• 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

See this is my problem. I want you to have your life the way you want it. I want you to be happy. I would not disparage you or your spouse at all. This however does not mean I support a law condoning it.

It's that simple.

Meh, I can be happy knowing that I'm free to be a kinder, more compassionate indivdual than you. I don't have to live with a faith that requires me to stand in the way of other people's happiness and to condemn their behavior for no real rational reason. I'm just done with dealing with closed minded people.
 
Meh, I can be happy knowing that I'm free to be a kinder, more compassionate indivdual than you. I don't have to live with a faith that requires me to stand in the way of other people's happiness and to condemn their behavior for no real rational reason. I'm just done with dealing with closed minded people.

Ahh yea, you come off so kind and compassionate.
 
Last edited:
Ahh yea, you come of so kind and compassionate.

Exactly! I can't be myself when it comes to people like you and so there is no sense in it. I value new ideas too much to waste time with people who are obsessed with the old ones. I think I'll give up this forum for awhile. Go find a new boyfriend. Maybe do some more volunteer work.

I owe you for reminding me of who I do not want to be.
 
Like I said you don't understand the difference between "bound and "follow." Pretty simple. Following the law voluntarily has nothing to do with being "bound" by it as the people were.

Why don't you be honest and stop trying to twist everything I or the Bible says to suit your immoral needs?

Seriously? Did you even read my post? Where was I ever talking about Jesus being "bound" by the law? I said that Jesus didn't follow the law. You replied by saying that He wasn't bound by the law. How is that relevant? What does him not being bound by the law have to do with the fact that He didn't follow it voluntarily? You are the one who seem confused about the difference between being bound and following voluntarily. If you thought He was following the law voluntarily, then why would you bring up whether He was bound by it or not?

And I just saw your "to to " response. You can't even admit to a grammatical error! pathetic.

I would, if I had made one. That particular instance wasn't a grammatical error though. Go back and read it in context. How would it even make sense with only one "to"? If you are going to criticize my grammar, go find an actual grammatical error.

For those of you watching at home, this is what Blackdog said to Ms. roguenuke:

Blackdog: "If you truly loved God above all things you would want to follow his commandments etc. You don't appear to."

And this is what I said to him in response:

Panache: "She appears to to me."

This is obviously not a gramatical error, as the first "to" address my belief that roguenuke appears to want to follow God's commandments, where as the second "to" address to whom she appears to want to follow His commandments, namely myself.

She (roguenuke) appears to (want to follow God's commandments) to me.

How con you possibly see that as a grammatical error?

Have a good life.

It is pretty good. Ready to apologize for your wild misinterpretation of what I said yet?
 
Like I said you don't understand the difference between "bound and "follow." Pretty simple. Following the law voluntarily has nothing to do with being "bound" by it as the people were.

Why don't you be honest and stop trying to twist everything I or the Bible says to suit your immoral needs?

I just can't get over how dishonest this is, and then to have you tell me to start being honest. Obviously I understand the difference between being bound by law, and choosing to follow it voluntarily. Nothing in my post indicated that I didn't understand the difference. Your post, on the other hand DID imply that YOU can't understand the difference.

Here is what I said:

"According to Mosaic law, it was a sin to touch a leper. Jesus touched a leper. You claim that Jesus always followed Mosaic law. Instafail."

I was clearly talking about whether or not Jesus chose to always voluntarily follow Mosaic Law, which He obviously didn't.

Here is your response:

"Since when is God bound by the Mosaic law? Or any other law for that matter? The Bible does not say he is?"

Since, as you have astutely observed, "Following the law voluntarily has nothing to do with being 'bound' by it as the people were," why would you reply to a post about Jesus voluntarily choosing to follow a law, by saying that He wasn't bound by it, a fact which you admit has nothing to do with the subject you were posting in response to?

It seems like maybe you didn't really understand the difference between 'following' the law, and being 'bound' by it, since you replied to a statement about the former, by talking about the latter.

Jesus didn't choose voluntarily to follow the law, as you claimed. The law said not to touch lepers. Jesus chose not to follow this law when He touched a leper. Regardless of whether or not He was bound by the law, He chose not to follow it.
 
Exactly! I can't be myself when it comes to people like you and so there is no sense in it. I value new ideas too much to waste time with people who are obsessed with the old ones. I think I'll give up this forum for awhile. Go find a new boyfriend. Maybe do some more volunteer work.

I owe you for reminding me of who I do not want to be.

I see, my thoughts somehow reach out and stop you from being who you are? Please, you are making excuses for your own ass hattery.

"I owe you for reminding me of who I do not want to be." Your compassion is like a wellspring that flows through us all.
 
I just can't get over how dishonest this is, and then to have you tell me to start being honest..


Have no more interest in what you have to say. Have a good one.
 
gg, better luck next time.

118402463017.jpg
 
Why don't you be honest and stop trying to twist everything I or the Bible says to suit your immoral needs?


and you wonder why people react to you the way they do.
 
and you wonder why people react to you the way they do.

Wow! What a great assumption based on one sentence from a huge set of posts. :roll:
 
Wow! What a great assumption based on one sentence from a huge set of posts. :roll:

No, it was based upon reading many postings.

I simply highlighted your reference to Panache's "immoral needs" due to the egregiousness of the insult and the way it illustrated my point. You have made many references to people's so-called intolerance of Christianity yet here you are wagging your finger in somebody's face like that.

I think what you are really complaining about is that what you are dishing out, you are also receiving.
 
No, it was based upon reading many postings.

I simply highlighted your reference to Panache's "immoral needs" due to the egregiousness of the insult and the way it illustrated my point. You have made many references to people's so-called intolerance of Christianity yet here you are wagging your finger in somebody's face like that.

Yea I agree. At that point I was feed up with him twisting and changing the definitions of the words to suit him.

I think what you are really complaining about is that what you are dishing out, you are also receiving.

What I am complaining about is being misrepresented in what I say, not telling the truth and making blanket statements. So no, you are wrong.
 
Since both Gardener and Blackdog don't think homosexuality is wrong, then why do they argue?
 
Since both Gardener and Blackdog don't think homosexuality is wrong, then why do they argue?

He thinks it is not immoral, I think it is. I do not however consider gay people any less than myself as I am also a sinner in immoral ways. I have committed fornication etc. How this affects him and others on some level is beyond me. It's as if my thoughts reach out and touch them, lol.
 
Last edited:
I think homosexuality, fornication, and even lust is wrong. To me, I dislike people who only use others for sex; that want lust... not love. Incorrectly call me a bigot if you wish, but I believe in marriage and that it should be between man and woman. I suspect that the more people try to redefine and alter marriage and such, the more we inch closer to a revolution in which the young men and women will eventually change their minds. In the 60's, such a change happened when sexual immorality became more rampant; as though emerging from the dominant nuclear family. Now that the nuclear family has been erverted, stripped, and altered in more ways than one, I suspect yet another rebound will occur. Time and again it never fails. So too will the pendulum swing again.

He thinks it is not immoral, I think it is. I do not however consider gay people any less than myself as I am also a sinner in immoral ways. I have committed fornication etc. How this affects him and others on some level is beyond me. It's as if my thoughts reach out and touch them, lol.

I agree it is immoral. However, it is foolish to think them lower than yourself; we're all sinners. That does not and cannot erase the fact that homosexuality is a sin and that it must be preached against. Not of hate, but of love. I would defend a homosexual from harm with my life seeing as we're both human; I don't hate the person. I hate the sin. Those who call us hateful bigots are seemingly unable to discern the difference. Fornication, to me, is also immoral. It is sex out of wedlock. You may do so and I won't stop you unless I can legally and passively; it is wrong in the Bible and, well, that is my stance.
 
Last edited:
I agree it is immoral. However, it is foolish to think them lower than yourself; we're all sinners. That does not and cannot erase the fact that homosexuality is a sin and that it must be preached against. Not of hate, but of love. I would defend a homosexual from harm with my life seeing as we're both human; I don't hate the person. I hate the sin. Those who call us hateful bigots are seemingly unable to discern the difference. Fornication, to me, is also immoral. It is sex out of wedlock. You may do so and I won't stop you unless I can legally and passively; it is wrong in the Bible and, well, that is my stance.

That is exactly what I said?

"I do not however consider gay people any less than myself as I am also a sinner in immoral ways. I have committed fornication etc." - Blackdog
 
That is exactly what I said?

"I do not however consider gay people any less than myself as I am also a sinner in immoral ways. I have committed fornication etc." - Blackdog

I am agreeing with you there. They are equal to us in terms of general human respect, but the sin, I believe, must still be preached against lest that sin grow and pervade and worsen. You knpw as well as I that the term "normality" is continually being pushed further and further. Soon, within 200 years roughly, even incest will get it's time to shine. See YouTube. There are already small groups and organizations supporting incest that are growing.
 
I am agreeing with you there. They are equal to us in terms of general human respect, but the sin, I believe, must still be preached against lest that sin grow and pervade and worsen. You knpw as well as I that the term "normality" is continually being pushed further and further. Soon, within 200 years roughly, even incest will get it's time to shine. See YouTube. There are already small groups and organizations supporting incest that are growing.

Yea I have already had one guy on this forum say incest was OK. It's not.
 
Yea I have already had one guy on this forum say incest was OK. It's not.

Wow, really? Given time and the collection of like minds, nothing is impossible.
 
I think homosexuality, fornication, and even lust is wrong.

What about homosexuality makes it wrong? Is it just wrong arbitrarily for the same reason that it is wrong to wear wool with linen? Or plaid with stripes? Or to wear white after Labor Day?

According the Bible, sin is not arbitrary. All law is based on the following formula:

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

You can apply this rule to anything and immediately determine whether it is a sin or not.

"Do I want that person to steal from me? No I don't. Therefore it is a sin for me to steal from them."

"Do I want that person to murder me? No I don't. Therefore it is a sin for me to murder them."

"Do I want that person to bear false witness against me? No I don't. Therefore it is a sin for me to bear false witness against them."

"Do I want my mother and father to honor me? Yes I do. Therefore it is a sin for me not to honor them."

"Do I want my wife to commit adultery against me? No I don't. Therefore it is a sin for me to commit adultery against her."

"Do I want my neighbor to covet my wife? No I don't. Therefore it is a sin for me to covet his wife."


According to Jesus this formula is prescriptive in nature, and can be applied to every imaginable circumstance. "So in EVERYTHING" He said.

Accordingly, those who think that homosexuality is a sin, must demonstrate why, given this formula. To say "homosexuality is a sin because my hermeneutic of the Bible says so" denies the reasoned nature of sin in favour of a arbitrary set of rules. Jesus clearly denies that sin is arbitrary.
 
God transcends your worldly formula. Your formula that excludes homosexuality also excludes incest and bestiality. To differ on that point reveals your true bias and contempt.

There are multple scriptures against homosexuality. Either you follow them or you don't.
 
Last edited:
Why exactly do those of us who don't see human beings as inherently "sinful" need to approach our lives the way you do? I don't look around me and see "sinners". I see people who are generally good, and try to even help others even at their own expense sometimes. I see people trying really hard to accomplish tasks, and who know the value of their hard work to society. I see people who want love, satisfaction, and happiness, and who understand that sometimes a little bit of selfishness is needed. I don't see people who are doomed to be imperfect. There is no perfect, there's just people doing a pretty good job. Not to say we couldn't do better, but we're not bad by default. We're merely okay. And we actually care about doing better.

I also can't imagine any kind of harm coming from two people honestly enjoying one another, for any reason.
 
Wow, really? Given time and the collection of like minds, nothing is impossible.

And do you have any Biblical evidence that incest is immoral for Christians under the New Covenant? The only people for whom the Bible claims incest was not permitted were the tribes of Israel under the Old Covenant. The same people for whom eating shrimp or bacon and wearing mixed fabrics was a sin.

If incest is immoral, then why did God create only two human beings and then tell them to be fruitful and multiply? Incest was obviously part of the original design for humanity, since Adam and Eve's kids didn't have anyone to marry but each other.

Similarly, incest was required to some extent after the flood, since only Noah and his family was saved. His grandchildren had to marry their first cousins at the very least. All the animals on the planet had to mate with their brothers and sisters.
 
To take a devil's advocate position for a moment, unless you're worried about mutant children, what is actually ethically wrong with incest? I mean, if two siblings are separated at birth, never know they're related, meet as adults and have sex, and never have children, how is that morally wrong? I can understand discouraging inbreeding from a genetic standpoint, but how is the actual act of sex immoral?
 
Back
Top Bottom