• 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.
sweEt Mauritius said:
First of all, what Bible is that? Because the term "homosexual" did not appear in print until the 1869. So right there is an example of human interpretation, and I'd love to know what the actual words were in place of "homosexual offenders" prior to 1869.

And here's a great link written by a Biblical scholar on homosexuality and the Bible : What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

In general, people DID misinterpret the Bible. Because somehow the Virginia Supreme Court interpreted that it was God's will to prevent interracial marriage. It's quite obvious that they misinterpreted God's word.
Click to expand...

I am sorry some pro gay website on the Internet is not a good reference.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Nothing about the word homosexual. Direct translation from the scrolls in the NIV. So what now?

Please explain what this one means.
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
It's so completely unnecessary to create a paperwork nightmare simply because some religious people aren't able to understand the clear difference between the secular and religious parts and definitions of marriage. They are already separate. Clinging to semantic arguments and pretending that they aren't separate doesn't change that reality.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree they are obviously separate (apart from a shared title).

And yes, such a change has the potential to be a “paperwork nightmare”.

But I still think it would be a solution to stop some of the bickering, as long as the “civil unions” are available in a fair manner.

Centrist77 said:
Agreed. Not to mention, gays can still claim discrimination and rightfully so, while I would support whatever made it easy for people not to be discriminated against, bigots, oppressors and others changing the name is still easily argued as discrimination.
Click to expand...
Ok, we’re back to this disagreement.

How in the hell does this equal discrimination?
The Mark said:
…changing the name of all legal marriages to “civil unions” or something, the purpose of which is to completely separate the secular and religious parts of marriage.
Click to expand...
As long as those “civil unions” are made available in a fair manner by the government.
 
Blackdog said:
I am sorry some pro gay website on the Internet is not a good reference.
Click to expand...

LOL did you even read any of it? If your going to blatantly ignore an analysis that takes into account historical context, historical language, etc. simply because you don't want to hear it, then I don't know what to tell you.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Nothing about the word homosexual. Direct translation from the scrolls in the NIV. So what now?

Please explain what this one means.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm not a Protestant so the NIV doesn't really have any personal bearing on me. But anyway, I've already made it clear that I don't agree with your interpretation. My interpretation of that is that when that was written, people did not understand sexual orientation in general, so in their ignorance they labeled it as unnatural. Of course, I have no idea what the context is so I can't really elaborate any more to be honest. But it's pointless for this to devolve into a discussion of what is and isn't sinful and why in the eyes of different people.
 
The Mark said:
Well, I agree they are obviously separate (apart from a shared title).

And yes, such a change has the potential to be a “paperwork nightmare”.

But I still think it would be a solution to stop some of the bickering, as long as the “civil unions” are available in a fair manner.
Click to expand...

When has "to stop some of the bickering" ever been a legitimate reason for the state to create separate but completely equal institutions. The only reason to create civil unions with all of the exact same rights as civil marriage is to appease the people who are uncomfortable with the legal term marriage. That's not a legitimate reason, and I won't settle for it when there's not a compelling state interest.
 
Blackdog said:
It is incredibly biased and has an admitted agenda. If I offered evidence from the Phelps family site would you accept it? :lol:
Click to expand...

Shame on you for assuming.

It is a biased and has a politically driven agenda. Even read part of the mission statement.

Would you accept evidence from the Phelps Church family website against homosexuality? :lol:

Blackdog said:
Well I'm not a Protestant so the NIV doesn't really have any personal bearing on me. But anyway, I've already made it clear that I don't agree with your interpretation. My interpretation of that is that when that was written, people did not understand sexual orientation in general, so in their ignorance they labeled it as unnatural.
Click to expand...

So the people were ignorant back then is why you think the interpretation is wrong? You do realize that makes no sense at all.

Blackdog said:
Of course, I have no idea what the context is so I can't really elaborate any more to be honest. But it's pointless for this to devolve into a discussion of what is and isn't sinful and why in the eyes of different people.
Click to expand...

Well even without context the sentence with the rest of what I posted is pretty clear.

I admit it is not worth arguing over.
 
Blackdog said:
I challenge anyone to make sense of that statement.
Click to expand...
translation you still cant argue against it, no problem i knew you couldnt because there is no argument against it

bottom line is, if he wasnt implying man/women is the definition his point is meaningless



Blackdog said:
Yes you were wrong. And you have still missed his point utterly.
Click to expand...
nope the point is whether my interpretation is right or yours is the fact remains what he said holds now bearing but of course you ignore that because, well, that would get in the way of you trying to deflect.



Blackdog said:
I said nothing of the kind, you did in error.
Click to expand...
actually its a fact unless you can show reason why he, according to you, saying marriage has MAINLY been man/women in history is a legit reason why would should NOT continue to make it that way LMAO



Blackdog said:
What? You are just repeating the same thing again, already responded to this above.
Click to expand...
no, you DODGED it above ;)



Blackdog said:
You can bet, and you would loose. If I know about it, I speak out about it a refuse to let it just go on if I can.

You don’t know me. You know very little about me. Please don’t try and guess who I am or what I am about. I know my own mind better than you.
Click to expand...

fine you can make this claim but then you have lots of work to do then since many laws dont line up with your interpretations of your religion, must be terrible to live in a country where we have freedom of religion instead of just practicing yours like you seem to want



Blackdog said:
Just by posting here I am stopping you. Even if just one person reads my words and agrees, well guess what?

Makes your statement no less a silly nonsensical rant.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, you arent stopping me from anything? and as far as i can remember in this thread all you have tried to do is convince people to discriminating against gay marriage

and its still not a rant no matter how much you want it to be it just exposes the hypocrisy your logic has and makes total sense



Blackdog said:
If you do not offer respect, why should I offer it to you? It is a two way street and by the rules of debate, you have already lost by disrespecting me. Ad-homs are not acceptable.

You in all cases have started with the name calling. You have gotten warnings in this thread, I have not. What does this tell you?
Click to expand...

Respect? who asked you to offer me respect? and where did i name call you? again you STILL dodge the question, sorry respect is me ASKING you instead of assuming like you, thats what disrespect is. You TELL me what i think, im ASKING you lol

"I" feel it is your right to teach, believe, feel, say, think what you want about marriage, you on the other had want everyone to do has you say. Yep, man Im so disrespectful to you and call you names all the time LMAO
"I" got warnings about name calling, just me? where I missed that?

tells me nothing besides you still dodged the question because you seem not to want to answer



Blackdog said:
You are free to think what you like, it does not make it the truth or reality in any way.
Click to expand...
it not what i think, its a fact its discrimination and in this case reality and truth, no one in this thread has proved different.
And in your case its clear cut hypocrisy because like i already said you want ME to do things YOUR way while i want both of us to get our way. But some how that makes me wrong? hmmmmmm
 
Ok I am getting pretty sick of this debate.

In the end yes it is my right to try and stop it, so to bad for you. J/K

I am certain it will come to pass some day, but not today.

God bless you all, and have fun.
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
First of all, what Bible is that? Because the term "homosexual" did not appear in print until the 1869. So right there is an example of human interpretation, and I'd love to know what the actual words were in place of "homosexual offenders" prior to 1869.

And here's a great link written by a Biblical scholar on homosexuality and the Bible : What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

In general, people DID misinterpret the Bible. Because somehow the Virginia Supreme Court interpreted that it was God's will to prevent interracial marriage. It's quite obvious that they misinterpreted God's word.
Click to expand...


Again, the civil rights comparison is invalid. This is an entirely different thing.

The word in the Bible, in the original Greek, is arsenokoites. Blackdog and I were involved in an extensive arguement about the meaning of NT scripture in this context. I'm not intrested in going over it all again, if you want to read it then search up "church and homosexuality" on DP and read pages 5 to 12.
 
I have a question.

How come the part about homosexuality is the only part of Leviticus that Christians care about?
 
Blackdog said:
Shame on you for assuming.

It is a biased and has a politically driven agenda. Even read part of the mission statement.

Would you accept evidence from the Phelps Church family website against homosexuality? :lol:
Click to expand...

Good point, but I personally trust someone who has studied the Bible and its historical context more than my own personal interpretation. If you don't, that's fine, but I was just giving you an example of other interpretations from someone who, biased or not, knows what they're talking about. And I honestly haven't read anything else on the site, I did a Google search and found that article, which is thoughtfully and intelligently written.

Blackdog said:
So the people were ignorant back then is why you think the interpretation is wrong? You do realize that makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I mean, for me, I think that makes perfect sense. I think people were ignorant of the concept of sexual orientation and homosexuality, so by default their interpretation of what is "natural" is wrong in my opinion. I guess they didn't observe the hundreds of animal species who engage in homosexual behavior either. That's the epitome of natural in my opinion. If you don't agree, that's fine. But that demonstrates again why a separation of church and state is so necessary, so that people like you and I are free to practice our different interpretations.
 
Centrist77 said:
translation you still cant argue against it, no problem i knew you couldnt because there is no argument against it

bottom line is, if he wasnt implying man/women is the definition his point is meaningless

nope the point is whether my interpretation is right or yours is the fact remains what he said holds now bearing but of course you ignore that because, well, that would get in the way of you trying to deflect.

actually its a fact unless you can show reason why he, according to you, saying marriage has MAINLY been man/women in history is a legit reason why would should NOT continue to make it that way LMAO

no, you DODGED it above ;)

fine you can make this claim but then you have lots of work to do then since many laws dont line up with your interpretations of your religion, must be terrible to live in a country where we have freedom of religion instead of just practicing yours like you seem to want

What are you talking about, you arent stopping me from anything? and as far as i can remember in this thread all you have tried to do is convince people to discriminating against gay marriage

and its still not a rant no matter how much you want it to be it just exposes the hypocrisy your logic has and makes total sense

Respect? who asked you to offer me respect? and where did i name call you? again you STILL dodge the question, sorry respect is me ASKING you instead of assuming like you, thats what disrespect is. You TELL me what i think, im ASKING you lol

"I" feel it is your right to teach, believe, feel, say, think what you want about marriage, you on the other had want everyone to do has you say. Yep, man Im so disrespectful to you and call you names all the time LMAO
"I" got warnings about name calling, just me? where I missed that?

tells me nothing besides you still dodged the question because you seem not to want to answer

it not what i think, its a fact its discrimination and in this case reality and truth, no one in this thread has proved different.
And in your case its clear cut hypocrisy because like i already said you want ME to do things YOUR way while i want both of us to get our way. But some how that makes me wrong? hmmmmmm
Click to expand...

I can sum this whole thing up for you…
You misunderstood what Goshin said. Then you erroneously tried to say he said something he did not.

This is now off topic and a waist of space as I have already shown you were wrong.

End of story.

Have a good night.
 
Blackdog said:
I am certain it will come to pass some day, but not today.
Click to expand...

So essentially people who actively fight against SSM are wasting their time. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Alastor said:
I have a question.

How come the part about homosexuality is the only part of Leviticus that Christians care about?
Click to expand...

I kind of wondered that myself.

Levi does not really apply to Christians as it was the old law for the Jews, not Gentiles. It is however a good indication of what God likes and does not like. So it can be used as a reference, but the NT is what we should be following.
 
Goshin said:
Again, the civil rights comparison is invalid. This is an entirely different thing.

The word in the Bible, in the original Greek, is arsenokoites. Blackdog and I were involved in an extensive arguement about the meaning of NT scripture in this context. I'm not intrested in going over it all again, if you want to read it then search up "church and homosexuality" on DP and read pages 5 to 12.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but how is this NOT a civil rights issue? You are talking about a group of people who are being discriminated against for an INHERIT trait (I don't care what conservative propaganda says, when you find homosexuality in 400+ species of animals that seems pretty natural to me). This is absolutely a civil rights issue, just like african americans were discriminated against for something they couldn't control (skin color), homosexuals are being discriminated against for being born gay.
 
sweEt Mauritius said:
Good point, but I personally trust someone who has studied the Bible and its historical context more than my own personal interpretation. If you don't, that's fine, but I was just giving you an example of other interpretations from someone who, biased or not, knows what they're talking about. And I honestly haven't read anything else on the site, I did a Google search and found that article, which is thoughtfully and intelligently written.
Click to expand...

Thoughtful and intelligent is often biased and incorrect. I am well versed in the Bible and it's history. I must admit I am weak on the Catholic side of things though. I think it was Tucker who brutalized me about that. :lol:

sweEt Mauritius said:
I mean, for me, I think that makes perfect sense. I think people were ignorant of the concept of sexual orientation and homosexuality, so by default their interpretation of what is "natural" is wrong in my opinion. I guess they didn't observe the hundreds of animal species who engage in homosexual behavior either. That's the epitome of natural in my opinion. If you don't agree, that's fine. But that demonstrates again why a separation of church and state is so necessary, so that people like you and I are free to practice our different interpretations.
Click to expand...

Well I can agree to disagree as your opinion in this case has no more weight than my own.

Again this issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
 
The Mark said:
How in the hell does this equal discrimination?As long as those “civil unions” are made available in a fair manner by the government.
Click to expand...

pretty easy, now im not gay so i admit im guessing but it seems safe to say the argument can be made because of one simple question? WHY are we changing it?
and how do you prove its not BECAUSE of gays?

Ive used this extreme example before just to make a point but what if someone thought the word president was sacred? and blacks couldnt be associated with the word, so when Obama won we changed the word to something DIFFERENT and NEW, like US CEO??


now of course he has all the same power BUT we just cant call him president
Would this be right, would/could no one argue discrimination?

lol of course my example is a stretch and silly but im sure you get the point, what if Hilary won and we did the same thing because she was a woman? or apply my example to ANY title

again I myself dont see it being a HUGE deal since im not gay and i would just rather everybody have their equal rights but at the same time anyone gay who said thats wrong and unfair and unjust and discrimination I could certainly see their point.

Hell based on ANYTHING if you changed the name based on the person or group at hand it seems wrong. I coach Girls Fast pitch softball and what if i told all of them they are just softball players because girls cant be athletes per my beliefs? how well do you think that would go over with women. While im free to THINK so im guessing it wouldnt go over well and i probably wouldnt be coach anymore if that statement got out. And that example is just me SAYING what I believe, i have no real power to say they are not athletes, mean while a few people here want to force people not to call them something. Now this is just filler talk and a little laft field to the debate but can you see how it could insult people and they could claim discrimination?

IMO you would have to prove the name change had nothing to do with gays and that seems impossible and unreasonable and well, not true
 
Your Star said:
Not if my generation has anything to say about that :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

We will kill them off with nuclear weapons before that happens. :lol:

Last thing we need is liberal hippies taking over the world. :shock: :2razz:
 
Blackdog said:
Ok I am getting pretty sick of this debate.

In the end yes it is my right to try and stop it, so to bad for you. J/K

I am certain it will come to pass some day, but not today.

God bless you all, and have fun.
Click to expand...

agreed you have the right and nobody is debating THAT right but thanks for telling us
god bless you also
 
Blackdog said:
We will kill them off with nuclear weapons before that happens. :lol:

Last thing we need is liberal hippies taking over the world. :shock: :2razz:
Click to expand...

Young people today are less "liberal" than either their parents' or grandparents' generations.
Studies indicate that today's young people are the most conservative generation since the 1950s.
But their attitude toward gay marriage is an exception, for whatever reason; possibly the fact that the vast majority of them grew up actually knowing openly gay people, unlike previous generations.
Overwhelmingly, this new generation of young adults believes gay marriage should be legalized.
 
Blackdog said:
I can sum this whole thing up for you…
You misunderstood what Goshin said. Then you erroneously tried to say he said something he did not.

This is now off topic and a waist of space as I have already shown you were wrong.

End of story.

Have a good night.
Click to expand...

"translation: I will STILL not answer your questions and will dodge them all because I cant answer them, i will continue to ASSUME you misunderstood and IGNORE that whether my assumption was right or wrong the point he was making was MEANINGLESS to the debate because that will kill my argument.

Then ill just say i showed you were wrong even though i have not in reality

Now I will run away "

thanks, i totally get in now, good night:2wave:
 
somepeoplesay said:
I'm sorry but how is this NOT a civil rights issue? You are talking about a group of people who are being discriminated against for an INHERIT trait (I don't care what conservative propaganda says, when you find homosexuality in 400+ species of animals that seems pretty natural to me). This is absolutely a civil rights issue, just like african americans were discriminated against for something they couldn't control (skin color), homosexuals are being discriminated against for being born gay.
Click to expand...

thats simple, because certain people wont let something like facts and logic get in the way of a otherwise perfectly legimate argument :D
 
1069 said:
Young people today are less "liberal" than either their parents' or grandparents' generations.
Studies indicate that today's young people are the most conservative generation since the 1950s.
But their attitude toward gay marriage is an exception, for whatever reason; possibly the fact that the vast majority of them grew up actually knowing openly gay people, unlike previous generations.
Overwhelmingly, this new generation of young adults believes gay marriage should be legalized.
Click to expand...

Yep, its one of the reasons im a centrist/independant. While i agree with certain things on both sides in todays disturbingly counter productive partasin politics even if i wanted to be on the right or left (what ever that means currently) I couldnt, especially on the right because they have so many sub groups that they force people out.

on gay marriage I get called a lefty and liberal
on abortion I get called a lefty and liberal
on guns i get called a righty and conservative
on religion Ive been called both
on business, capitalism been called both

i find it funny that people want you to fit into such a tight little box, thats just not reality nor is it american
 
1069 said:
Young people today are less "liberal" than either their parents' or grandparents' generations.
Studies indicate that today's young people are the most conservative generation since the 1950s.
But their attitude toward gay marriage is an exception, for whatever reason; possibly the fact that the vast majority of them grew up actually knowing openly gay people, unlike previous generations.
Overwhelmingly, this new generation of young adults believes gay marriage should be legalized.
Click to expand...

It was a joke. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom