• 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
digsbe said:
Marriage is a right, homosexual marriage, polygamy, incest marriages, or other unions are not nor is it a right for people to demand or feel entitled to such things. Marriage as a right exists within the boundaries of how the states define the unions for themselves.
Click to expand...

well when pushed to state supreme courts they disagree, the IRS also now disagree

its a matter of time before equal rights is pushed and gays will have equal rights, yes i know you don't support equal rights for gays but that doesnt matter. Precedence does.
 
digsbe said:
No, I support SSM at the state level but I respect that others disagree and I think it would be an atrocity to freedom to mandate SSM on a national level and deny people their right to vote on the issue.
Click to expand...

Why??
 
AGENT J said:
yep this type of sever uneducated logic on this topic was funny and made no sense back then and that still holds true today.
Click to expand...

My point which you already agreed to still stands from post #305. The stawman in this case had a purpose - to show stupidity has many forms (which was my point and you agree); just as stupid as calls for changing the definition of marriage between a man and a woman to a "union" of two people because one group doesn't think it's fair. Taken to the extreme in the 15 cases of overt stupidity.


Thanks for the support. Appreciate it.
 
AGENT J said:
the fact that religion has nothgin to do with legal marriage, that fact, try to keep up
Click to expand...

Gov't has decided religions who don't also allow same-sex 'union' ceremonies at the religion's building, even though same-sex 'unions' go against the religion's canon, should not get tax breaks. Gov't also is giving tax breaks to religions, to any ideology, I guess, under exact same circumstances if they perform same-sex 'union' ceremonies.

There is a portion of the religion part of the first amendment that goes something like this: gov't shall not set up a gov't religion... Well, if under the exact same circumstances, gov't allows certain tax breaks to religions, while disallowing tax breaks to other religions, gov't is, in essence, setting up a gov't religion...... Like I said in another post. You don't care about the religion part of the first amendment of the Constitution.

You said in another post that this couldn't happen? Well, it happened to the Methodist Church of New Jersey.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Gov't has decided religions who don't also allow same-sex 'union' ceremonies at the religion's building, even though same-sex 'unions' go against the religion's canon, should not get tax breaks.
Gov't also is giving tax breaks to religions, to any ideology, I guess, under exact same circumstances if they perform same-sex 'union' ceremonies.

There is a portion of the religion part of the first amendment that goes something like this: gov't shall not set up a gov't religion... Well, if under the exact same circumstances, gov't allows certain tax breaks to religions, while disallowing tax breaks to other religions, gov't is, in essence, setting up a gov't religion...... Like I said in another post. You don't care about the religion part of the first amendment of the Constitution.

You said in another post that this couldn't happen? Well, it happened to the Methodist Church of New Jersey.
Click to expand...

1.) never at a CHURCH
if the building was used for PROFIT and COMMERCIAL or public access yes and the government should do that

just cause its owned by a religion doesnt mean it gets to discriminate outside the religious realm

try again, CHURCHES are in no danger of being forced to marry anybody

and please give us all a FACTUAL link to what exactly happened to this "church". I want to see the facts

my guess is this church owned something like a pavilion, rented out to people to uses and then when somebody wanted to use it they didnt like on religious grounds the discriminated against them and were either fined, made to rent it out anyway etc etc

ill be waiting for the link

like i said religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage.
 
like i said, you and the gov't don't care about the religion portion of the first amemment with the demand that unions be marriages.
Here's your link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=0

The last line of the link states that, before tax exempt status of the Ocean Grove pavillion was revoked (supposedly), Ocean Grove, NJ. was the leading light for gay tolerance and that’s not the case anymore,” Mr. Goldstein said. Ocean Grove NJ. (a gov't) is certainly not the leading light for religious tolerance. All The Methodist Church of NJ has to do is forsake their canon and they will get tax exempt status for their pavillion. In other words, the canon of the Methodist Church of NJ is wrong when attempting to achieve tax status as deemed by the gov't of Ocean Grove NJ.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
like i said, you don't care about the religion portion of the first amemment when it comes to same-sex unions.
Here's your link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=0

The last line of the link states that, before tax exempt status of the Ocean Grove pavillion was revoked (supposedly), Ocean Grove, NJ. was the leading light for gay tolerance and that’s not the case anymore,” Mr. Goldstein said. What would Mr. Goldstein say about the religious tolerance of Ocean Grove, NJ? Ocean Grove NJ. is certainly not the leading light for religious tolerance.
Click to expand...

BOOM!
i called it i knew the story you were talking about it was about a publicboardwalk pavillion they owned and rented out ane let the public use.

Im familiar with this story from back in the day, i believe it was found out that the church even let other religious things go on like Bar mitvas but then didnt allow a gay ceremony which is the epitome of bigotry

the move was 100% right because a boardwalk public pavilion is NOT the church. ANd per your story just the pavilion couldnt be claimed as tax exempt, the group itself lost nothign

thanks for proving me right and my statement stands

like i said religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage and no CHURCH is in danger of being forced to marry anybody
 
So you also agree with the NJ gov't. The canon of the NJ Methodist Church is wrong when attempting to achieve tax exempt status.... Did I get that right from you?
 
Last edited:
And that boardwalk pavillion in Ocean Grove, NJ is 100 percent (or was) operated and maintained by the Methodist Church of New Jersey?
 
Cat got your tongue?
 
cabse5 said:
And that boardwalk pavillion in Ocean Grove, NJ is 100 percent (or was) operated and maintained by the Methodist Church of New Jersey?
Click to expand...

doesnt matter on bit its not a church its a public access facility used as a business, its not in the religious realm but public and business realm

are you saying St Margarets Hospital gets to refuse to treat gays and deny husband visitation to anybody not married under their religion because they are church "owned"

sorry we all must play by the same public/business rules

the church is 100% free to discriminate at church though and thats protected and not going anywhere
 
cabse5 said:
So you also agree with the NJ gov't. The canon of the NJ Methodist Church is wrong when attempting to achieve tax exempt status.... Did I get that right from you?
Click to expand...

the church itself still has tax except status
what are you trying to ask
 
digsbe said:
No, I support SSM at the state level but I respect that others disagree and I think it would be an atrocity to freedom to mandate SSM on a national level and deny people their right to vote on the issue.
Click to expand...
Should your right to marry be put to a vote Digs?Shoud the rights of inter-racial couples to marry be put to a vote?Majority rules, right?
 
disneydude said:
Should your right to marry be put to a vote Digs?Shoud the rights of inter-racial couples to marry be put to a vote?Majority rules, right?
Click to expand...

saying it should be a state issues is a cop out and nothing more, a smoke screen
 
It must be called marriage, gay people should settle for nothing less. Calling it something else but making it "equal" is a complete lie.
That is separate but equal, that is a complete oxymoron. Nothing can be separate and still be equal.

No compromise is possible.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It must be called marriage, gay people should settle for nothing less. Calling it something else but making it "equal" is a complete lie.
That is separate but equal, that is a complete oxymoron. Nothing can be separate and still be equal.

No compromise is possible.
Click to expand...
I used to think otherwise, but have since come to agree with this.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It must be called marriage, gay people should settle for nothing less. Calling it something else but making it "equal" is a complete lie.
That is separate but equal, that is a complete oxymoron. Nothing can be separate and still be equal.

No compromise is possible.
Click to expand...

100% correct
 
disneydude said:
Should your right to marry be put to a vote Digs?Shoud the rights of inter-racial couples to marry be put to a vote?Majority rules, right?
Click to expand...

I shouldn't even respond to the stawman of ssm=inter racial marriage or that they are even remotely similar.

Marriage policy is marriage policy. Redefining marriage to include new unions is a policy issue more closely related to setting a tax rate or something else that is policy (not rights) based. Majority rules, that's democracy and within the state's rights. When sexuality is a protected class in the constitution like race and religion then you may have an argument. It's unconstitutional to deny people the ability to marry based on their race, it is within a state's right and policy to not redefine marriage to include new unions like ssm.

As to the poll question, of course it's right for people to stop or try to prevent ssm from being legalized. They have every right to vote on their beliefs and stop something they believe is wrong just like anyone else.
 
digsbe said:
I shouldn't even respond to the stawman of ssm=inter racial marriage or that they are even remotely similar.

Marriage policy is marriage policy. Redefining marriage to include new unions is a policy issue more closely related to setting a tax rate or something else that is policy (not rights) based. Majority rules, that's democracy and within the state's rights. When sexuality is a protected class in the constitution like race and religion then you may have an argument. It's unconstitutional to deny people the ability to marry based on their race, it is within a state's right and policy to not redefine marriage to include new unions like ssm.

As to the poll question, of course it's right for people to stop or try to prevent ssm from being legalized. They have every right to vote on their beliefs and stop something they believe is wrong just like anyone else.
Click to expand...

AGENT J said:
Also to be clear Im also not saying its wrong for you to VOTE on the subject everybody has that right of course.
Click to expand...

that was not the question
 
CLAX1911 said:
After debating on this sight, i have come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

See? This is what happens when extremist spew their stupidity too loudly. Compromise on issues can certainly happen, but when extremists... in this case, those who are anti-gay, spew stupid nonesensical comment after stupid nonsensical comment, people who are more moderate realize that there won't be any compromise, so one must take the opposing position. It's the anti-gay extremists that are going to make gay marriage a reality, simply because their arguments are so dumb and bigoted. If they played this smart, they'd stop arguing in the way that they do.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
See? This is what happens when extremist spew their stupidity too loudly. Compromise on issues can certainly happen, but when extremists... in this case, those who are anti-gay, spew stupid nonesensical comment after stupid nonsensical comment, people who are more moderate realize that there won't be any compromise, so one must take the opposing position. It's the anti-gay extremists that are going to make gay marriage a reality, simply because their arguments are so dumb and bigoted. If they played this smart, they'd stop arguing in the way that they do.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I have heard repeatedly that I should be happy with this made up civil union, and that marriage is reserved for the right kind of relationship. The line is in the sand, I was forced to pick a side.

Its all good though, we are winning.
 
AGENT J said:
That means in America I think its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc<----------------------------
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc
Click to expand...

i am answering you again, because of what you posted here.

who is it that does the teaching?

is it the parents, or the school ?....that teaches its ....... wrong gross or offensive

if you say the school has no business teaching its wrong gross or offensive, .........then on the other hand, the school has no authority to teach its good decent or proper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom