• 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!

NAACP backs gay marriage

Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

If you want to post said research, be my guest.

Until then, I'm going to stick to the categorical relationship between children being heterosexually reproduced, and those children heterosexually reproducing more children into the future.

Children are entitled to know how to socialize in order to achieve that feat. That means knowing how both men and women think.

Do you believe children are raised in a bubble that only involves their parents? Not only is this untrue, but it also would mean that you are against allowing single people, for whatever reason, from raising their children alone.

As for the research, it has been posted on here many times before and I do not have the links for it. Perhaps someone who does can share it or maybe you can find it yourself. You certainly have no research to back up your own position.
 
Blacks, Gays And The Church: A Complex Relationship : NPR

The move is purely political. It's well known that most of the black community is against homosexuality. It's almost ridiculous to even post a link, it's common knowledge. Blacks are generally very religious, and that puts them squarely against gays. There are certainly exceptions, just like whites but whites are more accepting of homosexuality.

So, what, it couldn't possibly be because the NAACP thinks this is the right thing to do?
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

Do you believe children are raised in a bubble that only involves their parents? Not only is this untrue, but it also would mean that you are against allowing single people, for whatever reason, from raising their children alone.

Yes, I'm against having children out of wedlock. It's not anyone's right to force children to assume the risk of discovering role models.

Merely living in a village doesn't mean someone in the village will necessarily care about you, nor is it anyone else's duty who didn't decide to make you.

As for the research, it has been posted on here many times before and I do not have the links for it. Perhaps someone who does can share it or maybe you can find it yourself. You certainly have no research to back up your own position.

Do I really need research to show how babies are made?
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

Aren't you interpreting things by this statement as well?
I'm not the only one saying this stuff. This is backed by thelogians and historians. Anyone can twist a document or publication like the Bible, Constitution, Quran, etc to make it say what they want.
Finally your argument doesn't hold water because that isn't an interpretation to begin with. It is a fact that slaves where not the slaves we think of today during Biblical times. It's a fact that God condemns interfaith marriage. I'm not interpreting anything. I'm reading what the Bible says.

It's still all interpretation. It could easily be argued that since that since those "kidnapped" were generally not kidnapped by those slave owners in America, that the passage you posted does not apply to them. Plus, there are plenty of people who also believe in the OT, which does support slavery in multiple places.

I think you are wrong in your interpretation of homosexuality as it is today and what is being referred to in the Bible. There are many historians and theologians that agree with my interpretation. So you would be just as wrong, in my eyes, as those who are not interpreting the passage you quoted are in your eyes.

I know He doesn't condemn me because He says in the Bible I should ask for forgiveness for sins and accept Him as my Lord and Savior. I am a redeemed child of God so I know that He has forgiven me for all of my sins. In addition, the Lord many times uses our sins to teach us a lesson or bring about a greater result. Its like letting your child fall on his face when he's attempting something. You know you could step in, assist him, and keep anything bad from happening but he wouldn't learn if you did.

Then why would God not just "step in" and keep people from getting remarried or divorced for that matter or being homosexual? It isn't like many of those people don't believe that they are saved despite those things that are seen as possibly immoral.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

Yes, I'm against having children out of wedlock. It's not anyone's right to force children to assume the risk of discovering role models.

Merely living in a village doesn't mean someone in the village will necessarily care about you, nor is it anyone else's duty who didn't decide to make you.



Do I really need research to show how babies are made?

No, you need research to show that children of same-sex parents do worse than children of heterosexual parents.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

No, you need research to show that children of same-sex parents do worse than children of heterosexual parents.

No I don't.

The null hypothesis is people reproduce heterosexually. Homosexuals need to prove the alternative in saying they're just as competent.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

No I don't.

The null hypothesis is people reproduce heterosexually. Homosexuals need to prove the alternative in saying they're just as competent.

"Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The citations are at the bottom.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

Yes, I'm against having children out of wedlock. It's not anyone's right to force children to assume the risk of discovering role models.

Merely living in a village doesn't mean someone in the village will necessarily care about you, nor is it anyone else's duty who didn't decide to make you.

First of all, it isn't necessary for a child to be born out of wedlock for them to be raised by a single parent.

Second, there are many people who choose to have roles in a child's life outside of the parents. I have had one of my siblings living with my husband and I almost the entire time I've been raising my children as a mutually beneficial living situation (I have a built in baby sitter so my husband and I can work and do things without the children and they get room and board as they struggle to work in this economy). I was raised with my relatives nearby almost my entire life. Most of my mother's siblings, plus both sets of grandparents, were very involved in mine and my siblings' upbringing.

Do I really need research to show how babies are made?

You seem to need research on not only how babies can be made in this day and age, but also on how they can be raised.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

No I don't.

The null hypothesis is people reproduce heterosexually. Homosexuals need to prove the alternative in saying they're just as competent.

They already have. Just because you and others don't want to accept that fact, doesn't make it less true.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

It's still all interpretation. It could easily be argued that since that since those "kidnapped" were generally not kidnapped by those slave owners in America, that the passage you posted does not apply to them. Plus, there are plenty of people who also believe in the OT, which does support slavery in multiple places.
How is it interpretation? The Bible either says it or it doesn't. I get the feeling the Bible could say "I, the Lord, do not agree with slavery." and you would doubt it and say "He didn't say what kind". You are looking for reason to doubt therefore you will find it even if it doesn't exist.
I think you are wrong in your interpretation of homosexuality as it is today and what is being referred to in the Bible. There are many historians and theologians that agree with my interpretation. So you would be just as wrong, in my eyes, as those who are not interpreting the passage you quoted are in your eyes.
I never said anything about homosexuality in that post.....I said something about interracial/interfaith marriage.
Then why would God not just "step in" and keep people from getting remarried or divorced for that matter or being homosexual? It isn't like many of those people don't believe that they are saved despite those things that are seen as possibly immoral.
Did you not read my post? The example of a child and his parents?
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

No I don't.

The null hypothesis is people reproduce heterosexually. Homosexuals need to prove the alternative in saying they're just as competent.

Plenty of research shows that.

How is it interpretation? The Bible either says it or it doesn't. I get the feeling the Bible could say "I, the Lord, do not agree with slavery." and you would doubt it and say "He didn't say what kind". You are looking for reason to doubt therefore you will find it even if it doesn't exist.

I never said anything about homosexuality in that post.....I said something about interracial/interfaith marriage.

Did you not read my post? The example of a child and his parents?

The bible has a dozen different versions and has been translated through several different languages over thousands of years. There's plenty open to interpretation.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

How is it interpretation? The Bible either says it or it doesn't. I get the feeling the Bible could say "I, the Lord, do not agree with slavery." and you would doubt it and say "He didn't say what kind". You are looking for reason to doubt therefore you will find it even if it doesn't exist.

I never said anything about homosexuality in that post.....I said something about interracial/interfaith marriage.

Did you not read my post? The example of a child and his parents?

Because any time you read a book, even the Bible, there is an interpretation even when it is in your own language. The fact that the Bible has been translated multiple times from the original language it was written in absolutely means that certain things could have been changed.

I personally don't think God approves of slavery, but that belief does not come from the Bible at all. I can see though how some may feel that the Bible does allow for slavery. It doesn't take too much reading into the OT to see that God didn't have too much of a problem with people owning slaves. And since many people who read the Bible cherry pick it anyway, who are you to tell them they are wrong in what they want to condone? Should I and others not have the same right to point out where you may be wrong in the interpretation that makes homosexuality a sin?

And I did read your metaphor. It did not relate to what I had posted. If you are wrong and God really does disapprove of your marriage to your wife because she was not originally of your faith or still really isn't, then you really couldn't know for sure til God judges you for it, which would likely occur in heaven, not here on Earth. Personally, I don't believe God cares if two people of different faiths marry as long as they can make it work. But I also don't believe God cares if two people of the same sex love each other and would fully support them getting married.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

"Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The citations are at the bottom.

I'm sorry, but when I read a study like this (number 4), it's complete crap:

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

The study doesn't provide any experimental design or data at all. It just cites hundreds of authorities and provides qualitative conclusions. It doesn't explain HOW homosexual versus heterosexual parenting evaluation takes place.

It looks pretty, but there's no meat and taters.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

I'm sorry, but when I read a study like this (number 4), it's complete crap:

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

The study doesn't provide any experimental design or data at all. It just cites hundreds of authorities and provides qualitative conclusions. It doesn't explain HOW homosexual versus heterosexual parenting evaluation takes place.

It looks pretty, but there's no meat and taters.

If you want, look up all those hundreds of reports and studies. The APS CREATED that to collect the information, now conduct more experimentation.

And that's one of nine. Keep trying, but the data's there.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

I'm sorry, but when I read a study like this (number 4), it's complete crap:

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

The study doesn't provide any experimental design or data at all. It just cites hundreds of authorities and provides qualitative conclusions. It doesn't explain HOW homosexual versus heterosexual parenting evaluation takes place.

It looks pretty, but there's no meat and taters.

There is over 30 years of evidence on this matter. If you can't find it, then it is because you aren't looking very hard.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

Comments on same-sex parenting by professional associations:

1976-SEP: American Psychological Association (APA): They issued a policy statement on child custody or placement which said: "The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural, or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in custody or placement cases." 2

1998: The Child Welfare League of America: Their Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services states:

"Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation." Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted 'on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future.' " 3

1998-AUG-16: American Psychological Association (APA): They issued a statement titled "Legal Benefits for Same - Sex Couples" which said, in part:

"Whereas the scientific literature has found no significant difference between different-sex couples and same-sex couples that justify discrimination...";

"Whereas scientific research has not found significant psychological or emotional differences between the children raised in different-sex versus same-sex households..."

"Therefore, be it resolved, That APA supports the provision to same-sex couples of the legal benefits that typically accrue as a result of marriage to same-sex couples who desire and seek the legal benefits;..." 4

1998-MAR-14: North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC): The NACAC issued a policy statement which states:

"Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care and adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration regardless of sexual orientation or differing life style or physical appearance." 5

2000-MAY: American Psychiatric Association (APA): In their FactSHEET on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, they write:

"Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. children raised in gay or lesbian household do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality of gender identity issues than other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children surmount these problems." 6

2001-APR: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) NARTH is a very small association of therapists, social workers, religious leaders, teachers, and anyone else who is interested in supporting NARTH, regardless of whether they have academic qualifications. Unlike all of the other mental-heath association in the U.S., they promote the concept that homosexuality abnormal, unnatural and changeable. It is regarded as a "failure to function according to design." 7 They believe that "Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex." Consistent with this stand, they take a dim view of same-sex marriage and parenting, stating that: "[Homosexuality]... threatens the continuity of traditional male-female marriage--a bond which is naturally anchored by the complementarity of the sexes, and has long been considered essential for the protection of children." They also stated: "And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families." 8

2002-FEB-4: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): The Dr. Ellen Perrin, led the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health at the AAP. They studied adoption by same-sex parents. Her prime task was to determine if there is a disadvantage conferred upon a child who is being raised by two men or two women, in comparison to the same child being raised by a man and woman. Perrin said: "We felt that the data were very conclusive that the answer to that question is 'no.' " Thus, the AAP will support legal and legislative efforts to allow adoption by gay and lesbian couples. Perrin said: "We -- meaning basically the Academy of Pediatrics -- felt that the research was conclusive enough when taken in its totality to support this policy." 9 An AAP news release of 2002-FEB-4 states:

"...there is a considerable body of professional literature that suggests children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual."

"Coparent or second-parent adoption protects a child's right to maintain continuing relationships with both parents in a same-sex relationship. Several states have considered or enacted legislation sanctioning coparent or second parent adoption by partners of the same sex. But other states have not yet considered legislative action, while at least one state bans adoptions altogether by the second parent or coparent in a same sex relationship." 10

They published a technical report in the 2002-FEB issue of Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed journal. The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT. "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes." 11

2002-JUN: The American Psychoanalytic Association endorsed same-sex parenting. It is the smallest of the three APA's which also include the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. According to Focus on the Family, they have "given unqualified endorsement to homosexual adoption and parenting. The group says sexual orientation shouldn't even be considered in legal decisions concerning parenting." The Association's statement says, in part: "Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child....[They should be] afforded the same rights and....responsibilities as heterosexual parents."

Chairperson Gary Grossman headed the committee which prepared the statement. He commented that it should "help judges, who may have their own biases for whatever reasons, to look at the evidence and listen to the professionals..."Optimally, children do better with two parents, but the gender of the parents is really not so relevant."

US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents
The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children
Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - USATODAY.com
 
Last edited:
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

Because any time you read a book, even the Bible, there is an interpretation even when it is in your own language. The fact that the Bible has been translated multiple times from the original language it was written in absolutely means that certain things could have been changed.

I personally don't think God approves of slavery, but that belief does not come from the Bible at all. I can see though how some may feel that the Bible does allow for slavery. It doesn't take too much reading into the OT to see that God didn't have too much of a problem with people owning slaves. And since many people who read the Bible cherry pick it anyway, who are you to tell them they are wrong in what they want to condone? Should I and others not have the same right to point out where you may be wrong in the interpretation that makes homosexuality a sin?
What interpretation do you get from "Thou shalt not kill"? Like I said earlier, you are going to find a way to make the Bible fit what you want. I'm simply stating what the Book says. The Bible is not at fault that people such as yourself interpret it anyway they see fit. It says men lying with men is wrong. Its says "manstealers" who sell or possess that man are wrong. What interpretation other than what it says is there?

And I did read your metaphor. It did not relate to what I had posted. If you are wrong and God really does disapprove of your marriage to your wife because she was not originally of your faith or still really isn't, then you really couldn't know for sure til God judges you for it, which would likely occur in heaven, not here on Earth. Personally, I don't believe God cares if two people of different faiths marry as long as they can make it work. But I also don't believe God cares if two people of the same sex love each other and would fully support them getting married.
How does it not relate? You asked why God doesn't stop bad things from happening, or something to that effect. I explained why He doesn't.
I'm not wrong. God does not judge people for sins they committ if you have been redeemed as a child of God. I am a child of God, as is my wife, so therefore I'm good.
And God does care if two people of the same sex love each other btw. He condemns homosexuality. If you want to read it differently, go ahead. Its your choice to do so. It's not my job to judge you or anyone else, or convince you or anyone else. I've already figured out that you this debate will end with nothing other than you saying "what if this" or "what if that". I'm sorry, but you can't understand because you aren't a Christian. I also don't have all of the answers because I'm not God. He does things we don't understand. So I can't explain to you why I have the assurance that I have about my marriage, the Bible, or anything else. I will just be secure in the fact that I know where I'm going when I die and that I'm doing the best I can to live according to His will until it happens.
 
From what I was reading just after Biden said he supported same sex marriage but before Obama made his own announcement, Al Sharpton had said that it wasn't him and I believe the NAACP (not sure who was representing them, it was an OP ED I was reading) said that it was not them either that were holding Obama back from also supporting same sex marriage.

Actually, I'm willing to bet that the more people seeing others who they consider leaders of their community, whether due to race or religion or celebrity status, who come out in support of same sex marriage, the greater the change is going to go for many to actually support same sex marriage. Some will stubbornly hold onto their beliefs, depending on who they consider the most important person to listen to but many view those who have and are coming out to support this as leaders and value their opinions.

I agree. I think Obama definitely showed leadership here.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

What interpretation do you get from "Thou shalt not kill"?

Does it really matter? Honestly I try not to kill anything without cause. Others may say that it only applies to humans. I personally apply it to every living thing.

Like I said earlier, you are going to find a way to make the Bible fit what you want. I'm simply stating what the Book says. The Bible is not at fault that people such as yourself interpret it anyway they see fit. It says men lying with men is wrong. Its says "manstealers" who sell or possess that man are wrong. What interpretation other than what it says is there?

And you aren't? Whether same sex relationships are sinful or not in the eyes of God would really have very little effect on me since I'm not homosexual. However, I don't believe that the way we use "homosexual" today or the way we would view those passages against homosexuality are the same as those who wrote those passages many thousands of years ago actually viewed it. You yourself said that things should be taken in the views of those who wrote them, not as we see things now.

The actual term "homosexual" did not even exist when the Bible was originally written. And the Bible says that lying with men as men lie with women is wrong. Of course the Bible freely treats women as property of men. Women were less then men so a man lying with another man as if he were a woman would be wrong in the eyes of those men who wrote the Bible.

Oh, and since many people before the mid to late 1900s did not view black people as really "men" then they felt completely justified in using blacks and even other races as slaves. Afterall, how can someone be a "manstealer" if the person they are using as a slave is not really considered a real man at all?

And there are other passages in the NT even that do condone slavery.

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does it not relate? You asked why God doesn't stop bad things from happening, or something to that effect. I explained why He doesn't.
I'm not wrong. God does not judge people for sins they committ if you have been redeemed as a child of God. I am a child of God, as is my wife, so therefore I'm good.
And God does care if two people of the same sex love each other btw. He condemns homosexuality. If you want to read it differently, go ahead. Its your choice to do so. It's not my job to judge you or anyone else, or convince you or anyone else. I've already figured out that you this debate will end with nothing other than you saying "what if this" or "what if that". I'm sorry, but you can't understand because you aren't a Christian. I also don't have all of the answers because I'm not God. He does things we don't understand. So I can't explain to you why I have the assurance that I have about my marriage, the Bible, or anything else. I will just be secure in the fact that I know where I'm going when I die and that I'm doing the best I can to live according to His will until it happens.

I didn't ask that. I didn't mention anything about God stopping bad things from happening. You said that you knew God was okay with your marriage just because you had been married to your wife for 10 years. I asked why would that matter. If God is not okay with your relationship, then you really wouldn't know that, even if you have a good marriage, until you are judged by God in heaven, just like same sex couples wouldn't really know either. Personally, I absolutely believe neither interfaith nor same sex couples need worry about it. I think God is very much okay with people loving each other when that love causes no harm, as would be the case in both situations. This is just one of many reasons I cannot be Christian. I cannot believe that a just and loving God would condemn people for loving each other and making commitments that do no harm. I can easily believe that a bunch of guys from thousands of years ago could easily condemn people for this though.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

No I don't.

The null hypothesis is people reproduce heterosexually. Homosexuals need to prove the alternative in saying they're just as competent.

Every unbiased peer reviewed study on the subject has already proven that.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

SSM is a different issue than the world being flat, whites being superior, and slavery. SSM has moral implications ie the Bible states homosexuality is wrong. I agree that it is, however, I also think SSM is a freedom issue. Some don't agree with that. The NAACP isn't a gov't organization. They are an organization who's purpose is to represent a specific minority in our country. They can say what they want, but, my point is that they cease to be a relevant organization when they fail to accurately represent the people they claim to represent.

Actually, the bible says very little to nothing on the subject. Improper interpretations of the bible do. But that's another issue.

And no, the point is that a majority can be wrong, as they were on those topics and this one. When you represent anyone, you have to do more than parrot their worse contentions. You also have an obligation to lead, to aspire to better. Organizations lose relavency IMHO when they are merely parrots who have no vision beyond not wanting to offend.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

Does it really matter? Honestly I try not to kill anything without cause. Others may say that it only applies to humans. I personally apply it to every living thing.
It matters because you said the entire Bible was up for interpretation. Are you saying you don't kill anything? You've never killed a bug? You've never set a mouse trap? We have to kill animals etc to survive. That's why they were put on this earth, for us to survive. I'm not saying we should just kill animals whenever we feel like it. I am very against killing an animal without the purpose of eating it or protecting yourself. The overall point is, of course that only applies to human beings.
And you aren't? Whether same sex relationships are sinful or not in the eyes of God would really have very little effect on me since I'm not homosexual. However, I don't believe that the way we use "homosexual" today or the way we would view those passages against homosexuality are the same as those who wrote those passages many thousands of years ago actually viewed it. You yourself said that things should be taken in the views of those who wrote them, not as we see things now.
Actually, I'm not. I reading it for what it says and not trying to overanalyze, overscrutinize, or fit it to my lifestyle. There are things I would like to do in my life that aren't allowed according to the Bible. I used to be an alcoholic. I would love to drink again. The Bible states that we can't be inebriated. So I don't. The Bible isn't meant to be interpreted by us or arranged to our lives. We arrange our lives to it because it is the word of God. No matter what you want it to say.

The actual term "homosexual" did not even exist when the Bible was originally written. And the Bible says that lying with men as men lie with women is wrong. Of course the Bible freely treats women as property of men. Women were less then men so a man lying with another man as if he were a woman would be wrong in the eyes of those men who wrote the Bible.
Neither did the word dinosaur. It was called a leviathan. What's your point? Just because it wasn't called homosexual doesn't mean it was okay. The Bible treats people a certain way? I didn't know the Bible was capable of treating people a way. It isn't alive. I think you meant the people of the age treated women that way. Some of the people of this age genocide each other. I'm sure God is not okay with that. How about you?
Oh, and since many people before the mid to late 1900s did not view black people as really "men" then they felt completely justified in using blacks and even other races as slaves. Afterall, how can someone be a "manstealer" if the person they are using as a slave is not really considered a real man at all?
Show me where in the Bible it says black people weren't men. Again, you're fitting the Bible to your theories instead of reading it for what it says. Also, see the above point about genocide.
And there are other passages in the NT even that do condone slavery.

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is cut and paste from the "proof" you provided:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since December 2010.
It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since December 2010.
Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2009.




I didn't ask that. I didn't mention anything about God stopping bad things from happening. You said that you knew God was okay with your marriage just because you had been married to your wife for 10 years.
Nope, never said that. I said I knew my marriage is blessed because both of us are redeemed children of God.
I asked why would that matter. If God is not okay with your relationship, then you really wouldn't know that, even if you have a good marriage, until you are judged by God in heaven, just like same sex couples wouldn't really know either.
I won't be judged. Only non-believers will be judged.
Personally, I absolutely believe neither interfaith nor same sex couples need worry about it. I think God is very much okay with people loving each other when that love causes no harm, as would be the case in both situations. This is just one of many reasons I cannot be Christian. I cannot believe that a just and loving God would condemn people for loving each other and making commitments that do no harm. I can easily believe that a bunch of guys from thousands of years ago could easily condemn people for this though.
You summed up my argument for me. You said "Personally, I absolutely believe.....". I hate to tell you this but it doesn't matter what we believe. It matters what is written in the Bible. The Bible says otherwise to what you believe. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. It's your choice to do so. And I'm not going to be that guy that says you will burn in hell. I will simply say please keep your mind open. This is coming from someone that is not perfect either and doesn't claim to be. I am not judging you by any means. It's not my place.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

It matters because you said the entire Bible was up for interpretation. Are you saying you don't kill anything? You've never killed a bug? You've never set a mouse trap? We have to kill animals etc to survive. That's why they were put on this earth, for us to survive. I'm not saying we should just kill animals whenever we feel like it. I am very against killing an animal without the purpose of eating it or protecting yourself. The overall point is, of course that only applies to human beings.

Apparently you missed the part "without cause". To me it applies to every living thing, not just humans. My family finds it funny that I can't kill bugs unless they really are threatening me (such as some spiders we have had in our garage/house).

Actually, I'm not. I reading it for what it says and not trying to overanalyze, overscrutinize, or fit it to my lifestyle. There are things I would like to do in my life that aren't allowed according to the Bible. I used to be an alcoholic. I would love to drink again. The Bible states that we can't be inebriated. So I don't. The Bible isn't meant to be interpreted by us or arranged to our lives. We arrange our lives to it because it is the word of God. No matter what you want it to say.

There is no way for you not to interpret the Bible. First of all, it has been translated from multiple languages to get into English. That requires some interpretation. Second, as I said, you have to look at how people of the time this was written would view things like same sex relationships and same sex sex that occurs for different reasons. Homosexuality, as a word, did not exist when the Bible scriptures were written. So someone just kinda guessed that word to be the right translation. You don't know if they are right and there are Biblical scholars who claim the translation is wrong.

I don't believe in the Bible. My God comes from inside me and the faith I have in my experiences and knowledge of the world. I don't feel the need to believe some men from thousands of years ago who wrote stuff down and claimed it was from God. I can think for myself.

Neither did the word dinosaur. It was called a leviathan. What's your point? Just because it wasn't called homosexual doesn't mean it was okay. The Bible treats people a certain way? I didn't know the Bible was capable of treating people a way. It isn't alive. I think you meant the people of the age treated women that way. Some of the people of this age genocide each other. I'm sure God is not okay with that. How about you?

According to both the OT and the NT, men of the Bible and/or who wrote the Bible believed that God deemed women inferior in almost every way to men, including going so far as to demand that they should not be allowed to speak in church or teach the gospel.

God was more than okay with killing men, women and children, particularly in the OT. If those stories are not needed or don't represent the same God, then why keep them in the Bible. Do you believe God changed between the OT and the NT?

Show me where in the Bible it says black people weren't men. Again, you're fitting the Bible to your theories instead of reading it for what it says. Also, see the above point about genocide.

This is cut and paste from the "proof" you provided:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since December 2010.
It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since December 2010.
Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2009.

Do you not understand that this is how many other people viewed the Bible and blacks? Not me. Those for slavery and against interracial marriage used the Bible, specific passages from the Bible in fact, to justify themselves and their actions/bigotry. Now, many read those things differently. There are some who still believe that their translation/interpretation of those passages though justified that bigotry from before. Right or wrong, it is still about interpretations.

And God himself, of the OT, committed genocide. He wiped out the entire human race according to one of those stories because they were all evil. He condemned the men, women, and children to die in Sodom to die for not being hospitable and/or turning from Him. He plagued a couple of kings and their families because Abraham and Sarah lied by not telling them she was his wife. God knew the kings didn't know this and yet He punished them anyway. That is wrong. And defending it by saying it was in the OT is a cop out. Again, did God change from the OT to the NT? Why?

I won't be judged. Only non-believers will be judged.

Everyone is judged. Believers and non-believers. We will be judged on our actions, not our beliefs. How we lived our lives.

You summed up my argument for me. You said "Personally, I absolutely believe.....". I hate to tell you this but it doesn't matter what we believe. It matters what is written in the Bible. The Bible says otherwise to what you believe. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. It's your choice to do so. And I'm not going to be that guy that says you will burn in hell. I will simply say please keep your mind open. This is coming from someone that is not perfect either and doesn't claim to be. I am not judging you by any means. It's not my place.

No. It is all about what we believe. The Bible is not a book of facts. It requires faith to believe that those in the Bible who claim to be speaking for God are really doing so. There is nothing that proves that they are in fact speaking for what God wants.

My mind is open. I can accept that you may be right, just as I can accept that many other religious beliefs may be right. I don't believe they are because my heart tells me that the God I believe in could not do things to people as described in the Bible. That sounds much more like something people would do or ascribe to God based on their own biases and beliefs, particularly during that time when those scriptures were written.

You are in fact judging me by trying to tell me that your interpretation and/or beliefs about the Bible are the only ones that are valid because you believe them to be so.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

If you want, look up all those hundreds of reports and studies. The APS CREATED that to collect the information, now conduct more experimentation.

And that's one of nine. Keep trying, but the data's there.

Burden of proof is on the affirmative.

It's not my job to make your argument.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

There is over 30 years of evidence on this matter. If you can't find it, then it is because you aren't looking very hard.

It's not my job to look one ounce. Any looking I do would be a favor, not an obligation.

Again, you're just making a bunch of appeals to authority. If Dr. Soandso says the sky is green, are we supposed to believe him too?
 
Back
Top Bottom