Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 11 May '12 04:40 / 1 edit
    Nancy Pelosi has recently come out and said that she support gay marriage. Her resaon? She said, "My religion has, compels me -- and I love it for it -- to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination."

    Is this acceptable? Should our political leaders be motivated to pursue public policy based upon their religious convictions?

    Discuss.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 May '12 04:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    Should our political leaders be motivated to pursue public policy based upon their religious convictions?
    As long as our leaders subject the upshot of their convictions to democratic deliberation and decision making, and don't use them to abrogate the basic rights of minorities or seek to discriminate against them unjustly, then political leaders should be free to think and argue for whatever positions they want.
  3. 11 May '12 05:06
    Originally posted by FMF
    As long as our leaders subject the upshot of their convictions to democratic deliberation and decision making, and don't use them to abrogate the basic rights of minorities or seek to discriminate against them unjustly, then political leaders should be free to think and argue for whatever positions they want.
    Why all those conditions? Additionally, if this is real discrimination, what of singles and polygamists? It would be akin to giving blacks the right to vote but not Hispanics.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 May '12 05:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why all those conditions?
    What conditions? You mean freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of action, as long as it does not harm others or discriminate against citizens or make them unequal in the eyes of the law - those conditions?
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 May '12 05:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why all those conditions? Additionally, if this is real discrimination, what of singles and polygamists? It would be akin to giving blacks the right to vote but not Hispanics.
    Who is stopping singles from getting married in the U.S.? I live in a country that allows polygamy and I don't advocate banning it or discriminating against those who practise it.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 May '12 05:15
    Maybe Nanci Pelosi and Barack Obama are gay married. Ever considered that possbility people?!
  7. 11 May '12 05:40
    Originally posted by whodey
    Nancy Pelosi has recently come out and said that she support gay marriage. Her resaon? She said, "My religion has, compels me -- and I love it for it -- to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination."

    Is this acceptable? Should our political leaders be motivated to pursue public policy based upon their religious convictions?

    Discuss.
    So whenever some religious fed or state politician starts spouting off about what Jesus would do, you will be on the side of those chastising them, right.
  8. 11 May '12 11:53 / 2 edits
    So it would appear that the seperation of church and state is unecessary so long as those beliefs coincide with your own.

    Check!!!

    At our core, we are all fundamentalists, are we not?
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 May '12 12:02
    Originally posted by whodey
    So it would appear that the seperation of church and state is unecessary so long as those beliefs coincide with your own.

    Check!!!

    At our core, we are all fundamentalists, are we not?
    You don't have the same understanding of the Separation of church and U.S. state as I do. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." Isn't Nancy Pelosi exemplifying the meaning of the First Amendment by expressing her religious belief without hindrance? How is kevcvs57 advocating the establishment of religion by the state, in your view? What does the First Amendment have to do with people's beliefs "coinciding" with each other?
  10. 11 May '12 12:06
    Originally posted by FMF
    You don't have the same understanding of the Separation of church and U.S. state as I do. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." Isn't Nancy Pelosi exemplifying the meaning of the First Amendment by expressing her religious belief without hindrance? How is kevcvs57 advocating the establ ...[text shortened]... t does the First Amendment have to do with people's beliefs "coinciding" with each other?
    In short, she indicated that her religious convictions "compelled" her to vote a certain way. How is this different from Santorum?
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 May '12 12:09
    Originally posted by whodey
    In short, she indicated that her religious convictions "compelled" her to vote a certain way. How is this different from Santorum?
    Just explain how Pelosi's comment has anything to do with the First Amendment. What state sponsored religion is she trying to establish? Or what free exercise of religion is she trying to prohibit? Explain.
  12. 11 May '12 12:11
    Originally posted by FMF
    Just explain how Pelosi's comment has anything to do with the First Amendment. What state sponsored religion is she trying to establish? Or what free exercise of religion is she trying to prohibit? Explain.
    My only point here FMF is that when those on the right bring up religion as a reason why they are influenced to act a certain way, then those on the left come out in droves to condenm them as they yell for seperation of church and state. However, take the same scenerio when those on the left agree with such actions, then they go strangely silent.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 May '12 12:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    My only point here FMF is [ blah blah blah ]
    Nope. That's a different point whodey. Let's stick to the point you raised a few minutes ago. You mentioned the separation of church and state. How do you think it is relevant here. What state sponsored religion is Pelosi trying to establish? Or what free exercise of religion is Pelosi trying to prohibit? You raised it. Why don't you just explain?
  14. 11 May '12 12:33
    Originally posted by FMF
    Nope. That's a different point whodey. Let's stick to the point you raised a few minutes ago. You mentioned the separation of church and state. How do you think it is relevant here. What state sponsored religion is Pelosi trying to establish? Or what free exercise of religion is Pelosi trying to prohibit? You raised it. Why don't you just explain?
    If those on the right try to keep gay marriage outlawed, then they are accused of doing so based upon religious conviction and accused of trying to establish a theocracy of some sort. However, I see this is not the case for those on the left.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 May '12 12:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    If those on the right try to keep gay marriage outlawed, then they are accused of doing so based upon religious conviction and accused of trying to establish a theocracy of some sort. However, I see this is not the case for those on the left.
    You think the left should be accusing Nancy Pelosi "of trying to establish a theocracy of some sort"? Is that your point?