Nope, you are merely trying to paint it so because you have no logical argument.
The Marriage License is not a government issued and recognized contract? Is that what you're really saying? Lying is not going to help your case here.
Morality has very little to do with government. Government is to be concerned with the rights and liberties of the individual. Not someone's sense of right and wrong. Morals and rights can line up; but legally it is rights which are the main concern.
I didn't say that you had to throw anything out. All I've said is that you cannot use government force to enact your moral code at the expense of the rights and liberties of the individual. It's not a tough concept.
They can disagree all they want on non-religious grounds. They are still wrong. You cannot rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others when that action in and of itself does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Besides, they may disagree for non-religious grounds; but you didn't.
No, I am not painting anything. Morals are subjective whether you want to admit it or not. Has nothing to do with my argument here and never did.
Is that all you have left? Going to accuse me a lying now? :roll:
Look at my statement and who I was replying too. I am and was talking about gay marriage, period.
And yet the majority of our laws are mysteriously moral based.
By law it has happend many, MANY times. So no, it seems it can.
So again it is entirely subjective.
I mean we now have eminent domain for private u
You will have no rights to visitation benefits etc. If your spouse dies, you are SOL you are entitled to nothing but your own possessions. Come again?
I am not trying to force anything. How many times do I have to repeat this? I will not support it. I would no more support it then support freeing a guilty murderer.
My values no matter where they come from are mine. I don't care what yours are, thats why we have a legal system.
The marriages are not recognized by all states as legal, and most of them are not marriages but civil unions. Try again.
Nope, you are merely trying to paint it so because you have no logical argument.
The Marriage License is not a government issued and recognized contract? Is that what you're really saying? Lying is not going to help your case here.
Morality has very little to do with government. Government is to be concerned with the rights and liberties of the individual. Not someone's sense of right and wrong. Morals and rights can line up; but legally it is rights which are the main concern.
I didn't say that you had to throw anything out. All I've said is that you cannot use government force to enact your moral code at the expense of the rights and liberties of the individual. It's not a tough concept.
They can disagree all they want on non-religious grounds. They are still wrong. You cannot rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others when that action in and of itself does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Besides, they may disagree for non-religious grounds; but you didn't.
And in that action against support for the free exercise of the rights and liberties of the individual, you have demonstrated that you do have a problem with protecting the rights of the individual. Support of action against the rights of the individual is not protection of the rights of the individual.
Those are rights guaranteed by the state. Where in the Bible are those things mentioned? Why should you deny those rights to same sex couples?
ROFL. The fact that you compare supporting same sex marriage to supporting the release of a guilty murderer shows how incapable you are of reasonably discussing this topic you are.
Indeed. Including a court system which protects my constitutional rights of equal protection and due process by allowing me to marry someone of the same sex if I so choose.
Just so I am clear, are you saying that Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington DC do not have same sex marriage, they have civil unions? Do you really want to stand by that position? Are you really that ignorant of the situation?
And if it happen, OK. If not, oh well. I really have no vested interest either way.
My biggest beef is how non-Christians and so called Christians try to pervert the Bible to mean something it does not.
It shows how I view sin as sin. I also see adultery and lying in the same light. I don't support them either.
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, period. Thats why.
What makes this really funny is that you have to assert yourself as an authority on how to "correctly" the interpret the Bible in order to make this argument. The fact is you are worth no more than any other person when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Their interpretation is just as valid as your own but with your superiority complex, you just can't stand the thought that it isn't your place to judge how others interpret the Bible. It is between them and God.
Ah, how sweet. The moment you see all sins as equal, then it makes the word meaningless. Everybody lies, so I guess it is alright if everyone cheats on their wife and murders their boss. After all, all sin is equal in God's eyes.
According to 5 states, one US federal district, one US Indian tribe, and 10 other countries, you are wrong. But I suppose you can just ignore all those and pretend they are just cviil unions.
Any questions?
Since gay marriage does not exist on the books, and never has. What exactly is their to render?
If your hand causes you to sin, better to cut it off than face hellfire.
Now you accuse me of lying? We were talking about gay marriage. Please don't play stupid.
And yet the vast majority of our criminal laws are indeed based on morality. I notice you completely ignored my example.
This is still irrelevant to my statement or original post.
It's not, but we were not really talking about the government throwing out anything.
He tried to use "render unto Cesar" as some kind of bases for the law of the society we live in. I pointed out correctly gay marriage is not law according to the Feds and most of the states. In fact some states have amended their constitutions so it cannot be overturned by a judge.
So obviously you can use government.
They are wrong according to some, and not others.
Obviously you can rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others and many states have enacted such laws. So has the Federal government. I mean they suspended habeas corpus, don't tell me they can't.
I don't see gay marriage as a right as do many others. Hell allot of people don't see marriage as a right. Some people think we have a right to health care.
Sorry, your subjective argument is just that.
What makes you think it's mine? I mean lets just ignore thousands of years of biblical scholars who have read it in it's original toungs etc. We will just go by someones Internet cut and past interpretation. :lol: I mean that is what it boils down to on this debate forum.
Of course you are not a Christian anyway, but you know so much more about my religion than I do.
You are way off target and completly ignore my point. That's par for the course I guess.
Any questions?
Yeah, I know we were talking about gay marriage. That's why I brought up the Marriage License. Because in the context of gay marriage, that is the contract being forbidden from certain couples. Please don't be stupid.
What example? I saw that you made the same statement twice, but no example.
It is not irrelecant to the gay marriage debate
Not justly, because the government issues the Marriage License, which is a State issued and recognized contract. Forbidding certain couples from engaging in the contract is a violation of their right to contract.
No, you can enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. But those laws are never rightful nor just.
You have right to contract, and it is contract which is being denied.
It's only seen like that by those wishing to engage in tyranny.
Yawn...an appeal to tradition fallacy.
Made all the more pathetic by the fact that the tradition has changed a number of times over the centuries. Heck, a lot of people are starting to question whether the Church actually endorsed some same sex marriages in its early history among its leadership.
Yes I do. I used to be Christian after all; went to Sunday School, member of Boy Scouts, studied in Youth Group, etc. all the way up to college.
Atheists and agnotics generally do know more than believers about Christianity.
But I'm mainly making fun of your own argument, not really making a Biblical argument. Of course, it's a pretty transparent defense mechanism when you start accusing other people of being uneducated instead of simply demonstrating it and you proclaim they have to be an active member of your religion to know anything about it. Pretty weak stuff.
You never have any points. You simply make false statements and then get pissed and argue that people are ignoring them when it is made clear they are false.
All anyone has to do is look back at your responces, and they know you are not knowledge at all on the subject of the Bible.
I certainly know more than you about it. :mrgreen:
I just learned long ago it isn't worth it to seriously try to reason with someone about something they were never reasoned into in the first place.
Not exactly....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/84851-question-people-believe-being-gay-wrong-29.html#post1059085171 :2wave:
As for your edit. Considering the length of your replies, I consider that little more than an understatement. :lol:
Yeah, what a great standard on which to base your morals. That is if you want to be a homophobic, sexist, pro slavery, sadistic murderer.
No, you pick and choose what you want to believe from the book just like every other Christian does. If not then you probably rely on someone else to interpret it for you and tell you what it means.
Let's start with the first part from Paul. That was his law for his church, none of which was a sin. It was mans law, not Gods.
Paul was very clear about this. I am certain you knew this, right? :doh
Well considering everything else you quoted was Old Testament, you being a well versed former Christian should no none of that applies to followers of Christ. That law was fulfilled and a new covenant between all men was made by Christ being the ultimate sacrifice.
Menstruation is not a sin even under the law of Leviticus. Having sex with a woman who is menstruating is considered unclean. This is not considered a sin.
On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
Leviticus 15:29-30
“‘If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[c]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.
Oh how pathetic. On one hand you argue the Old Testament Law, which ol' Jesus said he was not changing, no longer applies.
On the other hand you argue that Paul, who quotes from said Law (and sometimes quotes Plato), is to be followed as the authority regarding homosexuality and marriage, but not the laws regarding being sexist towards women, because those are just "man's laws".
Did you know that people have been accusing Paul of corrupting the teachings of Jesus Christ all the way back to his day? In essence, you have put the full weight of your belief on Paul's shoulders. Very orthodox view. Look up the Great Apostasy. For all intensive purposes you could be practicing a corruption of Jesus's teachings.
Funny how people cannot seperate the law from an opinion.
1 Corinthians 7:6-8 "6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
Even the Devil can misquote scripture out of context.
Actually it looks like you have no idea what scripture is saying.
"The one who can accept this should accept it." -Matt 19:12
When a woman has her monthly period, she remains unclean for seven days, and if you touch her, you must take a bath, but you remain unclean until evening.
- Contemp. English V.
Unclean =/= sin. Sounds more like sanitation advice to me.
“‘If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[c]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. - Leviticus 5:2-6
Leviticus 5 disagrees with you. Unclean = sin. That is why a sin offering is required.
Paul is talking about a total commitment to God. He is saying if you can but most don't. Still shows their is no room for gay marriage.
1. When did I confuse a law with an opinion? Did I ever claim that it was a law for people not to get married?
2. I didn't misquote anything. My quote was correct verbatim.
3. I didn't take anything out of context. The argument posited was that being gay was wrong because we were made man and woman and are morally compelled to leave our mother and father and become one flesh with a woman.
According to Paul, men are not morally compelled to become one flesh with a woman, and in fact encourages folks to not become one flesh with anyone at all. Thus the argument that men were originally designed to marry women and that this then should dictate the actions of all men is demonstrably false according to the opinons of Paul, who most Christians acknowledge as something of an authority on the subject.
---As a side note, I personally think Paul just didn't get it. He clearly thinks marriage is a concession to those who cannot control themselves, and that it would be better if people could just control their sexual urges and not get married at all.
According to Jesus however, marriage was part of the original design, and should be accepted by all who can accept it, even if they can control themselves just fine.
Clearly Jesus acknowledges that not everyone was meant to accept this blessing, and gay men and women seem to fall squarely in that category.
I agree. I was wrong. What does again Leviticus law for the Israelites have to do with any of this?
But WHY did he say so?
There seems to be no logical reason anymore for being gay to be considered wrong
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -Matt 7:12
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matt 22:37-40
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. 1 John 4:12
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 1 John 4:16
Paul's opinion as I highlighted was his and his alone, not God's. As you try and make it sound.
2. I ws talking about using to completely unrelated quotes you used.
3. Yes, you did. Paul was not quoting Gods law, it was his opinion, while Jesus laid down the actual law.
Again this was opinion, not the law. We know this is a fact.
This is possible, but it does not change the fact it was his feelings and had no basis in the law, none.
He clearly states between one man and one woman, period.
For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life--except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. - 1 Kings 15:5
Where does he clearly show this?
"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?