CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS Mc1934

Reward Points:70
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
88%
Arguments:119
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Since you too agree there are holes, why don't you just do it for me. We both agree there are holes in the bible having to do with the fact that homosexuality is a sin, so maybe the verdict is that its not. There is no passage that has been validated or translated in every version and translation that directly state that homosexuals are committing sin.

We do not both agree there are holes in the biblical teaching of homosexuality. You don't read what I write any better then you read the bible. I said you picked verses you thought had holes and you are wrong.

There is no passage that has been validated or translated in every version and translation that directly state that homosexuals are committing sin.

The only translations that do not directly state that homosexuals are committing sin are the ones that are deliberately directed to the homosexual community to give them the false impression that they are fine and are leading them astray.

Homosexuality is only briefly mentioned in fewer than 10 of the over 30,000 passages of the bible.

Murder is only mentioned in about .2% of bible verses and by your logic therefor must be unimportant as well.

Most of the bible aims to teach Christians how to act in a way full of love and fairness.

The bible does teach us to treat people with love. Love is telling the people the truth when their actions are leading them to eternal separation from God. Jesus never told anyone that their sin was ok. He told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11). If Jesus was okay with our sins and though we are fine the way we are there would have been no need for him to have gone to the cross to make the payment for us.

The bible never mentions fairness at least not as you think of fairness.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. — Luke 6:41-42

Are you judging me? I see a plank in your eye.

If we are to look at Biblical passages condemning homosexuality, we should move past those in the Old Testament. Christians rarely follow the rules of the Old Testament, and if they did they would still be polygamous.

The New Testament was written when the Roman conquerers openly and frequently raped other males. This was amoral and repulsive to Paul, as it would have been to any person (gay or straight)

I agree that we should move beyond the Old Testament. You were the one who brought it up in your initial post that I responded to.

The Romans also openly accepted homosexual relations between consenting people - which also was amoral and repulsive to Paul and should be to any person.

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

But lets look at the other translations:

Wycliffe Bible (1382): "Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men"

King James Version (1611): "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"

Amplified Version (1987): "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality"

I guess it depends on the version you're reading.

The underlying idea is the same: homosexuality is wrong.

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. — 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Again:

Wycliffe Bible (1382): "..and witting this thing, that the law is not set to a just man, but to unjust men and not subject, to wicked men and to sinners, to cursed men and defouled, to slayers of father, and slayers of mother, to manslayers [witting this thing, that the law is not put to a just man, but to an unjust and not subject, to unpious men and sinners, to cursed men and defouled, to slayers of fathers, and slayers of mothers, to menslayers] and lechers, to them that do lechery with men, lying-mongers and forsworn, and if any other thing is contrary to the wholesome teaching."

King James Version (1611): "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

Amplified Version (1987): Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers--and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine

But, keep in mind that today scholars agree that Timothy and Titus both were an unknown Christian writer and not original to Paul.

Once again they all say the same thing: Homosexuality is wrong.

You keep in mind that your statement that scholars agree that Paul did not write Timothy and Titus is patently false. You imply that all scholars agree when they most certainly do not.

At any rate the verses agree with Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians and Romans.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. — Romans 1:26-27

I notice here you didn't use the multiple modern translations argument because:

NKJV:

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

NIV

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

KJV

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

ERV

26 Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. 27 In the same way, men stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.

I don't know why you can't understand the clear meaning of words. All of the translations state clearly that the men burned in lust for one another. This does not leave any opening for your explainations. You can only come to your conclusions using some very complex mental gymnastics.

But then the bible tells us:

2 Timothy 4:2-4

2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

This attempted undercutting of the clear biblical teaching is peoples desire to turn aside to fables.

1 point

Let's just break this down using the Bible:

Genesis 19:1-25

Some claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God because of homosexuality. But, these cities were announced as wicked before any alleged homosexual incidences. And, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot who immediately committed incest? Furthermore, why do all of the other passages of Scripture referring to this fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination". Yes, this exists in the Bible, but solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, which was ritual for Israel's priests. This is more a reflection on the culture of the Hebrew people, not God and his word. But even if we were to take this literally and apply it today, we would also have to band round haircuts (Leviticus 19:27), football ( Leviticus 11:8), fortune-telling (Leviticus 19:31), tattoos (19:28, shellfish (11:10), wearing gold (1 Timothy 2:9) and countless other idiosyncrasies we tend to disregard. So why choose to follow one with such passion and ignore the existence of the rest?

Feel free to tell me any other verses, and I will be happy to explain them to you.

Good job trying to pick and choose verses that you think you can shoot holes in (or at least google someone else's list). However you failed miserably at the shooting of the holes.

And, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot who immediately committed incest?

Genesis 19:33 and Genesis 19:35 clearly state that Lot "was unaware" that his daughters came into him. He was more a rape victim then a incest participant.

Furthermore, why do all of the other passages of Scripture referring to this fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?

Jude 1:7 references that Sodom and Gomorrah had given themselves over to sexual immorality and perversion (NIV). How would we know what that sexual sin and perversion was? The only way is to go back to the Genesis account which states:

Genesis 19:4-5

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Yes, this exists in the Bible, but solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, which was ritual for Israel's priests.

Wrong. Leviticus 18:1-2 and Leviticus 20:1-2 clearly states that Moses was to speak those rules to the Israelites - all of them. The rules for the Priests start in Leviticus 21 where verse 1 clearly states that Moses is to speak these rules to the Priests the sons of Aaron.

This is more a reflection on the culture of the Hebrew people, not God and his word.

Wrong. These laws were God's word for His people. The Law was God's clear direction to His people to keep them pure and separate from the Gentiles. When ever the Israeiltes strayed and mingled with the Gentiles they would go astray and God would allow them to take the punishment that was due them until they repented and came back into fellowship with him.

But even if we were to take this literally and apply it today, we would also have to band round haircuts (Leviticus 19:27), football ( Leviticus 11:8), fortune-telling (Leviticus 19:31), tattoos (19:28, shellfish (11:10), wearing gold (1 Timothy 2:9) and countless other idiosyncrasies we tend to disregard. So why choose to follow one with such passion and ignore the existence of the rest?

The Mosaic law was meant to keep the Israelites Holy and seperate. Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection did away with the need for the Law because we are no longer under law but under grace (2 Corinthians 3:6-17).

However being under grace does not give us the license to sin as we are told in Romans 6:6-14 6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

The Old Testament was meant for the Hebrew people but the New Testament clearly states that God still looks on the moral parts of the Old Testament Mosaic law as the definition of sin. Some examples are lying (Colossians 3:9-10), theft (Ephesians 4:28), murder (Revelation 21:8), covetousness (Ephesians 5:5), sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18, 2 Peter 2:14) and in the vein of sexual immorality homosexuality is condemned (Romans 1:26-27) even though we are under grace.

Just to point out some errors in your list though; a Christian living under the New Covenant would not have to worry about round haircuts, football (even Hebrew people don't have to worry about this - footballs are made of leather not pigskin), tattoos, or shellfish (see Acts 10). I Timothy 2:9 is telling people (women in particular in this context) not to bring the wrong kind of attention to themselves (especially during the worship service) by the way they dress but to do the good works that a professing Christian should do.

1 point

From the problemswithpaul.com:

Paul calls himself an apostle over 13 times and starts a majority of his epistles off with this title. No where in scripture does any other apostle refer to him as an apostle.

To this I can only respond with the words of the Apostle Peter

2 Peter 3:14-16

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter who you apparently recognize as an apostle recognizes Paul as a beloved brother who the wisdom of God given given to him and even refers to the Epistles of Paul as Scriptures. Peter also said in this that people would twist the words of Paul (and all of the Scriptures) to their own destruction.

And nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Jesus despised Homosexuality.

Jesus as God incarnate despised all things sinful. Jesus identified himself as the God that spoke to Moses from the burning bush in John 8:57-59 ("before Abraham was I AM") referring to himself with the name of that God gave to Moses in Exodus 3:13-15 ("I AM has sent me to you"). The same God that spoke to Moses from the burning bush was the same God that gave Moses the Law was the Jesus that identified himself as such. Jesus is I AM WHO I AM.

If you are to discount the writings of Paul you must discount the belief in salvation through grace by faith. You also must discount Peter as a apostle because he said that Paul's writings were Scripture, you must also discount the Acts of the Apostles because much of that books is about the Apostle Paul and does not discredit him. Therefore you are left with the Gosples and with the Gospels we are left with the Mosaic Law which forbids homosexuality.

The teachings of Paul on issues of morals are no different then the teachings that God laid down in the Mosaic law and that is the problem that people have with Paul. He was quite clear that although we are saved by grace we are to be conformed to the image of Christ. The people who have issues with Paul are the people who want to conform Christ to their image instead of becoming Christ like.

2 points

If both the love of women (ahabah), and the love of Jonathan (ahabah) are both translated the same way, it stands to say that they mean the same hing.

abahah is also the word used in Deuteronomy 7:8 and 1 Kings 10:9 in reference of the love of God for Israel. Deuteronomy 7 also speaks of the oath and covenant that God made with Israel which is a much better parallel to the passage of David and Jonathan and their covenant and therefore a better guideline for the understanding of ahabah in that instance.

1 point

David loved Jonathan more than women: 2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, Surpassing the love of women.

David and Jonathan were in love: 1 Samuel 18:1 Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

David and Jonathan made a covenant: 1 Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

The word love in the text of 2 Samuel 1:26 is hbha (ahabah) which has many possible definitions: love, human love for human object, of man toward man, of man toward himself, between man and woman, sexual desire, God's love to His people. It is much more like our word love then the greek words used for love: Eros, Philia, Agape, and Storge. While the Greek words are very clear in their meanings our word love and the Hebrew ahabah are based on context. The word can be defined in 2 Sam 1:26 as romantic or sexual only by the greatest strech of the imagination.

The covenant of David and Jonathan in 1 Sam 18 was an agreement between David and Jonathan that Jonathan would recognize David as the rightful king of Israel (signified by the handing over of his armor and weapons) and therefor relenquish his right to the throne as Saul's son. David's part of the agreement was the protection of Jonathan's family as can be seen in:

1 Samuel 20:14-16

14 If I am still alive, show me the steadfast love of the Lord, that I may not die; 15 aand do not cut off2 your steadfast love from my house forever, when the Lord cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.” 16 And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, b“May3 the Lord take vengeance on David’s enemies.”

and

1 Samuel 20:42

42 Then Jonathan said to David, s“Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, t‘The Lord shall be between me and you, uand between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’ ” And he rose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city.

But furthermore even in the very remote chance that you were correct it is very dangerous to base your theology upon something that someone did merely because it is recorded in the Bible. David also had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah murdered to marry her (2 Samuel 11). Because David did this does it make adultery right? Because David did this does it make murder right? Of course it doesn't. What David did or did not do does not change the clear prohibitions of murder, adultery, or homosexuality laid out in the rest of the Bible.

Jacob lied and stole Esau's birthright (Genesis 25-27). Does that make theft and lying okay? Of course not. Remember that the Bible records what these people did (or in the case of David and Jonathan what you want to believe they did). Because they did (and in David's case didn't really do) something does not mean God endorses it. Especially when there are clear and repeated prohibitions of it in the scriptures.

1 point

Oh, and it cant be a sin to be gay since gays dont choose to be gay.

If it can't be a sin to be gay then why does God name it as a sin repeatedly in the Scriptures (Old and New Testament)?

1 point

2. What about all those poor children in poor countries who never heard of anyone called Jesus? Have they sent themselves to hell?

Lmfao. Agreed. Those people who go over to those countries and say they're doing it out of charity, then line up the starving villages and hand out bibles. Those pretentious dicks aren't doing it for charity, they're helping those people because they want a bigger demographic!

God will righteously judge everyone. Because God's truth is in us all and even those who have not heard of Jesus will be judged by the truth of God that is in all of us.

Romans 2:14-16

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

1 point

The question as posed suggests that our good works mean anything to God in and of themselves. You are posing a works based religion that is contrary to the teachings of the bible. There is no mention in your hypothetical about repentance or faith. Works in and of themselves are useless.

Isaiah 64:5-7 shows that God discounts our good works when they are tied to an unrepentant heart.

Isaiah 64:5-7

5 You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,

Who remembers You in Your ways.

You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—

In these ways we continue;

And we need to be saved.

6 But we are all like an unclean thing,

And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

We all fade as a leaf,

And our iniquities, like the wind,

Have taken us away.

The New Testament shows that salvation is through God's grace not works

Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Titus 3:4-7

4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The bible defines homosexuality as a sin multiple times. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 1:7. With salvation comes the desire to keep the commandments of God:

1 John 2:3-4

3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

John 14:20-21

20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

1 point

If you treat homosexuals as people you will realize she is referring to the fact that non monogamous heterosexuals are frowned upon. The same rules apply to homosexuals.

I do treat homosexuals as people and I treat sin as sin. A monogamous sexually involved non-married heterosexual couple is just as sinful as the actively homosexual. Sin is sin if society agrees with it or not. God the ultimate judge will decide what is sin and what is not. If everyone in a society decides something is okay God does not take that into account when judging them according to His righteousness. People are offended by the truth that is why they protest so loudly and strongly. They are not trying to convince me that they are right they are trying to convince themselves.

Romans 2:14-16

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

(Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20 Old Testament doesn't count or you aren't a Christian.

I am a Christian...and as you can and as you can see from the New Testament verses you truncated from the remainder of my comment the same acts that were described as sinful in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20 are still taught as sinful by the Christian church.

Oh, would you look at that: a Christian taking the Bible out of context. You cannot use anything Jesus says when someone asked about heterosexual divorce and extend it to homosexuals. That's not how the real world works.

No out of context there. The Pharisees came test Jesus about what God really saw as a God ordained marriage because if you keep reading further below in Matthew 19:9 Jesus said 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Notice that he referred to sexual immorality in this verse. To the Jewish people to He was talking to they would have known that He was referring to all of the God defined sexual sins of the Mosaic Laws as sexual immorality.

That means that absolutely everything is a sin unless Jesus said otherwise.

That is a completely spurious argument. God has given us His book to define what is sinful. We have the words of God completely spelled out in there. The God defined sins that are revealed in the bible are valid when Jesus points them out or Paul or Peter or John or any of the other writers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So, in other words, you think Pennsylvania is better than Jesus. Go away blasphemer.

That is such a stupid statement I am hesitant to dignify it with an answer. However I will. The Pharisees were part of the Sanhedrien or the Jewish ruling authority. They made the rules that they saw fit to inflict on people not truthfully telling people what God defined as being right or wrong (like the judge and government officials in Pennsylvania)

The God of the Bible is notorious for leaving out large amounts of detail. If God wanted us to embrace gay marriage, He probably wouldn't have said anything because He left a lot of detail out. He told us the order He created the planet, but left out how He did it. If God went through and explained every detail to you your Bible would weigh as much as a car, at least.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. If God had wanted us to embrace gay marriage He wouldn't have declared the acts that set marriage apart from a contract between people who live together (sexual intimacy) as sinful between members of the same sex in any circumstance multiple times in His word. Oh and maybe God in the flesh would have said you think that marriage is this but I say this is what I say I accept which brings us back around to Matthew 19 and Jesus defining God's only idea of an acceptable marriage... 1 man and 1 woman for life.

1 point

Who cares what the United Nitwits think. We should defund them, kick them out of New York, rent the building to Israel, and systematically arrest all of the leaders for the thieves and tyrants that they are. Maybe we should just fund the enemies of the US directly instead of funneling the money through the UN...oh wait the Obama administration does that too.

Mc1934 has not yet created any debates.

About Me


"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell"

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Republican
Country: United States
Religion: Protestant
Education: College Grad

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here