• 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!

I believe in biblical marriage.

Amazing how the Biblical version of marriage agrees with the versions of marriage practiced by all the other religions and even primitive tribes with that whole notion that it isn't a marriage if it doesn't include at least one of each sex.
 
It's nice how people can take things out of context and make pretty charts to slander a religion and probably make an attempt to dig at them for accepting the fact that homosexual sex is a sin and in God's eyes a homosexual couple is neither married or living out of sin.
 
Congratulations. Too bad the United States isn't run by the Bible.
 
It's also nice how many religious people seem to think everyone should live by their rules, and their rules only.
 
iacardsfan said:
Congratulations. Too bad the United States isn't run by the Bible.
Click to expand...

Apparently 29 of them are and the SCOTUS that said gay marriage is okay in CA says that Gay marriage bans are okay in those states too. If judicial activism were a baseball game, the old slaughter rule wouldn't seem to be favoring the left's position at the moment.
 
Fisher said:
Apparently 29 of them are and the SCOTUS that said gay marriage is okay in CA says that Gay marriage bans are okay in those states too. If judicial activism were a baseball game, the old slaughter rule wouldn't seem to be favoring the left's position at the moment.
Click to expand...

Actually SCOTUS said nothing about marriage...
 
digsbe said:
It's nice how people can take things out of context and make pretty charts to slander a religion and probably make an attempt to dig at them for accepting the fact that homosexual sex is a sin and in God's eyes a homosexual couple is neither married or living out of sin.
Click to expand...

whats out of context?

You mean mentioning stuff you dont like that is in the bible?

Would you come over to stone my wife? I was just reading the old testament and found out that she is supposed to be stoned because she wasnt a virgin before we got married. I know this for a fact, because I was there.

I just cant bear to do the stoning myself, though. I need a good fundamentalist to help me out.
 
Fisher said:
Apparently 29 of them are and the SCOTUS that said gay marriage is okay in CA says that Gay marriage bans are okay in those states too. If judicial activism were a baseball game, the old slaughter rule wouldn't seem to be favoring the left's position at the moment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's the problem with America. Just because a majority of people in a state follow a certain religion doesn't mean they should be able to oppress others in the state by forcing biblical based legislation on them.
 
iacardsfan said:
Congratulations. Too bad the United States isn't run by the Bible.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Perhaps we need to have public officials swear in with one hand on the Constitution.

No, come to think of it, the Constitution needs to be open, so they can read it. The Bible can stay closed, and be read in church instead.
 
digsbe said:
It's nice how people can take things out of context and make pretty charts to slander a religion and probably make an attempt to dig at them for accepting the fact that homosexual sex is a sin and in God's eyes a homosexual couple is neither married or living out of sin.
Click to expand...

Is someone making fun of your religion?
Man,that sucks if they are.

Is there a rule against doing that here on DP?
Maybe Threegoofs should be reprimanded or banned for his OP?
If that's the case,the population of DP would dropped down to probably a handful of people.
 
iacardsfan said:
Yeah, and that's the problem with America. Just because a majority of people in a state follow a certain religion doesn't mean they should be able to oppress others in the state by forcing biblical based legislation on them.
Click to expand...

It's biological based legislation. Bushmen of the Kalahari, former headhunters from Papua New Guinea, Native American tribes, Hindus, Taoists..... everyone except a bunch of militant homosexuals in the USA get that the "man and woman" joining relationship is known as "marriage" and same sex relationships are known as "friendships".
 
Dittohead not! said:
Indeed.

Perhaps we need to have public officials swear in with one hand on the Constitution.

No, come to think of it, the Constitution needs to be open, so they can read it. The Bible can stay closed, and be read in church instead.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement to be sworn in on a Bible. It has been done before and it will be done again. Just because Presidents are individually religious doesn't mean every American is the same religion.
 
Papa bull said:
It's biological based legislation. Bushmen of the Kalahari, former headhunters from Papua New Guinea, Native American tribes, Hindus, Taoists..... everyone except a bunch of militant homosexuals in the USA get that the "man and woman" joining relationship is known as "marriage" and same sex relationships are known as "friendships".
Click to expand...

or perhaps civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage.
 
iacardsfan said:
There is no requirement to be sworn in on a Bible. It has been done before and it will be done again. Just because Presidents are individually religious doesn't mean every American is the same religion.
Click to expand...

Good.
If I'm ever elected, which is unlikely since I never run for anything, I'm swearing in on t he Constitution. Every American should at least believe in that.
 
Papa bull said:
It's biological based legislation. Bushmen of the Kalahari, former headhunters from Papua New Guinea, Native American tribes, Hindus, Taoists..... everyone except a bunch of militant homosexuals in the USA get that the "man and woman" joining relationship is known as "marriage" and same sex relationships are known as "friendships".
Click to expand...

Dont forget these countries if you are going to talk about "militant homosexuals"


Argentina
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Uruguay
Click to expand...

Only "militant homosexuals" from the United States believe in free choice. Riiiiight...
 
Dittohead not! said:
or perhaps civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage.
Click to expand...

I'd go along with that. I'm not sure all the states want to go along with that, though. Still, I see no reason why any two people who want to live together shouldn't be able to draw up whatever sort of legal contract they wish and I don't even see why the state can't make concessions to give them some sort of similar legal structure as marriage. Civil Unions should resolve most of the issues including the "slippery slope" issue of marriage.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good.
If I'm ever elected, which is unlikely since I never run for anything, I'm swearing in on t he Constitution. Every American should at least believe in that.
Click to expand...

Well I agree with you premise but I think swearing in on the physical Constitution might be bad for it's condition. I mean you have to run first but you never know :lol:
 
iacardsfan said:
Dont forget these countries if you are going to talk about "militant homosexuals"




Only "militant homosexuals" from the United States believe in free choice. Riiiiight...
Click to expand...

It's like a who's who of nutcase progressive nations and damned if we didn't join them. I'm wondering how long France will keep homosexual marriage with the outrage people have expressed against it there.

Meanwhile, most of the world and most of the United States maintains the sane position that if it isn't a man and a woman it isn't a marriage.
 
digsbe said:
It's nice how people can take things out of context and make pretty charts to slander a religion and probably make an attempt to dig at them for accepting the fact that homosexual sex is a sin and in God's eyes a homosexual couple is neither married or living out of sin.
Click to expand...

I think the OP was directed less at the bible and more at the religious fools who pretend the bible supports their biases.

If the religious Right would stop misusing the bible, we'd probably be able to mention its foibles less.
 
Papa bull said:
It's biological based legislation. Bushmen of the Kalahari, former headhunters from Papua New Guinea, Native American tribes, Hindus, Taoists..... everyone except a bunch of militant homosexuals in the USA get that the "man and woman" joining relationship is known as "marriage" and same sex relationships are known as "friendships".
Click to expand...

Marriage LAW has to do with property rights, inheritance, etc. It has nothing to do with your pseudo-darwinist socio-biology claptrap. There are plenty of good reasons marriage as an institution evolved. The reasons marriage LAW evolved is quite different. We're talking about marriage LAW in case you didn't notice, wallowing in lumpen sociobiology the way you were.
 
Papa bull said:
It's like a who's who of nutcase progressive nations and damned if we didn't join them. I'm wondering how long France will keep homosexual marriage with the outrage people have expressed against it there.

Meanwhile, most of the world and most of the United States maintains the sane position that if it isn't a man and a woman it isn't a marriage.
Click to expand...

Let me put it to you this way, since Conservatives like to legislate with the Bible: here ya go

Romans 12:2

And be not conformed to this world....
Click to expand...

If the rest of the world favored killing people indiscriminately would you be advocating that as well?
 
head of joaquin said:
Marriage LAW has to do with property rights, inheritance, etc. It has nothing to do with your pseudo-darwinist socio-biology claptrap. There are plenty of good reasons marriage as an institution evolved. The reasons marriage LAW evolved is quite different. We're talking about marriage LAW in case you didn't notice, wallowing in lumpen sociobiology the way you were.
Click to expand...

Marriage law has to do with a lot of things covering the union between a MAN and a WOMAN and none of those things mean that marriage should be anything but a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.
 
iacardsfan said:
Let me put it to you this way, since Conservatives like to legislate with the Bible: here ya go

Romans 12:2



If the rest of the world favored killing people indiscriminately would you be advocating that as well?
Click to expand...

The Bible has nothing to do with it, in my opinion. Common sense and some basic understanding of the birds and the bees and the institution thought of as "fundamental to our very existence and survival". That's got everything to do with it. While some people think it's fine if homosexuals mock up marriage for the sake of tax benefits or sticking a thumb in the eye of the evangelicals they hate with a passion, I think we should take it just a wee bit more serious than that and leave marriage the hell along since it's done a pretty good job for us for centuries without being modified into a freak of nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom