• 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!

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Blackdog said:
Sin has nothing to do with intent, it is not a legal concept. It is something we are all born with. So even basic urges can be sin, such as premarital sex of any kind.

We as Christians of all types are to try and avoid it, but that is damn near impossible. This is why Jesus, died for us.

This is a spiritual concept, not a legal one. :roll:
Click to expand...

You're not fixin' to witness, are you?...:rofl
 
Personally I think all marriage benefits should be removed. Marriage is more religious than it is legal. I do think it needs a legal status, but they don't need all the benefits. In Tennessee we voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I agree with that. However, I don't think it's right that they receive benefits for being married while singles and homosexuals have to be disadvantaged. I have no problem with homosexuals visiting each other in hospitals, in fact I think it's completely wrong to only allow the spouse to visit. Close friends and family deserve it as well.
 
Goshin said:
Oddly enough, the chuch I attend and the preachers I'm talking about are SBap. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are still some good ones left, but the gigantic schism between liberals and conservatives in the denomination is disheartening.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Sure, but you've said to homosexuals:

1 - you shouldn't be able to inherit each others hard-earned social security dollars that I can inherit from my spouse;
2 - you should spend approximately $2,300 in legal fees to do what I can do with my spouse for free (draw up private inheritance papers, file name-change documents with the courts, etc.)
3 - you should pay double taxes and NOT be able to declare each other as dependents like I can with my spouse
4 - you should have to go through legal harassment and difficulty if your spouse were to adopt your biological child OR you shouldn't be able to provide a home for a child (if the state bans non-married people from adopting - unsure if your state does, but some do)
Click to expand...

I would love the opportunity to say the same to half of all heteros who marry.

FilmFestGuy said:
In essence, you haven't said you hate homosexuals or don't want them in your community; but you've told them that they can love on another, you're just not going to receive any of the rights or responsibilities that you receive when you partner up with your spouse.
Click to expand...

Right, exactly. I'm not stopping you from doing what you want, I'm just not giving you my support.

FilmFestGuy said:
You should forgive people if they feel that you're treating them like second-class citizens when you vote that way. Because it's a little hard to hear someone claim not to be discriminatory and then say: I have no problem with gays, I just think they're lives and relationships shouldn't be respected in the same way mine is.
Click to expand...

I discriminate against all kinds of behaviors all the time, every day. This is no different.

FilmFestGuy said:
Gays are all right, they're just not as good as me. It may not be homophobia; but you can't alter the fact that that's what you are saying to gay people.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that's how you choose to decipher my hypothetical vote, but I know my intentions.

If gays get all emo when they don't get their way, well we're just going to leave the real debate and troll them as all emos per-se should be trolled.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I would love the opportunity to say the same to half of all heteros who marry.

Right, exactly. I'm not stopping you from doing what you want, I'm just not giving you my support.

I discriminate against all kinds of behaviors all the time, every day. This is no different.

I'm sorry that's how you choose to decipher my hypothetical vote, but I know my intentions.

If gays get all emo when they don't get their way, well we're just going to leave the real debate and troll them as all emos per-se should be trolled.
Click to expand...

Don't get all "emo" about being called a homophobe then and logically explain to me how someone should should simply accept second-class status.

And if you "know" your intentions, then explain them logically, please.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Focusing on sins like greed, gluttony, infidelity, lying, and prejudice would likely alienate the flock and decrease donations. It's always easier to focus on OTHER PEOPLE's "sins." It costs nothing and allows the participants to feel gloriously self-righteous.

I think the church would do well to remember how Christ spoke to the religious hierarchy of his era..."whitewashed tombs full of rot and all uncleanness."
Click to expand...

Goshin already covered it but my 2 cents anyway.

In every Christian church I have attended they do rally against all those things. What you don't have is lier's and gluttons in the news begging for anything.

They are in the open fighting for rights they feel they are denied. So it would make sense for Churches to rally against it like prostitution etc.
 
Blackdog said:
Goshin already covered it but my 2 cents anyway.

In every Christian church I have attended they do rally against all those things. What you don't have is lier's and gluttons in the news begging for anything.

They are in the open fighting for rights they feel they are denied. So it would make sense for Churches to rally against it like prostitution etc.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you have the "right" to commit a lot of sins in this nation. So unless their argument is that everything that is a sin according to the Bible should be illegal, then arguing against gays makes no sense either.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Logically explain to me how someone should simply accept second-class status.
Click to expand...

"Second-class status" is a self imposed label. Maybe you should treat yourself with more respect.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Sure, but you have the "right" to commit a lot of sins in this nation. So unless their argument is that everything that is a sin according to the Bible should be illegal, then arguing against gays makes no sense either.
Click to expand...

Some sins can't be illegal like lying or gluttony. Lying is illegal in some cases, but not in everyday use. Gluttony cannot be enforced at all. Adultery is a civil crime, not criminal. So no, your argument is baseless.

We are also a secular government with laws not based on the Bible or sin. So even though Christians can rally against sin and petition for such changes. They cannot (outside of legal channels) change or stop a law or right.
 
Jerry said:
"Second-class status" is a self imposed label. Maybe you should treat yourself with more respect.
Click to expand...

I can respect myself all I like, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Sorry, but I feel like you're trying to justify yourself instead of actually using any logical argument to back your vote or your concepts.

Why can't you just admit that you believe on one status for one group of people and a different status for others? If that's not the case, then what's your intention or motivation?
 
Blackdog said:
Some sins can't be illegal like lying or gluttony. Lying is illegal in some cases, but not in everyday use. Gluttony cannot be enforced at all. Adultery is a civil crime, not criminal. So no, your argument is baseless.

We are also a secular government with laws not based on the Bible or sin. So even though Christians can rally against sin and petition for such changes. They cannot (outside of legal channels) change or stop a law or right.
Click to expand...

Are you agreeing with me or not agreeing with me? How is my argument baseless? I'm confused.

I'm against legislating sin. And thus saying, if you can't legislate simply based on "sin", then how is there a legal justification for banning gay marriage?
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Sorry, but I feel like you're trying to justify yourself instead of actually using any logical argument to back your vote or your concepts.
Click to expand...

As long as we're clear that those are you feelings and not accurate interpretations of my argument. Feelings are what they are.

FilmFestGuy said:
Why can't you just admit that you believe on one status for one group of people and a different status for others?
Click to expand...

I thought I've been abundantly clear that I support giving privilege to couples raising children :confused:

The heteros raising children should get it, the heteros not raising children should not. The gays raising children should get it, the gays not raising children should not.

I can't support gays per-se because not all gays are raising children. Even among those who are, I already oppose folks creating step-parents so it follows that I'm going to oppose gays marrying when doing so will create a step-parent.

The right to marry is not a right of heteros for gays to then be denied.

The right to marry is a right of anyone who is raising and socializing children, and yes those couples are to be exalted above all other couples and given special privileges. The reason why they should be given such is to support the stability of those couples and the health and success of those children.

When gay-marriage is about raising and socializing children, then and only then can we turn a blind eye to the benign exception of the rare couple who wish to marry without children being a part of the picture.


FilmFestGuy said:
If that's not the case, then what's your intention or motivation?
Click to expand...

My intent is to refocus the gay-marriage movement into a Conservative movement so that it becomes a solution to existing problems. My motivation is my childhood and all the crap my parents pout me through.


***
My argument also denies me the right to marry.

No, I'm not gay, but my argument isn't about gays or any other identity group.

It's about the purpose of marriage: the raising and socializing of children.

One might argue that as I have children to raise, that I should remarry so that they grow up in a 2-parent home instead of a single-parent home. Someone could offer a lot of credible data showing that children are better off in 2-parent homes, also.

But that would be a step-parent dynamic, and that dynamic is the leading cause for divorce among second marriages. My kids are better served by my not marrying. I would support legislation banning anyone with minor children from obtaining a marriage license unless they are marrying the adoptive or bio parent of those children. I would also support legislation defining child abuse to include cohabitation with unrelated adults who are not married to the parent.

My argument applies to anyone with children. Unless you are marrying the parent of that child/ren, you should remain single until your youngest child turns 18.

So go ahead and call me a homophobe even-though my argument opposes more hetero marriages than gay marriages. Go ahead and call me a bigot even-though I respect the civil rights of others after the election does not go my way. Go ahead and call me a religious zealot even-though my argument is has no aspect of religion.


If any given couples does not have children, they should STFU as marriage is not about them or their type of association; it doesn't matter if they're gay, hetero, or other.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
Sure, but you have the "right" to commit a lot of sins in this nation. So unless their argument is that everything that is a sin according to the Bible should be illegal, then arguing against gays makes no sense either.
Click to expand...

Blackdog said:
Some sins can't be illegal like lying or gluttony. Lying is illegal in some cases, but not in everyday use. Gluttony cannot be enforced at all. Adultery is a civil crime, not criminal. So no, your argument is baseless.

We are also a secular government with laws not based on the Bible or sin. So even though Christians can rally against sin and petition for such changes. They cannot (outside of legal channels) change or stop a law or right.
Click to expand...

FilmFestGuy said:
Are you agreeing with me or not agreeing with me? How is my argument baseless? I'm confused.

I'm against legislating sin. And thus saying, if you can't legislate simply based on "sin", then how is there a legal justification for banning gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Read it again. I don't want to waist time typing the same thing over again.
 
Blackdog said:
Read it again. I don't want to waist time typing the same thing over again.
Click to expand...

I have a list of standard issue responses on a thumb drive somewhere....it's for when someone is so way out of line but I'm to disinterested in the predictable conversation to type it all over again.
 
Jerry said:
As long as we're clear that those are you feelings and not accurate interpretations of my argument. Feelings are what they are.



I thought I've been abundantly clear that I support giving privilege to couples raising children :confused:

The heteros raising children should get it, the heteros not raising children should not. The gays raising children should get it, the gays not raising children should not.

I can't support gays per-se because not all gays are raising children. Even among those who are, I already oppose folks creating step-parents so it follows that I'm going to oppose gays marrying when doing so will create a step-parent.

The right to marry is not a right of heteros for gays to then be denied.

The right to marry is a right of anyone who is raising and socializing children, and yes those couples are to be exalted above all other couples and given special privileges. The reason why they should be given such is to support the stability of those couples and the health and success of those children.

When gay-marriage is about raising and socializing children, then and only then can we turn a blind eye to the benign exception of the rare couple who wish to marry without children being a part of the picture.




My intent is to refocus the gay-marriage movement into a Conservative movement so that it becomes a solution to existing problems. My motivation is my childhood and all the crap my parents pout me through.


***
My argument also denies me the right to marry.

No, I'm not gay, but my argument isn't about gays or any other identity group.

It's about the purpose of marriage: the raising and socializing of children.

One might argue that as I have children to raise, that I should remarry so that they grow up in a 2-parent home instead of a single-parent home. Someone could offer a lot of credible data showing that children are better off in 2-parent homes, also.

But that would be a step-parent dynamic, and that dynamic is the leading cause for divorce among second marriages. My kids are better served by my not marrying. I would support legislation banning anyone with minor children from obtaining a marriage license unless they are marrying the adoptive or bio parent of those children. I would also support legislation defining child abuse to include cohabitation with unrelated adults who are not married to the parent.

My argument applies to anyone with children. Unless you are marrying the parent of that child/ren, you should remain single until your youngest child turns 18.

So go ahead and call me a homophobe even-though my argument opposes more hetero marriages than gay marriages. Go ahead and call me a bigot even-though I respect the civil rights of others after the election does not go my way. Go ahead and call me a religious zealot even-though my argument is has no aspect of religion.


If any given couples does not have children, they should STFU as marriage is not about them or their type of association; it doesn't matter if they're gay, hetero, or other.
Click to expand...

Okay. Thanks for that. I can actually respect your argument more.

But I believe then that the first part of the argument has to be removing all benefits of marriage on only bestow benefits on parents.

If you can make that change, then I'm right there with you.

But at present, since marriage is bestowed benefits regardless of children; then I argue that simply banning same-sex marriage is a discriminatory act.

I agree with you, actually, that parents should have higher benefits bestowed upon them; so see - through actually maintaining a calm back and forth, we find out that we're not as far apart as we would have originally perceived; even if we do disagree.

I just need to know WHY someone is doing something or espousing a belief. If that's expressed (and please don't count on me having read every single thread to know what you might think) and it seems thought out, then that's okay. I can then respect a stance with which I disagree.

You have to admit, there are many people who are against it with no logic backing it up.
 
Blackdog said:
Read it again. I don't want to waist time typing the same thing over again.
Click to expand...

Well, when someone asks you a question or for a clarification, then it means maybe you're not making your point in the clearest way.

So, I'm sorry to "waist" your time by asking for a clarification.

Oh, and adultery is still illegal in several states, though rarely (if ever) enforced and likely unconstitutional following Lawrence v. Texas.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Focusing on sins like greed, gluttony, infidelity, lying, and prejudice would likely alienate the flock and decrease donations.
Click to expand...

actually i disagree. I think it would lead to Church Revival; becoming more like unto and more accepting of the World has weakened us and made us less appealing.

It's always easier to focus on OTHER PEOPLE's "sins." It costs nothing and allows the participants to feel gloriously self-righteous.
Click to expand...

that is true. but like cupcakes and sitting on the couch; that which is easiest in the short term is most damaging in the long.
 
Leo said:
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, it is not a sin any more than heterosexuality is a sin. Both are simply basic urges, and neither are voluntary or matters of choice. Sin itself is a primitive religious concept, but wrongdoing requires evil intent, and intent cannot logically be attributed to something which is involuntary.
Click to expand...

There are heterosexual activities that most Christians also regard as sins.

Of course, no one actually answered the point I made about homophobia and what makes some a homophobe...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Focusing on sins like greed, gluttony, infidelity, lying, and prejudice would likely alienate the flock and decrease donations. It's always easier to focus on OTHER PEOPLE's "sins." It costs nothing and allows the participants to feel gloriously self-righteous.

I think the church would do well to remember how Christ spoke to the religious hierarchy of his era..."whitewashed tombs full of rot and all uncleanness."
Click to expand...

Actually, the Church DOES speak about those other sins. Have you ever been to Mass and hear a priest's homily?
 
Blackdog said:
Some sins can't be illegal like lying or gluttony. Lying is illegal in some cases, but not in everyday use. Gluttony cannot be enforced at all. Adultery is a civil crime, not criminal. So no, your argument is baseless.

We are also a secular government with laws not based on the Bible or sin. So even though Christians can rally against sin and petition for such changes. They cannot (outside of legal channels) change or stop a law or right.
Click to expand...

For the record, in some countries, it IS a criminal offense...
 
and in the military.
 
ludahai said:
For the record, in some countries, it IS a criminal offense...
Click to expand...

We are talking the US civilian laws only. It is also criminal under the UCMJ, but it again does not apply.

Thanks anyway bud.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Well, when someone asks you a question or for a clarification, then it means maybe you're not making your point in the clearest way.
Click to expand...

That's fine.

FilmFestGuy said:
So, I'm sorry to "waist" your time by asking for a clarification.
Click to expand...

It was not a "waist" to ask for clarification. That is why I put the quotes together. So you could see what I meant.

FilmFestGuy said:
Oh, and adultery is still illegal in several states, though rarely (if ever) enforced and likely unconstitutional following Lawrence v. Texas.
Click to expand...

Adultery is not prosecuted in the US even if the law is on the books. So this is pretty irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom