• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
There would be a quite easy explanation. It would be considered a sin for men who could be impregnating women to refuse to sleep with women, because they are sexually attracted to men. The same for women who refuse to sleep with men to become pregnant (although women really didn't have much of a choice in this back then anyway) rather to be with other women. Much of the thinking back then was to propagate the species. People who were not working towards this, especially who were not in high enough positions to really complain, would be viewed as sinning.

Today, we are pretty much overpopulated (at least if you consider are use of available resources), so propagating the species is not really important enough for most people to consider it a sin if a person, male or female, chooses for whatever reason not to do it.


Again, this strikes me as an attempt to wiggle around what the Bible actually says. The proof of that is that you have to ignore the fact that scripture condemns homosexuality in many different places, and does not specifically address that it is because of an avoidance of reproduction.
 
First of all, I've already posted earlier how no where in the story of Sodom, is homosexuality actually mentioned as a reason why God destroyed it, so the passages referring to Sodom and Gamorrah really don't relate well to your argument.

Second, being "effeminate" is almost certainly a hormone issue or at the very least, out of a person's conscience control. How in the world could someone believe that God would condemn something that is almost definitely natural? It would be like God condemning a hermaphrodite for being born with both male and female sex organs. And why only effeminate males? Why not manly women?

I would assume that it means men who deliberately adopt a feminine persona, such as transvestites.

And saying Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality is simply disingenuous and untrue.
 
This is so much nothing, I am just going to say OK, you win. :rolleyes:

So much nothing? Terms don't have definitions? Is that a joke? Ignore reality then, but if I win it is because I win... and I won because I am right. That is all. ;)
 
Goshin, the problem is that it looks very like you are only seeing the possible interpretation you want to see. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that other interpretation are right. It is further within likely that the people who wrote the scripture interpreted things based on their own ideas.
 
Goshin, the problem is that it looks very like you are only seeing the possible interpretation you want to see. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that other interpretation are right. It is further within likely that the people who wrote the scripture interpreted things based on their own ideas.

And you're favoring the one YOU would rather see as correct, are you not?

Redress, I am seeing the most direct and straightforward interpretation, the one with the most support from other scriptural sources, and therefore the most likely correct one.

The other viewpoint involves making three laps around cultural relativism and closing your eyes and ignoring several points of scripture that say something you don't like.

One interpretation is direct, literal, historical, grammatical and if charted would look like a straight arrow.

The other is convoluted and contrived and if flow-charted would look like an M.C. Escher painting.

I'll stick with the straightforward interpretation. It makes much more sense.
 
Last edited:
Goshin, the problem is that it looks very like you are only seeing the possible interpretation you want to see. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that other interpretation are right. It is further within likely that the people who wrote the scripture interpreted things based on their own ideas.

I think what Goshin has been saying is that it's very clear that the Bible teaches homosexuality as sinful and that it's very improbable that the Bible finds homosexuality to be a normal and non sinful behavior. It takes a lot of assumptions and textual contortions in order to interpret the Bible as teaching homosexuality as non sinful. As a Christian we believe that God inspired the Bible through His Holy Spirit and thus nothing in the Bible was written as the opinion/vision of mankind. Using scripture to interpret scripture is the best way to understand the Bible, and not one scripture would support homosexuality as being non sinful.

Edit: Goshin beat me to it.
 
I would assume that it means men who deliberately adopt a feminine persona, such as transvestites.

And saying Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality is simply disingenuous and untrue.

On the story of Sodom, you really should go reread your Bible. I looked in both mine. The only mention whatsoever about anything even possibly able to be considered homosexual activity is the fact that the townsmen came to rape the angels. I have explained how this could be accounted for by them believing in ancient superstitions that fornicating with a being that had powers could give those powers to the person committing the act. I doubt very much that it would have mattered if the angels were male or female. And neither God nor the angels ever mention that the city was being destroyed because of homosexuality or homosexual acts in themselves. And I think God would have been a lot more ticked off that they were actually trying to rape his angels then concerned with the fact that the act could be considered homosexual.
 
Well, I've spent a lot of time over the course of four decades working to understand the Bible. This includes studying the original texts and the meanings of the original words; the principles of Hermaneutics; and the thoughts of various noted theologians and commentators.

The first principle of hermaneutics is that you interpret scripture, with more scripture. That is, you find other scripture that addresses the same topic or a very similar one, and see what that says.

Looking at the whole bible, it seems improbable that homosexuality would not be viewed as sin, simply because "it is modern homosexuality".

Don't you folks contend that homosexuality is inborn and a certain percentage of people have always been of homo orientation? Including in ancient times? Then why the assumption that ancient homo practices were one thing, and abominable to God, but "modern" homosexual practices are something new and different? Seems unlikely.

As I say, it comes across as a convoluted attempt to wriggle around what the Bible says, and claim "it doesn't really mean what it seems to say".

It's not the difference between modern homosexual feelings, and ancient homosexual feelings, because they are the same. The difference is how homosexuals act, today they act the same as hetero people in their relationships. But in ancient times it was a bit different, homosexuals didn't really have the option to live with a partner of their choosing. Marriage for love is a modern way of thinking about marriage, and back then getting married was often not determined by the people getting married. Therefore not wanting to get involved with a marriage because you were gay didn't really fly. If you did it could mean a death sentence, dishonor to your family etc, etc. It wasn't good, so most if not all hid their homosexuality. Also unlike today it was a necessity for everyone to procreate to keep their numbers up.

In the Bible it never flat out says homosexuality is a sin, it talks about acts. And homosexuals don't act the way they do today as they did in ancient times. For homosexuals to participate in acts that were more congruent to their orientation, they often had to sin. Like go to, or be temple prostitutes, commit adultery against their spouse, worship false idols, to commit homosexual acts. And in those times, these acts were often associated with homosexuality. I don't think God really cares about homosexuality, but how homosexuals go about in treating their sexuality, and relationships. Which also rings true to hetero relationships. If homosexuality was sin, would we see so many other species exhibit homosexual tendencies, it doesn't produce any offspring, but they still do it. Why would God show us this in nature if homosexuality was a sin, and a choice just like any other sin, and not just innately a variation in His creation.
 
Tell you what folks, we'll have a little contest.

We will each start with a pile of motorcycle parts and a manual entitled "How to build a Harley Electroglide."

I will interpret the manual as meaning exactly what it says.

You will interpret the manual as not meaning what it says, but instead referring to some historical practices that are no longer relevant.


First person to build a working motorcycle wins. :mrgreen:
 
It's not the difference between modern homosexual feelings, and ancient homosexual feelings, because they are the same. The difference is how homosexuals act, today they act the same as hetero people in their relationships. But in ancient times it was a bit different, homosexuals didn't really have the option to live with a partner of their choosing. Marriage for love is a modern way of thinking about marriage, and back then getting married was often not determined by the people getting married. Therefore not wanting to get involved with a marriage because you were gay didn't really fly. If you did it could mean a death sentence, dishonor to your family etc, etc. It wasn't good, so most if not all hid their homosexuality. Also unlike today it was a necessity for everyone to procreate to keep their numbers up.

In the Bible it never flat out says homosexuality is a sin, it talks about acts. And homosexuals don't act the way they do today as they did in ancient times. For homosexuals to participate in acts that were more congruent to their orientation, they often had to sin. Like go to, or be temple prostitutes, commit adultery against their spouse, worship false idols, to commit homosexual acts. And in those times, these acts were often associated with homosexuality. I don't think God really cares about homosexuality, but how homosexuals go about in treating their sexuality, and relationships. Which also rings true to hetero relationships. If homosexuality was sin, would we see so many other species exhibit homosexual tendencies, it doesn't produce any offspring, but they still do it. Why would God show us this in nature if homosexuality was a sin, and a choice just like any other sin, and not just innately a variation in His creation.


Absolute nonesense. In Greece, which I assure you the writers of the NT were familiar with, homosexuality was widely accepted in various forms, and as my research indicated above this included adult males with adult males in equal relationships.

More wiggling. Some of you just don't want to accept that the Bible means what it says, becasue you don't like what it says, and you're trying to justify it with all kinds of around-the-block convolutions.

1Cr 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
The bolded phrase is in the original Greek the word arsenokoites, which Thayer's lexicon translates as one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
.
 
Last edited:
fiscalini-purple-moon.jpg
 
Tell you what folks, we'll have a little contest.

We will each start with a pile of motorcycle parts and a manual entitled "How to build a Harley Electroglide."

I will interpret the manual as meaning exactly what it says.

You will interpret the manual as not meaning what it says, but instead referring to some historical practices that are no longer relevant.


First person to build a working motorcycle wins. :mrgreen:

If you are considering stories from the Bible, then you must consider the thinking of the people of that time. Interpreting it with just the thinking of modern times is just not being honest. The way the people back then thought is actually more important in interpreting the Bible then the way we think now.
 
All this bible stuff is fine and dandy, it's sorta interesting to hear people interpret their religions/books and what they think it means. I just can't help to think one thing though, it doesn't matter! It has it has no impact on the OP and topic at hand really, it's a sub-disccussion. Why? because even if the bible was against it or if it was all for it, that has no impact on the law and why it is still discrimination to deny them equal rights.
 
Ha!
anybody need cheese with their "whine"
Ironically enough, I understand the cheese get's it's color from being emulsed in - *drum roll* - wine.

I quote: "This cheese gets its distinctive purple hue from a Cabernet emulsion, which also creates a taste unlike anything you’ve tried before."
Info Link: Just scroll down a bit.
 
If you are considering stories from the Bible, then you must consider the thinking of the people of that time. Interpreting it with just the thinking of modern times is just not being honest. The way the people back then thought is actually more important in interpreting the Bible then the way we think now.


Miss, that is exactly what I do. I do indeed consider cultural relevance, and interpret carefully based on the context of WHO is speaking, WHOM they are speaking to, WHAT they are talking about, and WHEN/WHERE this is placed so as to know the proper interpretation. For instance, I know that the requirements of a Levite priest are not incumbent on ordinary believers. Some practices or promises were given for a specific people in a specific period of time.

Attempting to explain that NT scripture does not mean what it plainly says is another matter. I've explained using quoted posts what my research into ancient homosexual practices revealed: that is was NOT all about prostitution and temple-boys, but that practices more closely resembling modern homosexual practices were indeed part of Greek culture during relevant periods of history.

The Greeks used the term Pederaesty to refer to most of the practices you're talking about, but the NT uses the term arsenkoites. If it referred only to pederasty, then why didn't it say pederasty instead? Instead a term that would likely be understood to more generally refer to homosexuality was used. The most straightforward interpretation is that the scriptures I refereced are condemning homosexuality generally, rather than certain specific ancient practices.... because the authors knew about those ancient practices, and if they meant only those then they would have been more specific.
 
All this bible stuff is fine and dandy, it's sorta interesting to hear people interpret their religions/books and what they think it means. I just can't help to think one thing though, it doesn't matter! It has it has no impact on the OP and topic at hand really, it's a sub-disccussion. Why? because even if the bible was against it or if it was all for it, that has no impact on the law and why it is still discrimination to deny them equal rights.

I was asked to explain myself. I did. I was told my explanation was wrong, so I explained further why I held my interpretation.

The bible can be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me.
 
More wiggling. Some of you just don't want to accept that the Bible means what it says, becasue you don't like what it says, and you're trying to justify it with all kinds of around-the-block convolutions.

1Cr 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
The bolded phrase is in the original Greek the word arsenokoites, which Thayer's lexicon translates as one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

Not really wiggling, just investigating, and having a differing point of view. Like a different translation of the word arsenokoitai.

The word "arsenokoitai" (sometimes translated "abusers of themselves with mankind") literally means male-bed. "Bed" is a euphemism for copulating. This word is extremely rare in Greek. Paul was apparently the first author to use this word. The word taken literally (male-copulator) is very ambiguous. Take, for example, the word "lady-killer." Does it mean "a lady who kills" or "someone who kills ladies"? In our language it means the latter, but even then it is not clear because we do not mean that someone literally kills ladies but that their charm "kills" them. So taking the word "arsenokoitai" or "male-copulator," does it mean "a male who copulates men"; does it mean "a man who copulates with women"; does it mean "a man who is copulated?"

The Bible does not clarify. These are the only two passages in the whole Bible where this word is used... Apparently there is no known contemporaneous literature in which this word is used. However, relatively close to the time Paul wrote it was used to refer to a male copulator connected with temple prostitution. It probably had this meaning until the late fourth century after which it came to mean a lot of different things, including homosexual activity.
 
Ironically enough, I understand the cheese get's it's color from being emulsed in - *drum roll* - wine.

I quote: "This cheese gets its distinctive purple hue from a Cabernet emulsion, which also creates a taste unlike anything you’ve tried before."
Info Link: Just scroll down a bit.

That looks pretty tasty, I'd like to try it some time.
 
Not really wiggling, just investigating, and having a differing point of view. Like a different translation of the word arsenokoitai.

But let’s take a look at how this word “arsonokoite” was coined by Paul. Let’s look at Leviticus 20:13:

Leviticus 20:13 (NASB – English Translation)
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”

Leviticus 20:13 (NASB – Greek Translation)
“kai ov an koimhqh meta arsenov koithn gunaikov bdelugma epoihsan amfoteroi qanatousqwsan enoxoi eisin”

Notice the words “arsenov koithn” (roughly translated as “male bed”). Paul simply went back to the Levitical prohibitions and took the wording from there to coin a word of his own (something he did repeatedly).

The similarities in language would not have gone unnoticed by the Jews in Paul’s day just as it does not go unnoticed today.

Paul’s meaning was clear.


The interpretation of arsenokoites as "homosexual" has been standard for around 2000 years. If you can show that the 1st Century church did not interpret it as such, please post proof based on writings from the first century AD.
 
Ironically enough, I understand the cheese get's it's color from being emulsed in - *drum roll* - wine.

I quote: "This cheese gets its distinctive purple hue from a Cabernet emulsion, which also creates a taste unlike anything you’ve tried before."
Info Link: Just scroll down a bit.

Nice!
Not really a cheese person besides the basics myself but now just because im going to give this cheese a whirl if I can find it, thanks

and that is nice irony
 
Miss, that is exactly what I do. I do indeed consider cultural relevance, and interpret carefully based on the context of WHO is speaking, WHOM they are speaking to, WHAT they are talking about, and WHEN/WHERE this is placed so as to know the proper interpretation. For instance, I know that the requirements of a Levite priest are not incumbent on ordinary believers. Some practices or promises were given for a specific people in a specific period of time.

Attempting to explain that NT scripture does not mean what it plainly says is another matter. I've explained using quoted posts what my research into ancient homosexual practices revealed: that is was NOT all about prostitution and temple-boys, but that practices more closely resembling modern homosexual practices were indeed part of Greek culture during relevant periods of history.

The Greeks used the term Pederaesty to refer to most of the practices you're talking about, but the NT uses the term arsenkoites. If it referred only to pederasty, then why didn't it say pederasty instead? Instead a term that would likely be understood to more generally refer to homosexuality was used. The most straightforward interpretation is that the scriptures I refereced are condemning homosexuality generally, rather than certain specific ancient practices.... because the authors knew about those ancient practices, and if they meant only those then they would have been more specific.

I was addressing Sodom, not pederaesty. I have my own beliefs on those particular parts of the scriptures, but know that there is no way we will agree on them, so I left it alone. I suspected that the post I quoted was directed at my earlier one, since I was the poster to use "ancient" ideas in my post, which you then used "ancient" practice in yours.

If you look at the story of Sodom, then you must consider the ancient practices, especially Pagan superstitions, to interpret the passage. To understand why an entire town's population of men would come to try to rape angels. Why would they risk God's wrath for such an act? Those beliefs on sexual activities and potential power gains from a more powerful being are certainly a very good explanation. A much better one than "well all the men must have been gay".
 
I was asked to explain myself. I did. I was told my explanation was wrong, so I explained further why I held my interpretation.

The bible can be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me.

I didn't say its irrelevant in general OR to me so don't put words in my mouth because it is relevant to me. But in this debate it is irrelevant since we are talking about America and American laws, equal rights and not discriminating. Unless of course you feel all our laws should be based on your interpretations of the bible and that in itself is also wrong. Of course you have a right to feel that way but thankfully that's not what America is about.
 
Does the Bible ever say why it is wrong?
 
Tell you what folks, we'll have a little contest.

We will each start with a pile of motorcycle parts and a manual entitled "How to build a Harley Electroglide."

I will interpret the manual as meaning exactly what it says.

You will interpret the manual as not meaning what it says, but instead referring to some historical practices that are no longer relevant.


First person to build a working motorcycle wins. :mrgreen:

Why a Harley the Japanese even after tutoring Harley on how to build a motorcycle that doesn't leak oil still build a more versatile bike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom