• 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

Nope, you are merely trying to paint it so because you have no logical argument.

No, I am not painting anything. Morals are subjective whether you want to admit it or not. Has nothing to do with my argument here and never did.

The Marriage License is not a government issued and recognized contract? Is that what you're really saying? Lying is not going to help your case here.

Is that all you have left? Going to accuse me a lying now? :roll:

Look at my statement and who I was replying too. I am and was talking about gay marriage, period.

Morality has very little to do with government. Government is to be concerned with the rights and liberties of the individual. Not someone's sense of right and wrong. Morals and rights can line up; but legally it is rights which are the main concern.

And yet the majority of our laws are mysteriously moral based.

I didn't say that you had to throw anything out. All I've said is that you cannot use government force to enact your moral code at the expense of the rights and liberties of the individual. It's not a tough concept.

By law it has happend many, MANY times. So no, it seems it can.

They can disagree all they want on non-religious grounds. They are still wrong. You cannot rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others when that action in and of itself does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Besides, they may disagree for non-religious grounds; but you didn't.

So again it is entirely subjective.

I mean we now have eminent domain for private u



And in that action against support for the free exercise of the rights and liberties of the individual, you have demonstrated that you do have a problem with protecting the rights of the individual. Support of action against the rights of the individual is not protection of the rights of the individual.[/QUOTE]
 
No, I am not painting anything. Morals are subjective whether you want to admit it or not. Has nothing to do with my argument here and never did.

I'm not making moral arguments, I've based my opinion in the rights and liberties of the individual. Not a personal sense of right and wrong.

Is that all you have left? Going to accuse me a lying now? :roll:

Look at my statement and who I was replying too. I am and was talking about gay marriage, period.

True, and the Marriage License is the contract which is being denied. Which is a government issued and recognized contract.

And yet the majority of our laws are mysteriously moral based.

Not quite. Many of the just ones are based on the rights of the individual. Many of the laws which serve government and the aristocracy, however, are immoral at best.

By law it has happend many, MANY times. So no, it seems it can.

Rooting for tyranny isn't the best of all things. It may have happened in the past, but it was also corrected. It's not allowed to stand since it's against the very principles of the Republic itself.

So again it is entirely subjective.

I mean we now have eminent domain for private u

You only want to make it sound subjective so as to not understand the full implications of what you support. Misdeeds of the current government do not support the cause of further misdeeds.
 
You will have no rights to visitation benefits etc. If your spouse dies, you are SOL you are entitled to nothing but your own possessions. Come again?

Those are rights guaranteed by the state. Where in the Bible are those things mentioned? Why should you deny those rights to same sex couples?

I am not trying to force anything. How many times do I have to repeat this? I will not support it. I would no more support it then support freeing a guilty murderer.

ROFL. The fact that you compare supporting same sex marriage to supporting the release of a guilty murderer shows how incapable you are of reasonably discussing this topic.

My values no matter where they come from are mine. I don't care what yours are, thats why we have a legal system.

Indeed. Including a court system which protects my constitutional rights of equal protection and due process by allowing me to marry someone of the same sex if I so choose.

The marriages are not recognized by all states as legal, and most of them are not marriages but civil unions. Try again.

Just so I am clear, are you saying that Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington DC do not have same sex marriage, they have civil unions? Do you really want to stand by that position? Are you really that ignorant of the situation?
 
Last edited:
Nope, you are merely trying to paint it so because you have no logical argument.

My argument is not only valid it is actually on topic. Yours is not, and as I said had nothing to do with my statement.

The end.

Original post...

This is something I've been confused about for a while and I haven't really received an answer to it.

I dont understand WHY being gay is wrong, I dont understand why the bible prohibits it. There are no medical or psychological reason for it being wrong, we are obviously socially flexible enough to incorporate the gay community into our society, our society hasnt collapsed, we dont really need to "go forth and multiply" anymore.

So, why is being gay a sin?


Any questions?

The Marriage License is not a government issued and recognized contract? Is that what you're really saying? Lying is not going to help your case here.

Now you accuse me of lying? We were talking about gay marriage. Please don't play stupid.

Morality has very little to do with government. Government is to be concerned with the rights and liberties of the individual. Not someone's sense of right and wrong. Morals and rights can line up; but legally it is rights which are the main concern.

And yet the vast majority of our criminal laws are indeed based on morality. I notice you completely ignored my example.

This is still irrelevant to my statement or original post.

I didn't say that you had to throw anything out. All I've said is that you cannot use government force to enact your moral code at the expense of the rights and liberties of the individual. It's not a tough concept.

It's not, but we were not really talking about the government throwing out anything.

He tried to use "render unto Cesar" as some kind of bases for the law of the society we live in. I pointed out correctly gay marriage is not law according to the Feds and most of the states. In fact some states have amended their constitutions so it cannot be overturned by a judge.

So obviously you can use government.

They can disagree all they want on non-religious grounds. They are still wrong. You cannot rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others when that action in and of itself does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Besides, they may disagree for non-religious grounds; but you didn't.

They are wrong according to some, and not others.

Obviously you can rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others and many states have enacted such laws. So has the Federal government. I mean they suspended habeas corpus, don't tell me they can't.

And in that action against support for the free exercise of the rights and liberties of the individual, you have demonstrated that you do have a problem with protecting the rights of the individual. Support of action against the rights of the individual is not protection of the rights of the individual.

I don't see gay marriage as a right as do many others. Hell allot of people don't see marriage as a right. Some people think we have a right to health care.

Sorry, your subjective argument is just that. ;)
 
Those are rights guaranteed by the state. Where in the Bible are those things mentioned? Why should you deny those rights to same sex couples?

Has nothing to do with my response to you AGAIN.

As for your question...

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, period. Thats why.

ROFL. The fact that you compare supporting same sex marriage to supporting the release of a guilty murderer shows how incapable you are of reasonably discussing this topic you are.

No. You really need to stop assuming incorrectly the majority of the time.

It shows how I view sin as sin. I also see adultery and lying in the same light. I don't support them either.

Indeed. Including a court system which protects my constitutional rights of equal protection and due process by allowing me to marry someone of the same sex if I so choose.

And if it happen, OK. If not, oh well. I really have no vested interest either way.

My biggest beef is how non-Christians and so called Christians try to pervert the Bible to mean something it does not.

Just so I am clear, are you saying that Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington DC do not have same sex marriage, they have civil unions? Do you really want to stand by that position? Are you really that ignorant of the situation?

Same-sex marriage, also referred to as gay marriage, is marriage between two persons of the same sex. The federal government of the United States does not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples and is prohibited from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act. Nationwide, same-sex marriage is legal in three states as a result of a court ruling and in two others plus a district through a vote in their respective legislatures.

Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 states, one federal district, and one Indian tribe.
-Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now do you understand my statement?
 
And if it happen, OK. If not, oh well. I really have no vested interest either way.

My biggest beef is how non-Christians and so called Christians try to pervert the Bible to mean something it does not.

What makes this really funny is that you have to assert yourself as an authority on how to "correctly" the interpret the Bible in order to make this argument. The fact is you are worth no more than any other person when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Their interpretation is just as valid as your own but with your superiority complex, you just can't stand the thought that it isn't your place to judge how others interpret the Bible. It is between them and God.

It shows how I view sin as sin. I also see adultery and lying in the same light. I don't support them either.

Ah, how sweet. The moment you see all sins as equal, then it makes the word meaningless. Everybody lies, so I guess it is alright if everyone cheats on their wife and murders their boss. After all, all sin is equal in God's eyes.

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, period. Thats why.

According to 5 states, one US federal district, one US Indian tribe, and 10 other countries, you are wrong. But I suppose you can just ignore all those and pretend they are just cviil unions.
 
Last edited:
What makes this really funny is that you have to assert yourself as an authority on how to "correctly" the interpret the Bible in order to make this argument. The fact is you are worth no more than any other person when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Their interpretation is just as valid as your own but with your superiority complex, you just can't stand the thought that it isn't your place to judge how others interpret the Bible. It is between them and God.

What makes you think it's mine? I mean lets just ignore thousands of years of biblical scholars who have read it in it's original toungs etc. We will just go by someones Internet cut and past interpretation. :lol: I mean that is what it boils down to on this debate forum.

Ah, how sweet. The moment you see all sins as equal, then it makes the word meaningless. Everybody lies, so I guess it is alright if everyone cheats on their wife and murders their boss. After all, all sin is equal in God's eyes.

You really need to actually study. You come off very uneducated biblically speaking. Of course you are not a Christian anyway, but you know so much more about my religion than I do.

According to 5 states, one US federal district, one US Indian tribe, and 10 other countries, you are wrong. But I suppose you can just ignore all those and pretend they are just cviil unions.

You are way off target and completly ignore my point. That's par for the course I guess. :)
 
Any questions?

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.

Any questions?

Now you accuse me of lying? We were talking about gay marriage. Please don't play stupid.

Yeah, I know we were talking about gay marriage. That's why I brought up the Marriage License. Because in the context of gay marriage, that is the contract being forbidden from certain couples. Please don't be stupid.

And yet the vast majority of our criminal laws are indeed based on morality. I notice you completely ignored my example.

What example? I saw that you made the same statement twice, but no example.

This is still irrelevant to my statement or original post.

It is not irrelecant to the gay marriage debate

It's not, but we were not really talking about the government throwing out anything.

He tried to use "render unto Cesar" as some kind of bases for the law of the society we live in. I pointed out correctly gay marriage is not law according to the Feds and most of the states. In fact some states have amended their constitutions so it cannot be overturned by a judge.

So obviously you can use government.

Not justly, because the government issues the Marriage License, which is a State issued and recognized contract. Forbidding certain couples from engaging in the contract is a violation of their right to contract.

They are wrong according to some, and not others.

Obviously you can rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others and many states have enacted such laws. So has the Federal government. I mean they suspended habeas corpus, don't tell me they can't.

No, you can enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. But those laws are never rightful nor just.

I don't see gay marriage as a right as do many others. Hell allot of people don't see marriage as a right. Some people think we have a right to health care.

You have right to contract, and it is contract which is being denied.

Sorry, your subjective argument is just that. ;)

It's only seen like that by those wishing to engage in tyranny.
 
What makes you think it's mine? I mean lets just ignore thousands of years of biblical scholars who have read it in it's original toungs etc. We will just go by someones Internet cut and past interpretation. :lol: I mean that is what it boils down to on this debate forum.

Yawn...an appeal to tradition fallacy. Made all the more pathetic by the fact that the tradition has changed a number of times over the centuries. Heck, a lot of people are starting to question whether the Church actually endorsed some same sex marriages in its early history among its leadership.

Of course you are not a Christian anyway, but you know so much more about my religion than I do.

Yes I do. I used to be Christian after all; went to Sunday School, member of Boy Scouts, studied in Youth Group, etc. all the way up to college. Atheists and agnotics generally do know more than believers about Christianity. But I'm mainly making fun of your own argument, not really making a Biblical argument. Of course, it's a pretty transparent defense mechanism when you start accusing other people of being uneducated instead of simply demonstrating it and you proclaim they have to be an active member of your religion to know anything about it. Pretty weak stuff.

You are way off target and completly ignore my point. That's par for the course I guess. :)

You never have any points. You simply make false statements and then get pissed and argue that people are ignoring them when it is made clear they are false.
 
Last edited:
Any questions?

Why? You are the one who did not get it not me.

Yeah, I know we were talking about gay marriage. That's why I brought up the Marriage License. Because in the context of gay marriage, that is the contract being forbidden from certain couples. Please don't be stupid.

OK please explain to me how in my original response you replied to fits into...

So, why is being gay a sin?

Please explain for us stupid people.

What example? I saw that you made the same statement twice, but no example.

The law I used as an example of legislated morality.

It is not irrelecant to the gay marriage debate

In context to my response and the thread it certainly is.

Not justly, because the government issues the Marriage License, which is a State issued and recognized contract. Forbidding certain couples from engaging in the contract is a violation of their right to contract.

Obviously I disagree.

Again your opinion and has nothing to do with my statement or this thread.

No, you can enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. But those laws are never rightful nor just.

Again your opinion and has nothing to do with my statement or this thread.

It's not even that I don't appreciate your opinion, but it really has nothing to do with my statement.

You have right to contract, and it is contract which is being denied.

Freedom of contract is the freedom of individuals and corporations to form contracts without government restrictions. This is not the case in our government. Restrictions exist. The rest of what you state is nothing but libertarian ideals and not actual law.

We have labor laws. We have child labor laws etc. This is just a small example of the restrictions on contracts.

It's only seen like that by those wishing to engage in tyranny.

You can cut out with the libertarian stuff now. I really think you are the one who wants to enforce your tyranny on anyone who's morals disagree with yours.
 
Yawn...an appeal to tradition fallacy.

Yea, that's what it is. :lol:

Made all the more pathetic by the fact that the tradition has changed a number of times over the centuries. Heck, a lot of people are starting to question whether the Church actually endorsed some same sex marriages in its early history among its leadership.

Yes mans law has changed. The Bible and it's laws have not. The only thing pathetic here is stupid people trying to say the church leadership endorsed same sex marriage in the beginning.

Yes I do. I used to be Christian after all; went to Sunday School, member of Boy Scouts, studied in Youth Group, etc. all the way up to college.

According to your own comments, I can honestly say you don't appear to have gained any real understanding of scripture.

Atheists and agnotics generally do know more than believers about Christianity.

Not really. I will see they sometimes know more, but not often. The problem is Christians make up 70% of the population. Atheists/agnostics about 2%. So what are the odd of meeting a not so knowledgeable Christian??

But I'm mainly making fun of your own argument, not really making a Biblical argument. Of course, it's a pretty transparent defense mechanism when you start accusing other people of being uneducated instead of simply demonstrating it and you proclaim they have to be an active member of your religion to know anything about it. Pretty weak stuff.

Your own quotes show a real lack of understanding. Most of what you try to discount or make out to be contradictions etc in the Bible are nothing but cut and paste from a biased and poorly put together web site. Like the Psalms for example. I am still laughing about that.

You never have any points. You simply make false statements and then get pissed and argue that people are ignoring them when it is made clear they are false.

Now this is a lie. None of my statements are false, and I have shown they are not. All anyone has to do is look back at your responces, and they know you are not knowledge at all on the subject of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
All anyone has to do is look back at your responces, and they know you are not knowledge at all on the subject of the Bible.

I certainly know more than you about it. :mrgreen:

I just learned long ago it isn't worth it to seriously try to reason with someone about something they were never reasoned into in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I certainly know more than you about it. :mrgreen:

I just learned long ago it isn't worth it to seriously try to reason with someone about something they were never reasoned into in the first place.

Not exactly....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/84851-question-people-believe-being-gay-wrong-29.html#post1059085171 :2wave:

As for your edit. Considering the length of your replies, I consider that little more than an understatement. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Not exactly....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/84851-question-people-believe-being-gay-wrong-29.html#post1059085171 :2wave:

As for your edit. Considering the length of your replies, I consider that little more than an understatement. :lol:

Fine, let's talk about the precious book from which you get your morals.

Are you sexist, because your book certainly is...

1 Corinthians Chapter 14...
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


1 Timothy Chapter 2
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.


How about pro slavery? I don't recall Paul or Jesus having much to say about the institution and there is certainly plenty of endorsements for it in your precious book.

Slaves are to be circumcised - Genesis chapter 17, verse 12
Slaves can eat at Passover if they are circumcised - Exodus chapter 12 verse 43
Slaves are to be set free after seven years (but not their children) - Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1
Slaves are property and can be beaten, but not killed - Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20
Slaves are worth 30 shekels of silver - Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32
Children of slaves are slaves themselves - Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10
Slaves are property to be bought, sold, and handed down - Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44
Slaves must submit to their masters - Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22 and Titus, chapter 2 verse 9


Are you into killing people who cheat on their wives, rebellous kids, and anyone who works during the Sabbath?

Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.


Deut 21:18-21
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.


Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD.


Yeah, what a great standard on which to base your morals. That is if you want to be a homophobic, sexist, pro slavery, sadistic murderer.

No, you pick and choose what you want to believe from the book just like every other Christian does. If not then you probably rely on someone else to interpret it for you and tell you what it means.
 
Yeah, what a great standard on which to base your morals. That is if you want to be a homophobic, sexist, pro slavery, sadistic murderer.

Let's start with the first part from Paul. That was his law for his church, none of which was a sin. It was mans law, not Gods.

Paul was very clear about this. I am certain you knew this, right? :doh

Well considering everything else you quoted was Old Testament, you being a well versed former Christian should know none of that applies to followers of Christ. That law was fulfilled and a new covenant between all men was made by Christ being the ultimate sacrifice.

No, you pick and choose what you want to believe from the book just like every other Christian does. If not then you probably rely on someone else to interpret it for you and tell you what it means.

Again Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians. It does apply to the ancient Israelites.

You really should read for yourself and stop with just cutting and pasting silliness.
 
Last edited:
Let's start with the first part from Paul. That was his law for his church, none of which was a sin. It was mans law, not Gods.

Paul was very clear about this. I am certain you knew this, right? :doh

Well considering everything else you quoted was Old Testament, you being a well versed former Christian should no none of that applies to followers of Christ. That law was fulfilled and a new covenant between all men was made by Christ being the ultimate sacrifice.

Oh how pathetic. On one hand you argue the Old Testament Law, which ol' Jesus said he was not changing, no longer applies. On the other hand you argue that Paul, who quotes from said Law (and sometimes quotes Plato), is to be followed as the authority regarding homosexuality and marriage, but not the laws regarding being sexist towards women, because those are just "man's laws".

Did you know that people have been accusing Paul of corrupting the teachings of Jesus Christ all the way back to his day? In essence, you have put the full weight of your belief on Paul's shoulders. Very orthodox view. Look up the Great Apostasy. For all intensive purposes you could be practicing a corruption of Jesus's teachings.

And once again, as I said, you are simply following an interpretation that you have selected, with no proof that it is any more valid than any other.
 
Last edited:
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.

Would you like me to explain to you the concept behind the term "sin offering?"

Perhaps you would like me to explain the concept of "atonement?"

On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
Leviticus 15:29-30

She has to kill a dove or pigeon as a sin offering to atone for the sin of menstruating. It doesn't take epic reading comprehension skills to figure this out, but if you really need it spelled out for you that uncleanliness was considered a sin, I think Leviticus 5 does a pretty good job:

“‘If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[c]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.

Now, are you going to be the bigger man and just admit that I was right?
 
Oh how pathetic. On one hand you argue the Old Testament Law, which ol' Jesus said he was not changing, no longer applies.

Ummm... he did not change it. He fulfilled the prefaces with his death and the old law was no longer applied to be saved. And you say you were a Christian?

This is one of the standard teachings from the beginning and is still taught in 99.9% of Christian Churches to this day.

On the other hand you argue that Paul, who quotes from said Law (and sometimes quotes Plato), is to be followed as the authority regarding homosexuality and marriage, but not the laws regarding being sexist towards women, because those are just "man's laws".

This is completely senseless. He is clear about what is God's law and what is his. For example...

1 Corinthians Chapter 14...
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


No mention of God or sin, hmmmm.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

Notice the difference. Not hard to see.

Did you know that people have been accusing Paul of corrupting the teachings of Jesus Christ all the way back to his day? In essence, you have put the full weight of your belief on Paul's shoulders. Very orthodox view. Look up the Great Apostasy. For all intensive purposes you could be practicing a corruption of Jesus's teachings.

I agree this could be so. But I Will go with the Guy who died a martyr and penniless vs an unbeliever who does not even acknowledge Gods existence, and has very little knowledge of the Bible.

And once again, as I said, you are simply following an interpretation that you have selected, with no proof that it is any more valid than any other.[/QUOTE]
 
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.



Actually it looks like you have no idea what scripture is saying.

1. When did I confuse a law with an opinion? Did I ever claim that it was a law for people not to get married?

2. I didn't misquote anything. My quote was correct verbatim.

3. I didn't take anything out of context. The argument posited was that being gay was wrong because we were made man and woman and are morally compelled to leave our mother and father and become one flesh with a woman.

According to Paul, men are not morally compelled to become one flesh with a woman, and in fact encourages folks to not become one flesh with anyone at all. Thus the argument that men were originally designed to marry women and that this then should dictate the actions of all men is demonstrably false according to the opinons of Paul, who most Christians acknowledge as something of an authority on the subject.

---

As a side note, I personally think Paul just didn't get it. He clearly thinks marriage is a concession to those who cannot control themselves, and that it would be better if people could just control their sexual urges and not get married at all.

According to Jesus however, marriage was part of the original design, and should be accepted by all who can accept it, even if they can control themselves just fine.

"The one who can accept this should accept it." -Matt 19:12

Clearly Jesus acknowledges that not everyone was meant to accept this blessing, and gay men and women seem to fall squarely in that category.
 
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.

Leviticus 5 disagrees with you. Unclean = sin. That is why a sin offering is required.

“‘If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[c]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. - Leviticus 5:2-6
 
Leviticus 5 disagrees with you. Unclean = sin. That is why a sin offering is required.

I agree. I was wrong. What does again Leviticus law for the Israelites have to do with any of this?
 
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.

First of all, Paul is blatantly disagreeing with Jesus on this point. Jesus says anyone who can accept the original slot A/tab B design should do so, but acknowledges that it won't work for everyone. Paul says you should only accept the slot A/tab B design if you can't accept the superior slot A hanging out by itself design.

Should people who can control their biological urges get married or not? Jesus says they should. Paul says they shouldn't.

Secondly, and perhaps more germane to the thread, how does any of that even remotely suggest that there is no room for gay marriage? If anything, it is an advocacy for gay marriage. Paul says "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Gay people who cannot contain should clearly marry other gay people of the same sex, since marrying someone of the opposite sex would neither aid containment, nor cease the burning. If it is better to marry than to burn, what other are gay people who cannot contain to do?
 
1. When did I confuse a law with an opinion? Did I ever claim that it was a law for people not to get married?

2. I didn't misquote anything. My quote was correct verbatim.

3. I didn't take anything out of context. The argument posited was that being gay was wrong because we were made man and woman and are morally compelled to leave our mother and father and become one flesh with a woman.

Paul's opinion as I highlighted was his and his alone, not God's. As you try and make it sound.

2. I ws talking about using to completely unrelated quotes you used.

3. Yes, you did. Paul was not quoting Gods law, it was his opinion, while Jesus laid down the actual law.

According to Paul, men are not morally compelled to become one flesh with a woman, and in fact encourages folks to not become one flesh with anyone at all. Thus the argument that men were originally designed to marry women and that this then should dictate the actions of all men is demonstrably false according to the opinons of Paul, who most Christians acknowledge as something of an authority on the subject.

Again this was opinion, not the law. We know this is a fact.

---As a side note, I personally think Paul just didn't get it. He clearly thinks marriage is a concession to those who cannot control themselves, and that it would be better if people could just control their sexual urges and not get married at all.

This is possible, but it does not change the fact it was his feelings and had no basis in the law, none.

According to Jesus however, marriage was part of the original design, and should be accepted by all who can accept it, even if they can control themselves just fine.

He clearly states between one man and one woman, period.

Clearly Jesus acknowledges that not everyone was meant to accept this blessing, and gay men and women seem to fall squarely in that category.

Where does he clearly show this?
 
I agree. I was wrong. What does again Leviticus law for the Israelites have to do with any of this?

You are a big man Blackdog. Huge respect. I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen people on these forums admit they were wrong.

The point of Leviticus law was as a response to this post from Hoplite:

But WHY did he say so?

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

In fact, going all the way back to the OP, the original contention in the thread was that there seems to be no logical basis for treating homosexuality as a sin. (as opposed to things like theft and murder, which have an obvious derivation from the golden rule upon which Jesus claims all the law and all the prophets are based.)

My point was that logical consistency has not traditionally been associated with the religion, given that menstruation was a sin, along with collecting firewood on Saturdays and wearing wool with linen, etc... in the Old Covenant, so there is little reason to expect any logical basis for morality in the New Covenant either.


Personally I think there is a logical basis. Jesus described the law and the prophets solely in terms of love and reciprocity. Love God with your heart, mind and soul, love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you want to be treated. That sums up the whole thing. Just learn to fill your heart with love and everything will be dandy. That was Jesus' philosophy.

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

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matt 22:37-40


All this nonsense about homosexuality being a sin is just the devil trying to cause dissension among God's children. If gay dudes love with each other, then they live in God and God in them.

No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. 1 John 4:12
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 1 John 4:16

If you can't demonstrate how homosexuality breaks the golden rule, I don't see how you have a case at all. You are just believing a bunch of stuff Paul said over a bunch of stuff Jesus said. Last I checked, Jesus outranked Paul.
 
Paul's opinion as I highlighted was his and his alone, not God's. As you try and make it sound.

2. I ws talking about using to completely unrelated quotes you used.

3. Yes, you did. Paul was not quoting Gods law, it was his opinion, while Jesus laid down the actual law.

Again this was opinion, not the law. We know this is a fact.

Ok. I agree that Paul's opinions have nothing to do with God's opinions. In fact, I think Paul's opinions are completely off base a lot of the time. I assumed Christian folk would agree with Paul's opinions because most of them do. Glad to hear that you don't.

This is possible, but it does not change the fact it was his feelings and had no basis in the law, none.

Ok. Paul didn't know what he was talking about. We can just agree to agree on this point.

He clearly states between one man and one woman, period.

Technically, He states the following assertions:

1. Humans were made male and female
2. Because of this a man will leave his mom and dad, and be united with his wife.
3. The man and wife will become one flesh
4. People shouldn't separate what God has brought together.

The man and his wife could become one flesh one night, and the man could become one flesh with another of his wives the next night without negating any of these assertions. In fact there is absolute proof that polygamy was not regarded as a sin in the Bible:

For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life--except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. - 1 Kings 15:5

David had many wives before Uriah the Hittite even came in the picture. Since David had not sinned his entire life up till that point, marrying his second wife was not a sin.

So much for the "marriage is only ever between 1 man 1 woman" theory.

True, He did say that the ORIGINAL DESIGN was one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) but He did not say that that was the ONLY sinless permutation of romance in the world. In fact, His point was completely unrelated to Homosexuality, and makes complete sense with regard to His philosophy of love and reciprocity. His point was that you shouldn't get rid of your wife and replace her with a newer model once she starts to get wrinkly.

I refer you back to the Golden rule. If you were in the wife's shoes, would you want to be tossed out and replaced with a newer model? No? Ok, then don't do that to her. Simple. Logical. Once again Jesus comes through for rational thought.


Where does he clearly show this?

Where does he clearly show that not everyone can accept this word? I don't know, maybe in Matt 19:11 when he says

"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."

What I think He means by "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given" is that not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. It seems obvious to me that gay people would fall under the category of people who can't accept that particular word.
 
Back
Top Bottom