• 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

Wake said:
Would you please support your claims?
Click to expand...

You can't be serious, right?

Que for a song!



He came dancing across the water
With his galleons and guns
Looking for the new world
In that palace in the sun.

On the shore lay Montezuma
With his coca leaves and pearls
In his halls he often wondered
With the secrets of the worlds.

And his subjects
gathered 'round him
Like the leaves around a tree
In their clothes of many colors
For the angry gods to see.

And the women all were beautiful
And the men stood
straight and strong
They offered life in sacrifice
So that others could go on.

Hate was just a legend
And war was never known
The people worked together
And they lifted many stones.

They carried them
to the flatlands
And they died along the way
But they built up
with their bare hands
What we still can't do today.

And I know she's living there
And she loves me to this day
I still can't remember when
Or how I lost my way.

He came dancing across the water
Cortez, Cortez
What a killer.
 
Last edited:
um.


the Aztecs were professional murderers. the deathrates of their temples matched that of Hitlers' camps. and they practiced war fairly constantly; it was one of the reasons Cortez survived his initial defeat, they had made enemies or slaves of all their neighbors. Cortez wasn't 'the' killer, he was just the 'better' killer.

say what you will about the conquistadores, but they didn't make torture (and/or having your still beating heart ripped out of your chest while you screamed) a religious imperative for everyone they defeated in battle.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I like how you chose the New Testament
Click to expand...

well yes. you specifically stated that an eye for an eye was a constant to every moral code.

Actually, it's very easy to answer this question. Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule? Treat others as you would have them treat you. That is reciprocity. An eye for an eye is also reciprocity. Jesus specifically states the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Click to expand...

no, you are turning eye for an eye on it's head and claiming it is still the same thing. treating others as you would have them treat you in no way implies an eye for an eye; that would be instead "treat others as you have been treated"; which Jesus specifically strikes down ("“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."). instead of seeking vengeance, the Golden Rule implies that once your eye has been plucked out, that you forgive the plucker as you would have had them forgive you whatever transgression you performed.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
well yes. you specifically stated that an eye for an eye was a constant to every moral code.



no, you are turning eye for an eye on it's head and claiming it is still the same thing. treating others as you would have them treat you in no way implies an eye for an eye; that would be instead "treat others as you have been treated"; which Jesus specifically strikes down ("“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."). instead of seeking vengeance, the Golden Rule implies that once your eye has been plucked out, that you forgive the plucker as you would have had them forgive you whatever transgression you performed.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they are exactly the same, I'm saying they are both based on the same principle. It's reciprocity either way. Either you love people in hopes they will love you or you hurt them when they hurt you. Morality is based on reciprocity. It is why just about every major world religion has they same fundamental ideas.

In fact, the more you study other religions the more you realize they have more in common than they have different. It's because people feel so insecure in their beliefs that they allow themselves to feel falsely superior and don't take the time to understand what other religions have to offer.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
being gay in the sense that one wishes to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender isn't wrong, just as me being attracted to other women isn't wrong.

acting out those temptations is what is wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should go back and read your Bible some more. As my buddy Jesus once put it: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matt 5:28
 
Hoplite said:
But WHY did he say so?

There seems to be no logical reason anymore for being gay to be considered wrong
Click to expand...

Probably for the same reason that menstruation is a sin. (Leviticus 15:19)\
 
ptif219 said:
God created man a help mate. God meant man to be with woman

Matthew 19:4-6 (New King James Version)

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Click to expand...


Wow. You are totally right. Obviously men were created to leave their father and mother and be joined with a woman. This is clearly what God wants, and what every man should strive for, to be united in matrimony as one man and one woman, together as one flesh just as God inten-

Oh, wait a minute. This just in from Paul the Apostle...

"Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do." 1 Corinthians 7:8
Click to expand...

...

I thought a man was supposed to "leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" How could it be good to remain unmarried if we were made man and women and intended to become one flesh? What do you suppose my buddy Jesus would have to say about that?

Jesus: "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given." -Matt 19:11

Ah, so there may be some people to whom this word [that men should marry women] has not been given? Maybe those who were made eunuchs by birth for example? Or perhaps women who were made with a predilection for sex with other women?

Looks like Jesus comes through once again in defense of rational thought.
 
Panache said:
Probably for the same reason that menstruation is a sin. (Leviticus 15:19)\
Click to expand...

Menstruation is not a sin even under the law of Leviticus. Having sex with a woman who is menstruating is considered unclean. This is not considered a sin.
 
Last edited:
Panache said:
Wow. You are totally right. Obviously men were created to leave their father and mother and be joined with a woman. This is clearly what God wants, and what every man should strive for, to be united in matrimony as one man and one woman, together as one flesh just as God inten-

Oh, wait a minute. This just in from Paul the Apostle...

I thought a man was supposed to "leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" How could it be good to remain unmarried if we were made man and women and intended to become one flesh? What do you suppose my buddy Jesus would have to say about that?
Click to expand...

Funny how people cannot seperate the law from an opinion.

1 Corinthians 7:6-8 "6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Even the Devil can misquote scripture out of context.

Panache said:
Jesus: "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given." -Matt 19:11

Ah, so there may be some people to whom this word [that men should marry women] has not been given? Maybe those who were made eunuchs by birth for example? Or perhaps women who were made with a predilection for sex with other women?

Looks like Jesus comes through once again in defense of rational thought.
Click to expand...

Actually it looks like you have no idea what scripture is saying.
 
Last edited:
Panache said:
Probably for the same reason that menstruation is a sin. (Leviticus 15:19)\
Click to expand...

When a woman has her monthly period, she remains unclean for seven days, and if you touch her, you must take a bath, but you remain unclean until evening.

- Contemp. English V.

Unclean =/= sin. Sounds more like sanitation advice to me.
 
Last edited:
Panache said:
Wow. You are totally right. Obviously men were created to leave their father and mother and be joined with a woman. This is clearly what God wants, and what every man should strive for, to be united in matrimony as one man and one woman, together as one flesh just as God inten-

Oh, wait a minute. This just in from Paul the Apostle...



...

I thought a man was supposed to "leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" How could it be good to remain unmarried if we were made man and women and intended to become one flesh? What do you suppose my buddy Jesus would have to say about that?

Jesus: "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given." -Matt 19:11

Ah, so there may be some people to whom this word [that men should marry women] has not been given? Maybe those who were made eunuchs by birth for example? Or perhaps women who were made with a predilection for sex with other women?

Looks like Jesus comes through once again in defense of rational thought.
Click to expand...

Paul is talking about a total commitment to God. He is saying if you can but most don't. Still shows their is no room for gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Panache said:
Ah, so there may be some people to whom this word [that men should marry women] has not been given? Maybe those who were made eunuchs by birth for example? Or perhaps women who were made with a predilection for sex with other women?

Looks like Jesus comes through once again in defense of rational thought.
Click to expand...

That is actually a very compelling argument. It once again comes down to interpretation.
 
ptif219 said:
Paul is talking about a total commitment to God. He is saying if you can but most don't. Still shows their is no room for gay marriage.
Click to expand...

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

A marriage license is not the same thing as a religious marriage. I've asked many Christians if they were to get married in a Church without signing a license, would God recognize their marriage, and not one of them has said "No". The piece of paper and the rights that go with it belong to the state and thus civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage. Allow the state to marry same sex couples but leave religious marriage to the church. That is the way it should be.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
That is actually a very compelling argument. It once again comes down to interpretation.
Click to expand...

No as I have shown and you ignored it is not even close. :roll:

In fact his statement is not even an interpretation, it is just bad information from someone who wants it to mean something other than it does. Even though common sense and a 3rd graders grasp of English says otherwise.
 
CriticalThought said:
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

A marriage license is not the same thing as a religious marriage. I've asked many Christians if they were to get married in a Church without signing a license, would God recognize their marriage, and not one of them has said "No". The piece of paper and the rights that go with it belong to the state and thus civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage. Allow the state to marry same sex couples but leave religious marriage to the church. That is the way it should be.
Click to expand...

Since gay marriage does not exist on the books, and never has. What exactly is their to render?

If your hand causes you to sin, better to cut it off than face hellfire.
 
Blackdog said:
Since gay marriage does not exist on the books, and never has. What exactly is their to render?

If your hand causes you to sin, better to cut it off than face hellfire.
Click to expand...

Marriage exists as a legal contract. What there is to render is the exercise of one's right to contract. If the hand acts naturally and without infringing upon the rights of others, who's to say it's a sin and why is it ok to use government force to cut it off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom