• 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!

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage?

  • Because I’m gay/lesbian

    Votes: 3 2.2%

  • Because it’s an equal rights issue

    Votes: 78 57.4%

  • Because gays/lesbians love each other too

    Votes: 6 4.4%

  • Because I despise bigots/haters

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Because I don’t want to be labeled a bigot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I’m opposed to gay marriage

    Votes: 13 9.6%

  • I don’t care, either way

    Votes: 16 11.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 19 14.0%
  • Total voters
    136
  • Poll closed .
I repeat: this is not a question of 'rights'. 'Rights', as such, do not exist; what is actually extant is the ability of individuals to behave as they will and make that will a right - the right to Will in such a way that other men cannot actively defy it.

In the case of gay marriage, gay individuals have every 'right' to conduct a ceremony as they wish, and they are then as validly married as the Traditionalist couple before the altar. And the Traditionalist couple has absolutely not the slightest 'right' to deny them that.

To argue otherwise - to suggest that 'cultural norms' are capable of overriding the individual Will - is to slip into collectivism.

Before the individual, civilizational routine falls away like discarded chaff; God Himself quakes in fear.
 
ChrisL said:
You forgot about sacrificing lambs and calves. :lol:
Click to expand...

Temporary symbolic proxies that allowed those prior to Jesus to have their sins covered under the Devine law that requires the most severe penalty for sinning against Almighty God while showing the utmost mercy to the people He loves.

Interesting: under the Old Testament it was the duty of the High Priest to offer the annual animal sacrifice on behalf of all of the people. On the day Jesus was crucified, it was also the High Priest who unwittingly delivered Jesus over Pilate to be killed on behalf of all the people. Some historical accounts say he later realized everything that happened to the letter as the OT prescribed and dedicated his life to Jesus.
 
Smeagol said:
Temporary symbolic proxies that allowed those prior to Jesus to have their sins covered.

Interesting: under the Old Testament it was the duty of the High Priest to offer the annual animal sacrifice on behalf of all of the people. On the day Jesus was crucified, it was also the High Priest who unwittingly delivered Jesus over Pilate to be killed on behalf of all the people. Some historical accounts say he later realized everything that happened to the letter as the OT prescribed and dedicated his life to Jesus.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some links on that. I've never heard of a "high priest" in the OT. Just people sacrificing their OWN cattle (usually the BEST one) on occasion to "please" God.
 
ChrisL said:
I'd like to see some links on that. I've never heard of a "high priest" in the OT. Just people sacrificing their OWN cattle (usually the BEST one) on occasion to "please" God.
Click to expand...

Old Testament outline: Leviticus 16. Leviticus 16 NIV - The Day of Atonement - The LORD spoke - Bible Gateway
New Testament unwitting fulfillment: Matthew 26 Matthew 26:1-4 NIV - The Plot Against Jesus - When Jesus had - Bible Gateway

List of High Priests of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Caiaphas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Dooble said:
Not sure if a poll like this has already been posted, but these are questions that I've been mulling over for sometime. Would appreciate some honest input.
Click to expand...

As a heterosexual female, I could care less if two consenting same sexed people want to get married. This does not effect me in the slightest. It's a contract between two people and what they do is their business.
 
Men can do something women can't do. Women can do something men can't do. Equal Rights issue.
 
The answer is two part for me, both supporting the choice that it's an equal rights issue:

1) the good ole "two consenting adults making a consensual contract that don't impose on the rights of others"
and
2) Because homosexuality, IMO, is not a choice. It is something they are born with, the preference for the same sex. As some people are born with their left hand being dominate, some people are born with blue eyes etc. And so 'preference in gender' should be added to the civil rights act, IMO.

Because both are true, it's a equal rights issue. If it were somehow proven homosexuals were making a choice, that it was not a genetic necessity that they are attracted to their own gender, the view would still be the same due to premise 1, though less demanding. But seeing as nearly every mammal species has homosexuality and I do not believe every species is conscious enough to make such a choice beyond natural urges, I confidently believe it is a natural preference for which they should not have less rights. Ergo, the injustice of not giving gays the same economic advantage due to a biological choice is that much more severe and the correction that much more demanding.

I'm also not one that pounds the table that it must be called marriage. Marriage very well may be a religious term to many. But if it is a religious term, then it should not be a government term. Whatever the government terms it to be should be what it's called for everyone, however.

The best option, IMO, would be to stop giving any married or contractually unioned partners, hetero or homo, any type of government benefits. Marriage shouldn't be a legal issue at all, but an issue of two people promising their love for each other. Why make it more complicated than that?
 
Smeagol said:
A HUGE misunderstanding of the Old Testament. The section of the OT to which I think you're referring served two purposes:

1. It was the civil code of ancient Israel similar to our laws and constitution. That particular aspect of the OT, or "The Law", applied only to how the government of ancient Israel was to enforce its laws from the time of Moses to the reign of King Josiah when Israel lost is national sovereignty. In America we also have laws and penalties that if the United States were to be dissolved would no longer apply. Hypothetically, if someone reading our laws outside of the US or at some point in the distant future saw where certain crimes call for the death penalty, that would not apply to them because they would be outside of the jurisdiction of the government of the United States or that state where a capital crime was described.

2. The above all said, the Old Testament is also the word of God expressed to the human race. Another important aspect of the OT was to define sin (things that offend God), show mankind who otherwise think they are doing nothing wrong in the eyes of the Creator what displeases him and to give mankind a sense of just how serious God considers those offenses by the penalties He calls for if he were writing the laws of a society, yet retrains Himself because of his love and mercy toward people. People are real good at cherry picking verses out of the Bible without taking the entire Bible into context as it should be read, but even under ancient Israeli law you can read about numerous accounts where people violated capital crimes and the death penalty was rarely imposed usually in cases where the offending party was truly sorry for what they did because God loves us. Just because we are not living under ancient Israeli law, it doesn't make the things God defines as sinful okay. He still considers them just as wrong and simply used ancient Israel as an example to communicate his will it all societies throughout history. And being true to his word, he still required the death penalty for sin but because of his love and mercy applied it to Himself instead of us in the person of His Son so the the requirements of justice would be fulfilled and we could be legally forgiven on the basis of faith in and surrender to Him. This does not mean however that any sin is henceforth no longer offensive to God unless God later declared it to be fulfilled as in the case of kosher dietary laws, seemingly (and I might be wrong) put there to allow Jesus to be a perfect sin sacrifice undefiled by unclean meats himself or in his earthly lineage as the kosher dietary laws were lifted only after his crucifixion. Acts 10:9-:15
Click to expand...

So things like wearing mixed linen's, and not having a bar on your roof are sins? :lol:
 
Dooble said:
Being true to how you think God made you does not exonerate you from His Justice.
Click to expand...

I always enjoy the fundamentalist mindset that picks and chooses the edicts to obey. The same chapter saying men shouldn't lay with men as they do women has a laundry list of other obmonitions few modern people adher to. My favorite is can only marry virgins unless your brother dies and then you have to marry his wife.

Now as for who can sit in judgement, I'd recommend the fundies sit back and let Gawd handle the judgement side of religion- great societies have risen and fallen quite independent of homosexuality. Great Empires were build by elite military units of gay lovers. Most classical empires have lasted far longer than ours with homosexuality out in the open.

Marriage isn't a religious thing. My wife and I have a marriage certificate but we never entered a Church, we stood infront of a Judge.
 
Your Star said:
Nope, this is how God made me, and He loves me just the way I am. You can believe whatever you want, that God is this ultra-strict taskmaster who cares more about how closely people live to what PEOPLE wrote 2,000 years ago(which 99% of Christians ignore the parts about bacon, clothing etc BTW), but I'm going to believe in the God that has showed Himself to me, and make sure that for my whole life that love, peace, forgiveness, and good will towards men are the principles that guide me.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that God loves you. He loves all of His creations. No one can express a greater love than God. The problem is, God is also bound by laws. They are higher laws, but are laws, nonetheless. The scriptures are clear on how marriage is to be conducted. If you truly believe that God intended you to be a lesbian, then I say roll with that, and I wish you luck. Final Judgement will be based on what we know, so perhaps things will somehow turn out just fine for you. In the final analysis, we all will end up where we truly want to be, anyways, and that's why I typically avoid beating people over the head with religious stuff.
 
Dooble said:
Not sure if a poll like this has already been posted, but these are questions that I've been mulling over for sometime. Would appreciate some honest input.
Click to expand...

I'm neutral, falling down closest on the side of live-and-let-live. I don't really look at it as an equal rights issue, although I'm sure many do. It's changing customs, that's what it's all about. My life...the lives of my family and friends...basically, no one, I think, is going to be adversely effected by supporting two people who love each other. Leave them the hell alone. Let them marry. If others' marriages can't stand up to what they perceive as an "assault," that's their problem.
 
Dooble said:
Not sure if a poll like this has already been posted, but these are questions that I've been mulling over for sometime. Would appreciate some honest input.
Click to expand...

This is the way I look at it. If people like you believe it's wrong, then it must be okay.
 
spanky said:
This is the way I look at it. If people like you believe it's wrong, then it must be okay.
Click to expand...
It is OK for many people, and it will be OK for a lot more people as more and more states become enlightened (cave in). It'll never be OK with me, so plan on me sharing my views from to time. ;)
 
notquiteright said:
I always enjoy the fundamentalist mindset that picks and chooses the edicts to obey.
Click to expand...
I don't. That's why it's so crucial to have ongoing divine revelation on the earth.

notquiteright said:
Now as for who can sit in judgement, I'd recommend the fundies sit back and let Gawd handle the judgement side of religion-
Click to expand...
Excellent advice! But let's be sure your side of the spectrum extends us "fundies" the same courtesy. ;)

notquiteright said:
Marriage isn't a religious thing.
Click to expand...
Your marriage may not be, but ours is.
 
Dooble said:
You think the existence of God is conditional on human level of interest. You also believe the Bible is subject to atheist approval. These two points, alone, prove that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The Bible speaks only of man and woman coming together in marriage. In fact it is a commandment. No where does it say homosexuals are to do likewise.
Click to expand...

Disagree
The Bible and our constitution are similar as they use few words; both are vague and lacking in detail. .
But, marriage , to the best of my knowledge is no "commandment" ....normal or homo....
 
Dooble said:
I don't. That's why it's so crucial to have ongoing divine revelation on the earth.

Excellent advice! But let's be sure your side of the spectrum extends us "fundies" the same courtesy. ;)

Your marriage may not be, but ours is.
Click to expand...

So what exactly is your ongoing Divine Revelation? does it allow you to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you obey and what parts you get to ignore?

Oh I don't see the secular world attempting to suppress fundie religions. More like refusing to allow fundie religions from dominating the national discussion on our society.

No marriage is a PERSONAL thing, to you religious to me secular. Marriage comes in a wide variety of forms, anyone attempting to push it into the domain of religion ignores millions of citizens who have marriage certificates but never set foot in a Church.
 
Quite a "coincidence" that this thread was started on Christmas Day.

Reading through the rules, one may be warned for "Being a jerk" or posting inflammatory, offensive material meant to inflame, being a troll.

Christianity and the Bible, which forbids homosexuality, has been under attack from the same sex marriage advocates for thirty years. Given the nature of this forum, a thread such as this would be guaranteed to have many posters immediately leap to pick one of the five positive responses as opposed to the single negative response.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the fact of the timing and the nature of the thread seems to be a gloating, in your face intent to offend the Christians on this forum. At the very least, insensitive and intolerant of the beliefs of Christians.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
Disagree
The Bible and our constitution are similar as they use few words; both are vague and lacking in detail. .
But, marriage , to the best of my knowledge is no "commandment" ....normal or homo....
Click to expand...
Genesis 2:24

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh".

He's quite clear on what man shall do. Now, you can play stupid and say "But the word commandment is never used in that scripture, so we don't have to do it". And then my answer will be "When God says "you shall do this", it doesn't mean you can just blow off what he says and expect to have his support.
 
Ray410 said:
Quite a "coincidence" that this thread was started on Christmas Day.

Reading through the rules, one may be warned for "Being a jerk" or posting inflammatory, offensive material meant to inflame, being a troll.

Christianity and the Bible, which forbids homosexuality, has been under attack from the same sex marriage advocates for thirty years. Given the nature of this forum, a thread such as this would be guaranteed to have many posters immediately leap to pick one of the five positive responses as opposed to the single negative response.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the fact of the timing and the nature of the thread seems to be a gloating, in your face intent to offend the Christians on this forum. At the very least, insensitive and intolerant of the beliefs of Christians.
Click to expand...
The thread is aimed at those who support gay marriage. I put the one negative response in for the non-supporters who want to participate as well.
 
Moderator's Warning:
If you feel something is breaking a rule, please report it. Lets not derail this thread making accusations or musings regarding possible rules violations. Everyone stay on topic
 
Dooble said:
Being true to how you think God made you does not exonerate you from His Justice.
Click to expand...

This could be stated as follows

Being true to how you think God has created humanity does not mean you - a human - can interpret or even know what your deity did or did not decide.


Another poster stated "marriage is a religious statement" (or something similar) No one with any knowledge of history would make such a claim but then lots of people don't have much knowledge of history.
 
Dooble said:
Genesis 2:24

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh".

He's quite clear on what man shall do. Now, you can play stupid and say "But the word commandment is never used in that scripture, so we don't have to do it". And then my answer will be "When God says "you shall do this", it doesn't mean you can just blow off what he says and expect to have his support.
Click to expand...

Sadly however this is precisely the issue with trying to justify secular law based on religious text.

Should we make it illegal for a man NOT to become married, since it states he SHALL leave his parents and cleave unto a wife? What if he wishes to leave his parents but not take on a wife? What about those who still have to live with their parents while being married...shall we disallow them from doing so because it conflicts with gods word? Also, this gives zero indication of whether or not a WOMAN can choose to leave her father and mother and "cleave" unto a husband....shall we make it unlawful for a woman to initiate a marriage?
 
Somerville said:
This could be stated as follows

Being true to how you think God has created humanity does not mean you - a human - can interpret or even know what your deity did or did not decide.
Click to expand...
I see. So you're saying God is some elusive entity that really has no interest in communicating with us?


Somerville said:
Another poster stated "marriage is a religious statement" (or something similar) No one with any knowledge of history would make such a claim but then lots of people don't have much knowledge of history.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that I should study history, instead of scripture, to learn about God?
 
Dooble said:
Not sure if a poll like this has already been posted, but these are questions that I've been mulling over for sometime. Would appreciate some honest input.
Click to expand...

if you allow some consenting adults to do a thing...ALL consenting adults should be able to do a thing
 
Zyphlin said:
Sadly however this is precisely the issue with trying to justify secular law based on religious text.

Should we make it illegal for a man NOT to become married, since it states he SHALL leave his parents and cleave unto a wife? What if he wishes to leave his parents but not take on a wife? What about those who still have to live with their parents while being married...shall we disallow them from doing so because it conflicts with gods word? Also, this gives zero indication of whether or not a WOMAN can choose to leave her father and mother and "cleave" unto a husband....shall we make it unlawful for a woman to initiate a marriage?
Click to expand...
We have to do our best to follow God's commandments, even if due to events beyond our control, that it comes down to pure intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom