• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

It's a sin to oppose same sex marriage

I'll be sure to tell 99.9% of all pastors and priests in the world that they're getting it wrong too.

Where on earth are you getting that number?

There was a time when 99.9% of pastors and priests probably thought supernatural witches were real. Doesn't mean much. What you are using are logical fallacies called appeal to tradition and appeal to the majority.

Homosexuality as a whole is forbidden in the Bible. I've showed you where it says it. Plain as day, clear as crystal. It is forbidden. Getting hitched to another dude doesn't magically make an unclean act clean.

You quoted scripture which we interpret differently.

You clearly don't, since your entire premise is ridiculous. You want to know why something is the way it is in Christianity, but the Bible is magically not a valid source when you don't like the answer you get.

There is no answer to the question I have. Nobody ever asked Jesus Christ if he felt that same sex unions were outside of the marriage covenant. Evidence and reason seem to support my view about what homosexuality is in the Bible as opposed to what it is today. You haven't countered it, only argued arrogantly that your interpretation is right and mine is wrong. Rather than a convincing argument, you reinforce my opinion that you are speaking from legalism rather than from the spirit of the law.

I'm sorry, is this supposed to be a serious question?

It is interesting that you are so offended by my argument. You are reacting in an emotional manner, rather than with the dispassionate and objective fashion one would expect of somebody who understands the basis of their belief.
 
Last edited:
Judah, not God, told Onan to follow the laws of levirate marriage and have sex with Tamar. If what you're saying is true, he would not have been punished with his life, even FOR disobeying God. If you don't believe me, here is the text: 8 And Judah said unto Onan: 'Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.'

Genesis 38 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Also, for "education purposes" the ancient hebrews even had a name for the sin, called "sh'chatat zerah" (destruction of seed, that is, ejaculation outside the vagina)

You're educating me about the laws of levirate marriage? interesting. Ive totally never spent my life studying the Bible or the Torah or any ancient holy texts and ancient commentaries, and talked to historians, nor is my degree in History with a minor in philosophy. but, w/e.


Am I correct? Who knows. I am, however, educated in this topic. But, can't blame you for your ego.



Yes, I remember being 11 and seeing other students joking about masturbation. My parents never really encouraged it and I was never one for video games untill I turned 15/16ish for some reason. So I just played outside and didn't really have a need to explore sexuality untill later.
Still waiting on your star's rebuttal, since I am apparantly uneducated.
 
There was a time when 99.9% of pastors and priests probably thought supernatural witches were real. Doesn't mean much. What you are using are logical fallacies called appeal to tradition and appeal to the majority.
You're the one that brought up Christian theology. You don't want any passages from the Bible, you've just dismissed the clergy, you've even gone so far to dismiss the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh. Just stop.

You quoted scripture which we interpret differently.
Your interpretation isn't backed by anything. It's not backed by scripture, it's not backed by the Vatican, nor is it backed by any religious authority whatsoever. You just made something up, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure what exactly it is that you're trying to achieve with this, but you're doing it wrong.

Nobody ever asked Jesus Christ if he felt that same sex unions were outside of the marriage covenant.
Nobody had to, homosexuality is a sin. You know this, you just refuse to accept it.

Evidence and reason seem to support my view about what homosexuality is in the Bible as opposed to what it is today.
You aren't using either, you're making stuff up, and crying legalism every time a passage is shown to you. I know you don't like scripture, but try this passage, which quotes Jesus himself:
Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

You haven't countered it, only argued arrogantly that your interpretation is right and mine is wrong. Rather than a convincing argument, you reinforce my opinion that you are speaking from legalism rather than from the spirit of the law.
You haven't presented anything at all, actually. I've provided you with passages from the Bible, explained them, and you just dismiss it as "legalism", which must be pretty convenient for you. However, it doesn't work. Like I said, if you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

It is interesting that you are so offended by my argument. You are reacting in an emotional manner, rather than with the dispassionate and objective fashion one would expect of somebody who understands the basis of their belief.
First off, I've already stated that I'm not a Christian, which you have conveniently ignored as well. Second off, the word homosexuality isn't in the Bible. The question is not only irrelevant, but has absolutely no basis in reality. I have taken no offense to anything you've said. I've presented my proof and demonstrated what the Bible actually says. You've presented nothing. End of story.
 
You're the one that brought up Christian theology. You don't want any passages from the Bible, you've just dismissed the clergy, you've even gone so far to dismiss the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh. Just stop.

I haven't dismissed a thing. I don't dismiss the quotes from the Bible, I only disagree on your interpretation of them. I don't dismiss the clergy, only your assertion that 99.9% agree with your interpretation or that it is even logical to assume that something is right just because a majority says it is. I don't dismiss the Judeo-Christian God, I only seek to understand the rational behind why homosexuality is a sin.

I've presented my argument for why I believe my interpretation is correct. All you have done this entire thread is pretend that your view is not an interpretation and is somehow self evident and universally accepted. That is not the case. It seems to threaten you quite a bit that I can rationally interpret scripture in a different way than you, to the point that you seem to reacting in a very arrogant and emotional way.

As far as me presenting nothing, I welcome you to reread the OP. I provided a rational argument for my interpretation which you have, for some reason, chosen to ignore.
 
Last edited:
To my knowledge, the laws that condemn homosexuality are the same laws that condemn eating pigs. Galations says that the old law was a tutor, to guide us until we could be instilled with the spirit of Christ. That's how, as far as I understand, Christians are now allowed to eat bacon. Jesus never condemned eating pigs, nor did he ever mention anything about homosexuality. It seems to be a selective application of the old laws, of which only the first 10 and the anti-gay ones seem to get any attention nowadays.

Still, even if God does still disapprove of homosexuality, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be a U.S. law. Sins are between the sinner and God, no one else (unless you're Catholic I guess). U.S. laws should be secular and not implemented to enforce any religion's laws, so I think gay marriage should be legal regardless of what God's or anyone else's opinion on the matter is. Voting to give freedoms to people you disagree with is a very American thing to do.
 
That is my argument.

Very cute.

For years I have asked people to explain why homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.

It's not.

Why would God care.

He doesn't.

For years they have been unable to provide a decent argument.

Because homosexuality is not a sin.

Understanding the rational for why something is a sin is just as much a part of Christian theology and knowing that it is a sin.

Sure, absolutely.

So I will make an argument for why homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.

Homosexuality is not a sin, so you will fail.

It's a sin because homosexuality is an act of adultery.

The sex act is the sin, not homosexuality, and even heteros commit the sex act. In any event, one has to already be married for any sex to be adultery.

It is sexual activity that traditionally occurs outside of marriage.

If no one participating is married, then it's just fornication, not adultery.

But things have changed. We are no longer in ancient Rome.

Then you need to stop referencing Cesars who were gay in your arguments.

All I have ever heard is that homosexuality is not obedience to the law.

Then you're not reading all the posts in a given thread.
 
Hello

I am not sure its a sin but it sure is against Gods law and against the Constitution via the 14th amendment.

Thanks

Wolfman24
 
That is my argument.

For years I have asked people to explain why homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. Why would God care. For years they have been unable to provide a decent argument.

They generally respond that it is a sin because God said so or it is "unnatural" a.k.a. not part of God's design, but that is insufficient for an argument. Understanding the rational for why something is a sin is just as much a part of Christian theology and knowing that it is a sin.

So I will make an argument for why homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.

It's a sin because homosexuality is an act of adultery. It is sexual activity that traditionally occurs outside of marriage. It generally occurs outside of a monogamous relationship and it serves no purpose towards creating a family.

But things have changed. We are no longer in ancient Rome. Now the moral thing to do is to allow same sex couples to marry and to encourage same sex couples to adopt and form families.

To oppose this idea is to commit the sin of legalism. To emphasize the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.

Some would argue that marriage is defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman. That is not the case. Nobody ever asked Jesus if same sex unions are outside of the marriage covenant. All anyone asked Jesus was whether men could divorce their wife for any reason, and Jesus responded to that question within the context of that question. Many have taken his response out of context and in their own opinion, have argued that it is an absolutist definition for marriage as between one man and one woman. What they have failed to do is explain the rational behind that absolutist definition.

I have never heard an argument as to how same sex marriage would be outside of the spirit of the law. All I have ever heard is that homosexuality is not obedience to the law.

Sodomy is inherently immoral because it's contrary to the nature of human sexuality. It cannot be legitimated by monogamy and so gay marriage is immoral as it encourages sin.
 
Sodomy is inherently immoral because it's contrary to the nature of human sexuality. It cannot be legitimated by monogamy and so gay marriage is immoral as it encourages sin.

I find it a little bit funny that all this angst, disgust, and moral outrage against homosexuality experienced by social conservatives comes down to "it is contrary to human sexuality." Do you only have vaginal sex without contraceptives and never masturbate? Because if not then you are a hypocrite and that is probably the true source of the angst.
 
I find it a little bit funny that all this angst, disgust, and moral outrage against homosexuality experienced by social conservatives comes down to "it is contrary to human sexuality." Do you only have vaginal sex without contraceptives and never masturbate? Because if not then you are a hypocrite and that is probably the true source of the angst.

I'm unmarried, so I don't engage in sexual activity. If I were married, I would only engage in licit sexual activity.
 
Sodomy is inherently immoral because it's contrary to the nature of human sexuality. It cannot be legitimated by monogamy and so gay marriage is immoral as it encourages sin.

So is kissing. What procreational purpose does kissing accomplish?
 
I'm unmarried, so I don't engage in sexual activity. If I were married, I would only engage in licit sexual activity.

You do not masturbate at all? No wonder you are so grumpy.
 
So is kissing. What procreational purpose does kissing accomplish?

1. Kissing isn't inherently sexual.

2. Even when sexual, simple arousal not resulting in the possibility of conception is not unnatural, as such is only a natural result of completion.
 
So is kissing. What procreational purpose does kissing accomplish?

Kissing is inherently immoral? I'd really like to hope that someone kissing a baby didn't have a "procreational purpose."
 
Kissing is inherently immoral? I'd really like to hope that someone kissing a baby didn't have a "procreational purpose."

If one believes that sexual acts other than for procreational purposes are "inherently immoral' then one must also conclude that kissing is also.

Kiss your baby all you wish.
 
I have reason and free will so it doesn't really bother me.

If the attitude and demeanor you demonstrate on this forum is any indication of how using "reason and free will" to deny any form of nonprocreative sexual gratification affects you then you can keep that mess. I just find it funny.
 
If the attitude and demeanor you demonstrate on this forum is any indication of how using "reason and free will" to deny any form of nonprocreative sexual gratification affects you then you can keep that mess. I just find it funny.

Aside from disagreeing with you what "attitude and demeanor" do I demonstrate?
 
If one believes that sexual acts other than for procreational purposes are "inherently immoral' then one must also conclude that kissing is also.

Kiss your baby all you wish.

Kissing doesn't make babies.
 
Aside from disagreeing with you what "attitude and demeanor" do I demonstrate?

Conceit. You seem to get off on making a big deal about the perceived sins of others to the point that you arrogantly act like you yourself are not a sinner. Your posts appear to be utterly devoid of humility as if you see anyone who sins as weaker willed and less reasonable than you. You treat those who disagree with your views with scorn or as an enemy. There is no love, compassion, or empathy in your words. Scripture appears to just be a tool you use to measure yourself as better than others.
 
The scripture says what it says. No point re-interpreting it in our own personal way just to avoid admitting the truth. We are all sinners, one way or another. Admit your sins, not lie to yourself.

Coming to terms with this is a big step.
 
That is my argument.

For years I have asked people to explain why homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. Why would God care. For years they have been unable to provide a decent argument.

They generally respond that it is a sin because God said so or it is "unnatural" a.k.a. not part of God's design, but that is insufficient for an argument. Understanding the rational for why something is a sin is just as much a part of Christian theology and knowing that it is a sin.

So I will make an argument for why homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.

It's a sin because homosexuality is an act of adultery. It is sexual activity that traditionally occurs outside of marriage. It generally occurs outside of a monogamous relationship and it serves no purpose towards creating a family.

But things have changed. We are no longer in ancient Rome. Now the moral thing to do is to allow same sex couples to marry and to encourage same sex couples to adopt and form families.

To oppose this idea is to commit the sin of legalism. To emphasize the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.

Some would argue that marriage is defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman. That is not the case. Nobody ever asked Jesus if same sex unions are outside of the marriage covenant. All anyone asked Jesus was whether men could divorce their wife for any reason, and Jesus responded to that question within the context of that question. Many have taken his response out of context and in their own opinion, have argued that it is an absolutist definition for marriage as between one man and one woman. What they have failed to do is explain the rational behind that absolutist definition.

I have never heard an argument as to how same sex marriage would be outside of the spirit of the law. All I have ever heard is that homosexuality is not obedience to the law.


I think the Bible is clear enough on marriage and sexual intimacy. Marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a woman, and sexual intimacy is reserved for that sacred relationship. Any sexual intimacy outside of the relationship between a man and a woman who are married to one another is unacceptable.

The Old Testament goes into a lot of specifics. Don't have sex with close relatives, don't have sex with someone else's spouse, don't have sex with animals, don't have sex with someone of the same sex as yourself, and so on. These specifics ought not be needed, as it is clear that all of them are outside of the scope of legitimate marriage.

Ultimately, it is also clear where your own position is coming from. You're someone who is knowingly and willingly caught up in sin, and who is unwilling to face the truth of your situation, Instead, you're looking for loopholes that are not there. You're trying to argue that the Bible does not say what it very clearly does say, so that you can argue that your own clearly sinful behavior is not sinful.
 
I'm aware. The Bible also says if a man touches anything that a woman who is menstruating touches, then he is unclean. I'm not asking what the letter of the law is, I'm asking what the spirit of the law is. You can quote verses all day long.

:lamo

How can you have the spirit of the law if you don't have the letter of the law?

Furthermore, how can the spirit of the law be the opposite of the letter? :lol:



What matters is how they are interpreted. I disagree with how you have interpreted those verses. It is contrary to the spirit of the law.

You mean, what matters is how you want to interpret them.
 
The Bible, I'm told, makes it crystal clear that "homosexual" behavior is a sin, that that's not a matter for rational conjecture.

Having the condition we today label "homosexual", the Bible says nothing about that being a sin.

It's important, if we wish to be rational and speak intelligently on the matter, that we make this relevant distinction.
 
They generally respond that it is a sin because God said so or it is "unnatural" a.k.a. not part of God's design, but that is insufficient for an argument. Understanding the rational for why something is a sin is just as much a part of Christian theology and knowing that it is a sin.

But that is the reason why God said it is wrong - that it is unnatural! Even the New Testament states that:

Romans 1
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.




So I will make an argument for why homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.

It's a sin because homosexuality is an act of adultery. It is sexual activity that traditionally occurs outside of marriage. It generally occurs outside of a monogamous relationship and it serves no purpose towards creating a family.

But things have changed. We are no longer in ancient Rome.

The world may've changed....but God is still the same God. In fact, it is also in the Bible that we are not to conform to the ways of the world that's contrary to His commandment.


Now the moral thing to do is to allow same sex couples to marry and to encourage same sex couples to adopt and form families.

To oppose this idea is to commit the sin of legalism. To emphasize the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.

Some would argue that marriage is defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman. That is not the case. Nobody ever asked Jesus if same sex unions are outside of the marriage covenant. All anyone asked Jesus was whether men could divorce their wife for any reason, and Jesus responded to that question within the context of that question. Many have taken his response out of context and in their own opinion, have argued that it is an absolutist definition for marriage as between one man and one woman. What they have failed to do is explain the rational behind that absolutist definition.

I have never heard an argument as to how same sex marriage would be outside of the spirit of the law. All I have ever heard is that homosexuality is not obedience to the law.

You can give all the argument you can come up with to try to re-interpret what is clearly and undoubtedly stated in the Bible - that still wouldn't change what is stated by God.

Romans 1
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.



We're not supposed to approve of it either....because approving it is also forbidden. Much as I can only imagine the terrible dilemma facing a homosexual, acceptance and approval of SSM ( or homosexuality in general) - or any other things that are clearly against the law of God - would also put me in the wrong.


Romans 1
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.




Please take note that it is the practice or the act itself that's abhorrent to God. Not the individual.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom