• 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!

Being LGBT is Not a Sin

1.) there is no objective evidence of any god, ever.

2.) If your unproven god is claimed to be all-knowing (omniscient) then we would not have free will because omniscience and free will are logically incompatible. If we do not have actual free will then sin is impossible because we didn't choose our actions. We cannot be punished for actions that we didn't choose. They were already chosen for us but because of the appearance of free will not actual free will they look like choices to us.



A church or religion has never been forced by the state to do anything because a religious sacrament or even membership in any religion is not a constitutional right. That is part of the separation of church and state.

How are you being forced to do anything or even like trans people? The fact that trans people seek equal secular rights doesnt take anything away from you or anyone else. You have the free speech right to disagree and others have the equal right to call you a homophobe or transphobe.

You could do as your savior commanded people to do but that would likely be seen as religious persecution to his most conservative and hypocritical followers. Matthew 7:12, luke 6:31.
Creation is enough evidence of God. We do have free will, and it is why we sin, we choose self over God! Separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. Having someones best interest is not any kind of phobe! Since when is disagreeing with someone treating them poorly, I can disagree with trans whatever you call it and still treat people well.
 
I'm merely explaining the Christian point of view, as it is presented in the Bible.


No you are not.

You are giving your own, uninformed, opinions on what the bible's intent.

Look, homosexuality was openly practiced throughout the middle east, Greece, Rome etc. If homosexuality is such a ****ing "sin", why is there NOT ONE WORD on it in the entire New Testament?

When you have an answer for that I will consider giving interest to your 'theories".
 
No you are not.

You are giving your own, uninformed, opinions on what the bible's intent.

Look, homosexuality was openly practiced throughout the middle east, Greece, Rome etc. If homosexuality is such a ****ing "sin", why is there NOT ONE WORD on it in the entire New Testament?

When you have an answer for that I will consider giving interest to your 'theories".
The Bible is consistent through both Old and New Testaments in confirming that homosexuality is sin (Genesis 19:1–13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7). In this matter, the New Testament reinforces what the Old Testament had declared since the Law was given to Moses (Leviticus 20:13). The difference between the Old and New Testaments is that the New Testament offers hope and restoration to those caught up in the sin of homosexuality through the redeeming power of Jesus. It is the same hope that is offered to anyone who chooses to accept it (John 1:12; 3:16–18).

God’s standards of holiness did not change with the coming of Jesus, because God does not change (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). The New Testament is a continuing revelation of God’s interaction with humanity. God hated idolatry in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 5:8), and He still hates it in the New (1 John 5:21). What was immoral in the Old Testament is still immoral in the New.

The New Testament says that homosexuality is a “shameful lust” (Romans 1:26), a “shameful act,” an abandonment of “natural relations” (Romans 1:27), a “wrongdoing” (1 Corinthians 6:9), and “sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 1:7). Homosexuality carries a “due penalty” (Romans 1:27), “is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10), and is listed among the sins that bar people from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). Despite the attempts of some to downplay these verses, the Bible could not be clearer that homosexuality is a sin against God.

Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21–23).
 
Why do gay people want to marry under a religion that prohibits it ? I never understood.
They don't. They want to be LEGALLY married. Nobody is demanding that any church be required to perform the service.
Certainly not when "living together" offers the same rights as being married.
Unless your partner becomes incapacitated, hospitalized, or dies. Or you die. Living together leads to long, messy probate wrangling.

Because the Left wants to force people to like it.

They'll keep going until others stop giving in. Denmark, for example, passed a law REQUIRING churches to perform same sex unions. It'll take longer in the US, but make no mistake, that's the direction they want to go in. They just don't want freedom to, they want freedom from anyone disagreeing - already they're pushing the lie that being against same sex unions or the like is "hate" and of course they argue that "hate" is not free speech, so it's a small jump to the next step, where if you have "hateful" opinions, you can't express them or act in accordance with your beliefs.
Slippery slope fallacy is slippery.
 
They don't. They want to be LEGALLY married. Nobody is demanding that any church be required to perform the service.

Unless your partner becomes incapacitated, hospitalized, or dies. Or you die. Living together leads to long, messy probate wrangling.


Slippery slope fallacy is slippery.
You can't say "nobody," certainly not "everybody" - but there are plenty of folks I've heard who would require churches to service same sex weddings, because they want churches held to the same non-discrimination policies as secular entities.

Also, my statement was in no way a slippery slope, and slippery slope is not necessarily a fallacy. Slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. That's beside my point, however, as my point was not an argument that X is bad because of subsequent worse things coming later. My point was that the Left simply never stops with its bullshit, which it doesn't. The point is not to reach a point of being happy. The point is to be perpetually unhappy, and perpetually aggrieved.
 
You can't say "nobody," certainly not "everybody" - but there are plenty of folks I've heard who would require churches to service same sex weddings, because they want churches held to the same non-discrimination policies as secular entities.
You will find the occasional lunatic in any cause.
Also, my statement was in no way a slippery slope, and slippery slope is not necessarily a fallacy. Slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. That's beside my point, however, as my point was not an argument that X is bad because of subsequent worse things coming later. My point was that the Left simply never stops with its bullshit, which it doesn't. The point is not to reach a point of being happy. The point is to be perpetually unhappy, and perpetually aggrieved.
But it isn't likely to occur. The US government cannot force any religion to perform any service whatsoever.
 
Creation is enough evidence of God.
That's no more evidence for a God than it I'd for fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes.
We do have free will, and it is why we sin, we choose self over God!
There's no such thing as free will if godvis omnipotent and omniscient.
Separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution.
Demonstrably false. Even the SCOTUS has affirmed separation is in the constitution. Do you know what is not in the constitution? Christianity! Or religion, save for the freedom of.
Having someones best interest is not any kind of phobe!
Since when do you have anyone's interest at heart? What business is it of your anyway.
Since when is disagreeing with someone treating them poorly,
When you start insulting them and calling them mentally ill and such.
 
Creation is enough evidence of God. We do have free will, and it is why we sin, we choose self over God! Separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. Having someones best interest is not any kind of phobe! Since when is disagreeing with someone treating them poorly, I can disagree with trans whatever you call it and still treat people well.
That is a watchmaker's fallacy or argument from design.

The separation of church and state is found in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Have you ever heard of Tom Jefferson? He wasn't gay or trans, so you might have.

Gentlemen


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

I'll give you $20.00 if you can find me even one instance of a congregational church being sued in a civil court and forced to marry someone who doesn't obey their beliefs.

You can't say "nobody," certainly not "everybody" - but there are plenty of folks I've heard who would require churches to service same sex weddings, because they want churches held to the same non-discrimination policies as secular entities.

Where did you hear this? Interracial marriage was legalized over 50 years (Loving v. Virginia) ago and no church has yet ever been forced to marry an interracial couple against their beliefs. Why do you believe these absurd claims?
 
Last edited:
You can't say "nobody," certainly not "everybody" - but there are plenty of folks I've heard who would require churches to service same sex weddings, because they want churches held to the same non-discrimination policies as secular entities.

Also, my statement was in no way a slippery slope, and slippery slope is not necessarily a fallacy. Slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. That's beside my point, however, as my point was not an argument that X is bad because of subsequent worse things coming later. My point was that the Left simply never stops with its bullshit, which it doesn't. The point is not to reach a point of being happy. The point is to be perpetually unhappy, and perpetually aggrieved.
Of course they want churches forced to acknowledge their sin as normal otherwise guilt will continue to plague them! Don't you know you must conform!
 
Of course they want churches forced to acknowledge their sin as normal otherwise guilt will continue to plague them! Don't you know you must conform!
Is reading a problem? #208

and,

Which brings us to the question of whether or not a church will be forced to marry same-sex couples. The answer is a resounding “NO.” The separation between church and state, coupled with the First Amendment’s religious freedom protection, will serve to prevent this from occurring. Just as a Jewish synagogue cannot be forced to marry a Catholic couple, no church will be forced to marry a same-sex couple. Churches are free to establish the requirements under which a marriage will be sanctioned as well as prohibitions that will prevent the church from conducting a marriage ceremony. Many Catholic churches, for instance, will not perform a wedding if the bride or groom is divorced (unless the prior marriage was annulled).


The bottom line is that while the law now prohibits the state or federal government from enacting laws that prohibit same-sex marriage, no church will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

 
as a Christian ive never experienced that in anyway whatsoever
whos and what political agenda are you speaking of, factual examples please
Your priest has moved to a new parish because he liked the weather more...
 
You can't say "nobody," certainly not "everybody" - but there are plenty of folks I've heard who would require churches to service same sex weddings, because they want churches held to the same non-discrimination policies as secular entities.
define "plenty" LOL
I haven't seen anybody do that "want to force churches to practice non-discimtition"
and if they exist they are fringe nutters not associated with anybody in reality
 
Your priest has moved to a new parish because he liked the weather more...
I dknot know about my pastor's history i just know as a Christian ive never experienced that in anyway whatsoever what that other poster was making up
 
Of course they want churches forced to acknowledge their sin as normal otherwise guilt will continue to plague them! Don't you know you must conform!
What churches are being forced to conform to anything? Prove it!
 
That is a watchmaker's fallacy or argument from design.

The separation of church and state is found in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Have you ever heard of Tom Jefferson? He wasn't gay or trans, so you might have.



I'll give you $20.00 if you can find me even one instance of a congregational church being sued in a civil court and forced to marry someone who doesn't obey their beliefs.



Where did you hear this? Interracial marriage was legalized over 50 years (Loving v. Virginia) ago and no church has yet ever been forced to marry an interracial couple against their beliefs. Why do you believe these absurd claims?
I do not give a rip about the establishment clause, Separation of Church and state does not occur in the wording! It means the Stae will not establish one religion to rule them all!
I do not care it doesn't mean they aren't sued to do so and it does happen!
 
Actually, there is nothing sinister with CHRISTIANS influencing the workings of either government nor its laws.
as a Christian myself that is factually wrong
to act like there's "nothing sinister" about it is pure ignorance of dishonest, pick one

does that mean any and every act of influence is sinister? of course not but history has shown how many were and are today, some of the tried influence is downright disgusting and anti-America, antirights and antifreedom.
 
What churches are being forced to conform to anything? Prove it!
The first church of holy delusions and paranoia.


I had this same discussion with my daughter in 2015. She made the same absurd claims. Apparently, Rev Hellfire was spreading this lie in Sunday services.

I do not give a rip about the establishment clause, Separation of Church and state does not occur in the wording! It means the Stae will not establish one religion to rule them all!
I do not care it doesn't mean they aren't sued to do so and it does happen!
If you would have bothered to read you would have seen that it is church law and not secular civil law. Most religions have internal courts to decide matters of faith and belief. That is very separate from the state.

I do not give a rip about the establishment clause, Separation of Church and state does not occur in the wording! It means the Stae will not establish one religion to rule them all!
I do not care it doesn't mean they aren't sued to do so and it does happen!
The idea of separation of church and state is inherent in the establishment clause. if you would read the words of the framers you would know this. Religion and the government is to be kept absolutely separate.



If you would have bothered to read you would have seen that it is church law and not secular civil law. Most religions have internal courts to decide matters of faith and belief. That is very separate from the state.



United Methodist pastor is facing a complaint under church law because he declined to officiate at a same-sex wedding.



A gay couple at Green Street Church, a United Methodist congregation in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, has filed the formal complaint against their pastor, the Rev. Kelly P. Carpenter.


The couple, Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell, charge Carpenter under the Book of Discipline with “failure to perform the work of ministry.” Their complaint also accuses Carpenter of “gender discrimination” in not officiating at their ceremony. Gender discrimination is also a chargeable offense under church law.


The United Methodist Book of Discipline, the denomination’s book of church law and teachings, also states that all people are of sacred worth but the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” It is a chargeable offense under church law for clergy to preside at same-sex unions.


In the complaint, the couple says the denomination’s rules are contradictory.


“God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be),” the complaint said.
 
Last edited:
I do not give a rip about the establishment clause, Separation of Church and state does not occur in the wording! It means the Stae will not establish one religion to rule them all!
I do not care it doesn't mean they aren't sued to do so and it does happen!
At least you're honest about your disdain for the Constitution. Wallow in your willful ignorance then. No one gives a rats ass about what you care about. Separation is in the Constitution and has been legally affirmed and is applicable. Your religion is not! Deal with it!
 
Last edited:
That's no more evidence for a God than it I'd for fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes.

There's no such thing as free will if godvis omnipotent and omniscient.

Demonstrably false. Even the SCOTUS has affirmed separation is in the constitution. Do you know what is not in the constitution? Christianity! Or religion, save for the freedom of.

Since when do you have anyone's interest at heart? What business is it of your anyway.

When you start insulting them and calling them mentally ill and such.


Years ago the church I attended became one of many being studied by college teams about how much $ were actually spent on "God's work".

Heres how it broke down

We had a budget of $360,000:
Salaries two full time pastors at $ 88,000 & $75,000 respectively
and another $42,000 spent on 'part time ministries'.
After rent, heat, etc. there was $64,000 left over for "ministries", $7,500 of which was spent on "neighborhood helps".

That was the entire contribution made to those in "need".
The Bible is consistent through both Old and New Testaments in confirming that homosexuality is sin (Genesis 19:1–13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7). In this matter, the New Testament reinforces what the Old Testament had declared since the Law was given to Moses (Leviticus 20:13). The difference between the Old and New Testaments is that the New Testament offers hope and restoration to those caught up in the sin of homosexuality through the redeeming power of Jesus. It is the same hope that is offered to anyone who chooses to accept it (John 1:12; 3:16–18).

God’s standards of holiness did not change with the coming of Jesus, because God does not change (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). The New Testament is a continuing revelation of God’s interaction with humanity. God hated idolatry in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 5:8), and He still hates it in the New (1 John 5:21). What was immoral in the Old Testament is still immoral in the New.

The New Testament says that homosexuality is a “shameful lust” (Romans 1:26), a “shameful act,” an abandonment of “natural relations” (Romans 1:27), a “wrongdoing” (1 Corinthians 6:9), and “sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 1:7). Homosexuality carries a “due penalty” (Romans 1:27), “is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10), and is listed among the sins that bar people from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). Despite the attempts of some to downplay these verses, the Bible could not be clearer that homosexuality is a sin against God.

Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21–23).


Romans 1:21...

"or this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;"

That says nothing about homosexuality, but HINTS at lesbian acts. And it can be interpreted many ways.

This is an old haunt and useless
 
I dknot know about my pastor's history i just know as a Christian ive never experienced that in anyway whatsoever what that other poster was making up
More of a reference to Catholic churches.
 
That would never fly. It's little more than big talk.
A few short years ago most everyone agreed boys shouldn't be allowed to play on the girls' team. Go figure.
 
I would definitely strip tax exemption from any church that gets involved in politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom