
winston53660 said:
Idealism is well... I think it would be an extreme disservice if not out right dangerous were not education not compulsory. In sex ed kids learn about various things like HIV and other STD's . On the question of homosexuality it seems your concern is is it normal and natural? My response is it is normal for homosexuality to happen in nature.
Click to expand...

i only rendered an opinion, i will not render anymore on the details of that subject, becuase it does not matter what i think, at all...unless a person or persons, are using the issue of sexuality in the public arena by governments, if they use it in their own persona arenas of life,...so be it.

anything that violates the foundering principles of our nation, i am against, .....and many people today want to violate them to meet their own agenda's.....
 
CLAX1911 said:
Why do you always drop off when I say try harder?
Click to expand...

you mean the web site?

i am currently looking at many things...ancient biblical Greek language , constitutional writings, comparing them with the constitution itself, so i am doing many things, and i drop off to discuss issues with my wife over things, which come up.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i only rendered an opinion, i will not render anymore on the details of that subject, becuase it does not matter what i think, at all...unless a person or persons, are using the issue of sexuality in the public arena by governments, if they use it in their own persona arenas of life,...so be it.

anything that violates the foundering principles of our nation, i am against, .....and many people today want to violate them to meet their own agenda's.....
Click to expand...

One of the founding principles was that a black man was only 3/5ths of a person another was that women can not vote. Those principles I do not mind violating.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you mean the web site?

i am currently looking at many things...ancient biblical Greek language , constitutional writings, comparing them with the constitution itself, so i am doing many things, and i drop off to discuss issues with my wife over things, which come up.
Click to expand...

No, you say you can't afford private school I say try harder and you disappear, conveniently every time i say that.
 
winston53660 said:
One of the founding principles was that a black man was only 3/5ths of a person another was that women can not vote. Those principles I do not mind violating.
Click to expand...

3/5 ths of a person has nothing to do with race, it has to do with representation in the house of representatives.

the SOUTH wanted slaves to be counted as 1 for representation, becuase they are people, .......the NORTH then stated if they are people, they cannot be slaves, to which the SOUTH stated they were then property, this situation also had to do with taxes collected. the the SOUTH did not want to pay taxes for a whole person.

if slaves were not counted as 3/5 ths as the NORTH wanted, then they would have been counted as 1 person, and this would have given the SOUTH, great amounts of representation in the house of representatives, in essence they would have dominated the house and controlled it....there would have been no civil war, and slavery would have lasted longer.

so by counting them as 3/5 ths of a person, the founders knew what they were doing to shorten slavery, and in fact the constitution itself ends the importation of slavery by Jan 1 1808.

voting.....is not a right, if you read the early founders voting is a privilege by the states, if you own land and pay taxes, you can vote.....the founders wanted people who had a stake in america, slaves and woman are not mentioned in this issue, and are not denied in their writings.

women in that age were subservient to there fathers, and then there husbands, its been that way back to roman times.......in roman times ......a father could kill his daughter or son, for no reason.....
 
the solution is really simple


schools teach civility and they teach kids that different people: men, women, race, sexual orientations, disabilities, learning abilities, different economic background, different religions, family make ups etc all exists and we are to be civil with eachother and not to judge based on these things. This is not morality being taught this is common sense and civility.


if an intelligent honest civil education of this nature bothers some the options are plentiful. Along with the normal responsibilities of being a good parent, you can simply be aware of your child education and also teach them what you want at home. THis is typical standard behavior.

If one is to bigoted or uneducated or uncaring parent to do so the solutions are plentiful. Home schooling, private schooling, charter schooling etc

SOME private schools cost additional money, charter schools and home schooling does not.

acting like this is something else is simply dishonest and gets destroyed by facts and reality.
 
ernst barkmann said:
3/5 ths of a person has nothing to do with race, it has to do with representation in the house of representatives.

the SOUTH wanted slaves to be counted as 1 for representation, becuase they are people, .......the NORTH then stated if they are people, they cannot be slaves, to which the SOUTH stated they were then property, this situation also had to do with taxes collected. the the SOUTH did not want to pay taxes for a whole person.

if slaves were not counted as 3/5 ths as the NORTH wanted, then they would have been counted as 1 person, and this would have given the SOUTH, great amounts of representation in the house of representatives, in essence they would have dominated the house and controlled it....there would have been no civil war, and slavery would have lasted longer.

so by counting them as 3/5 ths of a person, the founders knew what they were doing to shorten slavery, and in fact the constitution itself ends the importation of slavery by Jan 1 1808.

voting.....is not a right, if you read the early founders voting is a privilege by the states, if you own land and pay taxes, you can vote.....the founders wanted people who had a stake in america, slaves and woman are not mentioned in this issue, and are not denied in their writings.

women in that age were subservient to there fathers, and then there husbands, its been that way back to roman times.......in roman times ......a father could kill his daughter or son, for no reason.....
Click to expand...


Then go live in the 18th century
 
winston53660 said:
Then go live in the 18th century
Click to expand...


so are you telling me, you would have counted them as a a full person,and given the slavery south control of the house?

voting is not a right.....even whites could not vote, in reading early american courts cases whites sued becuase they could no longer vote, the court stated to them, you dont have land, and you dont pay taxes...[remember no income tax then]....so you cant vote.....[so some whites could not vote either].

also their were white slaves in america to, not just blacks.
 
ernst barkmann said:
so are you telling me, you would have counted them as a a full person,and given the slavery south control of the house?

voting is not a right.....even whites could not vote, in reading early american courts cases whites sued becuase they could no longer vote, the court stated to them, you dont have land, and you dont pay taxes...[remember no income tax then]....so you cant vote.....[so some whites could not vote either].

also their were white slaves in america to, not just blacks.
Click to expand...


Thanxs for pointing out some more founding principles I do not mind violating:2wave:
 
winston53660 said:
Thanxs for pointing out some more founding principles I do not mind violating:2wave:
Click to expand...

well these are not founding principles.

our founding principles can be found in the DOI.

the Constitution itself is a document which setups the federal government, delegates them 18 powers, and places limitations on them, not to violate the rights of the people....so the constitution is a limiting document for government only......not for people or business.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well these are not founding principles.

our founding principles can be found in the DOI.

the Constitution itself is a document which setups the federal government, delegates them 18 powers, and places limitations on them, not to violate the rights of the people....so the constitution is a limiting document for government only......not for people or business.
Click to expand...

Since we are a government of the people, that means that yes, the Constitution does place limitations on what the people can do when those people are using the government, as in laws or limitations in laws/regulations to do it.
 
roguenuke said:
Since we are a government of the people, that means that yes, the Constitution does place limitations on what the people can do when those people are using the government, as in laws or limitations in laws/regulations to do it.
Click to expand...

nothing in the us, constitution places a limit on the people or business, nothing.

and if you read article 1 section 8 second to last clause you will see government has no authority outside of d.c. of were the states say they can.

government is here to secure right of the people, when you infringe on someone rights, or your actions can cause the infringements of rights, then government acts, until then it is supposed to stand back.
 
ernst barkmann said:
nothing in the us, constitution places a limit on the people or business, nothing.

and if you read article 1 section 8 second to last clause you will see government has no authority outside of d.c. of were the states say they can.

government is here to secure right of the people, when you infringe on someone rights, or your actions can cause the infringements of rights, then government acts, until then it is supposed to stand back.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it did. I said it places a limit on laws that people make/try to pass because laws are part of government, whether they are put in place by the people or the actual elected officials themselves.
 
roguenuke said:
I didn't say it did. I said it places a limit on laws that people make/try to pass because laws are part of government, whether they are put in place by the people or the actual elected officials themselves.
Click to expand...

yes, in fact your describing some what republican government, or know as mixed constitution [or our american constitution], created to stop the abuses of majority rule [democracy], which people try to use to take away people's rights.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, in fact your describing some what republican government, or know as mixed constitution [or our american constitution], created to stop the abuses of majority rule [democracy], which people try to use to take away people's rights.
Click to expand...

We aren't majority rule for a reason, to in fact protect people's rights. And those rights are being protected from other people, not the government. The government is run by the people, in many cases with full, majority support to try to restrict or violate the rights of people with not so much influence in that government, either by vote or by dollar.
 
roguenuke said:
We aren't majority rule for a reason, to in fact protect people's rights. And those rights are being protected from other people, not the government. The government is run by the people, in many cases with full, majority support to try to restrict or violate the rights of people with not so much influence in that government, either by vote or by dollar.
Click to expand...


america was not created a majority rule. [as you say]....america was created with mixed constitution, republican government.... divided power, the people have 1/2 of direct power, the states have 1/2 direct power, and the people have 100% indirect power.


Federalist No. 40

The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 18, 1788.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

THE SECOND point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

america was created with republican government not democratic government.......federalist 10
 
roguenuke said:
We aren't majority rule for a reason, to in fact protect people's rights. And those rights are being protected from other people, not the government. The government is run by the people, in many cases with full, majority support to try to restrict or violate the rights of people with not so much influence in that government, either by vote or by dollar.
Click to expand...


one reason to ...repeal the 17th amendment
 
Last edited:
douglas said:
It doesn't, and yet I've heard major Christian leaders defend those things using the bible. In our history, every single one of those injustices has been defended by using one or more quotes in the bible. The golden rule, the basis of Secular morality, is downplayed by most Christians in those cases. There's a contradiction there, and that causes the problems we see with Christian morality today; Christian based discrimination of Homosexuals is condoned by passages of the bible, but ultimately undone by the golden rule; which one do we hear about?
Click to expand...

There is a considerable scriptural basis that homosexual relations are sinful, and the claim that they are ultimately undone by the golden rule is pure folly. The reason: Love does not rejoice in iniquity (1 Corinthians 13). And, Romans 13:10 states that love does no harm to a neighbor (such as enticing one's neighbor into sinful relations for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences.

As for slavery, the vast majority of it in the Bible falls into 3 categories: 1. People selling themselves into slavery for financial reasons. 2. People undergoing the judgment of God for their evildoing. 3. People sinning against God placing their brothers into slavery (note the story of Joseph in Genesis).

As for the Bible approving of incest, that was before the law was given, and was necessary to start the human race. Later, incense was deemed unlawful by God. Leviticus 18:6 says, "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord."

Regarding secular righteousness, I think God is howling over that one, considering he has revealed that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. A Christian revival will convince sinners to repent of their sins, receive Christ as their Lord and Savior for the remission of their sins, and endeavor to lead as decent a Christian life as they are able.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) nobody said GOD is debunked im religious myself what was said is believing in god religion is not a reason fight against equal rights for gays
2.) well then simply put up or shut up. PLEASE explain to us all how granting equal rights for gays will solely lead to other things using only the precedence for gay rights. Otherwise you got nothing.
3.) facts prove you wrong so there nothing to debate here
4.) yes it very ignorant there is nobody educated and honest that thinks you can catch gay
5.) well since the constitution exists and since churches already discriminate again STRAIGHT,INTERRACIAL and RELIGIOUS couples RIGHT NOW your argument is simply not true and a huge failure. But most importantly has nothing to do with gays. Theres no danger of "churches" being forced to marry anybody. nice try but a complete failure. Are tou from the us?

5.) no apology need i dont feel attacked at all and all your points failed, facts and reality prove them all wrong.

but please feel free to come back when you have legit concerns or reason to stop equal rights for gays. Ill gladly read then too.
Click to expand...



I don't think you caught the jist of my response. I wasn't arguing against gay equality. I was just pointing out that one of the points you made are actually of use. You have a little habit of jumping to conclusions.
For example:

1.) Believing in god WOULD result in a believer to be against the acceptance of what christians call a "sinful" act, registered as a thing as official and closely held by christians such as marriage etc. And so if christians and the bible were correct all along...then god being real is of every relevance.
2.) Again, I wasn't arguing against you on the principles, but simply pointing out that the "slippery slope" principle is a regular occurance in everyday life ("I'll just have one beer", "Just one last bet") and so I don't think you have made a sound point AGAINST the slippery slope argument.
3.) Please re-read what was being said. I agreed it was a silly way to argue against gay equality, but you stated it as wrong because it was a "lie". By no definition is the reason it doesn't work as an argument a lie.
4.) Again, I wasn't saying it was a good way to argue against gay rights, I was just pointing out that your statement of it being "ignorant" was not useful, helpful, relevant or even fair.
5.) On this point I agree to disagree. Churches groups are currently allowed to not allow people, who they believe are indulging in something wrong, to use their facilities etc. Thats their right and good on 'em. (This last statement I make from the view point that homosexuality is a choice which is a separate issue I don't want to get into over a forum. Too hard.)

Again, no attacks on you personally, just on your arguments against the arguments against the gay equality movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom