• 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

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 
A great arguement. I would also like to add that jesus supposedly said we are all to love on another and in this case isn't the hatred towards the gay community disobeying that?

jesus-stutter.jpg
 
:lamo

................
 
I think that the Biblical argument is based on sex being for reproductive purpose. Masturbation, for example, is expressly prohibited. Since a same sex couple could not reproduce, it would be a sin.

BTW, I'm just trying to answer the question. That's not my personal position - I consider the Bible to be a work of fiction written for political purpose.
 
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.
I find that hard to believe, since it's clear that it's a sin in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (It is unclean to have homosexual relations. Uncleanliness is a sin) Deuteronomy 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (Sexual perversion, as defined by the Judeo-Christian god is expressly forbidden) 1 Corinthians 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. " (If you are unclean, you aren't going to heaven). There's more, I can post if need be, but that's the bare bones of it.

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.
Sorry, but god saying so does make it a sin. Not sure if you understand how important Yahweh is to the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. His word is final.

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.
Time doesn't nullify Yahweh's laws, unless you can find me a passage where god says "and in a few thousand years, forget about all that stuff I said".

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.
It's a forbidden act of uncleanliness that is both detestable to Yahweh, and a bar from being accepted into the kingdom of Heaven. It's pretty simple, actually. God said no, so don't ****ing do it if you want to inherit the kingdom of Heaven.

If you are a Christian, you don't have to kill them, or oppress them, but doing it is a no no.
 
Last edited:
I find that hard to believe, since it's clear that it's a sin in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (It is unclean to have homosexual relations. Uncleanliness is a sin) Deuteronomy 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (Sexual perversion, as defined by the Judeo-Christian god is expressly forbidden) 1 Corinthians 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. " (If you are unclean, you aren't going to heaven). There's more, I can post if need be, but that's the bare bones of it.

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. 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.

Sorry, but god saying so does make it a sin. Not sure if you understand how important Yahweh is to the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. His word is final.

What a dangerous way of thinking. Do not pretend that your subjective interpretations of God's law are the equivalat to "god saying so". If God gave every man a moral compass and reason, then it seems pretty clear that God wants us to figure out what consequences befall those who disobey the law.

Time doesn't nullify Yahweh's laws, unless you can find me a passage where god says "and in a few thousand years, forget about all that stuff I said".

Do you stone adulterers?

It's a forbidden act of uncleanliness that is both detestable to Yahweh, and a bar from being accepted into the kingdom of Heaven. It's pretty simple, actually. God said no, so don't ****ing do it if you want to inherit the kingdom of Heaven.

Why did God say no? That question offends so many people. It was demanded of Christians in the Bible that they understand not just the law, but the spirit of the law, the rational behind why things are sin. In other words, what is the consequence of "uncleanliness". How I interpret this is that much disease has been spread through promiscuous homosexual sex. Things are different. Gay people can form committed, monogamous relationships that protect against the spread of disease.

Why is it that so many people are afraid of being open to interpretations of the law that differ from their own. I'm not going to disagree that those Bible verses exist. Only that the way you interpret them, without considering the rational behind them, is sinful in itself.

If you are a Christian, you don't have to kill them, or oppress them, but doing it is a no no.

In your opinion.
 
Last edited:
I think that the Biblical argument is based on sex being for reproductive purpose. Masturbation, for example, is expressly prohibited. Since a same sex couple could not reproduce, it would be a sin.

BTW, I'm just trying to answer the question. That's not my personal position - I consider the Bible to be a work of fiction written for political purpose.

No it's not.
 
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.
They see me trollin'....they hatin'...

but no, seriously, we're going to judge the "spirit of the law", based on personal opinion now? is this so?
 
No it's not.
Not expressively, but anything that causes destruction of seed (male masturbation, using a condom, etc), is forbidden. (Onan was killed for spilling his seed upon the ground).

back then, to have that kind of a regulation wasn't that much of a big deal(it's said, not even some pagans would spill their seed). You didn't have a society that was constantly being barraged by a mass media whos only purpose is to sell sexuality. If there was an enticing girl, you usually didn't masturbate and "think about her".

Hey, at least you can't say it's all anti-feminist. Just think how hard it is for a guy to obey that. it'd be a fight everyday, in this day and age.
 
Last edited:
They see me trollin'....they hatin'...

but no, seriously, we're going to judge the "spirit of the law", based on personal opinion now? is this so?

Based on reason. I can provide a rational argument to support my view. Can you?
 
Not expressively, but anything that causes destruction of seed (male masturbation, using a condom, etc), is forbidden. (Onan was killed for spilling his seed upon the ground).

back then, to have that kind of a regulation wasn't that much of a big deal(it's said, not even some pagans would spill their seed). You didn't have a society that was constantly being barraged by a mass media whos only purpose is to sell sexuality. If there was an enticing girl, you usually didn't masturbate and "think about her".

Hey, at least you can't say it's all anti-feminist. Just think how hard it is for a guy to obey that. it'd be a fight everyday, in this day and age.

He was killed because he disobeyed God, not because he spilled his seed. Masturbation is not a sin.

And we've been masturbating forever, it's not a new thing due to media. That is just silly.
 
A great arguement. I would also like to add that jesus supposedly said we are all to love on another and in this case isn't the hatred towards the gay community disobeying that?

View attachment 67125055
I'm still trying to make the jump from "voting against same-sex marriage" equals "hating gays". I'm sure a lot of people that do vote hate gays, but some of the times, it's just their beliefs. Telling someone to vote for something that is against their personal morals is quite disrespectful.
 
Last edited:
I find it odd that so few have responded to my charge.

I think I have discovered something dangerous. There is more than one way to interpret scripture. However, not all interpretations are equal. Some are more reasonable than others. Applying reason to scripture and demanding that others justify their opinions with a rational seems to quiet people in an alarming way. Then it is no longer a battle of quoting scripture, but of understanding it. I get the sense that a lot of people are more comfortable following the letter of the law, that trying to understand the spirit of the law.
 
He was killed because he disobeyed God, not because he spilled his seed. Masturbation is not a sin.
I realize this argument, but it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the story of Onan, as well as the biblical definitions of adultery, in accordance with the decalogue. The punishment for disobeying the laws of levirate marriage is not death. So there is only one reason for why Onan died.
And we've been masturbating forever, it's not a new thing due to media. That is just silly.
I didn't say it was necessarily new, but that wasn't to the degree of nowdays. Porn wasn't accessible in private in ancient days.
 
Last edited:
Based on reason. I can provide a rational argument to support my view. Can you?
Well, I already asked, how does opposing same sex marriage, which is a legal position = WE HATE GAYS WE SHOULD LYNCH EM LOLOL, which is merely a social attitude.
 
I realize this argument, but it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the story of Onan, as well as the biblical definitions of adultery, in accordance with the decalogue.

No, your argument doesn't. God told Onan to have sex with his brothers wife so she would have a child, he did, but he pulled out, and disobeyed God, and was punished. He didn't even masturbate, just pulled out. The story has nothing to do with masturbation.

The fact that some people wish to try and make everything sexual a sin is just beyond me. Damned puritans.

I didn't say it was necessarily new, but that wasn't to the degree of nowdays. Porn wasn't accessible in private in ancient days.

You don't need porn to masturbate.
 
No, your argument doesn't. God told Onan to have sex with his brothers wife so she would have a child, he did, but he pulled out, and disobeyed God, and was punished. He didn't even masturbate, just pulled out. The story has nothing to do with masturbation.
Then he wouldn't have died. The punishment for disobeying levirate marriage isn't death. But for adultery, which under the terms of the decalogue, which includes ANYTHING that destroys seed (Pulling out, masturbation, condom use, etc), the punishment IS death. There are 2000 years worth of commentary on the matter, if you so wish. :)
The fact that some people wish to try and make everything sexual a sin is just beyond me. Damned puritans.
You're not the one affected in the slightest, so I don't necessarily see why you would care. It's only male masturbation that's prohibited.


You don't need porn to masturbate.
But that's how many guys get started. I can testify to this (started at ~15ish after I was pressured to watch a porn video with my friend). Perhaps you didn't know that about guys. :)
 
Last edited:
Then he wouldn't have died. The punishment for disobeying levirate marriage isn't death. But for adultery, which under the terms of the decalogue, which includes ANYTHING that destroys seed (Pulling out, masturbation, condom use, etc), the punishment IS death. There are 2000 years worth of commentary on the matter, if you so wish. :)

He disobeyed God, not some random bronze age law, that's why the punishment was so severe. The act itself was irrelevant.
You're not the one affected in the slightest, so I don't necessarily see why you would care. It's only male masturbation that's prohibited.

I'm not affected, I just thought I'd educated you on the story since you've been interpreting it incorrectly.


But that's how many guys get started. I can testify to this (started at ~15ish after I was pressured to watch a porn video with my friend). Perhaps you didn't know that about guys. :)

That's a rather late start. Most people start way earlier.
 
He disobeyed God, not some random bronze age law, that's why the punishment was so severe. The act itself was irrelevant.
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)
I'm not affected, I just thought I'd educated you on the story since you've been interpreting it incorrectly.
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.


That's a rather late start. Most people start way earlier.
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.
 
Last edited:
As Christians,
who, ourselves, have been granted forgiveness,
we are to forgive,
and not sit in judgement,

because ANYONE can come to our God, through His Son Jesus, for the exact same forgiveness of ALL sin.
 
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. 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 aren't asking for anything other than confirmation of your own beliefs. A lot of people seem to disagree with your interpretation as well.



What a dangerous way of thinking. Do not pretend that your subjective interpretations of God's law are the equivalat to "god saying so". If God gave every man a moral compass and reason, then it seems pretty clear that God wants us to figure out what consequences befall those who disobey the law.
I take it that you're not familiar at all with how Christianity works.


Do you stone adulterers?
I'm not a Christian, or a Jew, so no.


Why did God say no? That question offends so many people. It was demanded of Christians in the Bible that they understand not just the law, but the spirit of the law, the rational behind why things are sin. In other words, what is the consequence of "uncleanliness". How I interpret this is that much disease has been spread through promiscuous homosexual sex. Things are different. Gay people can form committed, monogamous relationships that protect against the spread of disease.
Doesn't matter what gays can do, homosexuality is labeled sexual perversion in the bible. Even in the New Testament, it is stated as a bar from heaven. If you want to know why, try asking your god, instead of asking questions you already know the answers to. If Christianity offends your sensibilities, don't partake.

Why is it that so many people are afraid of being open to interpretations of the law that differ from their own. I'm not going to disagree that those Bible verses exist. Only that the way you interpret them, without considering the rational behind them, is sinful in itself.
It's not my interpretation, it's what the Bible says. Homosexuality is detestable/an abomination (Leviticus) There will be no sodomites amongst the Sons of Israel (Deuteronomy) The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven (1 Corinthians) What exactly are you not getting? You aren't looking for answers, or the spirit of anything. You're looking for a loophole.


In your opinion.
No, I can read. It's clear as day.
 
It's not my interpretation, it's what the Bible says. Homosexuality is detestable/an abomination (Leviticus) There will be no sodomites amongst the Sons of Israel (Deuteronomy) The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven (1 Corinthians) What exactly are you not getting? You aren't looking for answers, or the spirit of anything. You're looking for a loophole.

It is interesting that you can't see that it is your interpretation. I'm not looking for any loophole because I don't need one. Quoting scripture and understanding scripture are two entirely different things. I don't question that homosexuality, as a promiscuous lifestyle practiced outside of monogamy and commitment is a sin. Committed, monogamous same sex relationships are not discussed in the Bible.

And I understand perfectly well what Christianity is. Blind obedience to the word of God with no understanding of the word of God is not Christianity. That is legalism.

By the way, did you know that the word "homosexuality" did not exist before the 19th century? How do you imagine it worked its way into the Bible?
 
Last edited:
It is interesting that you can't see that it is your interpretation. I'm not looking for any loophole because I don't need one. Quoting scripture and understanding scripture are two entirely different things.
I'll be sure to tell 99.9% of all pastors and priests in the world that they're getting it wrong too.

I don't question that homosexuality, as a promiscuous lifestyle practiced outside of monogamy and commitment is a sin. Committed, monogamous same sex relationships are not discussed in the Bible.
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.

And I understand perfectly well what Christianity is. Blind obedience to the word of God with no understanding of the word of God is not Christianity. That is legalism.
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.

By the way, did you know that the word "homosexuality" did not exist before the 19th century? How do you imagine it worked its way into the Bible?
I'm sorry, is this supposed to be a serious question?
 
Moderator's Warning:
I remind all that a higher level of civility is asked of posters in the Religious Discussion forum, due to the volatile nature of the topic. Please bear this in mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom