CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do homosexuals contradict themselves by wanting to get married?
We all know that God created marriage and when two people get married God is in the middle. So why is it that gays that don't really care for God, the bible, and etc why would gays want to be apart of this holy union?
Gay men contradict themselves when they decide to get married because they have to decide who is going to be the woman in the marriage..., which contradicts the concept of gay men. ;)
You seem to be under the common misconception that marriage is a religious term. It isn't. If you do a quick search on the history of marriage you'll find that it predates recorded history. There are records of marriage as old as 2350 BC, long before your religion even existed, and it has taken many forms throughout history including polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy, exogamy, common law marriage, monogamy, arranged marriage, and same sex marriage. It wasn't until 325 AD that Christian churches became involved in marriage. Before that it was thought of as a primarily private matter with no religious ceremony being required. Even today marriage is not strictly tied to religion. No religious ceremony is required to get married.
Hi, marriage started with Adam and Eve the first humans on earth. Adam said this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. therefore man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh. Also I never said that it came from religion I only said God created marriage.
You're assuming that everyone believes the stories of the Bible. There is so much evidence showing that the Bible is not a reliable source of information, that we can't take anything is says at face value. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that we evolved, and that the story of Adam and Eve never actually happened. Even many Christian religions have come to accept this given the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution. I think we would be going to far off topic if we start debating evolution, but if you want to I can create a new debate about it.
If us mere humans can create things like buildings, bridges, and all types of high tech machinery why is it so hard to believe that a greater beings with unbelievable power (God) created an entire universe. How can everything be because of evolution? I don't know much about evolution besides Lucy dinosaurs and monkeys but I'll try my best if you want to create a evolution debate
Why is it so hard to believe that a greater being with unbelievable power (God) created an entire universe.
I think you just answered your own question. Look closely at what you just said. "Why is it so hard to believe that a greater being with unbelievable power (God) created an entire universe." I'm starting to think you might be a Poe, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
To see is to believe.. Do you believe in love may I ask? Cause you dont see it, and yet you feel it. Thats just how religion goes. Even if it is somewhat illogical for other people like you, well, some people count on religion to enlighten themselves.
Do you believe in love may I ask? Cause you dont see it, and yet you feel it. Thats just how religion goes.
Yes, I do believe in love, but I understand that love is just a chemical process in our brains which we can see using an MRI. Here's a video about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK6d7vrN17U
Feelings are not a reliable method of determining truth. There are people in every religion who feel very strongly that their god is the true one, but they can't all be right, so obviously their feelings have no bearing on what is actually true.
some people count on religion to enlighten themselves
As long as they don't try to force their beliefs onto other people, then I have no problem with them. The problem is that many religious people do try to force their beliefs on people without backing up those beliefs with sound logic.
Yes, I do believe in love, but I understand that love is just a chemical process in our brains which we can see using an MRI
Yes, i know that it is just a chemical process, I'm clearly aware of that, seeing that I am a biologist. But.. believing in something is also a chemical process in our brains since neurotransmitters are used when we form those beliefs. Why do we believe? It' 's because we use our brains in doing so, and not just a mere hunch from the outer universe or whatsoever.
Feelings are not a reliable method of determining truth. There are people in every religion who feel very strongly that their god is the true one, but they can't all be right, so obviously their feelings have no bearing on what is actually true.
Yes, feelings are not reliable to determine truth, I agree with that.. but there are SOME instances wherein those feelings are right, and then we regret it because we did not follow our own intuition. Yes, not all people could be right, so how are you saying that you are right even with all the facts? Who gave you these facts, and what makes you so sure that these facts are right.. considering that people, who usually make errors, gave it to you?
As long as they don't try to force their beliefs onto other people, then I have no problem with them. The problem is that many religious people do try to force their beliefs on people without backing up those beliefs with sound logic.
Me too, I dont have problems with other people. Besides, no matter how you guys tell others that there is no God, some of them wont believe anyway. With what you are saying that some religious people are forcing their beliefs on everyone, arent you forcing your beliefs on us that there is all but logic in everything?
there are SOME instances wherein those feelings are right, and then we regret it because we did not follow our own intuition.
The reverse is true too. There are some instances wherein those feelings are wrong, and then we regret it because we followed our intuition. I'm a prime example of that. I used to be a very devout Christian, but after lots of praying and in-depth studying I discovered that it was false. So, I wasted 25 years of my life going to church, paying tithing, and praying to a god that doesn't even exist.
Yes, not all people could be right, so how are you saying that you are right even with all the facts...considering that people, who usually make errors, gave it to you?
My lack of belief in god isn't so much based on facts as it is lack of facts. I've seen no credible evidence or logical arguments that support the belief in a god.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your saying basing something off of just a feeling is just as credible as basing something off of facts because those facts may be wrong. I seriously doubt you believe that, so I'm probably just misunderstanding you.
arent you forcing your beliefs on us that there is all but logic in everything?
Is there another method of determining the truth of something that is more effective than using logic?
The reverse is true too. There are some instances wherein those feelings are wrong, and then we regret it because we followed our intuition. I'm a prime example of that. I used to be a very devout Christian, but after lots of praying and in-depth studying I discovered that it was false. So, I wasted 25 years of my life going to church, paying tithing, and praying to a god that doesn't even exist.
Yeah, id say that what you said is somehow true. And somehow I understand your point because you used to be a Christian, and im quite baffled that you gave up on your religion so easily. But, somehow, Im guessing, you are regretting that you've helped other people because of the payment that you have given. The donations help other people, and I dont think that you have wasted your time as a Christian. Even if Im already going away from the topic, I just want to say that.. nothing was wasted because you were able to help other people. Even without religion, you could still do.
My lack of belief in god isn't so much based on facts as it is lack of facts. I've seen no credible evidence or logical arguments that support the belief in a god.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your saying basing something off of just a feeling is just as credible as basing something off of facts because those facts may be wrong. I seriously doubt you believe that, so I'm probably just misunderstanding you.
Yes, there is not enough evidence as to how to prove that there is a God.. Maybe you'd say that people who have religion are illogical, but then, you cant attest to them because they are just defending their beliefs no matter how illogical it was.
The next thing and statement you said, about the correct me if im wrong thing, I didt understand it much. So please be kind to explain what you were saying, so that it could clear my mind.
Is there another method of determining the truth of something that is more effective than using logic?
Hmm. Using facts. Well, Im the one who is disputing what I have said in my earlier debates. Thanks to that. But, i just want to say that even if Im a little groggy right now, and I have no idea what I am saying, i want to thank you for being nice on your debates.
Maybe you'd say that people who have religion are illogical, but then, you cant attest to them because they are just defending their beliefs no matter how illogical it was.
I completely understand their need to defend their beliefs. I've been in their shoes and used all the same arguments they are using now. It's like looking in a mirror at my past self. I'm simply trying to get people to examine their beliefs and really take some time to study whether those beliefs are based on a solid foundation, or if they are just believing what was taught to them as a child. I think in life it is important to not just go with the flow or accept things at face value. I think people should challenge their beliefs and look at all sides of the issues. That is why I like debate websites, because you get to hear things from a lot of different perspectives. The #1 bit of advice for Christians is study your Bible, and not just the warm fuzzy parts of it, and as you are studying ask yourself "are these the actions of a loving god?"
The next thing and statement you said, about the correct me if im wrong thing, I didnt understand it much. So please be kind to explain what you were saying, so that it could clear my mind.
I wasn't 100% sure what you were saying either, which is why my response probably didn't make much sense to you. Maybe we should just forget it before we confuse ourselves even more :)
No offense but for you to give up your faith just like that to me seems like you always had doubt in your heart throughout the whole 25 years your faith was never strong it doesn't matter if you were going to church every Sunday or Saturday and being active in the church you were always doubtful as Jesus said Ye of little faith why did you doubt but I am younger than you and can't really tell you anything about your life. Another thing what about Noah's ark that was found.
I didn't give it up "just like that". It was a very slow process that took many years.
that to me seems like you always had doubt in your heart
I didn't have any doubt. In fact I was so sure of my belief that I was one of those obnoxious Christians that tried to convert everyone. I spent many years doing in-depth studies of the Bible and researching the history of Christianity. I spent ridiculous amounts of time at the library of my local Christian school studying and praying. I went to Bible studies every day at my college. I wrote many letters to friends and family sharing my faith with them. I even wrote tracts that I passed out on the street. They were about gods love, not the hellfire and damnation ones that are so common. During one of my courses in college we had to do a speech on our hero. I chose god and proselytized to the whole class on how great god was and much he loved them. My instructor wasn't too happy about it, and pulled me aside after class. So to sum things up, I was gung-ho for god and thought he was the greatest thing ever.
The funny thing is, the thing that made me come to realize that Christianity isn't true was studying the Bible. It wasn't anything said by atheists. I didn't even know any atheists at the time, and didn't read anti-christian stuff, because I thought they were all evil heathens. It was simply reading the Bible and seeing all the horrific things done by god and his followers that made me realize that god is either a total psychopath, or he was made up by men who used it as an excuse to commit atrocities and manipulate people. After weighing those two options, I came to the conclusion that it was the latter. It was my sense of ethics and morality that led me to not accept the god described in the Bible, and not the other way around as most Christians seem to think. There's a saying the the atheist community, "If you want to turn a Christian into an atheist, tell them to study their Bible."
what about Noah's ark that was found
People have claimed Noah's ark has been found many times, and every time it has been proven false. Here's an interesting article on it http://www.livescience.com/7137-noah-ark-discovered.html . The story of Noah's ark is an impossibility for so many reasons, but I think we may be getting too far off topic by going into that. However, that would make an interesting debate, so I'll go ahead a post a new debate about it.
Let me get it back. I didnt mean to interfere with your conversation with the other debater.. but...
You're assuming that everyone believes the stories of the Bible.
So you're assuming that everyone doesnt believe it?
There is so much evidence showing that the Bible is not a reliable source of information, that we can't take anything is says at face value. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that we evolved, and that the story of Adam and Eve never actually happened.
Yes, if you studied, then you'd know that it is not really reliable at all. Not all people take everything the Bible says, even other Catholics disproce of the things that are written there. As for the Adam and Eve, what if they lived in our past, and they existed, but then, we never knew that they were Adam and Eve because people changed their names?
Even many Christian religions have come to accept this given the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution. I think we would be going to far off topic if we start debating evolution, but if you want to I can create a new debate about it.
Yes, Im a Catholic.. and most of my teachers are scientists, but still, they accept the thought of having a religion. I dont understand why others dont. Even Albert Einstein accepted that there is a higher being that is governing our universe.
So you're assuming that everyone doesn't believe it?
No, some people believe, some don't. I was trying to explain that "gays that don't really care for God, the bible, and etc." want to get married because they don't believe the god of the Bible created marriage.
As for the Adam and Eve, what if they lived in our past, and they existed, but then, we never knew that they were Adam and Eve because people changed their names?
We can come up with an infinite number of "what if" scenarios, but that doesn't mean any of them should be taken seriously if they have nothing to back them up, and since all the evidence for evolution points to the story of Adam and Eve being false, there is no reason to take it seriously.
most of my teachers are scientists, but still, they accept the thought of having a religion. I don't understand why others don't.
One of the reason most scientists are not religious is because the evidence for a god is very weak, and science is based on evidence. Most religious belief is based off of personal experiences and feelings, both of which are notoriously unreliable ways to determine truth. Members of The National Academy of Sciences, who are regarded as the brightest scientists in the nation, are 72.2% atheist and and 20.8% agnostic. That means only 7% of our nations smartest people believe in a god. In the UK’s Royal Society, which is similar to the National Academy of Sciences, only 3.3 percent believe in God. These are people who have spent their lives studying and researching how the universe works. They probably have a better understanding of it that any of us will have in our lifetimes, so I choose to put my trust in them instead of a 2000 year old book that you yourself said is "not really reliable at all." Here is the study about scientists and belief in god if you're interested http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Even Albert Einstein accepted that there is a higher being that is governing our universe.
This is a common misconception. Here is what Einstien said about god. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side)
As a fellow Christian I'd like to know what verse states God created the institution of marriage. Also, by saying it comes from God you are saying that marriage comes from religion.
I do agree that marriage existed before say, Christianity. But religion was the precursor of, and existed before, government. Shamans ran the tribe through superticious mumbo jumbo. And the concept of marriage existed then in order to maintain the tribe united. You can't have in fighting among the men over the women.
Even in ancient tribes that exist today (in Africa, and the Amazon jungle), which are more like single family communes that interact with other family communes, they too have a concept of marriage and no government. Government is only needed to maintain large societies.
If you take the position that the leader of a tribe is the government, then we get into a "chicken and the egg" problem. I would then argue that the leaders were the shamans' bitch. ;)
The leaders were bound by their superstition and thus to the shaman, which represents an early form of religion. The shaman was the real power behind the throne. The leader consulted with the shaman before making a big decision.
As far as the wedding ceremony, the shaman performed those. And that is what ties marriage to religion. ;)
Not every civilization has had shaman, or their equivalents. It doesn't really matter though, because the more I think about it the more I realize that it's pointless to debate the origin of marriage. First of all, it predates recorded history, so no one really knows the true origin; it's all just speculation. Second, it really has no bearing on what marriage is today. Just because something was one way in the past, does not mean it will always be that way. As I said in my original argument, marriage "has taken many forms throughout history including polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy, exogamy, common law marriage, monogamy, arranged marriage, and same sex marriage." So, clearly the definition of marriage has changed many times throughout history and will continue to change. Most people today think of marriage as making a commitment to someone you love.
I agree. There is no point in debating the origin of marriage. So let's take it to another level. Do you see any value in creating a word analogous to marriage but that can only be used by the other side (the 2 sides being religion and government). I propose we reserve one word for religious purposes and use the other word for civil purposes. I don't care which side ends up with the word marriage as long as we have 2 words to differentiate what we are talking about. I loath making words more ambiguous. I prefer words with clear meaning. But hey..., that's just me ;)
Unless you can undeniable prove that, such a conjecture holds no bearing in the law and should not impede people in their right to the pursuit of happiness.
and when two people get married God is in the middle.
Uninvited threesome? Creepy bastard. Stick to ghost-raping virgins will you?
So why is it that gays that don't really care for God, the bible, and etc
Well some gay people do care for god, for some reason. With your description I honestly have no clue why anyone gay or straight would care for any of it.
why would gays want to be apart of this holy union?
From your description who would not want to be apart (meaning away from) this "holy" union... unfortunately you mean a part, as in be involved or part of this "holy" union. Anyway.
1. If there were a god he'd not be so mean and so petty as to care which two puny mortal humans wanted to spend their life together. The god you describe doesn't exist, and if that god did exist he'd be a horrible being not the least bit worthy of worship.
2. It's perfectly possible for one to believe in a god who doesn't care whether someone is gay.
3. Marriage in no way inherently has anything at all to do with any theology. It can simply be a custom or ceremony or commitment.
Please tell me you're a small child who is being home schooled by parents who are in a cult and you ran across an abandoned computer in the woods that was plugged into a burning god-bush, and you started randomly pressing buttons, and like a 1,000 monkeys eventually writing Shakespeare, you ended up on this debate spewing moronic gibberish.
That's an excuse. Otherwise this is quite embarrassing.
Please tell me you're a small child who hasn't yet learned how to discuss things like an adult, without resorting to insults and name calling. That's an excuse. Otherwise this is quite embarrassing.
You must believe that blatant ignorance and childish notions which are the root of discrimination,
Should be treated civilly as if it were a valid point of view.
That's fine.
I do not though.
Likewise if a person with a tinfoil hat runs up to me and starts screaming there are flying rabbits eating his pet ewoks, I will laugh and not attempt to discover where these flying rabbits may be and save his pet ewoks.
No, they should not be treated as a valid point of view, but instead of resorting to insults and name calling a much more constructive thing to do would be to try to explain to them the flaws in their logic in a friendly way. People are much more receptive to a friendly explanation than a personal insult. If you try to explain things nicely, the recipient will often view it as you trying to be helpful. On the flip-side, if you insult them they are going to view it as you trying to be harmful. Which of those two approaches do you think is more likely to get through to them?
Only time and knowledge perceived as coming from self can open a closed mind.
When I make fun bigotry it is as effective to the individual as when I or you explain it rationally, that is to say it is not.
What treating it as valid, whether you believe it to be valid or not, does to is lend unearned authority to the opinion in question.
If someone were to ask me the question posted as in the title without this particular text to follow, I'd be more than happy to explain it similar to how it was explained prior to that last paragraph.
However, when someone assumes "moral" superiority in such a manner that it is obvious they've no intention of actually asking a question and only wish to preach, I reserve the right to make fun of them.
I will stop making fun of anti-gay sentiment framed from a moral superior soap box on the day anti-gay individuals cease their relentless pursuit of discrimination.
As it stands, asking whether this person is a small child is hardly equivalent to actively protesting the rights in real life of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
Only time and knowledge perceived as coming from self can open a closed mind. When I make fun bigotry it is as effective to the individual as when I or you explain it rationally, that is to say it is not."
I see no reason to assume they have a closed mind. Maybe they are just misinformed and haven't heard an explanation as to why their logic is invalid. For the sake of argument lets assume they are a troll and have a closed mind. Other people read these debates, and some of them may not have closed minds. If they see an argument from someone that is being rude, they will be less likely to take it seriously. Even though the logical thing to do would be to weigh the arguments based on their merits instead of how friendly or rudely they are presented, the fact of the matter is that people don't always do that. People instinctually heed the words of friendly people more than those of someone that is being mean.
What treating it as valid, whether you believe it to be valid or not, does to is lend unearned authority to the opinion in question.
How is explaining the flaws in someone's logic treating is a valid? It's the exact opposite of treating it as valid. Just because I choose to explain to them in a friendly way instead of an aggressive way to does mean I am treating it as valid.
I will stop making fun of anti-gay sentiment framed from a moral superior soap box on the day anti-gay individuals cease their relentless pursuit of discrimination.
I think maybe you are reading to much into what they said. They are under the impression that marriage is a religious thing, which is a very common misconception I hear all the time from religious people. Given their misunderstanding of marriage, it's not illogical for them to wonder why "gays that don't really care for God, the bible" would want to be part of it.
As it stands, asking whether this person is a small child is hardly equivalent to actively protesting the rights in real life of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
I never said it was equivalent. I think you're missing my point. I want discrimination against gays to stop just as much as you do, but I choose to talk to people in a friendly way because the chances of me changing someone's mind by name calling and aggression is less likely to be successful.
As it stands, asking whether this person is a small child is hardly equivalent to actively protesting the rights in real life of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
A child's opinion has no say, or power, in the outcome of the rights of real life hundreds of thousands of people. You approach is better suited for the politicians that do have a say in, and power over, the rights of said people.
I guess my question to you would be, if you were in front of a crowd of people (young and old), would you feel comfortable addressing a child that way?
To my knowledge this person is not a child. Saying a child has a childish notion would not be insulting. I assume they are a dumb adult.
And please explain where all of this sensitivity has come from all of the sudden? My original comment was about a 6 on the insulting scale... I mean I realize only the right is allowed to throw out insults with impunity, you are a sensitive bunch over there and cannot handle it so well, but this really wasn't that bad. Cheer up.
You approach is better suited for the politicians that do have a say in, and power over, the rights of said people.
It is the general public which allows politicians to not act against discrimination Joe. This is a democracy.
God did create marriage because it all started when he created Eve from Adam and God has to be the third member of a marriage or it will crumble. Also, God does exist because he created the world and he created humans and how is he not worthy of worship? What has God done to deserve any less.
God did create marriage because it all started when he created Eve from Adam
First of all, start your argument off with proper grammar ("did create"). Second, what does this have to do with marriage? Even if he did exist and he did create Eve from Adam's rib, then how does that have anything to do with marriage? You're not proving anything, you're only stating what you believe happened. By the way, how do you know a man up in the sky created a woman from a man's rib, is there any way you can prove to me that this happened without using the Bible as a source?
God has to be the third member of a marriage or it will crumble.
This statement is not true at all. Plenty of non-religious, athiest, agnostic and others not worshiping a deity have had successful and long-lasting marriages. There is no third member of a marriage unless you're a polygamist, either. Explain to me how your God, over any other God, is a part of everyone's marriage and how if you don't invite him between you and your wife that your marriage will crumble.
Also, God does exist because he created the world and he created humans
You are not proving anything, you are not providing any logical explanation for this. God exists because he created the world and humans? Does the Stay-Puft Marshmallowman exist because he was in Ghostbusters? No, we know he doesn't exist because he's a fictional character in a story and doesn't exist outside of fiction. Does God exist because he created humans and the world? He technically didn't create humans as we naturally evolved from our predecessors to be the way we are, and not just in a split second by some God. We also know through science that the world wasn't created in seven days by a God either. So, how does your God exist? Please explain using proper facts and evidence or else your claim is dismissed as false.
how is he not worthy of worship? What has God done to deserve any less
God hasn't done anything to anyone at all. People spend countless hours praying to nothing, only to have nothing happen at all. What has he done, you cannot attempt to prove that he's done anything without the use of the Bible as evidence, which it is not.
In short, your brief "rebuttal" was a weak attempt to prove you're right and a strong attempt to prove you're mildly insane.
So I can't use my bible as a resource but you can use Darwin's book as a resource to throw evolution at me how is that fair. God is like love it's just there you can't see love but you just know its there.
Piss off stalker. It is a fucking fact that people do NOT choose who they are attracted to. There is NO proof whatsoever that people choose who they are attracted too. Either prove your claims or admit defeat, you uneducated twit.
I don't care if you care if I care that you don't care, to care care care....
I'm in fact NOT angry or mad. I do not need to prove to you that people make choices everyday because you're making a choice right now to type words and it's self evident; no work necessary on my part, no links, just common truth.
Unless you're a robot from skyNET come to destroy the world with your anti anti gay propaganda. :D
But seriously though, while I would never claim that you cannot use the Bible (or any religious book) in a debate, any book that hs been proven at least partially faulty (whether a book of religion, or of science) cannot be treated as reliable a source of information in the same way that another book is, in which no faults have yet been found.
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked, showing you don't really know how to rebut an argument.
So I can't use my bible as a resource but you can use Darwin's book as a resource to throw evolution at me how is that fair.
No, you can't, as there is no proof to back-up the Bible. The Romans kept very detailed records of what happened in their times, and none of it relates to the Bible. If it was as big of a movement as it was in the Bible, you would think someone would have it on record, but no, it's not. Is there any way to prove that we were put here in seven days by a deity in the sky 4000/6000 (depending on which story you believe) years ago, or that this "loving god" flooded the Earth, killing everything but two animals per species (which in itself is impossible) and a small family? Is there any way to prove any of this happened? I'm waiting.
God is like love it's just there you can't see love but you just know its there
Proper punctuation would have been great to help follow what you are referring to here. Just because you think it's there does not mean everyone does ("you just know its there"). Since I can't help you realize you're somewhat hallucinating here, I'm not going to go further on with this particular sentence.
Noah's ark has been found found already on Mt.Ararat so what are you talking about and why do you need proof for everything freaking thing I don't care if there is no proof of Jesus ever existing or Noah's Ark. The same way if you had a daughter or son and they said your uncle or best friend molested them you can see the pain in their eyes even before you go to a Doctor to get evidence because you don't need damn evidence to tell you what or who you believe. I'm sorry my punctuation sucks I'm in my last year of high school and all my English teachers sucked all we did was read crappy stories like Romeo and Juliette also the iPad makes corrections on its own. Honestly if there is anyone that doesn't believe in love I feel bad for them and I can do is pray because that means they never had anyone who loved them and they never loved anyone in return.
It has? Please direct me to the evidence of this happening, as I was not aware of this. I require proof because I cannot believe something if there's not evidence to back it up. If my daughter was molested by my uncle, it's a different category as that is a personal depiction, where as the Bible is a written depiction. If my daughter is showing signs of molestation, I'd know.
No worries on the punctuation, I'm not one to judge. Just a year ago I would have had similar grammar to RandomDude. As long as I can read it, I'm not overly concerned. I'm not sure what the last statement is referring to, however I don't think love to one another is provided by telling gays what they can or cannot do. Please provide the link to the Noak's Ark discovery as I am very curious.
1) God did create marriage because it all started when he created Eve from Adam and God has to be the third member of a marriage or it will crumble.
The argument loses credibility as soon as you mention Adam and Eve because as we know the genesis account of creation is false. So if you meant Adam and Eve from the bible (which I'm sure you did) they never existed. Also God has to be the third member of the marriage, first thing is there is no good reason to believe there is a god and the second even if there was one what makes you think that without him marriage would crumble?
2) God does exist because he created the world and he created humans
This is an assertion and not backed up by evidence. Evolution tells us how humans arose and this is backed up by plenty of evidence.
3) how is he not worthy of worship? What has God done to deserve any less.
Well although I would say the God of the bible does not exist, if he did he would definitely not be worthy of our worship for the following reasons:
i) The God of the bible called for the genocide of the amalekites, Canaanites too name a couple. He also killed children because he was angry with the Pharaoh ( He hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so he would not let the Israelites go).
ii) Your God in the Old Testament justifies slavery, the killing of homosexuals and the murder of people for imaginary crimes such as witchcraft.
iii) Your God sends people to hell to be tortured for an eternity for a finite crime ( This disgusting idea came in the new testament).
iv) Your God created us, knowing we would sin and then couldn't think of a better way to forgive our sins then to send his son down to be tortured and brutally killed. If God is the one who forgives sins he could of just forgiven them rather then do that disgusting thing.
That is 4 reasons why if your God is real, he is not deserving of any worship.
What about atheists, agnostics, etc. who get married? There was marriage in the pagan societies of Ancient Greece and Rome and even before that. Even if religion is a spiritual bond for some, humans introduced the institution. Most people don't get married because of some religious vitirol-- they get married because they love each other and want to show this love by entering into a union. That's all homosexuals want to do. Besides, aren't there religious gay people?
the bible says to kill homosexuals "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
you now have two options:
1: believe that it is a good thing to start a genocide on gay people
2: accept that if you don't agree with killing gay people when God tells you to, then why do you agree with making gay marriage illegal, unless it is your own personal view which you incorporated into believing that gay people shouldn't be murdered.
No, I've actually never heard that one before. Homosexuals are a definite minority on the planet, and if they were allowed the same decency and respect as us, the population wouldn't change at all. Even so, we're overpopulated as it is, it wouldn't even be a bad thing.
um since marriage has been around longer then Christianity your whole statement is shot down and pretty dumb. pushing YOUR beliefs on others is pretty pathetic and the fact that you judge others is against the teachings of the religion you say you follow . What would Jesus say?
I think you need to go back and read it again I said God created marriage clearly I did not say marriage came from Christianity. I dont know why everybody is saying that. I'm not judging anyone the idea came in my head and I was curious to see people's responses.
Gay Marriage is an option and there are many Gay people who do not want to be married and are happy without marriage, however, Gay Marriage should not be banned.
