Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you approve or disapprove of homosexual marriages?
Strongly Approve 53 36.81%
Approve 24 16.67%
Somewhat Approve 2 1.39%
Mixed 3 2.08%
Somewhat Disapprove 2 1.39%
Disapprove 11 7.64%
Strongly Disapprove 43 29.86%
Don't Know/Unsure 2 1.39%
No Opinion 4 2.78%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:17 PM
 
895 posts, read 2,365,600 times
Reputation: 366

Advertisements

^ how did you win? LOL. And you won a debate online? LOL.

You lost because you are completely illogical. Why are you against gay marriage but not against eating shrimp? Both are in the scriptures and both dont have anything promoting it in the bible. I dont see how you won. If you see eating shrimp as a sin and an abomination as it states in the bible then maybe you would have "won".

You need to explain your reasoning for being against gay marriage in the first place. You quote scriptures as the absolute truth. So then why dont you take other things as absolute truth then?

How did you win if christians arent even consistant in the scripture they quote?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:17 PM
pba
 
410 posts, read 917,069 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
The US does not have the authority promote laws based on religion.
Moderater cut: No Personal Attacks Allowed People in this country can implement laws based on anything they would like (the Bible included). Prop 8 was based almost entirely on religeous beliefs. Get serious before you say such silly things.

Last edited by doggiebus; 05-30-2009 at 05:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,577 posts, read 1,955,807 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
^ how did you win? LOL. And you won a debate online? LOL.

You lost because you are completely illogical. Why are you against gay marriage but not against eating shrimp? Both are in the scriptures and both dont have anything promoting it in the bible. I dont see how you won. If you see eating shrimp as a sin and an abomination as it states in the bible then maybe you would have "won".
I got into this before - it is based on selective interpretation. Something some people don't want to connect. If a person were to live life by the strict interpretation of the bible and a literal translation, none of us would have rights and society would be paralyzed. On this point, I am completely ignored!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:20 PM
 
895 posts, read 2,365,600 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by pba View Post
Moderater cut: Personal attacks not allowed People in this country can implement laws based on anything they would like (the Bible included). Prop 8 was based almost entirely on religeous beliefs. Get serious before you say such silly things.
Yes and it's unconstitutional. Have you ever read the constitution? But of course you people on the right are fond of promoting unconstitutional things such as the patriot act, banning gay marriage or defining it by religion etc etc. All of these are against the constitution yet you do it anyways. Does that mean you are right?

Also I'm reporting you for that.

Last edited by doggiebus; 05-30-2009 at 05:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:22 PM
 
895 posts, read 2,365,600 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
I got into this before - it is based on selective interpretation. Something some people don't want to connect. If a person were to live life by the strict interpretation of the bible and a literal translation, none of us would have rights and society would be paralyzed. On this point, I am completely ignored!
How did you win if christians arent even consistant in the scripture they quote?

So i guess people can have rights when it benefits them but they cant have rights (like gays) when they are against it. Wow christians are so logical huh? Quote only the things you believe in while being completely inconsistant and ignore the things that go against what you believe.

In that case why should we take anything you quote from the bible seriously if you cant even tell us what is supposed to be taken seriously or not? LOL

In other words you just proved why the bible has absolutely no place in the gay marriage discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:22 PM
pba
 
410 posts, read 917,069 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
One again you are wrong because of the following. The majority were against all of these yet it still happened. So you are wrong completely. What do you not understand? The majority wanted it and they lost, the majority wanted it overturned and they lost. The US is not a majority rules country here are the same examples.


The majority were against women voting rights, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

The majority were against africans having the same rights as whites, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

The majority said they want abortion to be illegal at all periods, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

The majority of americans (in this case a plurality) wanted Al Gore to win, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

The majority wanted flag burning to be illegal, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.



Then why vote against it since it doesnt affect getting married by god? Only by law.
President Lincoln overturned slavery. How? Because he was elected by a majority of the people. He did go against popular (majority) opinion at the time but he definitely made the right choice.

Same argument holds true for you other points.

Now, remind me, what percentage of the electoral college elected Bush? Was it a majority? And remind me again how the electoral college folks are elected? Is that also by a majority vote?

Hmmmmm, sounds like we do run on the idea of majority rules.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,577 posts, read 1,955,807 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
How did you win if christians arent even consistant in the scripture they quote?

So i guess people can have rights when it benefits them but they cant have rights (like gays) when they are against it. Wow christians are so logical huh? Quote only the things you believe in while being completely inconsistant and ignore the things that go against what you believe.

In that case why should we take anything you quote from the bible seriously if you cant even tell us what is supposed to be taken seriously or not? LOL
Wrong guy i'm on your team

Imagine if we said people who are athiests and ate shrimp and shopped on sunday weren't allowed to marry :0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,577 posts, read 1,955,807 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by pba View Post
President Lincoln overturned slavery. How? Because he was elected by a majority of the people. He did go against popular (majority) opinion at the time but he definitely made the right choice.

Same argument holds true for you other points.

Now, remind me, what percentage of the electoral college elected Bush? Was it a majority? And remind me again how the electoral college folks are elected? Is that also by a majority vote?

Hmmmmm, sounds like we do run on the idea of majority rules.
Wasn't slavery in the bible at one point or another?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:27 PM
pba
 
410 posts, read 917,069 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
^ how did you win? LOL. And you won a debate online? LOL.

You lost because you are completely illogical. Why are you against gay marriage but not against eating shrimp? Both are in the scriptures and both dont have anything promoting it in the bible. I dont see how you won. If you see eating shrimp as a sin and an abomination as it states in the bible then maybe you would have "won".

You need to explain your reasoning for being against gay marriage in the first place. You quote scriptures as the absolute truth. So then why dont you take other things as absolute truth then?

How did you win if christians arent even consistant in the scripture they quote?
I don't speak on behalf of all Christians, just myself.

I wish I had the wisdom and the strength to follow every letter of the Bible that I believe are the true words of God. However, I sin as well and am not a perfect person. The difference is I ask for and receive forgiveness for my sins and try my best to not sin. Flaunting gay marriage and homosexuality is flaunting your sins without asking for forgiveness....that's the difference.

Finding the absolute truth in the Bible is difficult to say the least. Wading thru years of man's interference is what gets in the way. Scriptures are inconsistent....everyone would agree to that but again it's because of man's interference.

I am against gay marriage becasue marriage was intended by God to be between a man and a woman.

Can I be anymore clear than that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2009, 05:29 PM
 
895 posts, read 2,365,600 times
Reputation: 366
^ President lincoln was elected by a plurality and overturned slavery through a civil war. I was talking about civil rights in the 50s and 60s for black rights not the 1800s.

Same arguments do not hold true for my other points, those were ruled on by the supreme court which was appointed by the president. The supreme court and the electoral college in case you didnt notice are not the majority of americans. Are you seriously going to tell me when the majority of americans were against africans being able to attend the same schools as whites and when the supreme court voted it unconstitutional that is majority rules government?

Hello how is that a minority of people voted completely against the majority of people? And yes the majority of judges ruled but that is not the majority of americans liek your original point was.

You are just arguing semantics since your original point of majority rules was completely over and you lost it. The Majority of americans as you stated do not rule.

Otherwise i will use it once again, the following would not have happened in a "majority rules democracy".

The majority were against women voting rights, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

The majority were against africans having the same rights as whites, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

The majority said they want abortion to be illegal at all periods, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

The majority of americans (in this case a plurality) wanted Al Gore to win, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

The majority wanted flag burning to be illegal, they lost since the US is not a majority rules country.

It doesnt matter what you want to argue now, but your original point about majority rules is wrong and you know it so stop trying to argue something else.

Quote:
And remind me again how the electoral college folks are elected? Is that also by a majority vote?
Plurality, and they can vote for whomever they want. 2000 election Gore won more votes but lost, this is not a majority rules government.

So dont say because the majority of americans are against gay marriage thats how it will be because the US is a "majority rules government" other wise blacks wouldnt have equal rights, neither would women, Gore would have been president, burning the flag would be illegal, abortion would be illegal etc.

Stop arguing semantics and admit your original point is wrong. The founding fathers were against tyranny of the majority. Read the federalist papers. Learn what a republic is. The entire point of an electoral college is against a majority rules government. If the electoral college was abolished and gore won, then yes that would be a majority rules government
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top