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.
Yes if they want to last another 100 years, religions need to change with the times just as they did when they started to disapprove slavery, all things have to adapts to survive that's the natural order of things, social issues are no different.
There is no reason any religious groups should be forced to evolve. If its makes itself obsolete so be it. It is not the place of the government to prop up any religious group, and there is every reason to actively avoid such entanglement.
He never said anything about the government doing it. He said that they need to change because their stupid form of thinking is causing people to quit.
I realize that, however the comment was made within the context of the question which implicitly makes it a statement favoring coercive action by the government towards religious organizations. If that was not the intent, then the remark was out of place in the debate.
This implicit statement about favoring coercive actions was nullified by his statement that clearly ignored the government and pointed out that the church needs to change to survive. So, the context that you speak of does not actually exist.
I disagree, but if what you say is correct then the initial argument itself was just as much and indirect and off topic post as mine was. At any rate, I am not sure this controversy is terribly important in the end. Truce?
initial argument itself was just as much and indirect and off topic post as mine was
Yes, that's true, but he made a good point. Yours was more of an independent argument that made more sense as a stand alone than a response to him.
Truce?
Never! I say no truce. Never give up, never surrender. I will fight you to the end. I will make your children my enemies. Wait, what are we fighting about? Basically nothing. Oh, ok, truce is fine.
Never! I say no truce. Never give up, never surrender. I will fight you to the end. I will make your children my enemies. Wait, what are we fighting about? Basically nothing. Oh, ok, truce is fine.
Having objections to whether homosexuality may be moral or not is not stupid, but a valid argument. And those who are offended can leave. Its not about pleasing the masses but staying true to the faith.
What are you talking about? I'm saying those within the church who get upset at the church for standing it's ground on homosexuality can leave, because the faith is certainly not for them.
I said that in response to the suggestion that if the church doesn't start marrying gays, people will leave the church. Again, let them leave the church.
People have always left the church, in masses, yet, the church remains, especially when it holds its ground.
What are you talking about? I'm saying those within the church who get upset at the church for standing it's ground on homosexuality can leave, because the faith is certainly not for them.
If the church wants to marry gays then go find another backward church that doesn't want to marry gays. If you want to deny people happiness you can go off and do it if the Catholic Church changes.
I said that in response to the suggestion that if the church doesn't start marrying gays, people will leave the church. Again, let them leave the church.
I said that people will leave if the church doesn't change, what's the problem here?
People have always left the church, in masses, yet, the church remains, especially when it holds its ground.
Do you have an example? The church could also survive by adapting. Surviving is one thing, thriving another. The church still being around is not that great an accomplishment.
The problem is that people cannot demand the church go against the faith that it professes. If the people no longer wish to profess faith, they should no longer profess faith than force the church to become untrue to its profession of faith so that they may to profess faith.
"Do you have an example?"
The Catholic church has commanded many followers since the protestants split away, and since secularism began in the Renaissance. In a sexually promiscuous world, the Catholic church has maintained its views on issues like birth control and abortion, and same-sex marriage.
It has held firm to its traditional beliefs and must continue to do so.
I think more people will leave the faith if it caved in to the "band wagon" of same-sex marriage.
The problem is that people cannot demand the church go against the faith that it professes.
That is not true. The followers of the church can definitely do that.
If the people no longer wish to profess faith, they should no longer profess faith than force the church to become untrue to its profession of faith so that they may to profess faith.
Ok, let me get this straight. It makes sense for you that the church says gays need to give up their gay ways in order to be saved, but it is weird for members of the church to tell management that they need to stop their gay bashing ways in order to be saved. Sound like your beliefs?
The Catholic church has commanded many followers since the protestants split away, and since secularism began in the Renaissance. In a sexually promiscuous world, the Catholic church has maintained its views on issues like birth control and abortion, and same-sex marriage.
Didn't the Catholic Church run all of Rome, now they have to call a city a country. I wonder how long before they get rid of the pope for financial reasons.
It has held firm to its traditional beliefs and must continue to do so.
The church recently said Galileo was right. They are not holding as much as you hope.
I think more people will leave the faith if it caved in to the "band wagon" of same-sex marriage.
I can't show you something that's not there. I said its' not there. You have to show me that it is there. That's the only way you will be right. If you can't show me it's there. we can assume I'm right.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
A "religious reason" is an inherent oxymoron, as you will never encounter a rational explanation for anything pertaining to religion. What passes as a reason in the religious context is nothing more than simple personal belief. The only religious reason necessary to warrant protection is the existence of a belief against homosexuality. In the U.S. at least, as I believe it should be anywhere, people should be allowed their freedom of religion and that extends to this case as well I think.
Since when does rational explanation always = reason? The reason is merely an explanation rational or not. It depends on how the word is used within the context
If I were to say "what is your religious reasoning for this?" then it would be an oxymoron
"What passes as a reason in the religious context is nothing more than simple personal belief."
Still a reason.
Their reason...their explanation for not marrying gays in their church would be...
By definition, a reason is something with a foundation in demonstrable reality. A simple belief is not a reason to think that homosexuality is actually wrong, but it is the reason why some religious individuals believe that it is wrong. Does that clarify the distinction or muddle the point more?
At any rate I think we are dancing around semantics, and my real point was merely that a belief that homosexuality is immoral is not a rational process with a reasonable explanation but rather a byproduct of unfounded and ignorant prejudice. That being true, however, I regard it as the right of anyone to hold such beliefs so long as they do not force it on others.
No. Freedom of belief is a right, even for bigots. If we leave room to force religious people to violate their beliefs, it can and will come back on us espescially during the 70th Week of Daniel.
Hello. I believe that it is bgitoed to deny gays rights, but at the same time, I believe that it is bigoted to force people to live a certain way if they are not truly hurting anyone. What I mean is that while I loathe and revile antigay ideology, I support the right of an antigay bigot to freedom of belief as long as it does not affect me. Does that help?
Hello. I believe that it is bgitoed to deny gays rights, but at the same time, I believe that it is bigoted to force people to live a certain way if they are not truly hurting anyone. What I mean is that while I loathe and revile antigay ideology, I support the right of an antigay bigot to freedom of belief as long as it does not affect me. Does that help?
That evening the two angels came to the entrance of the city of Sodom. Lot was sitting there, and when he saw them, he stood up to meet them. Then he welcomed them and bowed with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "come to my home to wash your feet, and be my guests for the night. You may then get up early in the morning and be on your way again." "Oh no," they replied. "We'll just spend the night out here in the city square." But Lot insisted, so at last they went home with him. Lot prepared a feast for them, complete with fresh bread made without yeast, and they ate. But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection."
"Stand back!" they shouted. "This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he's acting like our judge! We'll treat you far worse than those other men!" And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But the two angels reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men, young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside. (NLT)
Wrong. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.
Speaking of Hebrew words: in 2 Samuel 1:26, the same word used to describe the love between David and Jonathan is used to describe the love between David and women plus the fact that Jonathan's love surpasseth the love of women.
irst, the Hebrew word for “love” used here is not the typical word used for sexual activity. This word for “love” has clear political and diplomatic connotations (see 1 Samuel 16:21 and 1 Kings 5:1). Second, David’s comparison of his relationship with Jonathan with that of women is probably a reference to his experience with King Saul’s daughter. He was promised one of Saul’s daughters for killing Goliath. But Saul continued to add conditions upon this marriage with the underlying desire to have David killed in battle (1 Samuel 18:17, 25). The love David had received from Jonathan was greater than anything he could have received from Saul’s daughter. Third, the Bible clearly and consistently denounces homosexuality (Genesis 1:26-27; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:18-25). Extolling a homosexual love between David and Jonathan would be contradicting the prohibitions of it found throughout the Bible.
The friendship between David and Jonathan was a covenantal relationship. In 1 Samuel 18:1-5, we read of David and Jonathan forming an agreement. In this agreement, Jonathan was to be second in command in David’s future reign, and David was to protect Jonathan’s family (1 Samuel 20:16-17, 42; 23:16-18).
Obviously, these two men were also very good friends. In their relationship we can see at least three qualities of true friendship. First, they sacrificed for one another. In 1 Samuel 18:4, we read that Jonathan gave David his clothes and military garb. The significance of this gift was that Jonathan recognized that David would one day be king of Israel. Rather than being envious or jealous, Jonathan submitted to God’s will and sacrificed his own right to the throne. Second, in 1 Samuel 19:1-3, we read of Jonathan’s loyalty toward and defense of David. King Saul told his followers to kill David. Jonathan rebuked his father and recalled David’s faithfulness to him in killing Goliath. Finally, Jonathan and David were also free to express their emotions with one another. In 1 Samuel 20, we read of a plan concocted by Jonathan to reveal his father’s plans toward David. Jonathan was going to practice his archery. If he told his servant that the arrows he shot were to the side of the target, David was safe. If Jonathan told his servant that the arrows were beyond the target, David was to leave and not return. Jonathan told the servant that the arrows were beyond the target, meaning that David should flee. After releasing his servant, Jonathan found David and the two men cried together.
Rather than being evidence for a homosexual relationship in the Bible, the account of David and Jonathan is an example of true biblical friendship. True friendship, according to the Bible, involves loyalty, sacrifice, compromise, and yes, emotional attachment. That is what we should learn from David and Jonathan. The idea that the only person in the Bible described as “a man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22), was a practicing homosexual (or bisexual) is ridiculous and has no true biblical basis.
Do you have any other words than bigot. You used the word quite a few times to describe religious people. Hows does that make you not anti-religious and a bigot?
No. I can't remember what it was, but a preacher once told me that they do not have to marry gay couples. If they don't want to , they shouldn't have to.
Religious institutions should NEVER have to do anything that goes against their believe. The separation of church and state is the constitutional wall that should prevent that sort of anti-religious tyranny from EVER happening in this country.
No. I would say of they are good and conscientious people they would be able to recognize the unfairness of their stance and let the gays marry, but I would stand against any government forcing them to do so.
should the IRS move to revoke federal non-profit status for churches, synagogues and mosques that do not perform same-sex marriage more generally, the Court could easily justify that decision on the basis of “eradicating discrimination” in religious education.
