• 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!

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%

  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%
  • Total voters
    93
Antagony said:
Are you suggesting the current poll result has been rigged? How would that be possible?
Click to expand...
Yep the results are completely backwards. --I will be more careful next time around. --Pranksters lurk it seems.
 
Navy Pride said:
That is what I was trying to say earlier.........when someone makes up a poll and they don't check the block that reveals the names and how they voted it seems that hanky panky can take place............CC says he knows how people actually voted so maybe he can tell us what the actual vote is.I doubt if a hundred people voted since last night........
Click to expand...
Same numbers of voters, just revered as to how they voted. I've been watchin.
 
Skateguy said:
Same numbers of voters, just revered as to how they voted. I've been watchin.
Click to expand...

I can't believe we got a hundred new voters in one night when we only had around 75total the rest of the time........
 
Goshin said:
Wasn't hard to search up. I suggest pages 4 to 10 or so.



http://www.debatepolitics.com/church-and-state/52506-church-and-homosexuality-4.html
Click to expand...
Okay Goshin, since you deigned to humour us "noobs" and performed the trivial search, I have deigned to read the thread. It was interesting, but it really raised more questions than it answered for me; and it certainly didn't answer the question I've been asking repeatedly in this thread, about why homosexuality, above all else, is singled out as a paradigm, immutable law. It seems to me that the decisions about which OT laws can be safely ignored and which have to be adhered to strictly, were somewhat arbitrary. At the very least, they are still highly ambiguous and open to interpretation. Just like everything else in the bible really.

One thing that has occurred to me, though, whilst reading what you and Blackdog have been saying about the covenant* rescinding many of the old laws: doesn't this interpretation contradict Jesus' own words? He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18

* It's been many years since I was forced into bible studies during my schooling, so I am a very rusty, but my recollection of covenants was that they were all from the OT, so I have tried to find information on this one you and Blackdog have both mentioned, but I can't find anything definitive. Could you point me to some information on it please?
 
Antagony said:
Okay Goshin, since you deigned to humour us "noobs" and performed the trivial search, I have deigned to read the thread. It was interesting, but it really raised more questions than it answered for me; and it certainly didn't answer the question I've been asking repeatedly in this thread, about why homosexuality, above all else, is singled out as a paradigm, immutable law. It seems to me that the decisions about which OT laws can be safely ignored and which have to be adhered to strictly, were somewhat arbitrary. At the very least, they are still highly ambiguous and open to interpretation. Just like everything else in the bible really.
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to repeat the same things over and over again? From an earlier post #298...

"To bad the OT laws do not apply to modern Gentiles.

That was Gods laws for the Israelites." - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/64062-should-same-sex-people-allowed-marry-30.html

This is a really basic concept.

Antagony said:
One thing that has occurred to me, though, whilst reading what you and Blackdog have been saying about the covenant* rescinding many of the old laws: doesn't this interpretation contradict Jesus' own words? He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18
Click to expand...

This is almost the same question you asked above, and it was also already answered #344...

"Romans 1:26-27 "For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

No use of the word arsenokoitēs which is the word he is referring to in Greek." - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/64062-should-same-sex-people-allowed-marry-35.html

Now if you look at the old law and reference it with the new laws, you can see a trend here.

Antagony said:
* It's been many years since I was forced into bible studies during my schooling, so I am a very rusty, but my recollection of covenants was that they were all from the OT, so I have tried to find information on this one you and Blackdog have both mentioned, but I can't find anything definitive. Could you point me to some information on it please?
Click to expand...

It's called Jesus dieing on the cross. :doh

You are on your own for the rest. Read for yourself.
 
Last edited:
All these questions were raised, repeatedly, and explained (repeatedly) in the thread I linked to.
 
WTF is up with the poll results? Polls here never get 180 votes, not to mention 120 anti-gay marriage votes. Plus the numbers are unlikely well-rounded.
 
Blackdog said:
How many times do we have to repeat the same things over and over again? From an earlier post #298...

"To bad the OT laws do not apply to modern Gentiles.

That was Gods laws for the Israelites." - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/64062-should-same-sex-people-allowed-marry-30.html

This is a really basic concept.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer anything! I've asked why different OT laws are given greater credence than others by Christians and your reply is that the OT laws only apply to Israelites. That's drivel... it explains nothing!



This is almost the same question you asked above, and it was also already answered #344...

"Romans 1:26-27 "For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

No use of the word arsenokoitēs which is the word he is referring to in Greek." - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/64062-should-same-sex-people-allowed-marry-35.html

Now if you look at the old law and reference it with the new laws, you can see a trend here.
Click to expand...
New laws? You mean the interpretation of Pauline epistles of course, but that's the crux of it. The combination of Paul's letters and OT laws makes certain Christians' views on homosexuality intransigent, but the combination of Jesus saying he hasn't come to abolish the old laws and the OT laws in question, gets conveniently overlooked. Again, you haven't answered anything.



It's called Jesus dieing on the cross. :doh

You are on your own for the rest. Read for yourself.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've been advised that this "covenant" idea is an evangelical Protestant interpretation of NT scripture, which is why it didn't mean a great deal to me. The Jesus sacrifice was never referred to as a covenant, that I remember, in my religious education.
 
Dav said:
WTF is up with the poll results? Polls here never get 180 votes, not to mention 120 anti-gay marriage votes. Plus the numbers are unlikely well-rounded.
Click to expand...

With all respect to CC I believe some of our left wing friends are stuffing the ballots...........
 
antagony said:
that doesn't answer anything! I've asked why different ot laws are given greater credence than others by christians and your reply is that the ot laws only apply to israelites. That's drivel... It explains nothing!
Click to expand...

+1,000,000
 
Antagony said:
That doesn't answer anything! I've asked why different OT laws are given greater credence than others by Christians and your reply is that the OT laws only apply to Israelites. That's drivel... it explains nothing!
Click to expand...

It isn't just OT law. It is NT commandment. If you had read pages 4 to 10 of the thread in question, you should have come across the fact that there are at least four places in the New Testament that sharply condemn homosexuality. These were listed and discussed, including parsing of the original Greek and historical context.


New laws? You mean the interpretation of Pauline epistles of course, but that's the crux of it. The combination of Paul's letters and OT laws makes certain Christians' views on homosexuality intransigent, but the combination of Jesus saying he hasn't come to abolish the old laws and the OT laws in question, gets conveniently overlooked. Again, you haven't answered anything.


Yes, I've been advised that this "covenant" idea is an evangelical Protestant interpretation of NT scripture, which is why it didn't mean a great deal to me. The Jesus sacrifice was never referred to as a covenant, that I remember, in my religious education.
Click to expand...

In the book of Acts, the apostles (not just Paul, Peter and others) determined that Gentile Christians were not required to keep OT law, other than a few specific enumerated items. This was also discussed at length in the thread I linked to. The reason is that the purpose of OT Law is to show everyone the truth: that all have sinned. New Testament Grace is the "cure".
The Law does indeed still exist... those who decline to accept Grace are subject to its judgement.
 
Last edited:
Antagony said:
That doesn't answer anything! I've asked why different OT laws are given greater credence than others by Christians and your reply is that the OT laws only apply to Israelites. That's drivel... it explains nothing!
Click to expand...

They don't unless they are mentioned in the NT. Then they are nothing more than AS I SAID BEFORE a good reference for understanding what God expects.

I guess that is to complicated for you?

Antagony said:
New laws? You mean the interpretation of Pauline epistles of course, but that's the crux of it. The combination of Paul's letters and OT laws makes certain Christians' views on homosexuality intransigent, but the combination of Jesus saying he hasn't come to abolish the old laws and the OT laws in question, gets conveniently overlooked. Again, you haven't answered anything.
Click to expand...

Only because you don't want to see the answer. It is right in front of you. :roll:

Antagony said:
Yes, I've been advised that this "covenant" idea is an evangelical Protestant interpretation of NT scripture, which is why it didn't mean a great deal to me. The Jesus sacrifice was never referred to as a covenant, that I remember, in my religious education.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
I have to go to bed now. It's 3 AM here and I have work tomorrow. I will address the new posts later.
 
So I'm attending the beginning of a 100 level sociology class, and the instructor who teaches this subject at the 400 level, reaches the topic of cultural universal.

To periphrasis, he tells us that the reason all societies have "marriage" is to acknowledge a pair bond, to let everyone know that a couple has joined their lives and operate by special rules, and that everyone should honor this union because now the couple's main function is to socialize children. He then gave a few examples of how marriage serves this same function in very different cultures around the globe before moving on to other elements every society has, like funerals.


So before anyone tries to play the religion card, this is sociology, a science, not a religion, not my subjective personal opinion on morality......science and cultural universal.


****
Talk about validation.

Marriage is about raising children, not in supporting just whatever sort of relationship you feel like. If you have no intention of raising children, you therefore have no business getting married.

If gay 'marriage is principally about socializing children, then I'm for gay marriage. If gay marriage is principally about anything other than socializing children, such as "equality" or "rights" or some other bull**** nonsense, then I'm against it.

*Note: I would not then be against gays haveing relationships, living together and whatnot. I would then be against gays having access to marriage, even civil unions.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
But that wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

"They don't unless they are mentioned in the NT. Then they are nothing more than AS I SAID BEFORE a good reference for understanding what God expects." - Blackdog

Do I have to say this again?
 
Jerry said:
So I'm attending the beginning of a 100 level sociology class, and the instructor who teaches this subject at the 400 level, reaches the topic of cultural universal.

To periphrasis, he tells us that the reason societies have "marriage" is to acknowledge a pair bond, to let everyone know that a couple has joined their lives and operate by special rules, and that everyone should honor this union because now the couple's main function is to socialize children. He then gave a few examples of how marriage serves this same function in very different cultures around the globe before moving on to other elements every society has, like funerals.


****
Talk about validation.

Marriage is about raising children, not in supporting just whatever sort of relationship you feel like. If you have no intention of raising children, you therefore have no business getting married.
Click to expand...

so what, couples that don't have children should get divorced for that reason, or sterile people shouldn't get married?

marriage is a symbol, and that is all the gays are asking for, is to be granted that symbol of their love
 
spud_meister said:
so what, couples that don't have children should get divorced for that reason, or sterile people shouldn't get married?

marriage is a symbol, and that is all the gays are asking for, is to be granted that symbol of their love
Click to expand...

Marriage is not about love.

Marriage is about raising children.

Love supports the purpose of marriage, is it not itself the purpose of marriage.
 
Jerry said:
Marriage is about raising children, not in supporting just whatever sort of relationship you feel like. If you have no intention of raising children, you therefore have no business getting married.
Click to expand...

Yeah, be sure to go out and tell the hundreds of thousands of older couples who get married in their 50s or beyond and have no intention or ability to get married that they shouldn't be allowed to. Including perhaps your own parents or grandparents after divorce or death of a spouse. Including perhaps even you someday.

You may stick to your ridiculous extremist position, but nobody else is going to go for it. Marriage isn't just for children for many thousands of people. Deal with it.
 
Jerry said:
Marriage is not about love.

Marriage is about raising children.

Love supports the purpose of marriage, is it not itself the purpose of marriage.
Click to expand...

Marriage is about whatever the couple wants it to be about.
 
Jerry said:
Marriage is not about love.

Marriage is about raising children.

Love supports the purpose of marriage, is it not itself the purpose of marriage.
Click to expand...

Couples who have the legal right to say you're full of crap by marrying without having kids are doing so by the thousands every day.
 
spud_meister said:
so what, couples that don't have children should get divorced for that reason, or sterile people shouldn't get married?

marriage is a symbol, and that is all the gays are asking for, is to be granted that symbol of their love
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Some gays want a symbol of public approval, has little to do with love.
 
misterman said:
Yeah, be sure to go out and tell the hundreds of thousands of older couples who get married in their 50s or beyond and have no intention or ability to get married that they shouldn't be allowed to. Including perhaps your own parents or grandparents after divorce or death of a spouse. Including perhaps even you someday.

You may stick to your ridiculous extremist position, but nobody else is going to go for it. Marriage isn't just for children for many thousands of people. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Name calling doesn't change objective fact.

Across the globe, in every culture, marriage serves the same purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom