• 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!

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%
  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%

  • Total voters
    93
God told me at coffee this morning, that people should chill, and everything will be just fine.---But he often talks in riddles, like he is puttin me om.
 
Again your understanding of the Bible is quit limited. You apply things that do not in any way apply to modern Christians or even the Jews since the destruction of the Temple.

Before you try to tell Christians about our own Bible, you may actually want to study it so you don't appear uninformed.
Look, if you think I'm getting something wrong, then kindly explain what you think that is rather than evading my points and making thinly veiled insults about my lack of understanding. All "modern" Christianity is, is "old" or "original" Christianity with different interpretations of scripture. Of course I understand that--and the need for it--they were mostly only really applicable at the time and place where the OT was written. What I don't understand is why one particular part of scripture is continually denied any opportunity to receive the same benefit of being read in the light of modern thinking. That is what I'm asking you to explain.
 
Because you are trying to take the old covenant between God and his chosen people (BEFORE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE <----- VERY IMPORTANT) and apply it to those who follow Jesus. Jesus made a new covenant with us all upon his death. So the old laws did not pass away, but they are not for Christan's to follow and they never have been.

The fact that you do not know this says allot about your general Bible knowledge.

so if they dont have to follow old testament laws, why do they quote them about gays?
 
Because you are trying to take the old covenant between God and his chosen people (BEFORE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE <----- VERY IMPORTANT) and apply it to those who follow Jesus. Jesus made a new covenant with us all upon his death. So the old laws did not pass away, but they are not for Christan's to follow and they never have been.

The fact that you do not know this says allot about your general Bible knowledge.
Forget the covenant, it is not relevant to this discussion. The passage Christians quote on homosexuality is in Leviticus 18. The passage I mentioned about tattoos is in Leviticus 19. Why is one of those passages more important than the other?
 
Look, if you think I'm getting something wrong, then kindly explain what you think that is rather than evading my points and making thinly veiled insults about my lack of understanding.

Not avoiding it, just tired of people trying to tell me I don't know my own Bible. No insult either, just an observation.

It is getting tiering.

All "modern" Christianity is, is "old" or "original" Christianity with different interpretations of scripture. Of course I understand that--and the need for it--they were mostly only really applicable at the time and place where the OT was written. What I don't understand is why one particular part of scripture is continually denied any opportunity to receive the same benefit of being read in the light of modern thinking. That is what I'm asking you to explain.

It should never have been used to deny anyone anything. But the NT also condemns homosexuality. Leviticus law also gives us a look into what is acceptable to God.
 
Forget the covenant, it is not relevant to this discussion. The passage Christians quote on homosexuality is in Leviticus 18. The passage I mentioned about tattoos is in Leviticus 19. Why is one of those passages more important than the other?

They are not when it comes down to some understanding about God. The problem starts when females dress like whores, it is not just the wearing of pierced items or tattoos. It was about keeping his chosen people separate (at the time) from the gentiles.

Some Christians do not get it and go OT for the wrong reasons, like the Phelps family. God does not hate fags, nor does he want us to treat them in any other way then we want to be treated ourselves. This does not however mean we should except the sin and condone it.
 
so if they dont have to follow old testament laws, why do they quote them about gays?

Because they don't know any better. It also makes no real difference as Paul said it is wrong in the NT as well.
 
Not avoiding it, just tired of people trying to tell me I don't know my own Bible. No insult either, just an observation.

It is getting tiering.
Not by me. I am merely pointing out the ambiguities. I haven't told anyone they don't know their own bible.



It should never have been used to deny anyone anything. But the NT also condemns homosexuality. Leviticus law also gives us a look into what is acceptable to God.
Only by St. Paul. As far as I know, Jesus never said anything about it. Unless you, with your superior bible knowledge can prove otherwise.
 
Not avoiding it, just tired of people trying to tell me I don't know my own Bible. No insult either, just an observation.

It is getting tiering.



It should never have been used to deny anyone anything. But the NT also condemns homosexuality. Leviticus law also gives us a look into what is acceptable to God.

Neither mention homosexuality at all. The word isn't in the bible. And, what it does mention is quite specific to MEN. So what of women?

Regardless, it really doesn't matter what's in someone's mythical book of rules. What the rest of us can't figure out is why it matters to someone who follows some mythical book of rules whether or not I enter into a legal contract with a woman? I'll just never get why people feel the need to stick their nose in my business.
 
Why does arguing about religion always have the same result??
 
Not by me. I am merely pointing out the ambiguities. I haven't told anyone they don't know their own bible.

Not pointing the finger at you. It is allot of others. You have read the thread so i am certain you know.

Only by St. Paul. As far as I know, Jesus never said anything about it. Unless you, with your superior bible knowledge can prove otherwise.

No. Only by Paul. Since he spoke directly to Jesus, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Paul is also backed up by the fact it is condemned in the OT as well.
 
Regardless, it really doesn't matter what's in someone's mythical book of rules. What the rest of us can't figure out is why it matters to someone who follows some mythical book of rules whether or not I enter into a legal contract with a woman? I'll just never get why people feel the need to stick their nose in my business.

Blackdog already admitted he doesn't care one bit about the Constitution. He wants to impose his moral and religious standards on others. Nothing new.
 
They are not when it comes down to some understanding about God. The problem starts when females dress like whores, it is not just the wearing of pierced items or tattoos. It was about keeping his chosen people separate (at the time) from the gentiles.

Some Christians do not get it and go OT for the wrong reasons, like the Phelps family. God does not hate fags, nor does he want us to treat them in any other way then we want to be treated ourselves. This does not however mean we should except the sin and condone it.
But that's what you're not answering. Th fact is you still see homosexuality as a sin. You don't see eating lobster as a sin. Nor do you see tattoos or piercings as a sin. Why is one still a sin and not the others?
 
Because they don't know any better. It also makes no real difference as Paul said it is wrong in the NT as well.

he also claims the same of the effeminate, and the condemnation of homosexuality depends on the version of the bible, and how you interpret the passage in the KJV-nor abusers of themselves with mankind, which is rather ambigous

but in the NIV-nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.



off topic, what about female prostitutes?
 
Last edited:
Neither mention homosexuality at all. The word isn't in the bible. And, what it does mention is quite specific to MEN. So what of women?

Actually it does, and I have posted the verse in this thread already.

Regardless, it really doesn't matter what's in someone's mythical book of rules. What the rest of us can't figure out is why it matters to someone who follows some mythical book of rules whether or not I enter into a legal contract with a woman? I'll just never get why people feel the need to stick their nose in my business.

It has nothing to do with sticking anything anyplace. We as Christians are not allowed to support sin. I have posted what Jesus said about it.

What you call "someone's mythical book" as if to degrade it somehow, is scared text to us who believe.
 
It has nothing to do with sticking anything anyplace. We as Christians are not allowed to support sin.

Are you allowed to impose your beliefs on non-believers?
 
he also claims the same of the effeminate, and the condemnation of homosexuality depends on the version of the bible, and how you interpret the passage in the KJV-nor abusers of themselves with mankind, which is rather ambigous

but in the NIV-nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

The KJV as much as I love it, is the absolute worse translation. For example it says "Thou shall not kill" when in it's actual Hebrew is says "Thou shall not murder."

The new translations taken directly from the source in it's original Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic like the NIV are much better.

off topic, what about female prostitutes?

What about it?
 
Are you allowed to impose your beliefs on non-believers?

Yes. In fact we are told to go out and talk to people in his name. This has nothing to do with forcing though. In this case we are not forcing anyone to do anything. We are exercising our right to vote and be active in OUR government.
 
Last edited:
No. Only by Paul. Since he spoke directly to Jesus, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Paul is also backed up by the fact it is condemned in the OT as well.
Paul also said women should remain silent in church and condemned those who wore gold or pearls; both also backed up by the OT. So my point about the double standards of interpretation when it comes to homosexuality still stands.
 
OK I am done people. At this point this is becoming nothing but a personal attack on Christianity, the Bible and it's laws, and my understanding of the law.

It has nothing to do with the topic and I am pretty sick of answering the same questions over and over again.

:2wave:
 
well, it specificly mentions male prostitutes, so is female prostitution a sin under NT law?

Is it fornication or adultery? That should pretty much fill you in.
 
Yes. In fact we are told to go out and talk to people in his name.

I didn't say talk, I said impose your will. Different things. Are believers allowed, or required, to impose Christianity or christian values on non-believers by force?

This has nothing to do with forcing though. In this case we are not forcing anyone to do anything. We are exercising our right to vote and be active in OUR government.

Sure, I'm not necessarily claiming you're imposing your will. You might be, you might not be.
 
Back
Top Bottom