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.
Oh please that is completely different, that really is a poor analogy. First of all stopping some one from marrying based on sexuality is discrimination and preventing murder is not.
Also some one wanting to marry some one else is an action that has no negative or unwanted affect with where as the decision to kill some one affects lots of people in a negative way, the victim, his friends, his family.
Oh please that is completely different, that really is a poor analogy. First of all stopping some one from marrying based on sexuality is discrimination and preventing murder is not.
They are both discrimination.
Also some one wanting to marry some one else is an action that has no negative or unwanted affect with where as the decision to kill some one affects lots of people in a negative way, the victim, his friends, his family.
Who says it doesn't have negative effects? It has negative effects on them.
"Who says it doesn't have negative effects? It has negative effects on them."
Even if it does have negative affects on them it is their choice to have suffer them where as the person who gets murdered does not choose to get murdered, it is completely different.
Murdering some one is completely different to marrying some one, that is a moronic argument.
Its discrimination against the people who want to murder.
Even if it does have negative affects on them it is their choice to have suffer them where as the person who gets murdered does not choose to get murdered, it is completely different.
It has negative effects on others as well. There is no thing in this world that does not impact others.
Murdering some one is completely different to marrying some one, that is a moronic argument.
Murder is a violation of civil rights to start- the right of a person under the law to life. Therefore it is not discrimination to prevent murder. Just like it is not discrimination to prevent theft or rape. I don't think you even know what discrimination IS.
Gay marriage affects no one but the two people involved. You are simply trying to prevent two people from forming a legal relationship based on nothing but their sexuality, which is no different than the idiots who tried to prevent interracial marriage in the sixties, and the twits who try to prevent women from holding certain jobs just because they're women.
Murder is a violation of civil rights to start- the right of a person under the law to life. Therefore it is not discrimination to prevent murder. Just like it is not discrimination to prevent theft or rape. I don't think you even know what discrimination IS.
It is discrimination to not allow murderers to murder.
Gay marriage affects no one but the two people involved.
Have you heard of the butterfly effect?
You are simply trying to prevent two people from forming a legal relationship based on nothing but their sexuality, which is no different than the idiots who tried to prevent interracial marriage in the sixties, and the twits who try to prevent women from holding certain jobs just because they're women.
I don't think two people of the same sex can logically be married.
It is not discrimination to not allow murderers to murder. If you knew the actual definition of the word, you'd know it is the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of things, especially according to race, sex, or age". Since NO ONE is allowed to murder, there is no discrimination.
Discrimination does not mean "you can't do absolutely everything you want".
The Butterfly Effect is a subset of chaos theory referring to the behavior of variables in a complex system such as weather. It does not, no matter what you've seen on TV or in movies, have anything to do with societal interaction.
Name one way gay marriage affects anyone else negatively.
As for your ridiculous claim that two people of the same sex cannot logically be married, you have no rational or logical support for such a claim therefore it is dismissed. Marriage is just a legal and civil arrangement- gender is irrelevant.
It is not discrimination to not allow murderers to murder. If you knew the actual definition of the word, you'd know it is the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of things, especially according to race, sex, or age". Since NO ONE is allowed to murder, there is no discrimination. / Discrimination does not mean "you can't do absolutely everything you want".
It means that some people are treated differently than others. Gay people are not treated any differently than straight people. They can marry, as long as it is with someone of the opposite sex. No one is allowed to get married to the same sex. Hence, it is no different from murder. That argument basis is not a good starting point.
The Butterfly Effect is a subset of chaos theory referring to the behavior of variables in a complex system such as weather. It does not, no matter what you've seen on TV or in movies, have anything to do with societal interaction.
It means, in practicality, that even the smallest of things can change the course of the world. Gay marriage does and is changing the world. You cannot say that gay marriage does not impact others.
Name one way gay marriage affects anyone else negatively.
It blasphemes the church of God and leads people away from God.
As for your ridiculous claim that two people of the same sex cannot logically be married, you have no rational or logical support for such a claim therefore it is dismissed. Marriage is just a legal and civil arrangement- gender is irrelevant.
Marriage is a covenant that God has instituted to reflect His own covenant with His own church. So, yes, it is a logical contradiction to speak of gay marriage.
Gay people are not treated any differently than straight people. They can marry, as long as it is with someone of the opposite sex.
They are not allowed to marry someone they are sexually attracted to - that is different.
You cannot say that gay marriage does not impact others
Gay marriage doesn't make straight people gay, just as straight marriage doesn't make gay people straight.
It blasphemes the church of God and leads people away from God
Whether that is a negative is a debate for another day.
Marriage is a covenant that God has instituted to reflect His own covenant
Should divorce be legal? remarriage? should a man be legally required to marry his brother's widow - even if he is already married? should polygyny be allowed, but not polyandry? should a man be able to chose a bride from female prisoners of war? when a man rape's a woman, does she become his wife?
A biblical interpretation of how people should live is a far different question than what the government should enforce.
They are not allowed to marry someone they are sexually attracted to - that is different.
If I am sexually attracted to children, should I be able to marry them?
Gay marriage doesn't make straight people gay, just as straight marriage doesn't make gay people straight.
Did I ever say that?
Whether that is a negative is a debate for another day.
It leads people away from life; that is pretty immoral.
Should divorce be legal? remarriage? should a man be legally required to marry his brother's widow - even if he is already married? should polygyny be allowed, but not polyandry? should a man be able to chose a bride from female prisoners of war? when a man rape's a woman, does she become his wife?
Divorce should only be legal to those who have been the victim of his or her spouse being sexually immoral. Remarriage should not happen, as divorce should not happen. As for the last three, do not equivocate moral law with the civic law of Israel.
A biblical interpretation of how people should live is a far different question than what the government should enforce.
The government is instituted to protect righteousness. The Bible establishes what is righteous. Hence, the government should be based around Biblical law.
If I am sexually attracted to children, should I be able to marry them?
Are gay people raping each other? Consent is still required here in our blasphemous world of governmental recognition that people of the same sex can file joint taxes without harming anyone else.
Did I ever say that?
You said: You cannot say that gay marriage does not impact others
In what way? Does the mere existence of gay people make others reject God, or only if they are allowed each others Social Security?
Remarriage should not happen
Should not happen, or should be illegal?
government is instituted to protect righteousness
actually I prefer: "That to secure these rights [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - Declaration of Independence
do not equivocate moral law with the civic law of Israel
do not equivocate Biblical Law with the civic law of the United States (or wherever...)
Are gay people raping each other? Consent is still required here in our blasphemous world of governmental recognition that people of the same sex can file joint taxes without harming anyone else.
What about incest then? And why can a child not give consent? Is it because of their incapability to reason? Who determines that? Many people consider Christians illogical; so can Christians give consent? Your statements are purely discriminatory.
In what way? Does the mere existence of gay people make others reject God, or only if they are allowed each others Social Security?
Evil begets evil.
Should not happen, or should be illegal?
Both. Morality and the law are intertwined.
actually I prefer: "That to secure these rights [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - Declaration of Independence
Locke's philosophy was illogical and self-defeating, let alone immoral. The Declaration of Independence is radical and promotes the immoral, such as violent revolution.
do not equivocate Biblical Law with the civic law of the United States (or wherever...)
Who said I did? I don't care about United States law. I care about morality and God's laws.
1."What about incest then? Can a child not give consent?"
Incest if consentual, although disgusting, isn't any of my business, as for children giving consent, they are too young to know what they are doing, btw Incest and pedophilia are in the bible:
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself. Deuteronomy 20:10-14
How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have sworn by the LORD that we will not give them of our daughters to wives? ... And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh. Judges 21:7-11
Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh ... And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught. Judges 21:20-23
if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ... If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. Exodus 21:7-10
In Genesis 4:17, Cain has a wife, though there is no account given of where his wife comes from. Excepting direct creation by God, as was the case for Adam himself, the only two obvious possibilities for Cain's wife are that she was either a full sister of Cain or she was Cain's mother Eve.
In Genesis 9:20-27, Ham saw his father Noah's nakedness. The Talmud suggests that Ham may have sodomized Noah (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a). In more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father's wife.
2."Evil begets evil"
Evil is only an interpretation of actions, there is no pure good or pure evil, we as human beings perform actions every day that could be labeled good or evil. Like putting money in a charity box could be considered good, but any moment you pay your taxes, a bit of that money goes to the military bombing people oversees, therefore you have helped contribute to an evil act
3."Both morality and law are intertwined"
Laws have changed over time, back during the days of slavery many argued against freeing the slaves as it was Gods will and they had no position as to violate Gods law.
4. "The Declaration of Independence is radical and promotes the immoral, such as violent revolution"
Its nice to know that you believe that America should have stayed under the rule of the British Monarchy
5. "I don't care about United States law. I care about morality and Gods law"
Fine, you have the right to have that opinion, doesn't mean your correct. We live in a democracy, where people have the right to live their own lifestyle as they wish as long as no one else is hurt by their actions. That is what the USA was founded upon (of course as you stated above, you apparently don't believe in America, you'd rather we live in a theocracy which is based of your interpretation of a thousand year old book of desert fairytales written by primitive man)
Incest if consentual, although disgusting, isn't any of my business, as for children giving consent, they are too young to know what they are doing, btw Incest and pedophilia are in the bible:
Who says that children are too young to give consent? Is it because of their mental capacities? Thats discrimination based upon intellect. Some people may think atheists are unintellectual; based on that premise, then atheists cannot give consent.
You have yet to post any Bible verse that describes pedophilia or incest being advocated by God.
Evil is only an interpretation of actions, there is no pure good or pure evil, we as human beings perform actions every day that could be labeled good or evil. Like putting money in a charity box could be considered good, but any moment you pay your taxes, a bit of that money goes to the military bombing people oversees, therefore you have helped contribute to an evil act
If there is no pure evil, then why are you trying to say that the Bible is evil?
Laws have changed over time, back during the days of slavery many argued against freeing the slaves as it was Gods will and they had no position as to violate Gods law.
Slavery in the 1800s was race based, not criminality based. It was immoral.
Its nice to know that you believe that America should have stayed under the rule of the British Monarchy
I do, actually.
Fine, you have the right to have that opinion, doesn't mean your correct. We live in a democracy, where people have the right to live their own lifestyle as they wish as long as no one else is hurt by their actions. That is what the USA was founded upon (of course as you stated above, you apparently don't believe in America, you'd rather we live in a theocracy which is based of your interpretation of a thousand year old book of desert fairytales written by primitive man)
1. A child has not lived long enough to gather intellect as to the nature of sexuality, they have not developed any sex active organs as well (sperm, eggs, breasts, etc.). Its funny that you call atheists unintellectual when 93% of the members of the national academy of sciences are atheists. Also, the bible never condones incest, but it clearly depicts many cases of it and never condems it.
2. I said there is no such thing as PURE good and evil. There are acts which we commit that can be considered either. For example, someone like Hitler many people consider evil because of his mass murder of Jews and causing WW2. However there are some characteristics about him that could be considered a good trait, such as he liked and cared for children, he was an environmentalist, and he cared alot about his country, he may have done many evil acts, but he wasn't PURE evil. I can define evil acts by how they affect fellow living things, murdering another human being hinders society, therefore it is an evil act, and since your Bible condones the murder of innocent lives, I consider it an evil book.
3. The bible clearly states that any foreigners could be taken as slaves by the Israelites for life. The bible also states that any hebrew slave could only be kept for 6 years and then should be let go, the that is race based:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
1. A child has not lived long enough to gather intellect as to the nature of sexuality, they have not developed any sex active organs as well (sperm, eggs, breasts, etc.). Its funny that you call atheists unintellectual when 93% of the members of the national academy of sciences are atheists. Also, the bible never condones incest, but it clearly depicts many cases of it and never condems it.
What about a person who never goes through puberty? Many people have medical issues that prevent them from going through it. Moreover, what about people who are ignorant, being incapable of gathering intellect about sex? You are discriminating based upon intellect, which is immoral.
Leviticus 18:6 says, "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
2. I said there is no such thing as PURE good and evil. There are acts which we commit that can be considered either. For example, someone like Hitler many people consider evil because of his mass murder of Jews and causing WW2. However there are some characteristics about him that could be considered a good trait, such as he liked and cared for children, he was an environmentalist, and he cared alot about his country, he may have done many evil acts, but he wasn't PURE evil. I can define evil acts by how they affect fellow living things, murdering another human being hinders society, therefore it is an evil act, and since your Bible condones the murder of innocent lives, I consider it an evil book.
An act is either evil or good. There is no gray area. Good and evil are not defined by utility. The principle of utility, in ever form of consequentialism, is evil.
3. The bible clearly states that any foreigners could be taken as slaves by the Israelites for life. The bible also states that any hebrew slave could only be kept for 6 years and then should be let go, the that is race based:
That is because the Israelites were seen as righteous. Gentiles were seen as unclean spiritually. Thus, there is only an issue here of whether justice is a good thing or not.
Gods favortism towards the Israelites is a true form of racism, in fact the bible itself was used as an excuse to enslave Africans. Ever heard of the "Mark of Cain"? Many European Christians used to teach that after Cain killed his brother Abel, he turned his skin dark to mark his inferiority.
I have heard of it. That is not an argument, though. Do not equivocate the spiritual line of Satan with a physical line. The New Testament makes it clear that Abraham's descendants are those who have faith; likewise, the line of Satan, and likewise of Cain, was of those who do not believe. Those who are seen as righteous are those who have faith; those who do not have faith are seen as wicked, and can justly put into slavery.
Because obviously, murdering some one is immoral and marrying some one who you love is not.
Who says that murder is immoral? Who says that marrying someone who you love is immoral? Who says that marrying someone who you love is even that which is being discussed? I love my baby niece. Should I marry her because we love one another? This does not follow. The issue is whether homosexual sexual relations are immoral. Who says that they are or not?
How? How does it affect you? How does two people getting married going to have a negative impact on you?
I was just saying I don't hate gay people and I have been known to follow the Bible in the past. Not so much anymore. The statement wasn't really relevant I was just trying to say that christians don't hate gay people or think any less of them
I skimmed through this and found it somewhat helpful. The question I have now is if Judaism follows the Old testament rules why don't they kill homosexuals
It is the truth not ignorant because the bible states it here "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13"
"Gay Marriage Legal"...the government sets the laws so automatically, in this debate, it is about the government being involved with marriage. I agree with HellNo in that the government shouldn't be involved in marriages at all. But if they are, then...I don't think we should allow "gay marriage" as if we are granting gay people a right that they weren't deserving of before, I think we should take the restrictions off "marriage" and. Separating the two does more damage than good, which is why I completely understand why they don't want civil unions. But if the government is involved with marriage, I don't think they should be putting any restrictions on it other than those involved have to be consenting adults.
Whatever reason government had to become involved with marriage in the first place, I think there is some merit to retaining a notion of marriage or union within government. The legal institution of marriage creates a whole range of state and federal privileges and entitlements (primarily financial, but also legal) that facilitate the creation of more financially stable households.
Further, it is highly unlikely that government will remove itself from the issue anytime in the foreseeable future (in pretty much any nation I can think of). That being rather a given, it seems to me that gay marriage should be legal. Your stance is otherwise grounded in a futuristic preference that may or may not ever be realized.
Marriage has always been for man and wife. A well known and historical fact. Pliny, in his first hand report concerning the Burning of Rome started his report with the perverted marriage of Nero dressed like a girl and who proceeded in a mock marriage. Roman Society was aghast at this ceremony and Pliny spared no adjectives to describe this farst!
I assume you cherry pick from your Bible as well as you do your history books. Firstly, of course, it is a fallacy to select one historical society and assert that it represents the whole of human social history. Rome is preceded by and contemporary with many other civilizations.
Regarding Rome specifically, however... The surviving accounts of Nero and his marriages were from the Christians he is known to have persecuted; of course they were not favorable (they were not favorable about anything). More importantly, whatever attitudes prevailed by the time of Nero's reign they were preceded by acceptance of legal same-sex marriages between men in the Imperial era. The shift in perspective against homosexuality came about largely as a consequence of Christianity, which far from continuing marital traditions changed them.
There is such thing as two people of the same sax being married. You may say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that if it is two men/women, then it is not marriage, it is only a sin. But that's a prejudiced biased, and frankly ridiculous thing to say. Gay couples have marriage certificates, they have wedding ceremonies, they get married in churches.. e.t.c. Well, in the UK they can.
So tell me, why is there no such thing as gay marriage?
Simply because gay couples are recognized by the state as being married does not make it so. Marriage is not merely a social bond; it is a spiritual covenant and reflection of Christ and His church (and some other things). God instituted marriage. It is between a man and a woman only. There is no possibly way to say that a man can marry a man, and a woman marry a woman, without changing the definition of marriage. You can say that a gay couple are legally joined, but that is not marriage.
Marriage existed before Jesus or his church existed so it clearly is not a reflection of them. It may be for you but for a lot of other people it isn't, if it were than the only people to get married would be Christians.
And there is no evidence that your God instituted marriage.
Marriage existed before Jesus or his church existed so it clearly is not a reflection of them. It may be for you but for a lot of other people it isn't, if it were than the only people to get married would be Christians.
Marriage was instituted the first time in the Garden of Eden for Adam and Eve. It is for all people, though, not just Christians, since the world is to reflect the glory of God, which marriage is partly intended to do.
And there is no evidence that your God instituted marriage.
After the word flood I've stopped reading the list of delusions that you suffer from.
Because of my condition I have done a lot of reading about neurology and neuroscience in general, so I think that you may have a tumor close to your left ear.
The author of the "Book of Narnia"(not the real name BTW) claims it to be false.
The Bible's authors claim that it is true. Its claims are then examined to be seen if they are true or false and they have yet to be found false under actual scrutiny.
"Marriage was instituted the first time in the Garden of Eden for Adam and Eve. It is for all people, though, not just Christians, since the world is to reflect the glory of God, which marriage is partly intended to do."
No it wasn't, Adam and Eve is a load of Bullshit.
"The Bible says it."
That's hardly evidence. If something being written down in a holy scripture makes something true then why don't you believe in what the Quran or the Vedas?
That's hardly evidence. If something being written down in a holy scripture makes something true then why don't you believe in what the Quran or the Vedas?
Common sense tells you that Adam and Eve is not true? I don't think that follows. Common sense, which is the lesser, and many of the times incorrect, form of logic, since the many (the common) is usually filled with idiots (non-logical peoples), does not say anything against Adam and Eve. Intellectual logic doesn't say anything against them either.
I too could say that at the time of Christ, people didn't need wedding certificates and documents, as they do now. Does that mean that married couples don't need these documents to be married?
No, the law decides that, not your religion, because you cannot impose your religion on others like that. If you wish to live in a functioning society, that includes religious diversity, then you need to have a government. And the government decides what marriage is. Not your religion. Because you know, there are other religions out there. And atheists too, if two atheists get married, but not in a church, do you think that they are not married? Of course they are.
Grow up and stop being so narrow minded. This is why theists get such bad press.
I too could say that at the time of Christ, people didn't need wedding certificates and documents, as they do now. Does that mean that married couples don't need these documents to be married?
It doesn't need to be legal, but it would be better if it were.
No, the law decides that, not your religion, because you cannot impose your religion on others like that.
Simply because others don't believe my religion, it does not mean that the religion is false and that the rules in it do not apply to them. If you don't believe in gravity and you jump off of a building, then you will still be subject to the laws of gravity. The same applies to Christianity and marriage.
If you wish to live in a functioning society, that includes religious diversity, then you need to have a government. And the government decides what marriage is.
Can the government decide that a married-bachelor is logically consistent? I don't think so... The same is true with a married-bachelor. You can rename a gay couple being committed to one another as being married, but that does not make them married. I can think that I am a horse all day but that does not mean I am.
Not your religion.
God has already decided. You can either go with the ontology of marriage or apply the name of "marriage" to something that is not ontologically marriage.
Because you know, there are other religions out there. And atheists too, if two atheists get married, but not in a church, do you think that they are not married? Of course they are.
Did I ever say that an atheists can't marry?
Grow up and stop being so narrow minded. This is why theists get such bad press.
Whoever said that I was narrow minded? The reason I believe this is because I am open-minded and have found truth.
Its listed in the same verse, so that applies to gay marriage as weel, btw we live in a secular society, you dont have to like gay marriage, but that is your religion, it doesnt mean that everyone else has to abide by your religions rules, if that were the case we would be:
Killing people for working on sunday:
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Kill women who have sex if they are not married:
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Kill children for being defiant of their parents:
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Its listed in the same verse, so that applies to gay marriage as weel, btw we live in a secular society, you dont have to like gay marriage, but that is your religion, it doesnt mean that everyone else has to abide by your religions rules, if that were the case we would be:
You do realize that my argument was not from a moral ground, but from a logical ground, correct?
Also, as I have already told you, the Old Testament, as theologians have classically believed, is divided into three spheres of laws: the ceremonial, the civic, and the moral. The first two do not apply to us today, since Christ was and is our sacrifice, while His sacrifice goes out to the whole world, which means that the nation of Israel is no longer a grounded nation with a legal code. The last one is the only one which Christians must follow.
And I don't see any problem with those verses that you have shown me.
Once again, we live in a country where there is a seperation of church and state, it doesnt matter if your religion doesn't approve of same sex marriage, our laws aren't based off your religion.
Once again, we live in a country where there is a seperation of church and state, it doesnt matter if your religion doesn't approve of same sex marriage, our laws aren't based off your religion.
Two points are going to be made in response.
(1) This is not a moral issue; this is a logical issue. I have already told you this. Gay marriage is a logical impossibility, and it cannot happen, logically. I have not brought in the issue of morality or approval into this debate. You are the one who did. I'm not talking about approval. I'm talking about logical impossibilities and oxymorons.
(2) I don't care if your nation or my nation is based off of the division of church and state.
(1) marriage is only a contract, it existed long before christianity, the ancient greeks married people of the same sex, people can get married in a non religious ceremony (by a judge with a law book)
(2) how you feel is irrelevant, what you want shouldn't be the law for people who don't believe in your God
(1) marriage is only a contract, it existed long before christianity, the ancient greeks married people of the same sex, people can get married in a non religious ceremony (by a judge with a law book)
Marriage is ontologically a covenant between a man and a woman to reflect the relation of Christ and His church. If you do not have these parts, then it is not a marriage. You can apply the name of "marriage" to something that is non-ontologically marriage, but it would not be marriage, ontologically, any longer.
(2) how you feel is irrelevant, what you want shouldn't be the law for people who don't believe in your God
God's law applies regardless of whether one believe it or not. If you do not believe in gravity, it will still apply to you.
Everybody has the right to be happy but sometimes happiness bring us to the fort of mislead desicions. Legali.zing their marriage bring nothing but the widespread of irrational beliefs. As by nature man is to woman and woman is to man. Therefore the fit of pairs must remain and respect must flourish as humans morally and spiritually.
The only irrational belief is that heterosexuality is the only natural sexual orientation. Homosexuality and bisexuality are evident in multiple species, and both historically predate any contemporary religion.
Further, to assert your religious views of sexual morality upon those who do not share them is entirely unconstitutional not to mention ethically reprehensible.
Homosexuality is a social cancer. There is nothing natural about it. Homosexual marriage makes a person lose the potential to breed, and thus to build a normal happy family.
Common sense!!!!!!!!!!!!
Adoption is off the charts. The kid would live a rough life and/or he will grow up with a corrupt personality.
Everything is meant to have a balance in life.
In nature, a chemical bond is created when a negative charge is attracted to the positive charge. But two opposites do not bind.
Cancer is destructive, and there is not a single demonstrable case where homosexuality is uniquely harmful to society. None.
Homosexuality and bisexuality are evident in multiple species, and in humans both historically predate any contemporary religion. Homosexual marriages also predate Christianity.
If families can only be "normal" and "happy" in your view if they produce offspring then I suppose infertility is unnatural as well? What about the celibate holy men and women who forfeit their potential to breed... is that a perversion as well?
I assume your vacuous statement about adoption refers to adoptions by homosexual parents. Scientific research has proven that homosexual partners are capable of creating equally happy and healthy families, and in fact domestic violence, divorce, and other destructive behavior is higher among heterosexual couples. In further contrast, of course, there is plenty of research clearly showing how harmful being a state ward is to a child.
Homosexuality does not break any balance. Human reproduction rates are actually in excess, and infertility and homosexuality are likely natural developments in humans and other species to cap reproduction. That theory being inadequate perhaps turn your small mind to other evidence you have overlooked: genes connected with homosexuality are also tied to higher fertility in the family line for women. It is quite possible if not probable that homosexuality is a co-evolved characteristic with high human fertility.
As far as the status of belief, that has absolutely no place regulating the lives of others through the law. Fuck your idealized fascist theocracy.
You are accusing me of radicalism just because I gave my opinion about the topic.
You also used foul language which is a sign of weakness in your argument.
You also think that I believe in celibacy. I believe it is the right for every human being to have a spouse.
You mentioned that some species act homosexually.
If some species act in certain ways, it is not an excuse to do the same. I have seen how a gorilla ate his own feces, and I don't think humans should do the same. And I don't think that this had anything to do with genetic processes.
You mentioned that the genetics of homosexuals act naturally as fertility caps.
This means that people with high fertility transform into gay people: were Adam and Eve not fertile enough?
Back to adoption, children have a right to and a need for parenting by both a father and a mother.
I am not saying a child should stay as a state ward, but definitely not with people who have poor moral judgement.
You mentioned that human fertility is in excess. Keep in mind that the number of human beings has been going up and down for ages. People over history have died through wars and natural disasters over and over. Who are you to dictate the potential of life of another human being?
If you think you know about homosexuality in predate christianity, read about the people of prophet loot(p)
You are accusing me of radicalism just because I gave my opinion about the topic.
Your stance is that your religious beliefs should be imposed upon the personal lives of other people. That is your ideal. Fascism is "very harsh control or authority" and "controls the lives of the people" (Merriam Webster), and while you may not be pro-autocracy the restriction of other peoples' freedoms and rights that you advocate is very much in the spirit of fascism. Any imposition of religious belief through law is theocratic. My observation may not have been spot on, but it was far from wholly inaccurate.
You also used foul language which is a sign of weakness in your argument.
And you used excessive exclamation points. That at least equally weakens yours, so worst case we're even. Further,I have been discriminated against my entire life by people like you who believe they should be able to force me to live by their beliefs. That this upsets me does not invalidate my analysis at all.
You also think that I believe in celibacy.
No. I posed this as one of two contradictions to your argument. If you think "forfeiting" reproduction is a perversion, then you must find the celibate priest perverted as well. If your standard for a legal marriage is reproduction, then you must also believe the infertile should not be allowed to marry. You did not address the crux of either of these points.
You mentioned that some species act homosexually. If some species act in certain ways, it is not an excuse to do the same. And I don't think that this had anything to do with genetic processes.
That was a direct response to your accusation that homosexuality is unnatural. That homosexuality exists in other species is direct evidence that homosexuality exists in nature... making it natural. Further, the belief that homosexuality is a choice is wholly unfounded and directly contradicted by a growing body of scientific research in genetics and epigentics. For instance.
You mentioned that the genetics of homosexuals act naturally as fertility caps.This means that people with high fertility transform into gay people: were Adam and Eve not fertile enough?
No. That is not what that means. It is one posited theory that the presence of homosexuals generally in any species could have evolved to regulate overall species fertility rates, not individual rates.
You mentioned that human fertility is in excess. Keep in mind that the number of human beings has been going up and down for ages. Who are you to dictate the potential of life of another human being?
No. The human population has increased dramatically over history. I am not dictating worth of any human being, but rather observing a clear fact of rapid population growth within a world of limited resources where nature naturally curbs growth.
Back to adoption, children have a right to and a need for parenting by both a father and a mother. Same sex relationships do not provide an ideal environment in which to raise children for several reasons. See more at [source].
No, they do not. Your source is flagrantly biased. They openly admit their Christian Catholic slant. Where the author actually bothers to cite any supporting evidence, those sources are woefully outdated and/or misrepresented. He also misrepresents his own credentials. I could leave it at that, but I feel like a good old fashioned tear down tonight.
The first cited source has nothing to do with homosexual parenting or even homosexuality, and intentionally constructs a false legitimacy through misrepresentation of an association. They attempt to pass their experience working in anger management off as expertise in homosexual relationships, but the latter is not actually among their specialties. They are not themselves a legitimate authority on this matter.
The second source is woefully obsolete having been published in 1985. Further, the sample size of the research group is problematically small. Badgett-Herman(2011) find that divorce rates are higher for heterosexual couples than for homosexual couples.
The third source is misconstrued. The percentage of separated mothers was pre-selected for the research to compare those families with those where the mothers remained together. What this source actually found: "Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment. [They] rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts [...]. Within the lesbian family sample, no differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated."
The fourth source is used to support a claim that physical and/or mental ill-health should bar one from parenting. If this is the concern, anyone with any serious illness regardless of orientation should be considered unfit to parent. That would be the majority of the human population. Furthermore, if this argument is valid then it also holds that blacks should not be allowed to marry and parent either because HIV/AIDS is higher within that demographic. Obviously, not.
The fifth source is flagrantly biased. You can tell by the title. It is also not a direct citation of original research.
The sixth source is not available online, but it is so outdated that the author no longer lists it among their publications (although they do list other earlier publications that remain relevant bodies of work). Further, lacking an ability to view the source itself but knowing the degree of misinterpretation of other sources available for review one might safely assume this source misrepresented as well. At any rate, this source is directly countered by the much more recent third source.
The seventh source directs to an error page. No surprise, really, since it is also very dated.
The eighth source is also very dated. For a more recent account and credible source see the 2005 APA report on Lesbian and Gay Parenting which finds: "In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." (p.15) Note that this source rather effectively discounts the entire Mercator article.
The ninth source is not accessible that I could find. However, based on what is available: the sample sizes are very small, the terminology is vague, assessment method is unclear, and correlation has been conflated with causation.
The tenth and eleventh sources are critiqued by the author, but the fallacies he finds in them are precisely the faults at work in everything he cited. They are also not the only sources available (as evidenced by the research I have cited in response).
So, there you have it. A collection of illegitimate assertions propped up by outdated studies and gross misrepresentations of other peoples' work. A close reading of the very sources cited contradicts the very claims your source is trying to make.
I am not saying a child should stay as a state ward, but definitely not with people who have poor moral judgement.
Yes, you are. The number of children in adoption far exceeds the rate of adoption by heterosexual parents. If you do not allow homosexual parents to adopt you are increasing the number of children who will remain as state wards. And your assertion of the moral inferiority of homosexuals is wholly prejudicial and unsupported by either reason or fact.
I did not say that my religeous beliefs should be imposed on anyone. I said that whether you believe that this is a right thing depends on your belief system and I think that it is the human's innate conscience that can give a valid judgement.
And I believe I have the right to vote on the topic.
Is this not Democratic enough? Am I fascist now, or the one who accused me of being fascist just for the act of voting and giving my opinion.
I am not going to argue further because this will go no where.
You are probably correct that we are not going to see eye to eye. You clearly conflate democracy and majoritarianism, and place no value in separation of church and state. I obviously disagree.
I do find it interesting that you reduce the debate to a matter of democratic semantics without at all addressing my extensive counters to your attacks on the purported "immorality" of homosexuality. If one did not know better, one would suspect your argument had no legs to stand upon.
Marriage is friendship, not pleasure. Most homosexual partners, I hear, do not stay together very long. Most homosexuals have thousands of lovers in one lifetime.
