• 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
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.

Not really. Those are not sins. Paul did not say those are sins. Those were the rules in HIS Church and he was passing them to another.

Now you are just reaching for loop holes.

As I said, we are done here.
 
Actually it does, and I have posted the verse in this thread already.
No, it doesn't. The word didn't even exist at the time that men wrote the bible. Or when they rewrote it.


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.
Yes, I know it's sacred text to you. I'm not 'degrading' anything. I'm simply stating what it is. A book of mythology, same as stories about Zeus or Osirus (though obscenely more boring). It is mythical, of no more significance than that. That's not 'degrading' it anymore than calling a Stephen King book a book of fiction is degrading it. It's just a simple statement of fact. Now, you are of course free to worship Stephen King's writings or anyone elses, such as Hubbard, and call all of them 'sacred'. I'm still going to call a spade a spade. Hubbards writings are fictional and mythical. So is the bible, so is the quran, so are the upinshads, so on and so forth. Obviously, some are more interesting than others, but in the end, they are all the same - works of fiction. Books. Words on paper written by men who wanted to tell a story.

You want to base YOUR life on a book, go right ahead. I just can't comprehend why you feel the need to try and make me abide by the rules some man wrote down in the book you've chosen as your sacred text. I wouldn't allow it for Scientologists, Muslims, Mormon, Hindus, Jews, and I'm sure as **** not going to idly sit by and allow Christians to do it either.

Jesus ****ing christ, if we abided by all the rules in everyone's chosen 'sacred text', we wouldn't be allowed to do a goddamn thing. :lol:

So, your book tells you that you can't 'allow' sin. Well, unless you're going to outlaw anal sex, pre-marital sex, taking your 'lord's' name in vain, disobeying one's parents, lying, so on and so forth, then you are not being honest about your reasons. Do you fight to make it illegal to lie? Do you fight to put people in prison for typing "jesus ****ing christ" like I just did above? Do you fight to put video cameras in everyone's home to make sure no man ever sticks his dick in his wife's ass? No, you don't. Why not? Why don't you rail against every single sin listed in the bible? Every. single. one of them. Shouldn't they all be illegal, in the eyes of christians? Shouldn't we all be policed and forced to adhere to the rules set forth in the book you've chosen to obey?

And, what about free will?
 
No, it doesn't. The word didn't even exist at the time that men wrote the bible. Or when they rewrote it.



Yes, I know it's sacred text to you. I'm not 'degrading' anything. I'm simply stating what it is. A book of mythology, same as stories about Zeus or Osirus (though obscenely more boring). It is mythical, of no more significance than that. That's not 'degrading' it anymore than calling a Stephen King book a book of fiction is degrading it. It's just a simple statement of fact. Now, you are of course free to worship Stephen King's writings or anyone elses, such as Hubbard, and call all of them 'sacred'. I'm still going to call a spade a spade. Hubbards writings are fictional and mythical. So is the bible, so is the quran, so are the upinshads, so on and so forth. Obviously, some are more interesting than others, but in the end, they are all the same - works of fiction. Books. Words on paper written by men who wanted to tell a story.

You want to base YOUR life on a book, go right ahead. I just can't comprehend why you feel the need to try and make me abide by the rules some man wrote down in the book you've chosen as your sacred text. I wouldn't allow it for Scientologists, Muslims, Mormon, Hindus, Jews, and I'm sure as **** not going to idly sit by and allow Christians to do it either.

Jesus ****ing christ, if we abided by all the rules in everyone's chosen 'sacred text', we wouldn't be allowed to do a goddamn thing. :lol:

So, your book tells you that you can't 'allow' sin. Well, unless you're going to outlaw anal sex, pre-marital sex, taking your 'lord's' name in vain, disobeying one's parents, lying, so on and so forth, then you are not being honest about your reasons. Do you fight to make it illegal to lie? Do you fight to put people in prison for typing "jesus ****ing christ" like I just did above? Do you fight to put video cameras in everyone's home to make sure no man ever sticks his dick in his wife's ass? No, you don't. Why not? Why don't you rail against every single sin listed in the bible? Every. single. one of them. Shouldn't they all be illegal, in the eyes of christians? Shouldn't we all be policed and forced to adhere to the rules set forth in the book you've chosen to obey?

And, what about free will?

yeah, your right, and why should americans follow some mythical text written by a bunch of old farts in the 1700's, or blokes in fancy white buildings
 
Not really. Those are not sins. Paul did not say those are sins. Those were the rules in HIS Church and he was passing them to another.

Now you are just reaching for loop holes.

As I said, we are done here.
No, I'm not reaching for anything... except an answer to the question I've asked--repeatedly--about why scripture interpreted as pertaining to homosexuality is immutable, whereas everything else is apparently not?

Also, as you seem happy enough to accept that Paul's comments about women were only his own rules--not Jesus'--why can't you consider his comments on homosexuality in the same way? I mean, it seems inconceivable to me that he would be the only one of the apostles to have had Jesus' thoughts on the matter, so why was he the only one who mentioned it? Could it be that they too were only his personal thoughts and nothing to do with anything Jesus said to him?
 
No, I'm not reaching for anything... except an answer to the question I've asked--repeatedly--about why scripture interpreted as pertaining to homosexuality is immutable, whereas everything else is apparently not?

No insult to you Ant as you have been quit plesant, and I feel I owe you an answer.

This is not a Bible study, it would take me hours to post examples of what is acceptable and what is not.

You have to read it in context and study the history as well as the modern aspects. This is not something that can be covered in a post on a message board.

Also, as you seem happy enough to accept that Paul's comments about women were only his own rules--not Jesus'--why can't you consider his comments on homosexuality in the same way? I mean, it seems inconceivable to me that he would be the only one of the apostles to have had Jesus' thoughts on the matter, so why was he the only one who mentioned it? Could it be that they too were only his personal thoughts and nothing to do with anything Jesus said to him?

You have to read it in context with what comes before and after.

If you were really that concerned, you would pick up a Bible and really study it.

Then and only then, could you even begin to understand how it all works together.

I have been at this for many years, and for someone to come in who has barely cracked it open to tell me I must be wrong is rather disingenuous.

So with that, I bid you good day.
 
You have to read it in context with what comes before and after.

well in that case perhaps homsexuality isn't such a bad thing, as the next passage after is saying how all will be forgived by the grace of Christ or something to that effect
 
Sins are graded --1 thru 10. --I just do little sins, like peep:mrgreen:
 
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.

Well, one could say that he may have spoken directly to Jesus' ghost, but during the time of Jesus' actual ministry, Paul never even met him.

His gospels supposedly came from "revelation" by Jesus Christ. I don't know if that means he felt they came by direct conversation with the ghost of Jesus or if he thought Jesus put the gospels into his head through some divine means.

Either way, it's a little disingenuous to say he spoke directly to Jesus. All one can honestly say is that Paul claimed to have been in direct contact with Jesus, but it is known that he never met Jesus while Jesus was alive.

To me, that fact means that if something is only found in Paul's gospels, but not the other gospels one should probably view those gospels with a certain "This dude believed that the voices in his head were Jesus" type of skepticism. Doesn't mean the voices weren't Jesus, but I think a skeptical view of those gospels may be well placed.

Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
This happens often, I find. Someone with a very specific sort of reading of the Bible defends it by saying:

1. It's too complicated to discuss.
2. You don't know anything.
3. You're attacking Christianity.

These are all defensive obfuscations that lead to no learning for anyone.

BTW, no one said, Blackdog, that you don't know something. For example, back those many posts ago I asked some questions you still haven't answered. I suggested some linguistic explanations that put your view of the Bible into question. Rather than defend your views, you attacked me as ignorant.

It's a weak set of ideas that doesn't merit a defense. It's a weak debater who runs away when challenged. Unfortunately, for many people, scriptures are the one text we can think with (i.e., we draw conclusions about other things based on them) but mustn't think about (i.e., we must not investigate them beyond the dogma we've been taught).

Personally, I think we have to investigate the Bible as we would any other text. That doesn't mean relegating it to the status of a fairy tale, but it does mean engaging with a variety of interpretations with a tendency to challenge them all. We do that with every other idea and every other text--why not with this one? Why is it necessary to run away and hide in the warm, easy comfort of what you already "know?"
 
We do that with every other idea and every other text--why not with this one? Why is it necessary to run away and hide in the warm, easy comfort of what you already "know?"

'Cause questioning the Bible is un-Amurrican!

I have no problem with level headed Christians, its just the Bible huggers who annoyingly ram their ideologies down your throat every day. These people have built themselves a nice and safe hut on top of the hill which prevents them from being criticized. This is usually justified with a "oh but you don't understand" or "it takes hours to explain" blah blah blah.
 
This happens often, I find. Someone with a very specific sort of reading of the Bible defends it by saying:

1. It's too complicated to discuss.
2. You don't know anything.
3. You're attacking Christianity.

Because they are true. It is to complicated when taken out of context and then try to explain it to someone that wants to do nothing more than prove it wrong.

Why would I want to waist my time? Or anyone for that matter?

These are all defensive obfuscations that lead to no learning for anyone.

If you feel that way it is fine.

I can tell you it has more to do with being feed up with the same questions over and over again. That could easily be answered by opening up the Bible and reading it.

BTW, no one said, Blackdog, that you don't know something. For example, back those many posts ago I asked some questions you still haven't answered. I suggested some linguistic explanations that put your view of the Bible into question. Rather than defend your views, you attacked me as ignorant.

I did not attack you or say you are ignorant, that is a lie. I did however bring into question your biblical knowledge which you have shown to be limited.

It's a weak set of ideas that doesn't merit a defense. It's a weak debater who runs away when challenged. Unfortunately, for many people, scriptures are the one text we can think with (i.e., we draw conclusions about other things based on them) but mustn't think about (i.e., we must not investigate them beyond the dogma we've been taught).

What is weak is debating what? 6 different people at the same time who have no clue asking different questions that have already been answered no less. This over and over again when nothing I say can or will affect the preconceived notions they already have. So again why should I bother?

I already told you if you want to continue we can go to the proper forum.

Personally, I think we have to investigate the Bible as we would any other text.

Don't you think this has already been done? By better men than you or I.

That doesn't mean relegating it to the status of a fairy tale, but it does mean engaging with a variety of interpretations with a tendency to challenge them all.

I take it on faith, so I don't really feel the need to challenge it. If you do then actually crack it open and read.

We do that with every other idea and every other text--why not with this one? Why is it necessary to run away and hide in the warm, easy comfort of what you already "know?"

Because I would be having the same debate every week with another "I saw this on the Internet" person.

It is getting old, and is pointless. If you really wanted to examine or learn, you would not be asking me on a Internet message board for debating politics now would you?

So again I bid you a good day.
 
Last edited:
It is a matter of equal rights. Science has shown that sexual orientation is a matter of brain and spinal chord structure. It is not a choice.

Americans really need to get over their homophobia. They are regular people who are slightly different from you, like racial differences.

Fankly homophobia, in my book, is indistinguishable from bigotry.
 
It is a matter of equal rights. Science has shown that sexual orientation is a matter of brain and spinal chord structure. It is not a choice.

Even if it were a choice, people have a right to choose things. Religion, for instance.
 
Blackdog, what you are essentially doing here is saying, "You all don't know enough to comment but it's too complicated to explain, so you just have to shut up and take my word for it!" Well I'm sorry but that just isn't good enough. You cited your interpretation the bible as the source of your opposition to gay marriage. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for people to challenge that source--not the bible itself, but your interpretation of it--and expect you to expend a little effort in explaining yourself.

Here's an idea: try to concentrate on just one thing. Forget about all the comparative stuff--as I already know why most former OT forbiddances are now deemed acceptable--just tell me why Paul's comments on homosexuality, in the context of when they were written and who they were written to, are deemed immutable. I mean, surely it will be worth that extra bit of effort if it wins you the argument?
 
Blackdog, what you are essentially doing here is saying, "You all don't know enough to comment but it's too complicated to explain, so you just have to shut up and take my word for it!" Well I'm sorry but that just isn't good enough.

Actually it is good enough. I don't care if you understand my reasoning or not. So I don't feel the need to explain myself.

All you need to know is...

#1 I do not support Gay marraige.
#2 My religion is part of the reason.
#3 Your opinion of my religion is irrelevant to this matter.

I can't make it any more simple than that.

You cited your interpretation the bible as the source of your opposition to gay marriage. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for people to challenge that source--not the bible itself, but your interpretation of it--and expect you to expend a little effort in explaining yourself.

It becomes unreasonable when I have already explained why. If people don't want to respect that it is OK. In the end I don't need to explain how or why my religion says this. The Bible is available to anyone who would like to read it.

Here's an idea: try to concentrate on just one thing. Forget about all the comparative stuff--as I already know why most former OT forbiddances are now deemed acceptable--just tell me why Paul's comments on homosexuality, in the context of when they were written and who they were written to, are deemed immutable. I mean, surely it will be worth that extra bit of effort if it wins you the argument?

Is that what this is about to you? Who wins an argument?

Well You win! Yea we are done here, lol.
 
Last edited:
Well, one could say that he may have spoken directly to Jesus' ghost, but during the time of Jesus' actual ministry, Paul never even met him.

Jesus is God, he is not a ghost. So Paul spoke to Jesus.

His gospels supposedly came from "revelation" by Jesus Christ. I don't know if that means he felt they came by direct conversation with the ghost of Jesus or if he thought Jesus put the gospels into his head through some divine means.

Again Jesus is not a ghost.

Either way, it's a little disingenuous to say he spoke directly to Jesus. All one can honestly say is that Paul claimed to have been in direct contact with Jesus, but it is known that he never met Jesus while Jesus was alive.

What is disingenuous is to state matter of faculty that he was a "ghost" when this is absolutely not true according to Scripture.

No one said Moses met God in physical form, and yet people say Moses spoke directly to God with no inference of ghosts.

You are making this about semantics and wholly unrelated to my post or point.

To me, that fact means that if something is only found in Paul's gospels, but not the other gospels one should probably view those gospels with a certain "This dude believed that the voices in his head were Jesus" type of skepticism. Doesn't mean the voices weren't Jesus, but I think a skeptical view of those gospels may be well placed.

Just sayin'.

It is not a fact. If this was the case, anyone who spoke to Jesus or God or claimed it, would have been held to the same scrutiny.

Just sayin'. ;)
 
Because they are true. It is to complicated when taken out of context and then try to explain it to someone that wants to do nothing more than prove it wrong.

Why would I want to waist my time? Or anyone for that matter?
The problem with this argument is that it applies equally to every other problem/situation/disagreement one might have on an internet forum. It's an argument against participating in these discussions at all.



If you feel that way it is fine.

I can tell you it has more to do with being feed up with the same questions over and over again. That could easily be answered by opening up the Bible and reading it.
You get the same questions when you haven't provided answers. And the simple fact is that if you work this hard to avoid articulating your position, you probably don't understand it that well yourself.
I did not attack you or say you are ignorant, that is a lie. I did however bring into question your biblical knowledge which you have shown to be limited.
Calling me ignorant of the Bible is still calling me ignorant. I don't mind it really--I DO mind using that tactic as a way to avoid seeing your ideas challenged.
What is weak is debating what? 6 different people at the same time who have no clue asking different questions that have already been answered no less. This over and over again when nothing I say can or will affect the preconceived notions they already have. So again why should I bother?
Hard as it is for you to understand this, the rest of us feel the same way about you. And yet, we labor in this vineyard.
Don't you think this has already been done? By better men than you or I.



I take it on faith, so I don't really feel the need to challenge it. If you do then actually crack it open and read.
Then you are putting your faith in the men whom you've trusted to interpret, not in the text itself.
So again I bid you a good day.
You say that a lot, but I don't think you can let someone else get the last word on this, can you?
 
Last edited:
It is a matter of equal rights. Science has shown that sexual orientation is a matter of brain and spinal chord structure. It is not a choice.

Americans really need to get over their homophobia. They are regular people who are slightly different from you, like racial differences.

Fankly homophobia, in my book, is indistinguishable from bigotry.
I agree, but then people do have a right to like, or dislike what ever they choose.
 
Actually it is good enough. I don't care if you understand my reasoning or not. So I don't feel the need to explain myself.

All you need to know is...

#1 I do not support Gay marraige.
#2 My religion is part of the reason.
#3 Your opinion of my religion is irrelevant to this matter.

I can't make it any more simple than that.



It becomes unreasonable when I have already explained why. If people don't want to respect that it is OK. In the end I don't need to explain how or why my religion says this. The Bible is available to anyone who would like to read it.



Is that what this is about to you? Who wins an argument?

Well You win! Yea we are done here, lol.
Well why are you here then? If you can't be bothered to explain yourself--and no, you haven't done so already--then what is the point of anyone debating with you?

And it really isn't good enough. It's a pathetic cop out to say it's too complicated to understand for anyone who hasn't studied as much as you have--notwithstanding that you have no idea how much the people you disparage as ignorant have studied. But if that's the way you want to play, then fair enough. No one can force you to justify your beliefs if you don't want to. Just as long as you realise that you won't be taken seriously until you at least try.
 
The problem with this argument is that it applies equally to every other problem/situation/disagreement one might have on an internet forum. It's an argument against participating in these discussions at all.

No it does not. We have had plenty of debates that do not involve someone asking to explain the tenants of Christianity.

You get the same questions when you haven't provided answers. And the simple fact is that if you work this hard to avoid articulating your position, you probably don't understand it that well yourself.
Calling me ignorant of the Bible is still calling me ignorant.

If you actually went through the thread you would know I answered many MANY of the questions. You don't want answers, you want ammunition. Please don't play stupid with me.

I did not say you were ignorant. I said you don't know much about it and it is true as AGAIN you have shown.

I don't mind it really--I DO mind using that tactic as a way to avoid seeing your ideas challenged.

You are not challenging my idea's, you as are others are trying to challenge my faith, and what I have faith in.

You want me to change the accepted interpretations of the Bible to fit your world view. Based on your limited knowledge of what is written in it.

Hard as it is for you to understand this, the rest of us feel the same way about you.

Except I am the only one. Makes a huge difference. This is exactly the reason people of faith refuse to debate about it. You don't want to discuss the issues involved, you want to poke holes in Christianity, again with limited and carefully picked words from the Bible. You don't even try to understand what I am saying, you just want to say I am wrong, period.

So you are not welcome.

Then you are putting your faith in the men whom you've trusted to interpret, not in the text itself.

Right. :lol:

You say that a lot, but I don't think you can let someone else get the last word on this, can you?

I could say the same about you? So what?
 
This thread is why we have a government that is supposed to keep out of religion, and religion out of government.
 
Well why are you here then? If you can't be bothered to explain yourself--and no, you haven't done so already--then what is the point of anyone debating with you?

Notice the amount of thanks I have along with the amount of posts? The fact I have been here over a year as well?

Obviously I can and do debate, and I am good at it.

Your attempt to somehow goad me are really lame.

And it really isn't good enough.

Yes, it is. This debate has nothing to do with my faith or why I believe the way I do. It is supposed to be about gay marraige are you for or against.

It's a pathetic cop out to say it's too complicated to understand for anyone who hasn't studied as much as you have--notwithstanding that you have no idea how much the people you disparage as ignorant have studied.

It is not to complicated to understand, I never said such a thing. I said it is to complicated to explain. We mite as well hold a class on Philosophy or comparative religions. You seem to think I am under some kind of obligation to teach you about my faith and religion. I hate to inform you I am not.

But if that's the way you want to play, then fair enough. No one can force you to justify your beliefs if you don't want to. Just as long as you realise that you won't be taken seriously until you at least try.

If I was not taken seriously, this thread would not be so long.

Save the rant

I do not rant. That is again dishonest.
 
No it does not. We have had plenty of debates that do not involve someone asking to explain the tenants of Christianity.
The "tenants of Christianity" are pretty simple: Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. Things get complicated only when people try to find ways to justify their unloving actions.
If you actually went through the thread you would know I answered many MANY of the questions. You don't want answers, you want ammunition. Please don't play stupid with me.
I'm not--that's the farthest thing from what I'm doing.
I did not say you were ignorant. I said you don't know much about it and it is true as AGAIN you have shown.
Umm...ignorant means "not knowing."
You are not challenging my idea's, you as are others are trying to challenge my faith, and what I have faith in.
And your faith is thus unassailable? Does that mean if I had faith in little green men from Borkenstad I could count on you not to question me about it? Your faith will go unchallenged when you sit in a room alone or with like-minded people. Everywhere else, it's fair game--particularly when you're using to justify a position on public policy.
You want me to change the accepted interpretations of the Bible to fit your world view. Based on your limited knowledge of what is written in it.
Actually, I want for us to compare notes. If my knowledge is so limited, that shouldn't be scary at all.
Except I am the only one. Makes a huge difference. This is exactly the reason people of faith refuse to debate about it. You don't want to discuss the issues involved, you want to poke holes in Christianity, again with limited and carefully picked words from the Bible. You don't even try to understand what I am saying, you just want to say I am wrong, period.
You have no idea what I want since you've pretty much refused to engage with me. You ASSUME you understand my mind when you haven't given my arguments even a moment's though. "People of faith" (and I count myself one of them) don't need to discuss their beliefs--until they use those beliefs to determine the course of other people's lives.
I could say the same about you? So what?
I'm not the one trying to end the conversation.
 
Back
Top Bottom