APP - My Official Position on Conservative Candidates Signing onto the NOM Pledge

Damn Yankee said:
Per usual, at this stage of the discussion you become intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Mott is being intellectually dishonest????? Are you kidding? I ask you numerous questions, you go on about some logical fallacy, and it ends up being about my teasing you about avoiding the questions rather than about the question itself? That is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Why are you afraid to discuss the topic with me? Have I embarrassed you so often that now I have to cajole and push you for even the most basic answers?
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
Some questions with two answers are valid. Asking whether or not you believe that the Creator mentioned in the DoI is the christian God is not an example of the bifurcation fallacy. It is not a fallacy. It is a simple question. Either you believe that or you do not, or you are not sure. Are you incapable of answering? If there is more to it than that, then type an answer that fits what you believe.

Also, how are we "defying the Creator"?

SM, there was a time when you actually debated topics. Now I have to work to get you away from arguing about the debate itself. You state what you want to state, and then avoid any details, explanations, or discussion. Are you that scared? lol
Click to expand...

This whole line of questions has gotten way off the track. I disagree with the notion that gay marriage is wrong because the creator would be defied. It has nothing to do with the Creator mentioned in the DoI. First off, the word "Creator" was used in the DoI, to encompass all religious belief, since the freedom of religious belief was paramount to our founding. If they had used "Christian God" instead of "Creator" then America would have been a Christian Theocracy, with NO religious freedom. However, if they hadn't used "Creator" or any other reference to a Supreme Power, our country would be a secular nation, devoid of religious freedom. "Creator" symbolizes individual belief in whatever you believe in as a Supreme Power. And it doesn't insist you personally believe in this power, just that the power is the entity which endowed us with the inalienable rights and justified our independence from the King of England. We are founded on this principle, which is NOT secular, and NOT theocratic.

Gay Marriage is wrong because it shits on religious tradition and custom, which is supposed to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. You must respect people's right to worship freely, and that respect includes not making a mockery of their religious customs and traditions. Gay Marriage proponents often clamor; "Who does it harm?" Well, it harms religious sanctity and integrity.

I have often proposed a Civil Union idea, where governments completely absolve themselves from the institutions of "marriage" in any way, leaving that for the churches and religion, as it always should have been. From the state's perspective, it should be handled as a mutual contractual arrangement between two consenting adults, and licensed as such, if there is a need for a license. With this idea, the government doesn't sanction "gay marriage" (a mockery of religious marriage) and they don't subscribe to any religious prescription of what marriage should be.... they wash their hands of 'marriage' completely, and deal with contracts instead. This solves the problem for all sides, except for those who need the issue for political expediency.
 
Dixie said:
This whole line of questions has gotten way off the track. I disagree with the notion that gay marriage is wrong because the creator would be defied. It has nothing to do with the Creator mentioned in the DoI. First off, the word "Creator" was used in the DoI, to encompass all religious belief, since the freedom of religious belief was paramount to our founding. If they had used "Christian God" instead of "Creator" then America would have been a Christian Theocracy, with NO religious freedom. However, if they hadn't used "Creator" or any other reference to a Supreme Power, our country would be a secular nation, devoid of religious freedom. "Creator" symbolizes individual belief in whatever you believe in as a Supreme Power. And it doesn't insist you personally believe in this power, just that the power is the entity which endowed us with the inalienable rights and justified our independence from the King of England. We are founded on this principle, which is NOT secular, and NOT theocratic.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with what you are saying here, Dixie. I agree that the use of the word "Creator" was carefully chosen to include all beliefs. Which is why I was questioning DY's insistence that gay marriage defies the Creator but a gay civil union does not.

Dixie said:
Gay Marriage is wrong because it shits on religious tradition and custom, which is supposed to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. You must respect people's right to worship freely, and that respect includes not making a mockery of their religious customs and traditions. Gay Marriage proponents often clamor; "Who does it harm?" Well, it harms religious sanctity and integrity.
Click to expand...

I disagree here. If the religious organization or church believes they should marry gays, then let them marry them. The sanctity and integrity of marriage has been harmed enough to make this a moot point.

Dixie said:
I have often proposed a Civil Union idea, where governments completely absolve themselves from the institutions of "marriage" in any way, leaving that for the churches and religion, as it always should have been. From the state's perspective, it should be handled as a mutual contractual arrangement between two consenting adults, and licensed as such, if there is a need for a license. With this idea, the government doesn't sanction "gay marriage" (a mockery of religious marriage) and they don't subscribe to any religious prescription of what marriage should be.... they wash their hands of 'marriage' completely, and deal with contracts instead. This solves the problem for all sides, except for those who need the issue for political expediency.
Click to expand...

And I agree wholeheartedly here, as I said on the first page of this thread. Get the gov't out of the marriage business completely.
 
WinterBorn said:
I have no problem with what you are saying here, Dixie. I agree that the use of the word "Creator" was carefully chosen to include all beliefs. Which is why I was questioning DY's insistence that gay marriage defies the Creator but a gay civil union does not.

I disagree here. If the religious organization or church believes they should marry gays, then let them marry them. The sanctity and integrity of marriage has been harmed enough to make this a moot point.

And I agree wholeheartedly here, as I said on the first page of this thread. Get the gov't out of the marriage business completely.
Click to expand...

So the only thing we really disagree on, is how "Gay Marriage" is an affront to religious tradition and customs. To me, this is important in understanding why people are opposed to gay marriage, and have a legitimate right to be opposed, and why Civil Unions could be a viable alternative. In order to get you to comprehend what I mean, when I argue that Gay Marriage is an affront to Religious tradition, a good analogy would be, if a group of people wanted to turn Baptismals into public swimming pools... a Baptismal is a sacred pool for Baptisms to be performed, not a public swimming area... that would be an affront to the Baptist religion to ordain such a law. Now, you could ask, well... what would it hurt to let people go swimming in the Baptismal when they weren't holding services? It's the principle of the matter, it is a tradition and custom of the religion, and it's a violation of the sanctity of that religion to alter its sanctified customs and traditions.
 
Dixie said:
So the only thing we really disagree on, is how "Gay Marriage" is an affront to religious tradition and customs. To me, this is important in understanding why people are opposed to gay marriage, and have a legitimate right to be opposed, and why Civil Unions could be a viable alternative. In order to get you to comprehend what I mean, when I argue that Gay Marriage is an affront to Religious tradition, a good analogy would be, if a group of people wanted to turn Baptismals into public swimming pools... a Baptismal is a sacred pool for Baptisms to be performed, not a public swimming area... that would be an affront to the Baptist religion to ordain such a law. Now, you could ask, well... what would it hurt to let people go swimming in the Baptismal when they weren't holding services? It's the principle of the matter, it is a tradition and custom of the religion, and it's a violation of the sanctity of that religion to alter its sanctified customs and traditions.
Click to expand...

To many it is an afront to their religious traditions. At least your answer is an honest answer Dixie. Though I'm an advocate of civil unions on my religious grounds I'm not a proponent for gay marriage. That's just my own personal belief. Personally I see gay marriage as mostly a kanard and another divide and conquer wedge issue and I have vastly more important concerns in my life then whether or not two gay persons can get married. That is, I'm not threatened by the concept nor do I feel that gay civil unions or even gay marriage threaten the sanctity of my marriage as it is our (my wife and mines) faith in God and the belief in our vows before God that sanctify our marriage. No one or nothing can take that away from us but ourselves, so there fore, I'm not threatened by gay marriage. It's hardly even a concern to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top