• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

Not the way it will work. Gays will demand a church to marry them or call them discriminating.

This is nothing more than paranoia.

Also you act like it would be that hard to find a church to marry a gay couple. It's not as hard as you think. I could have a wedding ceremony in a church no problem.
 
I can some up the whole argument at this point as I am getting tired of the debate. You just brush aside my example and say "well it does not agree with the golden rule." I guess if you somehow think two guys out of wedlock having anal or oral sex somehow glorifies God, more power to you.

Ok, but I am right. It doesn't agree with the golden rule. You haven't even tried to show that it does. How does two guys having oral or anal sex break the golden rule?

Jesus says the golden rule sums up the law and the prophets, Either you think Jesus was wrong, or you think he was lying if you don't see the validity of accepting as law only that which is summed up by the golden rule.

You cannot glorify God with sexual immorality, period.

I agree. Now if you could only demonstrate the gay sex is sexually immoral, you might have an argument.

I have quoted scripture throughout this thread and you just ignore it and consequently most of the scripture.

Which part of scripture did I ignore? As far as I can tell, I have a better grasp on scripture than you do. You thought that uncleanliness didn't equate to sin in Mosaic law. then you thought that Jesus always followed Mosaic law, even though I quoted scripture that said he touched a leper, and also quoted the scripture that said touching a leper was a sin. How is it that you have still not addressed this issue, and yet you accuse me of ignoring the scripture you quote? Please tell me which particular scripture you think I have ignored and I shall address it again in detail.

How can you be a Christian (I am having my doubts) and throw out most of the teachings? You sound more like new age person than a Christian of any type. Or a Unitarian, I would almost be willing to lay money down that you are not a Christian by practice. Don't mean this as an insult, just an observation from your posts.

Why is it that everything you accuse me of are things that you have done? You accuse me of ignoring the scripture you quote, when you have ignored my quotes demonstrating the Jesus did not follow Mosaic law. Then you accuse me of throwing out Jesus' teachings, while yourself throwing out His most important teaching. The Golden rule sums up all of Jesus' teaching. He said so himself. You causally throw it out because it doesn't jive with your homophobic agenda. Given that I believe in the teachings which He said constitute the entirety of the law, whereas you dismiss them as "new age feel good stuff" I think it much more likely that you are not a Christian by practice.

I guess God waisted his time explaining all that when all you have to do is be nice to people and you get to heaven. I mean really, that pretty much sums up your argument.

Dude, that pretty much sums up Jesus' argument too. In fact He said that it pretty much sums up His argument. I believe His exact words were "For this sums up the law and the prophets."

Does it not strike you as odd that Jesus and I can sum up our arguments in the same way while you cannot? Maybe if you start following Christ instead of following your Church's agenda, it will start to sum up your argument just like it does His.

:peace
 
Not the way it will work. Gays will demand a church to marry them or call them discriminating.

Appeal to consequences of belief fallacy.

Please demonstrate in any state which has same sex marriage a case where such a thing has occurred.

You do realize that you are doing nothing but trying to demonize a group of people by claims like these and its rather disgusting.
 
Appeal to consequences of belief fallacy.

Please demonstrate in any state which has same sex marriage a case where such a thing has occurred.

You do realize that you are doing nothing but trying to demonize a group of people by claims like these and its rather disgusting.

We had another poster attempt to argue this a few months ago. He couldn't get anywhere with the argument either, as he couldn't prove it had any validity or precedence.
 
Ok, but I am right. It doesn't agree with the golden rule. You haven't even tried to show that it does. How does two guys having oral or anal sex break the golden rule?

Yes I have, you refuse to listen. Of course you are trying to bend the word so it means something it does not.

Jesus (as we have discussed) not only affirmed the prohibition against adultery, he clarified and expanded it beyond the physical act of sex to include sexual lust: lust and adultery are the same sin. Of course if the adulterer is following the golden rule without excepting Christ or being repentant he is good to go according to you.

Jesus says the golden rule sums up the law and the prophets, Either you think Jesus was wrong, or you think he was lying if you don't see the validity of accepting as law only that which is summed up by the golden rule.

Jesus was absolutely correct. But treating others as you wish to be treated has nothing to do with partaking of or condoning sin.

Jesus shows us exactly how we need to obey God in this area. Plucking out an eye etc. illustrated two things: the seriousness of sin, which God's people should avoid. Jesus says sin is deadly serious. Not one time but twice, he stressed that hell was to be avoided at all costs. The metaphors of plucking out an eye and cutting off a hand illustrate how people could avoid adultery or lust: remove themselves from any situation where they might be tempted. If there is anything in your life that causes you to lust or tempts you to consider indulging in any extra-marital sexual activity, then that thing should be removed from your life, period

I agree. Now if you could only demonstrate the gay sex is sexually immoral, you might have an argument.

I have above and many times before, but you don't want to see it

Which part of scripture did I ignore? As far as I can tell, I have a better grasp on scripture than you do. You thought that uncleanliness didn't equate to sin in Mosaic law. then you thought that Jesus always followed Mosaic law, even though I quoted scripture that said he touched a leper, and also quoted the scripture that said touching a leper was a sin. How is it that you have still not addressed this issue, and yet you accuse me of ignoring the scripture you quote? Please tell me which particular scripture you think I have ignored and I shall address it again in detail.

Jesus did always follow mosaic law and says so...

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 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."

Of course Jesus is God and perfect. So he did not need the law and was able to forgive and heal directly.

As for grasp, not really. You are trying to change definitions of words etc. to make what you want to fit the Bible, and it does not work that way.

Why is it that everything you accuse me of are things that you have done? You accuse me of ignoring the scripture you quote, when you have ignored my quotes demonstrating the Jesus did not follow Mosaic law.

No I have not. You don't like my answers or just ignore the scripture or reasoning.

Then you accuse me of throwing out Jesus' teachings, while yourself throwing out His most important teaching. The Golden rule sums up all of Jesus' teaching. He said so himself. You causally throw it out because it doesn't jive with your homophobic agenda. Given that I believe in the teachings which He said constitute the entirety of the law, whereas you dismiss them as "new age feel good stuff" I think it much more likely that you are not a Christian by practice.

I do treat others as I want to be treated. As I have shown many times now, condoning immorality or sin is not part of it. You have ignored my examples of why this does not work etc.

I am absolutely a Christian, and unlike you I actually follow what Christ said. While you state heresy that makes little sense. We were warned about people like this...

2 Timothy 4:3,4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth , and be turned aside to fables.

Dude, that pretty much sums up Jesus' argument too. In fact He said that it pretty much sums up His argument. I believe His exact words were "For this sums up the law and the prophets."

Those were his exact words, but again you are trying to redifine words to mean what you want.

Here is a good example of you ignoring my point and just attacking one small line. This was the full comment...

I guess God waisted his time explaining all that when all you have to do is be nice to people and you get to heaven. I mean really, that pretty much sums up your argument. - Blackdog

Being respectful, loving and treating others well does not mean it is OK to condone or otherwise perpetuate sin. Jesus is the only way to the father and without accepting him as your Saviour, you can't attain grace. This pretty much in itself blows your just be nice to everyone out of the water.

Does it not strike you as odd that Jesus and I can sum up our arguments in the same way while you cannot?

You don't, and I have shown this a few time now.

Maybe if you start following Christ instead of following your Church's agenda, it will start to sum up your argument just like it does His.

:peace

I am correct and have shown it. Your argument is as empty as your trying to redefine words to suit your purposes.

You are trying to lead people down a road that will most likely end in damnation. f you go by scripture and not ignore 90% of the Bible in the process. :)
 
Last edited:
The key to this whole statement is "imo."

Yes it is far from "convert or die." Even if you do not convert, you may later. When you are dead, you are dead.

Trying to equate physical death with spiritual salvation is a fools folly.
all i have is my opinion sorry.
 
Walmart is very different than the government having this kind of control on the Church. Again... you should be able to point to SOMETHING, anything that gives an indication that your supposition has an credence.

No one ever thought the government could take your house to build a wal mart but the Supreme court made it law. Gay marriage and the church can also happen. The left and the love for gays and their hate for Christians can bring many changes that people say can not happen.
 
This is nothing more than paranoia.

Also you act like it would be that hard to find a church to marry a gay couple. It's not as hard as you think. I could have a wedding ceremony in a church no problem.

Never said it was but Gays will demand to be married in all churches
 
Appeal to consequences of belief fallacy.

Please demonstrate in any state which has same sex marriage a case where such a thing has occurred.

You do realize that you are doing nothing but trying to demonize a group of people by claims like these and its rather disgusting.

It will come. Just like when Blacks got freedom special laws to give them favor over whites happened. Look how companies have to hire so many blacks or minorities no matter if they are qualified or not.

Change will give special rights or organizations will be charged with driscrimination. Deny it if you want but history shows that what people say can not happen often happens.
 
It will come. Just like when Blacks got freedom special laws to give them favor over whites happened. Look how companies have to hire so many blacks or minorities no matter if they are qualified or not.

Change will give special rights or organizations will be charged with driscrimination. Deny it if you want but history shows that what people say can not happen often happens.

Actually the group that affirmative action has helped most has been white women.

Also, I don't think that gay rights groups can overturn the 1st Amendment, and I'm not sure what Constitutional rights were violated by affirmative action laws.

The comparison is completely irrational and baseless.
 
Last edited:
Not the way it will work. Gays will demand a church to marry them or call them discriminating.

Some gays may demand this, then those more reasonable gays and supporters, like most, if not all, of those on this board, will be arguing against such demands alongside those people who are against same sex marriages now.
 
Yes I have, you refuse to listen.

Where have you tried to show how homosexuality fits into the Golden rule?

The commandment is to "do to others what you would have them do to you."

This means that for anything to be a sin you must show that it is not something the person would want done to them.

Take the following example. "You wouldn't want someone to murder you, so murdering them is a sin."

Now try it with homosexuality. "You wouldn't want another man having sex with you, so having sex with him is a sin."

This clearly doesn't work, because gay men do want another man to have sex with them. Ergo, they are doing to others what they would have done to them. Since they were commanded to do to others as they would have done to them, they are fulfilling the law and the prophets by doing so.

You claim to have shown how homosexuality breaks the golden rule, but I have no idea where you even think you did so. Make it easy for me. Fill in the blanks here:

"I think homosexuality breaks the golden rule because homosexuals _______ each other, when they wouldn't want the same done to them."

Of course you are trying to bend the word so it means something it does not.

Which particular word am I trying to bend? Homosexual? That word wasn't straight to begin with.

Jesus (as we have discussed) not only affirmed the prohibition against adultery, he clarified and expanded it beyond the physical act of sex to include sexual lust: lust and adultery are the same sin. Of course if the adulterer is following the golden rule without excepting Christ or being repentant he is good to go according to you.

No. I wouldn't want my girlfriend to cheat on me, so it is a sin for me to cheat on her. I wouldn't want her to even lust after other guys, so it is a sin for me to lust after other women. Jesus is once again consistent with the Golden Rule. Now try doing the same thing with homosexuality.

Jesus was absolutely correct. But treating others as you wish to be treated has nothing to do with partaking of or condoning sin.

How can you possibly say that? Give me your definition of sin.

Jesus shows us exactly how we need to obey God in this area. Plucking out an eye etc. illustrated two things: the seriousness of sin, which God's people should avoid. Jesus says sin is deadly serious. Not one time but twice, he stressed that hell was to be avoided at all costs. The metaphors of plucking out an eye and cutting off a hand illustrate how people could avoid adultery or lust: remove themselves from any situation where they might be tempted. If there is anything in your life that causes you to lust or tempts you to consider indulging in any extra-marital sexual activity, then that thing should be removed from your life, period

Sin is bad. I get it. Now show that homosexuality is a sin according to Jesus.

I have above and many times before, but you don't want to see it

Do you actually think that you demonstrated that homosexuality is a sin above? I have no idea which part of your post you even think did such a thing?

Lets try out some of your premises here:

"Yes I have, you refuse to listen. Of course you are trying to bend the word so it means something it does not." Therefore homosexuality is a sin.

"Jesus (as we have discussed) not only affirmed the prohibition against adultery, he clarified and expanded it beyond the physical act of sex to include sexual lust: lust and adultery are the same sin." Therefore homosexuality is a sin.

"Jesus was absolutely correct. But treating others as you wish to be treated has nothing to do with partaking of or condoning sin." Therefore homosexuality is a sin.

I just don't see how any of these even address the question at all.

Jesus did always follow mosaic law and says so...

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 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."

Of course Jesus is God and perfect. So he did not need the law and was able to forgive and heal directly.

Well then, I guess He was lying then wasn't He? Because Mosaic law says it is a sin to touch a leper, and Jesus touched a leper. You can't say that it was ok for Him to touch the leper because God is above the law, and also say that He followed the law. Which was it? Did Jesus follow the law that says not to touch lepers, or didn't He?

I have a theory that the Law Jesus was talking about following was God's Law, (the Golden Rule) as opposed to Moses' law (don't menstruate or eat bacon). This being the case, Jesus did indeed follow God's law by doing to others as He would have done to Him, and broke Mosaic law by touching lepers, gathering food on Sabbath, healing on Sabbath, eating things that were 'unclean' etc...

As for grasp, not really. You are trying to change definitions of words etc. to make what you want to fit the Bible, and it does not work that way.

Which words do you think I am trying to change the definition of?

No I have not. You don't like my answers or just ignore the scripture or reasoning.

Which scripture do you imagine I am ignoring?

I do treat others as I want to be treated. As I have shown many times now, condoning immorality or sin is not part of it. You have ignored my examples of why this does not work etc.

Do you think gay people should do to others as they would have done to them?

I am absolutely a Christian, and unlike you I actually follow what Christ said. While you state heresy that makes little sense. We were warned about people like this...

What do you imagine Christ said that you follow and I do not?

2 Timothy 4:3,4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth , and be turned aside to fables.

That is exactly what the church does. In fact, in 1 Timothy it gives some more specifics about what these false doctrines entail...

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth."

Who is trying to forbid gay folk from marrying? That would be the teachers of false doctrine.

Those were his exact words, but again you are trying to redifine words to mean what you want.

Which word exactly do you imagine I am trying to redefine?

Here is a good example of you ignoring my point and just attacking one small line. This was the full comment...

I guess God waisted his time explaining all that when all you have to do is be nice to people and you get to heaven. I mean really, that pretty much sums up your argument. - Blackdog

What did God waist[sic] His time explaining? The we should love each other? That we should treat each other like we want to be treated? That we should be righteous not only outwardly, but in our hearts? That was really all He spent His time explaining to people. He also gave some examples of what the coming Kingdom of God would be like. I missed the part where he explained that sin was arbitrary and the gay was bad for some inexplicable reason, and you have yet to produce it.

Being respectful, loving and treating others well does not mean it is OK to condone or otherwise perpetuate sin.

There is only one sin, and that sin is the sin of not loving your neighbor. If you love your neighbor, you will treat him as you want to be treated. If you are respectful, and loving toward your neighbor, then it is impossible for you to perpetuate sin.

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” -Galatians 5:14

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." -Romans 13:8-10

Jesus is the only way to the father and without living in Him, you can't attain grace. This pretty much in itself blows your just be nice to everyone out of the water.

Fixed it for you.

You don't, and I have shown this a few time now.

Where have you shown that?

I am correct and have shown it. Your argument is as empty as your trying to redefine words to suit your purposes.

Which words am I trying to redefine?

You are trying to lead people down a road that will most likely end in damnation.

No, you are.

f you go by scripture and not ignore 90% of the Bible in the process. :)

The Bible isn't God. Only God is perfect. Therefore, the Bible isn't perfect.
 
Actually the group that affirmative action has helped most has been white women.

Also, I don't think that gay rights groups can overturn the 1st Amendment, and I'm not sure what Constitutional rights were violated by affirmative action laws.

The comparison is completely irrational and baseless.

So was affirmitive action at one time. Then will come preaching what the Bible says will be seen as hate speech against gays
 
So was affirmitive action at one time. Then will come preaching what the Bible says will be seen as hate speech against gays

You just love making up these scenarios without explaining in any shape, way, or form how they will come to pass or providing any evidence to back them up.

A meteor will smash into the Earth tomorrow, reducing it to dust!

See, I can do it too.
 
You just love making up these scenarios without explaining in any shape, way, or form how they will come to pass or providing any evidence to back them up.

A meteor will smash into the Earth tomorrow, reducing it to dust!

See, I can do it too.

History shows what people expect to never happen happens. I am a realist and know the gays and liberals will not be satisfied with Gay marriage just like civil unions are not good enough for gays even if they would be given all the same rights as married people
 
History shows what people expect to never happen happens. I am a realist and know the gays and liberals will not be satisfied with Gay marriage just like civil unions are not good enough for gays even if they would be given all the same rights as married people

You are arguing the law of unintended consequences. It's a basic conservative principle. Please at least learn its name.

And yes, whenever you interfere in any complex system, there are very likely to be undesirable consequences as a result. However, you cannot argue that gays overturning the 1st amendment and enslaving religion to their whims is a likely consequence to same sex marriage.
 
The Bible isn't God. Only God is perfect. Therefore, the Bible isn't perfect.

So says the non-Christian.

It really amazes me when someone who does not even believe in the validity of his word, preaches what that word is.

The Bible isn't God. Only God is perfect. Therefore, the Bible isn't perfect.

And yet the only reason we know he is, is in the Bible. :lol:
 
Last edited:
History shows what people expect to never happen happens. I am a realist and know the gays and liberals will not be satisfied with Gay marriage just like civil unions are not good enough for gays even if they would be given all the same rights as married people

And history is obvious that some will go to great to great lengths to deny law abiding citizens their rights be they black white or gay.
 
Translation: The only people who are worthy of talking to me about the Kool Aid are the people who are already drinking the Kool Aid.

In context:

It really amazes me when someone who does not even believe in the validity of his word, preaches what that word is. - Blackdog
 
So says the non-Christian.

It really amazes me when someone who does not even believe in the validity of his word, preaches what that word is.

It's a simple matter of reading comprehension. I don't believe that everything Shakespeare wrote was the absolute infallible truth, but I can have a discussion on whether or not Oberon told Puck to fetch the love-in-idleness flower for him.

Furthermore, believing in faeries doesn't make one an expert on the play A Midsummer Night's Dream, and doesn't make one anymore qualified to know what Oberon asked Puck to do.

A perfect example of this is the fact that I knew that menstruation was a sin under the Old Covenant, and you did not. Your faith didn't give you any insight into God's word there, whereas my actually reading the Bible did. Then when I preached what that word was, you learned from me that menstruation was in fact a sin. The fact that I don't believe that menstruation was a sin doesn't change the fact that I know what the book says and doesn't say.

And yet the only reason we know he is, is in the Bible. :lol:

Really? Some of us have transcendent personal experience with God. Maybe one day you will have a personal relationship with God yourself instead of just reading about Him.
 
So says the non-Christian.

It really amazes me when someone who does not even believe in the validity of his word, preaches what that word is.



And yet the only reason we know he is, is in the Bible. :lol:

You do realize that the belief of a God came before the Bible, and even before the writings that became the Bible? People did not just find the Bible or the writings that went into the Bible, bam, now they start believing in one God, instead of many. There were some who believed that there was only one God. They believed that that one God talked to them, giving them instructions on how they should behave and live their lives and information on how He created the Earth. These stories were passed down, and finally written down. Then, eventually, some time after the first of these people started telling their story, a group of these stories was studied and put into a book. Then, down the road, after Jesus was born, lived and died, things that were recorded about his life and from the lives of his most faithful followers were put into the book to become the Christian Bible.

The belief in God should not come from any book, which are simply writings that may or may not be the will of God. There are many people who believe in God or a higher power who believe that the Christian Bible is not the word of that God or higher power any more than they believe the Koran to be completely true. They both may have real historical accounts, but this does not in any way prove that things written in those books are actually things that God wishes man to obey.
 
It's a simple matter of reading comprehension. I don't believe that everything Shakespeare wrote was the absolute infallible truth, but I can have a discussion on whether or not Oberon told Puck to fetch the love-in-idleness flower for him.

Shakespeare is not Gods word.

Furthermore, believing in faeries doesn't make one an expert on the play A Midsummer Night's Dream, and doesn't make one anymore qualified to know what Oberon asked Puck to do.

If you only take into account 10% of the story like you do with the Bible I would agree.

A perfect example of this is the fact that I knew that menstruation was a sin under the Old Covenant, and you did not. Your faith didn't give you any insight into God's word there, whereas my actually reading the Bible did. Then when I preached what that word was, you learned from me that menstruation was in fact a sin. The fact that I don't believe that menstruation was a sin doesn't change the fact that I know what the book says and doesn't say.

Why would I expect my faith to give me better incite? I have not read the Bible cover to cover in what, 25 years? You forget things and my mistake was not to look it up. I assumed incorrectly.

You were not preaching, you corrected my mistake and told me in no uncertain terms I need to admit it. In the end it was pretty irrelevant to the subject at hand.

really? Some of us have transcendent personal experience with God. Maybe one day you will have a personal relationship with God yourself instead of just reading about Him.

I do and here is your mistake....

The Golden Rule: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -Matt 7:12

Your definition of the golden rule: According to the Golden Rule, which Jesus claims to summarize the law and the prophets in their entirety, sexual behavior is endorsed when everyone involved is treating each other they way they would want to be treated.

Let's see how that works out...

according to my pal Jesus, anything that doesn't have anything to do with treating each other with love, kindness and mercy isn't the law or the prophets. Ergo, this alleged "sin" isn't really a sin at all. It's more of a social taboo. - Panache

I guess a loving incestuous couple is just a social taboo? Two couples lovingly wife swapping is not adultery even though Jesus said in no uncertain terms that it is a sin regardless.

This is why your definition does not work. It is directly opposed to the words of Christ, period.

Maybe you should accept God at his word and get it right, instead of trying to weasel around it like the Pharisees.

PS: Jesus is taking about love, not be confused with sex.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom