• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

The real debate on gay marriage

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
But we are not talking first person. We are talking theoretically, the words of God. You are arguing that God, in saying "You SHOULD do this" is not God conveying His will?
I'm saying that there is a difference between shall and should. Follow along.
sebastiansdreams said:
Okay, assuming that arsenokoitai does not mean homosexual sex, which you cannot prove, then there is a possibility that a married couple, through law, would not be sinning by having sex. But that is also throwing out the argument that marriage is meant for man and woman based solely on the premise that it does not say "thou shalt only marry your own sex."
And since you can't prove that it does and HISTORICAL evidence proves it not to mean it EITHER. Your harping on this point is becoming tedious. Also, we've gone over the "only" stuff already. Stop being alliterate.
sebastiansdreams said:
Firstly, bigotry suggests that I think less of homosexuals than I do of myself. And that is not a correct statement, so do not presume to make such a loaded statement unless you are certain it is fact. Furthermore, it is not the place for man to seek his own pleasure, just so long as he does not leave the boundaries of what God has clearly stated, rather it is the place of man to go above and beyond to seek the actual will of God. If you are wavering on a fence between sinning against God and feeding your own desires, it is better to lean towards pleasing God.
And since you don't know what God meant obviously, how can you know what's what.

sebastiansdreams said:
I went to the bank yesterday.
But I know you possibly couldn't believe that because I cannot prove it through means that are "scientific, irrefutable, provable in test cases, and REprovable."
Sure you can. You can go back to the bank. That's a repeatable thing. You could also present a deposit slip, camera recordings, teller relations, etc.
sebastiansdreams said:
You're welcome to have your faith, just don't say it's provalble any more than the invisible pink unicorn standing behind me is.
But if your invisible pink unicorn was causing millions of people to change their lives in an unexplainable positive way in which they all claim is true... then maybe you ought to take a second thought about just saying He couldn't possibly exist.
Unexplainable? I thought you were explaining it as god. OK, let's take a couple place where religion (christianity) was pushed into and see what happened. India, Mother Theresa along with $50M went in to change people for the better, is there a difference in their poverty or quality of life since her proselytizing? No. Moving on to Africa, catholicism becomes the continent's fastest growing religion, AIDS becomes pandemic, millions dying. Did poverty or quality of life enrich Africa during this movement? No. Of course, that's all syllogist logic isn't it?
sebastiansdreams said:
Sadly you don't understand that using a syllogism is false logic. It doesn't prove anything.

Where in that do you get false logic?
LOGIC 101:
Undistributed Middle
Definition:

The middle term in the premises of a standard form categorical syllogism never refers to all of the members of the category it describes.

Examples:
All Russians were revolutionists, and all anarchists were revolutionist, therefore, all anarchists were Russians.
The middle term is 'revolutionist'. While both Russians and anarchists share the common property of being revolutionist, they may be separate groups of revolutionists, and so we cannot conclude that anarchists are otherwise the same as Russians in any way. Example from Copi and Cohen, 208.
All trespassers are shot, and someone was shot, therefore, someone was a trespasser.
The middle term is 'shot'. While 'someone' and 'trespassers' may share the property of being shot, it doesn't follow that the someone in question was a trespasser; he may have been the victim of a mugging.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And since you skipped a vital point, I'll post it again:
Consider the following three statements:

- 1. God is perfectly good
- 2. The Bible is the perfect word of God
- 3. The Bible condemns loving homosexual relationships

It is my contention that at least one of those statements must logically be false. It is logically impossible for all of them to be true. If any two are true, then the third one must be false.

Of the three statements, I would say that the most likely to be false is statement 2, but I hope I've also presented a case that statement 3 is at least questionable
 

dontbanurse

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Hello all. I have been reading your religious debate. I thought this was a debate on gay marriage? We have a number of laws in effect that would not be considered moral in the eyes of the Lord. So why religion continues to sneak into these debates is beyond me.
As far as the bible.... The many opinions of what is said in the good book are too numerous to count! Hence all of the religions that we have in this fabulous world. The Bible says we should not eat pork. i don't see the stock market crashing because of this fact. We as a nation have through history judged things that are unknown and imposed our beliefs on those differences. We may have been wrong or we may have been right.
The fact of the matter is that 26% of America is gay. ( Those are the ones admitting to it) I believe that the democracy that I live in will allow those 26% to have the same rights as the other 74%. Once people can get passed their fear, perhaps not in my lifetime, we can truly be a UNITED STATES.

Just my opinion. :p
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
I'm saying that there is a difference between shall and should. Follow along.
But in this context, they essentially mean the same thing.

And since you can't prove that it does and HISTORICAL evidence proves it not to mean it EITHER.
This is an incomplete sentence and with all my power I cannot for the life of me understand what it is supposed to mean.

Your harping on this point is becoming tedious. Also, we've gone over the "only" stuff already. Stop being alliterate.
Yes, it is becoming incredibly tedious, and frustrating that you are still not listening to the argument. But you are still not showing that you understand the difference between what I must "prove" and what a Christian should consider sin based on that person's attempt to do the specified will of God.

And since you don't know what God meant obviously, how can you know what's what.
But don't you understand that's the whole point of finding the will of God? There are something we know for certain are God's intentions, then we are given other things that the Bible discusses that omits certain aspects of those intentions. That is when we seek answer in prayer, we study the context, we look at what God has said about certain things and try to come up with the best understanding of those intentions that we can and live our own lives accordingly.
In the end, my conclusion to the sinfulness of homosexual sex and/or marriage is only best reasoning and understanding of the issue. But you must understand, it isn't much of an issue for me, because I am not gay, I do not believe sinfulness should dictate law, and I am, at least not as of now, in a position where I would conduct a wedding.
I base this on what the Bible does say, and following what I feel is a logical train to an end. But, I believe that God also speaks volumes louder than the Bible. And if I were in the position to wed anyone, and a gay couple came to me, convinced that it was in God's will, then I would read the passages again, I would make an assessement of how geniune the couple was (which I would do in the case of any couple, straight or gay) and then I would pray about it and do as God told me to. The Bible is an authority: God is the authority.
Sure you can. You can go back to the bank. That's a repeatable thing. You could also present a deposit slip, camera recordings, teller relations, etc.
No, it cannot be proved by going to the bank today that I went to the bank yesterday. I could forge a deposit slip, assume the cameras never spotted me, and none of them remember me? What if all of those bits of evidence fail? Besides, none of this is following the scientific method because it isn't in a controlled environment. What happened yesterday cannot be repeated, and you may just have to take my word on it. Same with God. I can't show you a picture of God. But that doesn't mean that I can't provide evidence of him in the form of lives that have changed, prayers that are answered, and personal encounters with Him. How many people do you think claim have had a "God" encounter? Can you think of anything else that so many people claim they have experienced that you suggest doesn't exist?
Unexplainable?
Sorry, I meant "otherwise unexeplainable."
OK, let's take a couple place where religion (christianity) was pushed into and see what happened. India, Mother Theresa along with $50M went in to change people for the better, is there a difference in their poverty or quality of life since her proselytizing? No. Moving on to Africa, catholicism becomes the continent's fastest growing religion, AIDS becomes pandemic, millions dying. Did poverty or quality of life enrich Africa during this movement? No. Of course, that's all syllogist logic isn't it?
That is easily explainable. You are taking the stand that because they are poor, uneducated, and dying of an AIDS epedimic that they their lives were not radically altered. But you have to remember what Jesus promises to do for a life. Can you imagine the verse "I have come so that you shall have more money and less AIDS." The Holy Spirit simply brings joy and fulfillment and purpose. The living conditions of these people has not changed. But I would bet my left arm that if they are anything like the people I came across in the true slums of Brazil, they are completely changed people in the aspects that Christ said He could change people. These starving and desperately poor children had a joy and a sense of purpose that I have never seen out of the countless "priveleged" kids that I have been around.

Okay, I understand. You are not saying that all syllogistic logic is false logic, just the ones with Undistributed Centers. That I agree with. But at the same time, if you are creating a syllogistic argument where both original statements can be considered true, and they do serve to yeild the third statment soundly, then it is not a false logic.
As for your diagram, you are perfectly right. If those were my original two statements then the third statemtent would not be logical. But you mistook my argument by making it far too broad.
1.Things that are stated as God's will in the Bible can be assumed are God's will.
2. Homosexual marriage is not stated as God's will in the Bible
3. Homosexual marriage cannot be assumed as God's will.

The rest is an argument between whether it is the responsible of a believer to actively seek the will of God versus attempt to get away with what is not specified.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think we're getting somewhere actually. I mean, it's obvious we'll never have a complete meeting of the minds on religion or faith since we don't share that commonality. There are semantics issues that could really get into the realm of tedium and deflect from the main points.

Let me sum up the points I think that we agree on, please correct me where I'm wrong (and what I'm lacking) and maybe we can start wrapping this up.

1)Contemporary translations of the Bible contain the term "homosexual" or "homosexuality" and condemn it in the NT.
2)This term comes from a Greek word, arsenokoitai, that was not used before Paul.
3)The definition of this Greek term has of yet been determined as to what it means.
4)As such, there remains some ambiguity or doubt about the sinfulness of homosexuality.
5)According to the Bible, sex outside of marriage is a sin.
6)According to the Bible, sex inside of marriage isn't a sin.
7)The Bible promotes marriage.
8 )The Bible does talk about marriage between a man and his wife (and vice versa).
9)The Bible does not say that marriage is to only be between a man and a woman.
10)That everyone sins, no matter who they are
11)According to the Bible, the way into Heaven is to accept Jesus into one's heart.

Extra Credit Question: I'm asking this one because there is no right or wrong opinion here per se, it's just your opinion. If Jesus were here today, do you think he would be for or against marrying gays?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Check on all eleven points. We do agree with those. And like you said, there are differences in our opinions about exactly where to go with these facts, but, all in all, I do think we are more on the same page than not.

As for my extra credit: Based on what I do read about the husband/wife exchange in marriage reltionships, and based on my own parents, who just have this incredibly "role" oriented support system that they base off of the Bible (which in my parent's case makes them the best parents in the world ((note obvious bias, but none the less)), I do think that Jesus would be more ready to suggest marriage between man and woman. Remember, this has nothing to do with love or acceptance, only with what I think is the better solution of a male leaning on a female and vice versa. But as you stated, total opinion.
 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
dontbanurse said:
Hello all. I have been reading your religious debate. I thought this was a debate on gay marriage? We have a number of laws in effect that would not be considered moral in the eyes of the Lord. So why religion continues to sneak into these debates is beyond me.
As far as the bible.... The many opinions of what is said in the good book are too numerous to count! Hence all of the religions that we have in this fabulous world. The Bible says we should not eat pork. i don't see the stock market crashing because of this fact. We as a nation have through history judged things that are unknown and imposed our beliefs on those differences. We may have been wrong or we may have been right.
The fact of the matter is that 26% of America is gay. ( Those are the ones admitting to it) I believe that the democracy that I live in will allow those 26% to have the same rights as the other 74%. Once people can get passed their fear, perhaps not in my lifetime, we can truly be a UNITED STATES.

Just my opinion. :p

Nice post. Welcome. :2wave:

Good to see another RN!
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
6,340
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
dontbanurse said:
The fact of the matter is that 26% of America is gay. ( Those are the ones admitting to it) I believe that the democracy that I live in will allow those 26% to have the same rights as the other 74%. Once people can get passed their fear, perhaps not in my lifetime, we can truly be a UNITED STATES.

Just my opinion. :p

Indeed - welcome to Debate Politics!

Are you claiming happiness or homosexuality?
Any evidence to support this significant claim?
 

dontbanurse

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Thank you so much for the welcome. I am for those of you who asked. quite gay. I have been married ( Not in the eyes of the law of course ) to the same wonderful woman for going on 10 years now. :2razz:
As per this particular debate. I did not mean to come of as bitter when I barged in on all of the biblical references. I just grow very weary of people throwing the bible out there to judge whether something is right or wrong.
Now I am just thrilled that you two were able to agree on those 11 points. Since spirituality is such a personal thing that is very very hard to do. Congrats. But for the most part I think that everyone can agree that each persons interpretation of the good book is entirely different than the next. We all, with a few minor exceptions, try to do onto others as we would have done to us?
The day I see a posting out there that says, " Should we continues to have straight marriages? " then we will talk about prejudices that happen to homosexuals because of the laws that are set up presently.
As per my opinion on Gay marriage. I do not think it should be an issue at all. Two consenting straight adults can marry. So should 2 consenting homosexual adults. Let them make all the mistakes that the straights do. lol
We probably would never marry in the eyes of the law because there is still too much bigotry out there around this. We are just to old and tired to fight it anymore. There is love and commitment between us and that is all we need.
 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
dontbanurse said:
We probably would never marry in the eyes of the law because there is still too much bigotry out there around this. We are just to old and tired to fight it anymore. There is love and commitment between us and that is all we need.

And I am very happy for you. We have been together for almost 8 years and (hope Fantasea is sitting down) we are not just gay, but mixed race too!
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hi there, dontbanurse. :2wave:

welcome.gif
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Originally Posted by dontbanurse
The fact of the matter is that 26% of America is gay. ( Those are the ones admitting to it) I believe that the democracy that I live in will allow those 26% to have the same rights as the other 74%. Once people can get passed their fear, perhaps not in my lifetime, we can truly be a UNITED STATES.

Just my opinion. :p

vauge said:
Are you claiming happiness or homosexuality?
Any evidence to support this significant claim?

Second that. The independent studies I can find say 3%. Link to the source of this statement. Otherwise its :bs
 

dontbanurse

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
In 1940 Dr Alfred Kinsley stated that 10% of Americans were gay The Social Organization of Sex state that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women are gay. The NHSLS state that 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women are gay totaling 1.4 million Americans. So as you see the statistics (as all are) Vary as to the person who is doing the testing. I know that I have been visited by the census bureau and not once questioned about my sexuality. So any facts that are out there are obviously not conclusive.

So enjoy the statistics you choose to believe. The fact of the matter is that there are millions of Americans out there that choose not to be ignored and are demanding their right to marry.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

dontbanurse said:
In 1940 Dr Alfred Kinsley stated that 10% of Americans were gay The Social Organization of Sex state that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women are gay. The NHSLS state that 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women are gay totaling 1.4 million Americans. So as you see the statistics (as all are) Vary as to the person who is doing the testing. I know that I have been visited by the census bureau and not once questioned about my sexuality. So any facts that are out there are obviously not conclusive.

So enjoy the statistics you choose to believe. The fact of the matter is that there are millions of Americans out there that choose not to be ignored and are demanding their right to marry.
Can I ask you something on an opinion matter? Do you feel that homosexuals should marry in a church with the blessings of a priest, regardless of the possibility that it might not be God's design? And if so, could you please elaborate.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
sebastiansdreams said:
Can I ask you something on an opinion matter? Do you feel that homosexuals should marry in a church with the blessings of a priest, regardless of the possibility that it might not be God's design? And if so, could you please elaborate.
Why would any church ignore what it believed to be God's design? Any church of which I am aware preaches several things:

1. God is supreme,
2. There is an after-life,
3. The way to God in the after-life is to obey His understood wishes,
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
shuamort said:
You still haven't proved that homosexual sex is against God's will. I've pointed that part out to you over and over.
If one accepts requirement of obedience to the Ten Commandments, then the proof is simple. If one does not accept the requirement of obedience to the Ten Commandments, there is no point discussing the question.

Do you accept the requirement of obedience to the Ten Commandments? If so, so state, and I'll demonstrate the proof.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
dontbanurse said:
Two consenting straight adults can marry. So should 2 consenting homosexual adults.
I'm all in favor of two consenting homosexual adults being accorded all of the rights, privileges, and religious blessings of marriage so long as one of them is a man and the other is a woman.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Naughty Nurse said:
And I am very happy for you. We have been together for almost 8 years and (hope Fantasea is sitting down) we are not just gay, but mixed race too!
My understandings are not based upon the anecdotal experiences of individuals. Your personal life, including your sexual proclivities, is your own private affair. Why do you believe that it possesses some unique quality that would be of interest to anyone outside your immediate circle, if even that?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Fantasea said:
Why would any church ignore what it believed to be God's design? Any church of which I am aware preaches several things:

1. God is supreme,
2. There is an after-life,
3. The way to God in the after-life is to obey His understood wishes,

Firstly, I was seeking her personal opinion as she is presenting the perspective of a homosexual in the United States.
Secondly, I am not suggesting that the Church believes it is not in God's design, because some churches do accept homosexual marriage as a valid union. I was asking her her opinion on the matter, and if she thought it was or was not within the will of God.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
QUOTE=
sebastiansdreamsOriginally Posted by Fantasea
Why would any church ignore what it believed to be God's design? Any church of which I am aware preaches several things:

1. God is supreme,
2. There is an after-life,
3. The way to God in the after-life is to obey His understood wishes,
Firstly, I was seeking her personal opinion as she is presenting the perspective of a homosexual in the United States.
No doubt, she'll reply.
Secondly, I am not suggesting that the Church believes it is not in God's design, because some churches do accept homosexual marriage as a valid union. I was asking her her opinion on the matter, and if she thought it was or was not within the will of God.
Folks may run their churches any way they wish. However, what is one to understand with respect to the constancy and durability of its founding principles when a church trashes dogma which had endured since its inception because by a show of hands its congregation votes to adopt fashionable, politically correct, changes?

Is theological dogma democratic?
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
980
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
I'm all in favor of two consenting homosexual adults being accorded all of the rights, privileges, and religious blessings of marriage so long as one of them is a man and the other is a woman.

So you condone loveless, sham marriages undertaken for show, because society expects it etc. but you can't find it in your heart to accept that two gay men or two lesbians should have the right to show their love and committment in an equal fashion to their heterosexual co-citizens? If that's christian charity you can shove it.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fantasea said:
If one accepts requirement of obedience to the Ten Commandments, then the proof is simple. If one does not accept the requirement of obedience to the Ten Commandments, there is no point discussing the question.

Do you accept the requirement of obedience to the Ten Commandments? If so, so state, and I'll demonstrate the proof.
I follow Jesse Ventura's comments about religion being a crutch for the weak. So no.

Of course, you'll have to point out WHICH Ten Commandments since there were several in the Bible and they were all divided up differently. Of course, since you're a biblical scholar, I'm sure that YOU knew that and aren't spouting ignorance.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fantasea said:
My understandings are not based upon the anecdotal experiences of individuals. Your personal life, including your sexual proclivities, is your own private affair. Why do you believe that it possesses some unique quality that would be of interest to anyone outside your immediate circle, if even that?
Apparently it bothers you if people live their life as they choose, including their private lives. Sorry that you have to be such a busybody in other people's lives.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fantasea said:
QUOTE=No doubt, she'll reply.
Folks may run their churches any way they wish. However, what is one to understand with respect to the constancy and durability of its founding principles when a church trashes dogma which had endured since its inception because by a show of hands its congregation votes to adopt fashionable, politically correct, changes?

Is theological dogma democratic?
Yeah, the Catholic Church should never have bowed to social pressure when it came to giving up slavery. Them darn social-lib-democrat PC liberals that wanted to get rid of slavery and changing theocratic dogma.

I'm glad you feel your hate is justified. :roll:
 

dontbanurse

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Fantasea said:
QUOTE=No doubt, she'll reply.
Folks may run their churches any way they wish. However, what is one to understand with respect to the constancy and durability of its founding principles when a church trashes dogma which had endured since its inception because by a show of hands its congregation votes to adopt fashionable, politically correct, changes?

Is theological dogma democratic?
When you say "however" you negate the previous statement of "folks may run their churches an way they wish" Anything that follows is a judgment on all the "Folk's" religion.
 
Top Bottom