• 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

S

sebastiansdreams

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?
To the contrary, the composition of the New Testament and many other such components of "dogma" were all voted by a show of hands
 

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:
To the contrary, the composition of the New Testament and many other such components of "dogma" were all voted by a show of hands
Good catch, Sebastiandreams :applaud
 

dontbanurse

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
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.
I have not ignored your question. I have been busy. I think it is a great question. I would like to give you an honest answer when I have more time. Thank you for your patience
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Urethra Franklin said:
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.
Your use of the word "christian" is key to the fallacy of your argument. There is nothing "Christian" about attempts to legitimize disobedience to the Sixth Commandment. Why not also legitimize disobedience to several others?

If one subscribes to the Ten Commandments, then there is no question to discuss. If one does not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, then there is no point to a discussion of the question.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
sebastiansdreams said:
To the contrary, the composition of the New Testament and many other such components of "dogma" were all voted by a show of hands
You have evidently missed some of my earlier posts on the subject and I won't repeat the length of them here.

However, those whose religious principles follow Christ directly from the Last Supper to today understand two things.

First, the writers of the New Testament were working under Divine guidance.

Second, the popes, as successors to Peter, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, are infallible when they teach a matter of faith or morals. Nothing democratic; solely autocratic.

Over the years, a number of dissidents have decided to go their own way and found their own religions. Henry VIII, who raised the level of a marital dispute to a whole new religion is, perhaps, the best known of these. Numerous other defections, splits, branches and divisions have produced a profusionre of religions which have the word "Christian" in their names.

The dogma of many of these sway to and fro as the winds of fashion, popularity, indignation, and political correctness effect their congregations.

It's interesting to watch principles which have been considered sacrosanct for several millenea suddenly swept away by a show of hands because somebody came up with the idea that they were no longer relevant.

The same folks who enjoy watching activist judges rewrite law from the bench are right in there rewriting the Ten Commandments.

If you have a little free time this weekend, would you like to get together and found a new religion? Bring a list of your likes and dislikes and we'll work them in with mine.
 

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:
Your use of the word "christian" is key to the fallacy of your argument. There is nothing "Christian" about attempts to legitimize disobedience to the Sixth Commandment. Why not also legitimize disobedience to several others?

If one subscribes to the Ten Commandments, then there is no question to discuss. If one does not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, then there is no point to a discussion of the question.
Which "sixth commandment". There were a lot of "ten commandments in the Bible. You're a Biblical expert, you should know that. Of course, you'd also know that they weren't precisely divied up too.
 

dontbanurse

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
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.

Yes........I feel that if someone straight or homosexual should be able to practice their faith and if that extends to marriage than so be it. Speaking of hasn't marriage really become less of a union of God and more about legally binding two people. Sorry to get off the beaten path.
Unfortunately this is often not an option. I do not blame religion for this. I think that religion itself is pure it is some of the religious people that muck things up. That and most religions and religious institutions believe that it would be an unholy matrimony. This also limits the ability to marry.
As far as God's blessing or not on the union. I have to believe in nature on that one. In nature there is hetero and homosexual creatures. I believe that animals cannot sin and go to heaven. I know that this is simplistic...... at best. It is the same reason that I believe in reincarnation. God recycles everything else in nature. Why not our souls? None of us really know. I live a good Christian life trying to do onto others as I would have done to me. If that is wrong. I know who will tell me and it is not anyone in a church or in this forum.
I hope I addressed your question.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

dontbanurse said:
Yes........I feel that if someone straight or homosexual should be able to practice their faith and if that extends to marriage than so be it. Speaking of hasn't marriage really become less of a union of God and more about legally binding two people. Sorry to get off the beaten path.

Well, you know marriage was, at least as I would argue, a union between two people in which they exchanged vows of "forever" under God to each other. Now as you can obviously see, that is far from the case that it is right now. The problem I have is that the government made laws regarding civil funds around this union that was developed to be a union under God. So that was it's first large mistake. The court should not make laws around marriage as it is, at least to my understanding, originally meant to be a religious ordeal. But now that is blown all to pieces. My suggestion: Do away with recognizing marriage and rather only aknowledge civil union, therefore there is no feer of the stigma of religion in the contract.

That and most religions and religious institutions believe that it would be an unholy matrimony.
The argument of course is not the "wrongness" of homosexuality as much as it is the belief in a design for a heterosexual marriage. But regardless, same result right?

As far as God's blessing or not on the union. I have to believe in nature on that one. In nature there is hetero and homosexual creatures. I believe that animals cannot sin and go to heaven. I know that this is simplistic...... at best. It is the same reason that I believe in reincarnation. God recycles everything else in nature. Why not our souls? None of us really know.
Do you care to explain to me how you might have obtained this belief? It is interesting to hear that twist on the faith and I am curious where you might have derived it from.

I live a good Christian life trying to do onto others as I would have done to me. If that is wrong. I know who will tell me and it is not anyone in a church or in this forum.
Do you believe it is wrong to follow the steps of Peter and the other disciples in pointing out fellow Christians' sins as to redirect them towards the path of righteousness?
 

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:
If one subscribes to the Ten Commandments, then there is no question to discuss. If one does not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, then there is no point to a discussion of the question.

What's worrying is that many of you who do subscribe feel you have the right to impose your views on the the lives of those of us who don't, by constantly seeking to use the law to stop this and that practice that you feel is against your (rather unjust) god. Religious tyranny. If you're against gay marriage, abortion etc: DON'T DO IT! We won't force it into your personal life, but keep your ten commandments and your twisted religion to yourself.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Urethra Franklin said:
What's worrying is that many of you who do subscribe feel you have the right to impose your views on the the lives of those of us who don't, by constantly seeking to use the law to stop this and that practice that you feel is against your (rather unjust) god. Religious tyranny. If you're against gay marriage, abortion etc: DON'T DO IT! We won't force it into your personal life, but keep your ten commandments and your twisted religion to yourself.
Look, I completely agree that it is unfair for Christians to administer their faith through laws. But you must understand that while Christianity is a religion, it is also a philosophy on life. Jesus was very specific in saying if you do these things your life will be happy.
I know that some poeple just want to imply laws simply so they have power, I know that. But there are some of us who really truly just hurt when we see a law being passed that allows something that we know will only hurt or destroy the people that choose to follow it. For instance, they just passed for us to have a state lottery here. The problem with the lottery is A) it doesn't ever actually make money, it just reroutes it and B) it feeds off of the people who do not have money to spend in hopes that they may get rich quick. It is habitual. Now, those things being said, this is warned about in the Bible. So you see, it's hard to not take that philisophy, so we, as Christians are always walking the fine line of "is it good for us to let the people have the freedom to muck up their lives or not?" But more importantly "is it right for us to allow our own children to have the rights to muck up their own life." I personally take the stance that God gave us free will, so to the extent of staying inside morality, we should allow these laws to happen and simply teach our society that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. But for those who don't, most of them have incredibly good intentions that come off really bad.
And by the way, abortion has nothing to do with Christianity. It is completely an issue of whether or not it is murder, and that goes beyond Christianity.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
shuamort[QUOTE said:
]
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Your use of the word "christian" is key to the fallacy of your argument. There is nothing "Christian" about attempts to legitimize disobedience to the Sixth Commandment. Why not also legitimize disobedience to several others?

If one subscribes to the Ten Commandments, then there is no question to discuss. If one does not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, then there is no point to a discussion of the question.
Which "sixth commandment". There were a lot of "ten commandments in the Bible. You're a Biblical expert, you should know that. Of course, you'd also know that they weren't precisely divied up too.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery.", which includes fornication and any sexual contact outside a legitimate marriage.

I repeat:

"If one subscribes to the Ten Commandments, then there is no question to discuss. If one does not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, then there is no point to a discussion of the question."

Now, tell me how this "squares" with your comment regarding "Christian Charity", bearing in mind that one of the seven Spiritual Works of Mercy is, "To admonish the sinner."

And, before you accuse me of being a 'bible thumper', remember that it was you who introduced religion into the discussion. I was merely responding to a ridiculous statement.
 
Last edited:

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 subscribes to the Ten Commandments, then there is no question to discuss. If one does not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, then there is no point to a discussion of the question."[/I]
And I'll continue to ignore your point since you choose to invoke one of the sets of the Ten Commandments. You're welcome to play by your own rules, I choose not to.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
dontbanurse said:
Yes........I feel that if someone straight or homosexual should be able to practice their faith and if that extends to marriage than so be it. Speaking of hasn't marriage really become less of a union of God and more about legally binding two people. Sorry to get off the beaten path.
Unfortunately this is often not an option. I do not blame religion for this. I think that religion itself is pure it is some of the religious people that muck things up. That and most religions and religious institutions believe that it would be an unholy matrimony. This also limits the ability to marry.
As far as God's blessing or not on the union. I have to believe in nature on that one. In nature there is hetero and homosexual creatures. I believe that animals cannot sin and go to heaven. I know that this is simplistic...... at best. It is the same reason that I believe in reincarnation. God recycles everything else in nature. Why not our souls? None of us really know. I live a good Christian life trying to do onto others as I would have done to me. If that is wrong. I know who will tell me and it is not anyone in a church or in this forum.
I hope I addressed your question.
Yes, you addressed the question.

As I read your answer, it may be summed up in two words, "Anything goes!"
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
980
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea, you do know there's a pope's job up for grabs. Have you sent in your CV yet?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
shuamort said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
"Thou shalt not commit adultery.", which includes fornication and any sexual contact outside a legitimate marriage.

I repeat:

"If one subscribes to the Ten Commandments, then there is no question to discuss. If one does not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, then there is no point to a discussion of the question."
And I'll continue to ignore your point since you choose to invoke one of the sets of the Ten Commandments. You're welcome to play by your own rules, I choose not to.
OK. You pick the commandment to which you subscribe which relates to sins of the flesh and quote it.

Then tell me how it "squares" with your comment on "Christian Charity", bearing in mind the Spiritual Work of Mercy that requires one to "Admonish the sinner".

If, on the other hand, you do not subscribe to the "Ten Commandments" as you see them, so state.

One way or the other, a direct response is due. Will there be a direct response? Or will there be obfuscation?

I wonder ..........
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Urethra Franklin said:
Fantasea, you do know there's a pope's job up for grabs. Have you sent in your CV yet?
Don't get your urinary tract in an uproar just yet. The conclave doesn't get under way until April 18th.
 

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:
Don't get your urinary tract in an uproar just yet. The conclave doesn't get under way until April 18th.


Ooh Fant you don't know how you turn me on. :3oops:
Come make love with me - you know you're dying to. ;)
 
Top Bottom