• 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.

A Proper Sermon on Homosexuality

Jerry said:
You're going in a totally different direction then I was headed.

Regardless of legal requirements being met or not, the manifest impact of civil unions, as is evidenced by the EU, is that every kind of couple trends towards those instead of 'marriage' so that they can retain more walk-away power.
Click to expand...

Ok... but I'm against civil unions being anything close to marriage anyway. It is stupid to have multiple marriage-type legal agreements recognized by the state that actually are so similar that the participants could choose either one to meet their needs. Marriage should be the recognized agreement between spouses, whether male/male, male/female, or female/female. Sex/gender has absolutely no impact on a person's legal ability to fulfill their part of the legal marriage contract here in the US. And we aren't Europe.
 
The proper sermon on homosexuality is no sermon on it. I simply cannot believe that God gives 2 ****s about political controversy in the US. A sermon is meant to strengthen ones faith in God, not some half-baked political ideology. Church is removed from state for a reason, it's time we remove state from church as well.
 
MarineTpartier said:
[...]everytime I go into church I hear at least one thing that I am doing in my life that is wrong. I don't walk out with a chip on my shoulder. I walk out with the intention of stopping that action or improving upon it. Anyone reading this has the same choice I do.Sermon Archive : Resources : Concord Baptist
Click to expand...

I agree that choice is instrumental, and, yes, people have a choice as to how they act, but homosexuality isn't a choice. You and everyone else didn't decide who to be attracted to (and if you have tried to change your "thinking," good luck), it's simply understood through a number of variables, all of which not related to choice.

And, most importantly, your rights under the law are not restricted for how you were born. A chip may exist on your shoulder if federal law restricted you from being who you were and from having equal right amongst those you lived and with whom you peacefully co-habitate.
 
MarineTpartier said:
If resist hunger, you die. If you resist... homosexuality, you don't.
Click to expand...

I think, spiritually, one does. To not acknowledge oneself kinda rips at the soul. Demonization and marginalization tear at our humanity and spirit. A bond between two people is important for most people; denying someone this is certainly debasing. In a few ways, oppression of gays and repression by gays does kill - spiritually.

Side note: I'm glad you support SSM. Discriminating, legally and institutionally, against gays is not tolerance. I believe that people who claim to tolerate homosexuality while discriminating institutionally are hypocrites.
 
I think there are many Americans who don't think that disapproval of SSM is "institutionalized discrimination." Rather, I think that their perspective is that gays who wish to marry are encroaching on the enculturated definition over the course of many Western centuries) of what marriage is.
 
nota bene said:
I think there are many Americans who don't think that disapproval of SSM is "institutionalized discrimination." Rather, I think that their perspective is that gays who wish to marry are encroaching on the enculturated definition over the course of many Western centuries) of what marriage is.
Click to expand...

Widespread discrimination can be a part of traditions though.

Perhaps our forefathers should have called the legal marriage something different, but they didn't. And we have more important things to worry about than people being offended about gays encroaching on their definition of marriage. Marriage legally gives a person the right to be another person's legal relative, and more specifically their closest legal relative and the rights that go with that. This is due to the expected nature of the relationship. What makes that relationship of a certain type that allows for both the couple and society to benefit is not dependent on the sexes of those two people, particularly not in this day and age. We have divorce and many babies being born and raised outside of marriage. We have many people using other means of procreation besides male/female sex. But we also have a lot of laws and benefits and rights that are tied to legal marriage that do affect people's lives.

Plus, on top of all this, we are seeing a relatively new increase in support of homosexuals living free to be themselves, even if there are some people who still feel they are immoral or deviant. (And I say relatively new, because we can look at the line graph of the support for same sex marriage over the last 10 or 15 years, and literally see the changing views represented in that graph. It was relatively constantly at a low level before the 90s or late 80s.)

There are many western civilizations who have already given gays the right to marry a person of the same sex and those cultures and countries are still intact, some doing just as well or better than us.

I'm pretty sure that their were many who believed that allowing interracial couples to be married in the south was encroaching upon their southern cultural beliefs to define that people of different races should not get married. It may not have been a belief held by the majority across the country, but it was a belief held highly within the south (every southern state had a law in place that was struck down by the Loving decision). In fact, it is still a belief held by many in the south. I know, I was raised there and have met many people from there, even young people, who do not approve of interracial relationships. I met this girl in bootcamp who saw a picture of my black HS boyfriend and stopped talking to me. You could read the disapproval on her face. Yet, she got along well with the black girls in our division.
 
nota bene said:
I think there are many Americans who don't think that disapproval of SSM is "institutionalized discrimination." Rather, I think that their perspective is that gays who wish to marry are encroaching on the enculturated definition over the course of many Western centuries) of what marriage is.
Click to expand...

To exclude gays from an institution is institutional discrimination. People can 'think' whatever they want, but let's remember that most people are shallow and dumb.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Widespread discrimination can be a part of traditions though.

Perhaps our forefathers should have called the legal marriage something different, but they didn't. And we have more important things to worry about than people being offended about gays encroaching on their definition of marriage. Marriage legally gives a person the right to be another person's legal relative, and more specifically their closest legal relative and the rights that go with that. This is due to the expected nature of the relationship. What makes that relationship of a certain type that allows for both the couple and society to benefit is not dependent on the sexes of those two people, particularly not in this day and age. We have divorce and many babies being born and raised outside of marriage. We have many people using other means of procreation besides male/female sex. But we also have a lot of laws and benefits and rights that are tied to legal marriage that do affect people's lives.

Plus, on top of all this, we are seeing a relatively new increase in support of homosexuals living free to be themselves, even if there are some people who still feel they are immoral or deviant. (And I say relatively new, because we can look at the line graph of the support for same sex marriage over the last 10 or 15 years, and literally see the changing views represented in that graph. It was relatively constantly at a low level before the 90s or late 80s.)

There are many western civilizations who have already given gays the right to marry a person of the same sex and those cultures and countries are still intact, some doing just as well or better than us.

I'm pretty sure that their were many who believed that allowing interracial couples to be married in the south was encroaching upon their southern cultural beliefs to define that people of different races should not get married. It may not have been a belief held by the majority across the country, but it was a belief held highly within the south (every southern state had a law in place that was struck down by the Loving decision). In fact, it is still a belief held by many in the south. I know, I was raised there and have met many people from there, even young people, who do not approve of interracial relationships. I met this girl in bootcamp who saw a picture of my black HS boyfriend and stopped talking to me. You could read the disapproval on her face. Yet, she got along well with the black girls in our division.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was recently even and probably still is segregated proms. Morgan Freeman tried to put an end to one in MS. Their parents just don't approve of interracial couples and neither do many classmates. Whenever I hear don't push too hard for SSM, wait till they come around to it, I know I'd be waiting multiple lifetimes in a state like that.
 
wolv67 said:
Yeah, there was recently even and probably still is segregated proms. Morgan Freeman tried to put an end to one in MS. Their parents just don't approve of interracial couples and neither do many classmates. Whenever I hear don't push too hard for SSM, wait till they come around to it, I know I'd be waiting multiple lifetimes in a state like that.
Click to expand...

I always think about the fact that it took Alabama til 2000 to change their constitution so that it did not limit marriage based on race, despite not being able to enforce it for over 30 years. And it isn't like it was just overlooked. They actually took a vote on it in 1998, and they got less than 50% in favor of changing it. This is absolutely why we simply can't wait for people to come around and each state to vote same sex marriages be legally recognized. It would take forever and affect many people negatively in that time, specifically military members who have very little choice when it comes to where they are stationed.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Thinking the sin is as bad as committing it. I view the sin of homosexuality the same as addiction. Personally, I am very addiction prone. I am an alcoholic who hasn't touched alcohol since 2008. I used to smoke/use smokeless tobacco until 2010. I am still tempted by both. I also resist both by prayer and personal discipline. I believe homosexuality is the same. I know many of this website will disagree and say things to the effect of "how dare you compare the two" but that's what I believe.
Click to expand...

I believe that men can resist the urge to grow their hair out and women can resist the urge to cut theirs short or braid it. I am quite confident that people can resist the urge to wear cotton/polyester tee shirts. There does seem to be some dissenting opinions on whether those are all equally as bad as homosexual acts, and a perplexing lack of media coverage of pastors talking about punching kids in the face for engaging in such disgraceful practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom