• 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

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.

Thanks for the history lesson?

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.

I don't see how someone else's view of God or the Bible has anything at all to do with my faith in the Judo-Christan God of the Bible. You make this out like I only believe in God because of the Bible. Stop assuming silliness like that.

I believe the Bible was guided by the hand of God and it is his law for our spiritual survival. I do not however believe it it some arbitrary collection to take of what you want and leave the rest.
 
Blackdog, post 494: And yet the only reason we know he is, is in the Bible.
Blackdog, post 501: You make this out like I only believe in God because of the Bible.
Bumpy, this post: Huh?
 
Blackdog, post 494: And yet the only reason we know he is, is in the Bible.
Blackdog, post 501: You make this out like I only believe in God because of the Bible.
Bumpy, this post: Huh?

Lets forget each reply is to a completely different question and have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

So "Huh?" makes sense coming from you considering you have no understanding of context at all. At least that is the way it looks.

That is unless you would like to explain how seeing information in the Bible about the nature of God, has anything at all to do with it meaning "it's why I believe in God."
 
Last edited:
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.

Never say never. Our rights are going quickly. We will no longer be able to choose a light bulb the government tells you what to use. Gays will get their way through the democrats. It will take some time but Christians will be the big loser.
 
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.

The difference is Blacks are born that way and can not change it that is not true for Gays
 
The difference is Blacks are born that way and can not change it that is not true for Gays

You don't know that they aren't born that way. And most evidence shows that attempts to change a person's sexuality is harmful to the person's mental and emotional well-being.

And you are definitely not born with your religious beliefs, yet those are protected. And I haven't seen any evidence that forceful attempts to change a person's religious beliefs will cause emotional and/or mental harm (although I personally consider it wrong to attempt unless those person's beliefs are causing harm to others).
 
Never say never. Our rights are going quickly. We will no longer be able to choose a light bulb the government tells you what to use. Gays will get their way through the democrats. It will take some time but Christians will be the big loser.

Most gays don't want to force churches to marry them. And the vast majority of the people who support SSMs would be comp, letely against forcing churches to marry any couple they don't want to wed. Don't believe me, ask people how they would actually feel about such a thing instead of making ridiculous assumptions.
 
You don't know that they aren't born that way. And most evidence shows that attempts to change a person's sexuality is harmful to the person's mental and emotional well-being.

And you are definitely not born with your religious beliefs, yet those are protected. And I haven't seen any evidence that forceful attempts to change a person's religious beliefs will cause emotional and/or mental harm (although I personally consider it wrong to attempt unless those person's beliefs are causing harm to others).

Nice spin but where is your proof. Gays have as much protection as my religion. I have freedom to religion as they have freedom to live their lifestyle
 
Most gays don't want to force churches to marry them. And the vast majority of the people who support SSMs would be comp, letely against forcing churches to marry any couple they don't want to wed. Don't believe me, ask people how they would actually feel about such a thing instead of making ridiculous assumptions.

What proof do you have?
 
Nice spin but where is your proof. Gays have as much protection as my religion. I have freedom to religion as they have freedom to live their lifestyle

Facts About Changing Sexual Orientation
200001a
http://www.treatmentshomosexuality.org.uk/professional/text/files/APA%20statement%20on%20reparative%20therapy.pdf
Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA

Just the tip of the iceberg. So where's your proof that a person can actually change their sexuality? Where's your proof that such "therapy" is safe?

And no, they don't have as much protection as your religious beliefs, because no matter what religion you are, you can get married to a person of the same or even a different religion as yourself if you love that person and they love you. You may not be able to get married in the church or place you want to, but you can still get a state marriage license and it will be recognized by the US government. A gay person cannot marry a person they may love because of their genders.
 
Facts About Changing Sexual Orientation
200001a
http://www.treatmentshomosexuality.org.uk/professional/text/files/APA%20statement%20on%20reparative%20therapy.pdf
Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA

Just the tip of the iceberg. So where's your proof that a person can actually change their sexuality? Where's your proof that such "therapy" is safe?

And no, they don't have as much protection as your religious beliefs, because no matter what religion you are, you can get married to a person of the same or even a different religion as yourself if you love that person and they love you. You may not be able to get married in the church or place you want to, but you can still get a state marriage license and it will be recognized by the US government. A gay person cannot marry a person they may love because of their genders.

The APA |207| The same orginazation that changed their opinons on gays to be politically correct?

Baptist Press - Study: Participants in ex-gay ministry do change - News with a Christian Perspective

The study by psychologists Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University is a follow-up to one released two years ago in the form of a book, "Ex-Gays?" That study was called groundbreaking, and the latest set of data is no less significant, the researchers say.

The men followed 61 subjects over a span of six to seven years, recording their failures and successes in their attempt to leave homosexuality. Experts in the field call it the first attempt to follow subjects who are undergoing Christian counseling over a series of years. Such a time-consuming study is called "longitudinal."

Among their findings:

-- 23 percent reported a successful conversion to heterosexual attractions.

-- 30 percent reported living a celibate life and were content with their reduction in homosexual attractions. Altogether, those latter two categories were combined for a 53 percent success rate, the researchers said.

-- 16 percent of subjects had modest decreases in homosexual attractions and weren't satisfied with their degree of change but were committed to continuing the process.

-- 7 percent had seen no decrease in homosexual attractions but had not given up trying to change.

-- 25 percent of subjects were considered "failures," either because they gave up on the process and once again identified as a homosexual (20 percent) or because they had not yet embraced a homosexual identity but nevertheless had given up (5 percent).

All the subjects were going through programs set up by Exodus International, a Christian ministry that seeks to help those who want to leave homosexuality. Although Exodus funded the study, Jones and Yarhouse agreed to conduct it only if all sides agreed that they would report the results no matter the outcome -- in other words, even if the findings embarrassed Exodus.

The latest findings were released four days after an American Psychological Association task force released a 130-page report that said "gay-to-straight" therapies are unlikely to work. That report got mixed reviews from conservatives, although APA's position on the issue is well-known: It believes homosexual attractions are "normal and positive variants" of human sexuality. The APA's website still states, "[T]here has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."

"The APA has previously asserted, with absolute clarity, that sexual orientation change is not possible -- that it simply doesn't occur," Jones, of Wheaton College, told Baptist Press. "The best way to test that is to study people as they're attempting change and follow them over a long period of time. Our study found that a significant portion of that population reported very significant change."

He added, "My sense is that our study is a good sample, and so I think that people can pursue the Exodus process with a cautious sense of optimism about the possibility of change, but we can't make absolute predictions."

Comparing the latest data to the initial set of data released two years ago, there was a significant increase in both the "success" and "failure" percentages and a decrease in the percentage of those who, at the time, had seen no significant change.

The percentage of those who considered themselves successful in changing increased from 38 percent to 53 percent, while the percentage of those who the researchers considered failures also went up, 12 percent to 25 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who had seen only modest change or no change but had not given up on the change effort decreased from 44 percent to 23 percent.

The study actually began with 98 subjects, but 37 dropped out by the six-year mark for various reasons, Jones said. Some now considered themselves ex-homosexual and no longer wanted to be reminded about their past, while some went back to a homosexual identity and no longer trusted the researchers. Most of them, though, wouldn't return phone calls.

Jones expressed frustration that the APA task force didn't take their 2007 study seriously.




get The Smilies @ https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/14455
 
Opinons not proof

Actually, it would show how many people planned to support any effort to force churches to wed same sex couples. Without support, a movement like that would get absolutely nowhere, especially since it would take a Constitutional Amendment to justify such a thing.
 
The APA |207| The same orginazation that changed their opinons on gays to be politically correct?

Baptist Press - Study: Participants in ex-gay ministry do change - News with a Christian Perspective

The study by psychologists Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University is a follow-up to one released two years ago in the form of a book, "Ex-Gays?" That study was called groundbreaking, and the latest set of data is no less significant, the researchers say.

The men followed 61 subjects over a span of six to seven years, recording their failures and successes in their attempt to leave homosexuality. Experts in the field call it the first attempt to follow subjects who are undergoing Christian counseling over a series of years. Such a time-consuming study is called "longitudinal."

Among their findings:

-- 23 percent reported a successful conversion to heterosexual attractions.

-- 30 percent reported living a celibate life and were content with their reduction in homosexual attractions. Altogether, those latter two categories were combined for a 53 percent success rate, the researchers said.

-- 16 percent of subjects had modest decreases in homosexual attractions and weren't satisfied with their degree of change but were committed to continuing the process.

-- 7 percent had seen no decrease in homosexual attractions but had not given up trying to change.

-- 25 percent of subjects were considered "failures," either because they gave up on the process and once again identified as a homosexual (20 percent) or because they had not yet embraced a homosexual identity but nevertheless had given up (5 percent).

All the subjects were going through programs set up by Exodus International, a Christian ministry that seeks to help those who want to leave homosexuality. Although Exodus funded the study, Jones and Yarhouse agreed to conduct it only if all sides agreed that they would report the results no matter the outcome -- in other words, even if the findings embarrassed Exodus.

The latest findings were released four days after an American Psychological Association task force released a 130-page report that said "gay-to-straight" therapies are unlikely to work. That report got mixed reviews from conservatives, although APA's position on the issue is well-known: It believes homosexual attractions are "normal and positive variants" of human sexuality. The APA's website still states, "[T]here has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."

"The APA has previously asserted, with absolute clarity, that sexual orientation change is not possible -- that it simply doesn't occur," Jones, of Wheaton College, told Baptist Press. "The best way to test that is to study people as they're attempting change and follow them over a long period of time. Our study found that a significant portion of that population reported very significant change."

He added, "My sense is that our study is a good sample, and so I think that people can pursue the Exodus process with a cautious sense of optimism about the possibility of change, but we can't make absolute predictions."

Comparing the latest data to the initial set of data released two years ago, there was a significant increase in both the "success" and "failure" percentages and a decrease in the percentage of those who, at the time, had seen no significant change.

The percentage of those who considered themselves successful in changing increased from 38 percent to 53 percent, while the percentage of those who the researchers considered failures also went up, 12 percent to 25 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who had seen only modest change or no change but had not given up on the change effort decreased from 44 percent to 23 percent.

The study actually began with 98 subjects, but 37 dropped out by the six-year mark for various reasons, Jones said. Some now considered themselves ex-homosexual and no longer wanted to be reminded about their past, while some went back to a homosexual identity and no longer trusted the researchers. Most of them, though, wouldn't return phone calls.

Jones expressed frustration that the APA task force didn't take their 2007 study seriously.




get The Smilies @ https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/14455

Your "proof" has been shown to be full of flawed methodologies and biased.

Mine was peer reviewed and is pretty widely accepted.

So organizations are not allowed to change their positions on things when new information becomes available? That's a horrible way to do science and medicine.
 
Actually, it would show how many people planned to support any effort to force churches to wed same sex couples. Without support, a movement like that would get absolutely nowhere, especially since it would take a Constitutional Amendment to justify such a thing.

Only here then again how many would lie
 
Your "proof" has been shown to be full of flawed methodologies and biased.

Mine was peer reviewed and is pretty widely accepted.

So organizations are not allowed to change their positions on things when new information becomes available? That's a horrible way to do science and medicine.

Peer reviewed BS and a bias organization the supports gays
 
You can repeat as many times as you want, it changes nothing. I'm not saying that you literally cut someone's hands off. I'm saying in the figurative text of "it's best to cut off the hand than face the consequences of sin" sort of thing whether or not it is ok to use government force to define the sin and cut off the hand. Or if it should be an entirely interpersonal thing.



Government force against the rights and liberties of the individual is used to prevent certain folk from obtaining a marriage license.



I'd rather you think some more. It's not that you "don't support something", it's that you actively support the infringement of rights to stop a practice based on your personal, religious beliefs. It would be one thing if you voted for gay marriage, but refused to go to one ever or say things like "God won't recognize same sex marriage". It's a whole different ball game when you actively USE government to prevent the act which infringes upon no one's rights and instead infringe upon right to contract of others to uphold through a legal context your religious definition of marriage.

There's nothing wrong with using the governemnt to enforce any given idea of what a sociological institution should be.
 
Actually, same sex marriage has always existed. It was practiced in ancient Rome by some elites until Christianity became predominant.

Same-sex relationships were that of master and aprentice, not of husbands. Rome never tried to convince anyone that 2 men was the exact same thing as man and woman.

It was practiced in many countries around the world until Western influence lead to it being outlawed.

Even in fudal Japan where same-sex relations were the accepted norm, the relationship was not presented as anything like husband and wife. It was simply a lover on the side. A man could have another man just as he could have a number of femail lovers. Their same-sex lover was never considered a 'husband' in any respect.

Specific laws had to be made in the United States in order to deny same sex couples the right to marry based on their gender.

And that's where anti-SM went wrong. Now that they went and made gay-marriage bans, they have to difend those bans. They had the high ground when they simply denied that such a thing existed in the law. You should thank those who made gay-marriage bans because without those bans to tear down, gays wouldn't have a chance.

It is by no means a new right, it has always existed, and it certainly exists in several states now. So I have no idea where you got the idea that it "does not exist on the books". It's actually kind of a ludicrous argument to make and denies reality and history.

The right to marry someone of the same-sex is in fact a new right. No one had it before, and now everyone will. Marriage will be as equal then as it is now, only that a new option for a spouce may be selected by anyone.


And that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Civil marriage belongs to the state and religious marriage belongs to God.

All marriages are sociological and thus all fall under the same domain. They are all religious; They are all economical; they are all legal. Any given marriage may be more of one category than another given marriage, but every marriage belongs at least in a small part to every sociological category.

But if that is the case you insist on making, then I believe lying is a sin and you statement that "gay marriage does not exist on the books" is a lie, so you probably should cut off the hand that typed it.

We would but Jesus already paid the price for our sin, so all we need to do is learn our lesson and move on; no cutting off limbs required.
 
Last edited:
Same-sex relationships were that of master and aprentice, not of husbands. Rome never tried to convince anyone that 2 men was the exact same thing as man and woman.

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lovers, lend me your ears". "Lovers" is left out of the common text because the entire audience is male. Lovers is not "master and apprentice".

Anyway, you qualified with "exact same thing", referencing legality; it was not the "exact same thing".
 
Last edited:
Blackdog

The problem is that your morals are coming from a religious doctrine, and aren't secular in nature, and that is why it is wrong to put those religious morals into law.

Funny how the book of Enoch, a book rejected by the cannon, speaks against using the writen word to base your faith on, no?
 
Here's a very simple concept. You believe whatever you want, and you can live by those beliefs. But you have absolutely no right to force me to. If you can find me some math that says homosexuality is detrimental to our well-being, I'll take that, because numbers don't like. As opposed to men who go out alone into the desert.

When someone puts a ballot in front of me and asks me to cast a vote, and they further offer only 2 choices, "yes" or "no", the only way I can merly live by my belief is to select "no".

If you don't like it, don't put it on the ballot. Personaly I would very much aprecieate it if gays would keep their bedroom out of my buisness.
 
Same-sex relationships were that of master and aprentice, not of husbands. Rome never tried to convince anyone that 2 men was the exact same thing as man and woman.

This is factually incorrect. Some Roman emperors married men. Roman emperor Elagabalus married a man.
 
Back
Top Bottom