• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%

  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%
  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
O_Guru said:
I didn't say its irrelevant in general OR to me so don't put words in my mouth because it is relevant to me. But in this debate it is irrelevant since we are talking about America and American laws, equal rights and not discriminating. Unless of course you feel all our laws should be based on your interpretations of the bible and that in itself is also wrong. Of course you have a right to feel that way but thankfully that's not what America is about.
Click to expand...

If I expected all law in America, or even most of it, to be based on my interpretations of the Bible I'd be continually disappointed. Fortunately I don't.

Instead I was explaining why I am unable to support gay marriage. That is a personal choice. Last time I checked, I'm allowed to make personal choices in America, based on whatever beliefs I hold to, be they political, religious, philosophical or dipped in fish sauce.
 
winston53660 said:
Why a Harley the Japanese even after tutoring Harley on how to build a motorcycle that doesn't leak oil still build a more versatile bike.
Click to expand...


Actually I prefer BMW bikes, they are far more mechanically reliable.... but try telling that to a Harley man. :roll:
 
Goshin said:
And you're favoring the one YOU would rather see as correct, are you not?

Redress, I am seeing the most direct and straightforward interpretation, the one with the most support from other scriptural sources, and therefore the most likely correct one.

The other viewpoint involves making three laps around cultural relativism and closing your eyes and ignoring several points of scripture that say something you don't like.

One interpretation is direct, literal, historical, grammatical and if charted would look like a straight arrow.

The other is convoluted and contrived and if flow-charted would look like an M.C. Escher painting.

I'll stick with the straightforward interpretation. It makes much more sense.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am not favoring any interpretation. I am simply pointing out that you choose the interpretation that says what you want it to. If you could hear how your arguments sound to some one on the outside, you would be amazed.
 
Redress said:
Actually, I am not favoring any interpretation. I am simply pointing out that you choose the interpretation that says what you want it to. If you could hear how your arguments sound to some one on the outside, you would be amazed.
Click to expand...

You're assuming I want to view homosexuality as a sin. Being the wet blanket buzz-killington that insists that it is so is no fun, let me tell you. If I thought there was a honest and legitimate way to explain it away I'd be glad to change my views. Unfortunately the convoluted crap that has been presented so far doesn't even come close to qualifying.
 
Goshin said:
The interpretation of arsenokoites as "homosexual" has been standard for around 2000 years. If you can show that the 1st Century church did not interpret it as such, please post proof based on writings from the first century AD.
Click to expand...

It doesn't refer to homosexuals until 400 years after it was written.
 
Goshin said:
Tell you what folks, we'll have a little contest.

We will each start with a pile of motorcycle parts and a manual entitled "How to build a Harley Electroglide."

I will interpret the manual as meaning exactly what it says.

You will interpret the manual as not meaning what it says, but instead referring to some historical practices that are no longer relevant.


First person to build a working motorcycle wins. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Does not work Goshin. Maybe if the manual was an interpretation of several people, each bringing their own views into play, then written in a foreign language, then interpreted 200 years later when we are not even certain what some of the words mean, and we each have different interpretations, then we can try it. I bet we both have real troubles, and neither of us can build the motorcycle.

What makes me wonder is what exact reason would a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being have for worrying about the sex of a person some one chooses to sleep with. It made sense at one time, but certainly not at this time. Why would god make people who, if they follow his word, would feel like **** all their lives? Is god that casually cruel to people?
 
Redress said:
Does not work Goshin. Maybe if the manual was an interpretation of several people, each bringing their own views into play, then written in a foreign language, then interpreted 200 years later when we are not even certain what some of the words mean, and we each have different interpretations, then we can try it. I bet we both have real troubles, and neither of us can build the motorcycle.

What makes me wonder is what exact reason would a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being have for worrying about the sex of a person some one chooses to sleep with. It made sense at one time, but certainly not at this time. Why would god make people who, if they follow his word, would feel like **** all their lives? Is god that casually cruel to people?
Click to expand...


You're asking questions that are above my pay grade, Redress. I just follow the manual.
 
Goshin said:
You're asking questions that are above my pay grade, Redress. I just follow the manual.
Click to expand...

You do start to see the problem. My mother is pretty religious, and makes a good point on all this. Let my quote her:

my mom said:
I believe God made us, and I think he made all of us, including our brains. I think he wants us to use those brains, and when things don't make sense, do what your brain tells you to do.
Click to expand...
 
Goshin said:
No, the dietary restrictions were removed, in Acts 10.
Click to expand...

The whole thing sounds like one heck of a mushroom trip to me; Acts 10 and the story.

But anyhows your religion really does not mean diddly squat to me until you try to impose it on me via the state. And I see no lifting of the dietary laws in Acts 10.
 
winston53660 said:
The whole thing sounds like one heck of a mushroom trip to me; Acts 10 and the story.

But anyhows your religion really does not mean diddly squat to me until you try to impose it on me via the state. And I see no lifting of the dietary laws in Acts 10.
Click to expand...


My bad, I meant Acts 11.

There's also Acts 15 and 21, where Gentile believers were determined by the Apostles to not be subject to the finer points of OT Law.

I'm not trying to impose on anyone. I've been explaining why I am not permitted to support SSM.
 
Redress said:
You do start to see the problem. My mother is pretty religious, and makes a good point on all this. Let my quote her:
Click to expand...


I agree with your mom, and I am using mine. My brain tells me that the most simple and straightforward interpretation is the most likely, and appears to have the most support from other scripture (1st principle of Hermaneutics); and that the alternative interpretation is a very convoluted and improbable construction that appears to have been thought up in an effort to justify a position that the Bible does not appear to support, based on notions about ancient practices that are not supported by recent anthropological/historical experts.
 
Goshin said:
If I expected all law in America, or even most of it, to be based on my interpretations of the Bible I'd be continually disappointed. Fortunately I don't.

Instead I was explaining why I am unable to support gay marriage. That is a personal choice. Last time I checked, I'm allowed to make personal choices in America, based on whatever beliefs I hold to, be they political, religious, philosophical or dipped in fish sauce.
Click to expand...

You sure would be disappointed and thankfully its the way it is.
Also nobody is arguing against your personal choice so no need to try and defend that part, nor does anybody want you forced to "support" anything. People are arguing that's its discrimination and I haven't seen anything provide in this thread that would disprove that or would make your religious beliefs relevant in the debate at hand. I respect your choice and freedom of religion and its beliefs but it has no place in the marriage laws and is a piss poor excuse to discriminate against fellow americans. Lucky you have your freedom of that choice and I want the same for others.
 
O_Guru said:
You sure would be disappointed and thankfully its the way it is.
Also nobody is arguing against your personal choice so no need to try and defend that part, nor does anybody want you forced to "support" anything. People are arguing that's its discrimination and I haven't seen anything provide in this thread that would disprove that or would make your religious beliefs relevant in the debate at hand. I respect your choice and freedom of religion and its beliefs but it has no place in the marriage laws and is a piss poor excuse to discriminate against fellow americans. Lucky you have your freedom of that choice and I want the same for others.
Click to expand...

Well oddly enough, lots of people do seem to have a problem with my position: that I am unable to support SSM because of personal religious convictions. People try to tell me I can't hold that position, or act like they're royally pissed at me over it. They insist on further explanations, I give them and then I'm told it's irrelevant because it has to do with the Bible. It isn't irrelevant to me, because I try to live my life by it. Maybe it is irrelevant to US law, but a lot of Americans self-identify as Christians and I presume a lot of them vote.

Whatever, it will be what it will be and I'm done talking about it. This is like fighting a school of pirhana.
 
Goshin said:
Well oddly enough, lots of people do seem to have a problem with my position: that I am unable to support SSM because of personal religious convictions. People try to tell me I can't hold that position, or act like they're royally pissed at me over it. They insist on further explanations, I give them and then I'm told it's irrelevant because it has to do with the Bible. It isn't irrelevant to me, because I try to live my life by it. Maybe it is irrelevant to US law, but a lot of Americans self-identify as Christians and I presume a lot of them vote.

Whatever, it will be what it will be and I'm done talking about it. This is like fighting a school of pirhana.
Click to expand...

Well for me, not a problem with your position but a problem if you stop others from marrying.
You could still live your life has you see fit, gays marrying would have no effect on that.

Trust me I know, I have admitted before I at want time was very much anti-gay, thought it was wrong on every level. I am still not exactly a gay "fan" But I realized the error of my ways. Once i woke up and pulled my head out my ass I realized how wrong I was in general and in America and what it stands for. To force my morals on others in this case is discrimination. I wasn't like this with every issue but mainly with gays. I now realize that its none of my business and it has no effect on my what so ever, I was totally wrong for the thoughts I had and I couldn't be happier I woke up. Actually being half black I can't believe I ever had those views, it was so ignorant and hypocritical but now I know better. It actually makes me sad, I'm ashamed and find it embarrassing now that I was so blind during that time but I was young and chose to ignore reality in some cases. I could never bring myself to discriminate in that fashion and I never will again, America has no room for such behavior and is working slowly but surely to end such blemishes on our society.
 
Goshin said:
I agree with your mom, and I am using mine. My brain tells me that the most simple and straightforward interpretation is the most likely, and appears to have the most support from other scripture (1st principle of Hermaneutics); and that the alternative interpretation is a very convoluted and improbable construction that appears to have been thought up in an effort to justify a position that the Bible does not appear to support, based on notions about ancient practices that are not supported by recent anthropological/historical experts.
Click to expand...

As am I, yet we reach two different conclusions. To me homosexuality isn't a sin, and just another variation in Gods creation.
 
Goshin said:
You're asking questions that are above my pay grade, Redress. I just follow the manual.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be a nuke then. We were required to question things, even the manuals, if it went against our training or basic reactor knowledge and/or we believed that it could do harm, to the reactor or personnel. The manual can be wrong. Even the smartest people can make a mistake. After all, we're only human. Just like those who wrote the manual(s).
 
Goshin said:
You're assuming I want to view homosexuality as a sin. Being the wet blanket buzz-killington that insists that it is so is no fun, let me tell you. If I thought there was a honest and legitimate way to explain it away I'd be glad to change my views. Unfortunately the convoluted crap that has been presented so far doesn't even come close to qualifying.
Click to expand...

That's not completely true, Goshen. In a discussion that you and I had on this issue, I asked you what it would take to convince you to be pro-GM. You said, something like, pretty much nothing. Your position is based on your religion and your morals. I think in the past, you've been pretty clear on this, and have recognized that this trumps any information that is provided. See, though I am very pro-GM and have presented a massive amount of data and information on this issue here at DP, I can respect your position. You don't try to prove that homosexuality is "unnatural" or "disgusting" or that homosexuals are pedophiles or anything. I'd like to demonstrate that your position is informationally completely flawed, but, ultimately, for you what it comes down to is faith. I don't see it as discriminatory because you agreed with my position that the word "marriage" should be removed from government altogether. That all "pairings" be they gay or straight should be called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" should be relegated to religion only. I think what folks on both sides fail to see is that it is possible to have faith and reason at the same time.

See, I suppose I see it from both sides: I am a very religious person who is also very pro-GM. It may seem like a contradiction, but I separate it out. This is one of the reasons that I have "undisclosed" next to my lean. I have some positions on things that would seem completely contradictory, but really are not.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's not completely true, Goshen. In a discussion that you and I had on this issue, I asked you what it would take to convince you to be pro-GM. You said, something like, pretty much nothing. Your position is based on your religion and your morals. I think in the past, you've been pretty clear on this, and have recognized that this trumps any information that is provided. See, though I am very pro-GM and have presented a massive amount of data and information on this issue here at DP, I can respect your position. You don't try to prove that homosexuality is "unnatural" or "disgusting" or that homosexuals are pedophiles or anything. I'd like to demonstrate that your position is informationally completely flawed, but, ultimately, for you what it comes down to is faith. I don't see it as discriminatory because you agreed with my position that the word "marriage" should be removed from government altogether. That all "pairings" be they gay or straight should be called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" should be relegated to religion only. I think what folks on both sides fail to see is that it is possible to have faith and reason at the same time.

See, I suppose I see it from both sides: I am a very religious person who is also very pro-GM. It may seem like a contradiction, but I separate it out. This is one of the reasons that I have "undisclosed" next to my lean. I have some positions on things that would seem completely contradictory, but really are not.
Click to expand...

Well CC the only way my position would change is if a true profit of God, or God came down and said it was OK. Otherwise it's not. :shrug:
 
Blackdog said:
Well CC the only way my position would change is if a true profit of God, or God came down and said it was OK. Otherwise it's not. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's similar to what Goshen said, in a way. I can respect that based on the fact that, as far as I know, your position is the same as his: civil unions for everyone, marriage for religion and that your position is based on faith. Now, though I am very religious, I look at the bible contextually in relation to the time. I base my belief system on the traditional Progressive/Reform Jewish position that what is in the Torah is a starting point and that each person's faith is individual, and it is up to that person to interpret the nuances of scripture. Also, in Progressive/Reform Judaism, law it constantly reinterpreted based on current social and technological issues. Because of this, God does not have to tell me that homosexuality is OK. He already has through all of the studies that have been researched. That's just my faith, though.

Kinda reminds me of a story/parable.

A man becomes very ill. He is very religious and tells his wife that God will save him. So he prays. His wife, who is not as religious, has a doctor come to the house. The doctor says, "I can give you medicine that will help you." The man says, "no, I don't need the medicine, God will save me." The man prays, but he worsens. His wife has the doctor come again. The doctor again says, "I can give you medicine that will help you." The man says, "no, I don't need the medicine, God will save me." Again, he prays, but again he worsens. His wife sends for the doctor one more time. When he sees the man has deteriorated further, he says, "you could die from this. I can give you medicine to help you." Again, the man says, "no, God will save me. I don't need the medicine." The doctor leaves once again. The man prays. He dies. When he gets to heaven, he sees God and says to him, "Lord, why oh why didn't you answer my prayers and save my life?" God looks at him and says, "What are you talking about? I sent a doctor with medicine to your house 3 times."

Neat story. Kinda describes my beliefs real well.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
A man becomes very ill. He is very religious and tells his wife that God will save him. So he prays. His wife, who is not as religious, has a doctor come to the house. The doctor says, "I can give you medicine that will help you." The man says, "no, I don't need the medicine, God will save me." The man prays, but he worsens. His wife has the doctor come again. The doctor again says, "I can give you medicine that will help you." The man says, "no, I don't need the medicine, God will save me." Again, he prays, but again he worsens. His wife sends for the doctor one more time. When he sees the man has deteriorated further, he says, "you could die from this. I can give you medicine to help you." Again, the man says, "no, God will save me. I don't need the medicine." The doctor leaves once again. The man prays. He dies. When he gets to heaven, he sees God and says to him, "Lord, why oh why didn't you answer my prayers and save my life?" God looks at him and says, "What are you talking about? I sent a doctor with medicine to your house 3 times."

Neat story. Kinda describes my beliefs real well.
Click to expand...

I've heard a story a little similar, only the guy was on his roof during a flood. He prayed to God to save him. He saw a row boat, a speed boat, and a helicopter that all offered to save him. He turned each away, saying God would save him. He dies, the ending is the same as yours. It's been one of my favorite stories too.
 
roguenuke said:
I've heard a story a little similar, only the guy was on his roof during a flood. He prayed to God to save him. He saw a row boat, a speed boat, and a helicopter that all offered to save him. He turned each away, saying God would save him. He dies, the ending is the same as yours. It's been one of my favorite stories too.
Click to expand...

I couldn't remember the exact story... yours is the correct version, so I altered it and wrote my own. The message is the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom