GBAtemp Debate Club: Presidential Candidates

[Hungry Friend]

It is kind of interesting that owning a gun is a basic human right (according to the Bill of Rights) while marrying who you want when you want is still only technically a "privilege"

I don't think either should be restricted. I get restricting fucking RPGs, and various fully automatic weapons but you get what I mean. Also, people should be able to marry whoever they want. No matter what peoples' religious opinions are, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state.

 

[RevPokemon]

I don't think either should be restricted. I get restricting fucking RPGs, and various fully automatic weapons but you get what I mean. Also, people should be able to marry whoever they want. No matter what peoples' religious opinions are, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state.

As for marriage, I agree 100%. I mean I plan on being a Baptist preacher one day and can say the Scotus descesion made me very happy to know I can Marry same gender couples and bless their relationship.

Also I have to say that even what some say that it will result in every one being forced to marry same sex couples is bs. I mean many churchs and ministers have the right to forbid marriages to divorced couples and others formid rites like communion to people who are gay, divorced, had an abortion or what not.

Ultimately I have to say the freedom to marry does not hurt your religious rights rather it helps them by allowing people of faith to marry their partner and clergy the right to officiate these marriages

 

[mgrev]

i'm not M'erican. i've heard all of tha shit about Donald trump, so anything else than him(like deez nuts)

 

[Tjessx]

I hear everyone saying that trump would be the wordt pressident. And before i ever saw him, or heard him talking i actually thought it would be a good idea if a business men would become president.
However, from the moment i saw him i think he has mental problems, and i woudl defenilty vote on him now!
Imagine how funny it would be xd

 

[Hungry Friend]

As for marriage, I agree 100%. I mean I plan on being a Baptist preacher one day and can say the Scotus descesion made me very happy to know I can Marry same gender couples and bless their relationship.

Also I have to say that even what some say that it will result in every one being forced to marry same sex couples is bs. I mean many churchs and ministers have the right to forbid marriages to divorced couples and others formid rites like communion to people who are gay, divorced, had an abortion or what not.

Ultimately I have to say the freedom to marry does not hurt your religious rights rather it helps them by allowing people of faith to marry their partner and clergy the right to officiate these marriages

Since you're planning on becoming a preacher you likely know infinitely more about the Bible and Christianity than I do, but as a fellow Christian, isn't the entire faith supposed to be about redemption and forgiveness of sins rather than judging people for getting divorced, being gay, bi, trans etc? People who claim to be Christians who do nothing but judge others are missing the point, so in short I agree with you.

Also I think Trump is a narcissistic clown.

 

[Haloman800]

I don't think either should be restricted. I get restricting fucking RPGs, and various fully automatic weapons but you get what I mean. Also, people should be able to marry whoever they want. No matter what peoples' religious opinions are, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state.

I agree, the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that includes forcing churches to go against their religious beliefs and marry homosexual couples.

No one should be forced at the point of a gun to do anything that contradicts their beliefs. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.

 

[Hungry Friend]

I agree, the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that includes forcing churches to go against their religious beliefs and marry homosexual couples.

No one should be forced at the point of a gun to do anything that contradicts their beliefs. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.

I agree that no clergy should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against their beliefs regardless of whether I agree with them or not, and it's not a controversial statement. You can disagree with someone and still support their right to exercise their beliefs.

 

[Haloman800]

Since you're planning on becoming a preacher you likely know infinitely more about the Bible and Christianity than I do, but as a fellow Christian, isn't the entire faith supposed to be about redemption and forgiveness of sins rather than judging people for getting divorced, being gay, bi, trans etc? People who claim to be Christians who do nothing but judge others are missing the point, so in short I agree with you.

Christians are supposed to practice righteous judgement, and there's a difference between judging and not agreeing with something. I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe".

Also I think Trump is a narcissistic clown.

Prove he's a "narcissistic clown", then you won't need the adjectives.

 

[FAST6191]

On compelling marriages in a church then I would agree, if the legal aspect of a church marriage was removed. If you want to perform a legally binding ceremony then it kind of has to be allowable to all that are allowed by the state to do so. Do whatever rituals you like to those wishing to partake, possibly even call it church/temple/religiousbuilding marriage if you want, but if you want the legally binding stuff to come into play then you get to play by other rules.

"I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe"."
By the law of the land though bestiality is not legal. Quite legal and acceptable to slip it into anybody that consents regardless of gender though.

 

[Hungry Friend]

Christians are supposed to practice righteous judgement, and there's a difference between judging and not agreeing with something. I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe".


Prove he's a "narcissistic clown", then you won't need the adjectives.

First off, I'd say the clown comment is so self evident and obvious that I don't even need evidence, and you know there's no way for me to PROVE he has narcissistic personality disorder. I have no idea and I said that just to give people my general opinion of the guy. He loves him some attention, even moreso than most politicians and I'll leave it at that, but I've also never met the man so I wasn't actually seriously trying to diagnose him with a psychological disorder. Just my personal sentiment, and I hope he doesn't win the nomination.

As far as righteous judgment, I try to(but often fail) to follow the quote "he who has not sinned may throw the first stone" and I have certainly committed a lot of sins. Also comparing gay people to those who fuck animals is a little crazy dude. A gay couple still consists of 2 human being, and I doubt you're as grossed out by hot lesbians making out as you are 2 big hairy men doing weird butt stuff

 

[RevPokemon]

First off, I'd say the clown comment is so self evident and obvious that I don't even need evidence, and you know there's no way for me to PROVE he has narcissistic personality disorder. I have no idea and I said that just to give people my general opinion of the guy. He loves him some attention, even moreso than most politicians and I'll leave it at that, but I've also never met the man so I wasn't actually seriously trying to diagnose him with a psychological disorder. Just my personal sentiment, and I hope he doesn't win the nomination.

As far as righteous judgment, I try to(but often fail) to follow the quote "he who has not sinned may throw the first stone" and I have certainly committed a lot of sins. Also comparing gay people to those who fuck animals is a little crazy dude. A gay couple still consists of 2 human being, and I doubt you're as grossed out by hot lesbians making out as you are 2 big hairy men doing weird butt stuff

Understand judgement (even if righteous) is totally based upon each person. What I find to be godly biblical and what not may not be what other people find the same since everyone has different judgement and opinions. Likewise there is no one way to interpert holy Scriptures so that is also subjective.

Ultimately through my judgement I find problems with those who hate lbgt persons but that is my own judgement which I feel is part of my spiritual knowledge as revealed by God.

Likewise as im sure you know there are many groups that in Christianity that support lbgt rights as they do Believe in THEIR judgement they are compelled to help support the oppressed as Jesus did and that includes gays who are treated like bs.

On compelling marriages in a church then I would agree, if the legal aspect of a church marriage was removed. If you want to perform a legally binding ceremony then it kind of has to be allowable to all that are allowed by the state to do so. Do whatever rituals you like to those wishing to partake, possibly even call it church/temple/religiousbuilding marriage if you want, but if you want the legally binding stuff to come into play then you get to play by other rules.

"I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe"."
By the law of the land though bestiality is not legal. Quite legal and acceptable to slip it into anybody that consents regardless of gender though.

agree

Personally I think there should be no legal church .marriage only a ceremony (like baptism or what not) and leave the legal marriage to the government.

 

[Haloman800]

On compelling marriages in a church then I would agree, if the legal aspect of a church marriage was removed. If you want to perform a legally binding ceremony then it kind of has to be allowable to all that are allowed by the state to do so. Do whatever rituals you like to those wishing to partake, possibly even call it church/temple/religiousbuilding marriage if you want, but if you want the legally binding stuff to come into play then you get to play by other rules.

Except, according to the Constitution, religious individuals are allowed to practice their beliefs without being forced to contradict them. Also, as I stated earlier, there shouldn't be anything "legal" about marriage, it's a religious institution, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it (separation of Church and state).

"I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe"."
By the law of the land though bestiality is not legal. Quite legal and acceptable to slip it into anybody that consents regardless of gender though.

Beastiality is legal in 18 states, I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make. Legality doesn't = morality; slavery was once legal (and still is) in many parts of the world.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

First off, I'd say the clown comment is so self evident and obvious that I don't even need evidence

"X is so self evidence, I don't need evidence"
I've never heard of a clown that's made 4-10 billion dollars, have you?

Also comparing gay people to those who fuck animals is a little crazy dude. A gay couple still consists of 2 human being

I'm also against incest, which I doubt you'd defend, even though it's also a voluntary agreement between consenting adults, but we're getting off topic here, I don't want this thread to get shut down.

 

[FAST6191]

Except, according to the Constitution, religious individuals are allowed to practice their beliefs without being forced to contradict them. Also, as I stated earlier, there shouldn't be anything "legal" about marriage, it's a religious institution, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it (separation of Church and state).

Beastiality is legal in 18 states, I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make. Legality doesn't = morality; slavery was once legal (and still is) in many parts of the world.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


"X is so self evidence, I don't need evidence"
I've never heard of a clown that's made 4-10 billion dollars, have you?

How would they be forced to contradict them if they are not performing a legal act but a spiritual one? If you are going to be an avenue for some kind of legal act then discrimination gets kind of hard to justify. It does not preclude churches from being able to perform the legal act alongside a spiritual one either if they can agree to fall in line with the legal stance. Likewise marriage is not exclusively a religious institution, history gets odd there (religions and governments both co-opting the concept to various ends) but even without that many would consider much of the value in it to be the legal things that it affords.

I had false assumed bestiality was illegal everywhere in the US, like it in basically everywhere else and where it is not illegal it is hardly condoned. That was my bad, however I am not sure my point suffered too much for it.

Legality may not = morality, however it is the baseline by which we all agree to live. Slavery is also contrary to basically all of international law.

As for Mr Trump he might have made a packet over the course of things, I understand he has/his ventures have also gone bankrupt several times as well, and though I will have to go further I believe a few of them were not necessarily of the far more acceptable "you took a risk and it did not pay off". It can be an accepted strategy/part of business but there is a reason bankruptcy is considered at various points in finance and other things. Likewise having money does not preclude one from suspect behaviours

If we are going to have to establish a pattern we will be here a while longer but I do not envisage it being especially difficult.
Whether this changes what an eventual leadership position might play out like could be up for debate -- I am a complete cunt most of the time but I can still fix something I can fix in spite of that.

 

[Haloman800]

How would they be forced to contradict them if they are not performing a legal act but a spiritual one?

By forcing Church officials to contradict their beliefs and wed homosexual couples, incestual couples, polygamous couples, etc.

I had false assumed bestiality was illegal everywhere in the US, like it in basically everywhere else and where it is not illegal it is hardly condoned. That was my bad, however I am not sure my point suffered too much for it.

Making factually incorrect claims doesn't hurt your position?

Legality may not = morality, however it is the baseline by which we all agree to live. Slavery is also contrary to basically all of international law.

And yet slavery is still practiced today in many African/Arab/Asian countries.

As for Mr Trump he might have made a packet over the course of things, I understand he has/his ventures have also gone bankrupt several times as well

He has owned hundreds of companies, out of those, 4 times he has utilized the laws of bankruptcy to gain an advantage. If you think that's "unfair" or "cheating", blame the government for putting those laws in place.

 

[RevPokemon]

Except, according to the Constitution, religious individuals are allowed to practice their beliefs without being forced to contradict them. Also, as I stated earlier, there shouldn't be anything "legal" about marriage, it's a religious institution, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it (separation of Church and state).

Beastiality is legal in 18 states, I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make. Legality doesn't = morality; slavery was once legal (and still is) in many parts of the world.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


"X is so self evidence, I don't need evidence"
I've never heard of a clown that's made 4-10 billion dollars, have you?

By forcing Church officials to contradict their beliefs and wed homosexual couples, incestual couples, polygamous couples, etc.

Making factually incorrect claims doesn't hurt your position?

And yet slavery is still practiced today in many African/Arab/Asian countries.

He has owned hundreds of companies, out of those, 4 times he has utilized the laws of bankruptcy to gain an advantage. If you think that's "unfair" or "cheating", blame the government for putting those laws in place.

1. Churches legally are denying certain rights to sacraments to people daily and get away with it. So it is safe to say this will stay the same.

2. Slavery is practiced illegally or turn the other way. I mean but to say it is illegal means people don't do it is wrong.

3. Utilizing bankruptcy to " get ahead" is a horriblethings people do because they don't want to face the music

 

[Haloman800]

1. Churches legally are denying certain rights to sacraments to people daily

Access to sacraments is not a "right".

2. Slavery is practiced illegally or turn the other way. I mean but to say it is illegal means people don't do it is wrong.

Slavery is legal where it is practiced most widely.

3. Utilizing bankruptcy to " get ahead" is a horriblethings people do because they don't want to face the music

Emotional arguments will get you nowhere. If you don't like the laws, blame government officials, not people utilizing them.

 

[RevPokemon]

Access to sacraments is not a "right".


Slavery is legal where it is practiced most widely.


Emotional arguments will get you nowhere. If you don't like the laws, blame government officials, not people utilizing them.

1. I'm saying that the government isn't forcing people to marry anyone

2. Slavery is either practiced behind the backs or in another form. But fast is right as international laws prohibit it

3. I get what you mean but it is still fed up to do bankruptcy to get ahead.

 

[Haloman800]

1. I'm saying that the government isn't forcing people to marry anyone

Oh yes they are.

2. Slavery is either practiced behind the backs or in another form. But fast is right as international laws prohibit it

Countries are only subject to "international law" if they choose to follow it. International law is one set of countries attempting to impose their will on the other set(s) of countries.

3. I get what you mean but it is still fed up to do bankruptcy to get ahead.

Sure, so blame the government, not Trump. Also, the fact remains that bankruptcy isn't immoral, even if you consider it unfair.

 

[kuwanger]

One, there is no discussion about forcing churches to marriage homosexuals, polygamists, etc. There has been repeated discussions about commercial enterprises (or charitable ones) which have tried to use religion as a basis to deny people service. To them I say the obvious, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's". This holds true for marriage licenses (as they are State issued), paying taxes (again, the face of "Caesar" (aka Washington, et al) is on them), etc.

Two, slavery can't logically be legal because it inherently says the absurd. One can enter into slavery because to be a slave of another is to forfeit all rights, privileges, etc and hence no bargain can be reached that cannot be usurped by the new owner of the one. Meanwhile, slavery under prison terms are (at least) hypothetically limited in duration and are a form of restitution for a crime against society/people. Of course it ends up not being done correctly because of ridiculous prison terms and ridiculous wages (that are applied to restitution). In the end, prison ends up behaving like indentured servitude where the corruption of it turns it into a system that desires recidivism to continue the enslavement.

Emotional arguments will get you nowhere. If you don't like the laws, blame government officials, not people utilizing them.

Funny but you don't accept the opposite when it comes to taxes which are the laws and have as much legitimacy as bankruptcy. Both are inherently forced violations of implied or explicit contracts--in fact bankruptcy is worse precisely because it's explicit. Having said that, bankruptcy is preferable to debtors prisons or as above other corrupt systems to enslave people for life.

 

[Deboog]

I agree, the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that includes forcing churches to go against their religious beliefs and marry homosexual couples.

No one should be forced at the point of a gun to do anything that contradicts their beliefs. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.

I would be appalled to hear that a church was forced to marry a homosexual couple. You're absolutely right. That would go against our constitution.
I don't think the government allowing gays to marry infringes on people's religious freedom's though. I mean, you can say that official government marriages are bad and wrong, and I can't say that you're wrong. I just hope you realize that if you lose marriage licensees you also lose joint tax filing, equal share of responsibility's for a child's guardians, easy transfer of wealth if someone dies without a will, etc. So if you really think that we need to replace all that stuff with laws that don't rely on tracking marriages, fine. Otherwise, we need marriage licenses. And if we have marriage licenses then they can't be linked to religious beliefs (separation of church and state) and so we have to let any two adults who want one get one.

Okay to be fair there is one exception to this, and that's incest. But the government has a genuine interest in not letting family members marry and have kids, and that's screwed up genetics.

Oh yes they are.

Well come back to me when one of those lawsuits goes through.