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.
There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
There is no reason for the gay marriage movement to shout for equal rights. Homosexuals already do have the same rights as heterosexuals. How do they not have the same rights? Homosexuals cannot marry those of the same sex, and neither can heterosexuals. Homosexuals can marry those of the opposite sex, and so can heterosexuals. If they add any sort of "right," then all they will be doing is adding another right, not making things equal, since things are already equal. Spewing 'equal rights' is propaganda, echoing back to the civil rights era. If the gay rights movement wants to maintain any sort of intellectual integrity, then they need to start being logically consistent and honest.
Gay women usually hook up with a partner who is more like themselves. They usually make around the same amount of money so they are truly equal partners. Equal partners usually don't have that much sex (lesbian bed death). Think of a heterosexual relationship where they are equal partners. The man vacuums and does dishes. Do you think the woman sees him as manly, desirable and sexy? No. Those type of heterosexual couples also have less sex. But, those equal relationships are usually stable (as long as neither one of them wants to get laid).
That is good for gay women. But the fact that they make roughly the same amount of money means that they have to pay a marriage penalty. Couples who make roughly the same amount of money, pay more in taxes then a couple who make the same amount of money but the incomes are wildly different. This is why gay marriage is bad for gay women.
Gay men on the other hand, like heterosexual men, desire exotic partners. Partners who are unlike themselves. There's usually a gap in their income. This is good for gay men because they don't pay the marriage penalty. But (and this is a big butt) sometimes the submissive partner starts resenting being the bitch in the relationship (gets all butt hurt) and the trouble starts. If the relationship breaks, currently, the dominant heterosexual partner pays the submissive partner through the nose. But the dominant gay partner gets to walk away with their income intact. If gay marriage goes through, you will see the spending power of gay men drop through the floor. Gay marriage impoverish gay men.
What gay couples need to do is fight for marriage rights, not marriage.
Marriage is an illusion created by lawyers in order to support the reality of divorce ;)
I like gays. Which is why I don't think they should get married. The heteros that don't want gays to get married are doing it because they feel only heteros should be miserable ;)
I, for one, am tired of people trying to emotionally manipulate me by appealing to the historical civil rights movement, which has no place in equivalence to today's gay politics. Quite frankly, I might have been offended by this movement, had I actually been a victim of the discrimination before or during the historic civil rights movement.
What? Saying "equal rights" is a one time deal? Only one time period in history can ever try to get equal rights? I don't know how you connected this to black people, maybe I am missing something. I personally don't connect this to the civil rights movement at all.
Nah, but the injustice suffered from racial minorities greatly outweighed that of sexual minorities. I agree that rights should be fought for, but civil rights and gay rights are simply incomparable.
No, civil rights and gay rights are the same. Civil rights does not mean black rights. Civil rights does not mean racial rights. Have you heard anyone pro gay saying this is like the blacks fighting for their rights?
How does this have no equivalence? People are being discriminated against! Today, gay people are not getting equal rights as their straight counterparts, just as black people did not get equal rights compared to their white counterparts.
We had a history of hate against black people. We have a history of hate against gay people.
Black people were not allowed to take part in many events. Many organizations today will exclude people for being gay.
Blacks were put in jail for fighting for their rights, and may were killed in rallies and as slaves. Even blacks who were not slaves could be caught, enslaved, killed, tortured, etc. just for their race. Across the world, people are being put in jail or even executed for being gay.
THE REASON FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, NOT JUST BLACK PEOPLE. Yes, it was lead by blacks, but it wasn't exclusive.
How are we emotionally manipulating you? By trying to appeal to common sense? By reminding you that great people who you respect have already fought against what you're fighting for?
Your argument here has no reasoning in it... you just say that it could offend you and you think people are manipulating you... what makes you think that? How is this movement against discrimination against gays any different from discrimination "before and during the historic civil rights movement?"
How does this have no equivalence? People are being discriminated against! Today, gay people are not getting equal rights as their straight counterparts, just as black people did not get equal rights compared to their white counterparts.
How are they not getting equal rights? That was the point of what I was saying.
We had a history of hate against black people. We have a history of hate against gay people.
Hate has nothing to do with equal rights. It has more to do with morality and selfishness.
How are we emotionally manipulating you? By trying to appeal to common sense? By reminding you that great people who you respect have already fought against what you're fighting for?
Liberals like emotional appeals instead of facts, as can be demonstrated by your response.
Your argument here has no reasoning in it... you just say that it could offend you and you think people are manipulating you... what makes you think that? How is this movement against discrimination against gays any different from discrimination "before and during the historic civil rights movement?"
Did you in any way read the description of the debate? Read the instructions before hammering the first nail. Read the label before buying the car.
How are they not getting equal rights? That was the point of what I was saying.
Marriage is the main thing here. Gay people still can't get married in much of the US. There are also countries where being gay is illegal, and people can even be executed for having gay sex. There are also many organizations or jobs that will not accept gay people, or people with gay parents.
Hate has nothing to do with equal rights. It has more to do with morality and selfishness.
The gay right movement, while it does have rights in the name, is also about acceptance. It's trying to get people to allow them to behave in society the same way everyone else does. If you believe that to be the case, open your eyes. I know that I live in a good, pretty accepting town, but there are plenty of places where gay hate and such is still very prevalent. And I know that hate is different, but if you live in a town that is very anti-gay and you happen to be gay, you may be refused service, have your property vandalized, or be subject to any number of hate crimes.
It's not equal because marriage, while it is about two people bonding, is also about love, and yes, sex. Would a heterosexual male wish to marry a homosexual women with whom he would not have sex?
Marriage is the main thing here. Gay people still can't get married in much of the US.
Gay people can get married in the United States. Why can't they?
There are also countries where being gay is illegal, and people can even be executed for having gay sex. There are also many organizations or jobs that will not accept gay people, or people with gay parents.
This is a red herring. These are completely separate issues.
The gay right movement, while it does have rights in the name, is also about acceptance. It's trying to get people to allow them to behave in society the same way everyone else does. If you believe that to be the case, open your eyes. I know that I live in a good, pretty accepting town, but there are plenty of places where gay hate and such is still very prevalent. And I know that hate is different, but if you live in a town that is very anti-gay and you happen to be gay, you may be refused service, have your property vandalized, or be subject to any number of hate crimes.
I'm talking about the gay marriage movement shouting for equal rights; I don't care about the gay marriage movement as a whole. Don't commit red herrings. And if you meant to mean the gay marriage shout for equal rights, then I would say that the gay marriage movement is, thus, using stimulative definitions in order to emotionally appeal to people, because they cannot do it logically.
Gay people can get married in the United States. Why can't they?
Gay marriage is only legal in 17 states. 4 states have actively ruled against it. It is not legal in all others. Yes, they can get married, but only if they live in certain areas, and not everyone can move...
So gay people can't get married in much of the United States because it's against the law.
This is a red herring. These are completely separate issues.
What??? How is this a separate issue? Gay people are being denied things that straight people are getting. Gay people are being prosecuted and not permitted to live because of their sexuality? How is that a red herring? Please explain that to me.
I'm talking about the gay marriage movement shouting for equal rights; I don't care about the gay marriage movement as a whole. Don't commit red herrings. And if you meant to mean the gay marriage shout for equal rights, then I would say that the gay marriage movement is, thus, using stimulative definitions in order to emotionally appeal to people, because they cannot do it logically.
Here's the thing... it's really hard to make a fully logical argument about something you are emotionally attached to. That's not to say the gay marriage movement isn't making logical points, because they are. Emotion is merely involved because this is something that is near and dear to their hearts... the people they love.
Say I was trying to execute your family, all of your loved ones, and take away your house. Do you really think that all of your arguments would be completely logical, with no emotion at all? This is about people trying to be with and marry the people that they love. How is that not deserving of some emotion?!
Are you think the movement is doing nothing logical? Is saying "All men are created equal" not a logical statement? People are being treated differently because of their sexuality and that should stop happening because equal rights are important. Is that an emotional appeal? Most of the arguments I've seen from this movement are appeals to common sense, not appeals to emotion.
Also, are you saying that no other movements ever appeal to emotion? Because I think that every other movement appeals to emotion.
I feel like you are keeping gay marriage and gay rights separate in your mind, and I think that that is a very wrong assumption. People being denied marriage because of their sexuality is without a doubt an equal rights issue. People are being denied something based on who they are. How is that not an issue of equal rights?
Don't commit red herrings.
Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me. Maybe cuz grammar. But can you explain?
Gay marriage is only legal in 17 states. 4 states have actively ruled against it. It is not legal in all others. Yes, they can get married, but only if they live in certain areas, and not everyone can move... So gay people can't get married in much of the United States because it's against the law.
Gay people can get married. You have presented no information about how gays cannot marry. You should read the description, which you have yet to do it seems.
What??? How is this a separate issue? Gay people are being denied things that straight people are getting. Gay people are being prosecuted and not permitted to live because of their sexuality? How is that a red herring? Please explain that to me.
No they are not. Moreover, you are now switching back to a different topic. Stay on one topic at a time.
Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me. Maybe cuz grammar. But can you explain?
I'm just going to say the following, and until you can apply it to this discussion, there is no point in continuing: look up what a red herring is and read the description.
Gay people can get married. You have presented no information about how gays cannot marry. You should read the description, which you have yet to do it seems.
Um, yes I did. You should actually read what you are bolding. There are 33 states in the United States where gays cannot get married. If you're saying that that doesn't matter because it's possible to get married in the other 17, that's just stupid. With slavery, not every state had slaves in it. So I guess slavery wasn't a problem?
No they are not. Moreover, you are now switching back to a different topic. Stay on one topic at a time.
Again, see my previous argument (which you chose not to respond to) explaining the connection between the gay marriage movement and the gay rights movement. I won't bore you by repeating myself. If you don't respond to it now, I'll copy paste it though.
I'm just going to say the following, and until you can apply it to this discussion, there is no point in continuing: look up what a red herring is and read the description.
I know what a red herring is, I'm not stupid. I just don't see how the examples I'm bringing are red herrings. You also used incorrect grammar which made it harder to get your message across.
Um, yes I did. You should actually read what you are bolding. There are 33 states in the United States where gays cannot get married. If you're saying that that doesn't matter because it's possible to get married in the other 17, that's just stupid. With slavery, not every state had slaves in it. So I guess slavery wasn't a problem?
Same-sex marriages are illegal in certain states... But of course a gay person can marry in any state, assuming they are marrying someone of the opposite sex.
I'm not arguing a gay being able to marry a person of the opposite sex. However, the gay marriage movement (referring to the definition of gay marriage I sent above) is fighting to allow two people of the same sex whoa re gay to marry eachother.
This is not legal in every state, thus the gay marriage movement has meaning.
I'm not arguing a gay being able to marry a person of the opposite sex. However, the gay marriage movement (referring to the definition of gay marriage I sent above) is fighting to allow two people of the same sex whoa re gay to marry eachother... This is not legal in every state, thus the gay marriage movement has meaning.
Thats not what I'm arguing. Now, hopefully, you see the obvious red herring that was flying around.
Yes, you did choose not to argue this in the description. However, in the title of this debate, you refer to "gay marriage." Your description also refers to the "gay marriage movement," directing this argument at this movement. This means your title and language is incorrect with the definition of the term "gay marriage," which I sent to you. By directing this at the "gay marriage movement" and claiming that their arguments have no use, you must correctly say what their arguments are. However, you are not. Instead, you are claiming that gays are trying to be able to marry people of the opposite sex, and claiming that the gay marriage movement is trying to argue that.
Thats a clear shifting of blame. You committed a red herring. You didn't understand the argument. You attacked straw men. My point, as said, was to attack the 'equal rights' notion. You did not attack that. Gays have equal rights. They are fighting for more rights. The language and description of my debate were perfectly clear. I said gay marriage movement twice: once in the description and once in the title, and one of them was the repeating of the other. It is aimed at the movement... but that doesn't mean the movement itself does not fight for equal rights, which they do... which is strange, because gays already have equal rights. Grow up and accept you lost this debate.
It is incorrect that gay's have equal rights. Straight people can marry people they are sexually attracted to. Gay people cannot.
Also, check up on your grammar. "Red herring" is a noun. You cannot "commit a red herring."
I haven't lost this debate... you are claiming that gays have equal rights because they can marry people they don't love... however, they still lack the ability to marry people they are sexually attracted to/in love with.
It is incorrect that gay's have equal rights. Straight people can marry people they are sexually attracted to. Gay people cannot.
Preference is irrelevant to rights. Rights are established and inalienable properties of man. Sexual attraction is a preference, which is subjective. Do not cross the subjective into the objective.
Also, check up on your grammar. "Red herring" is a noun. You cannot "commit a red herring."
This is irrelevant and another red herring. A red herring a logical fallacy. You can commit a straw man; you can commit a red herring.
I haven't lost this debate... you are claiming that gays have equal rights because they can marry people they don't love... however, they still lack the ability to marry people they are sexually attracted to/in love with.
Preference is irrelevant to rights. Rights are established and inalienable properties of man. Sexual attraction is a preference, which is subjective. Do not cross the subjective into the objective.
Are you claiming that sexual attraction is a choice? Because your claiming that it is subjective. Just because something changes from person to person doesn't make it irrelevant... or even subjective.
There are rights given to people based on things that are out of their control. In the United States, people have rights based on being born there... Why can't people get rights based on being born gay?
Also, rights can be subjective.
"The above account of rights has been written largely from the point of view of Anglo-American law and philosophy. It should, however, be mentioned that there is one aspect of legal rights which is to be found amongst the European Continental writers, but of which there is no trace in the Anglo-American tradition. That is the description of rights as being ‘subjective’ (droits subjectifs; subjektive Rechte)."
-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/
This is irrelevant and another red herring. A red herring a logical fallacy. You can commit a straw man; you can commit a red herring.
Right, i know what a red herring is... you can commit a red herring fallacy, but a red herring is not what you commit, it is the specific thing... I'm not saying that that is a part of the argument, just trying to correct grammar...
And if I committed a straw man, what would I be doing?
Are you claiming that sexual attraction is a choice? Because your claiming that it is subjective. Just because something changes from person to person doesn't make it irrelevant... or even subjective.
Subjective doesn't mean choice based. It simply means that it is subject to something, namely in this case the desires of the person.
There are rights given to people based on things that are out of their control. In the United States, people have rights based on being born there... Why can't people get rights based on being born gay?
Why can't people get rights for having sexual relations with dogs? What about children? What about a desire to kill people? What about a kleptomaniac syndrome? Subjectiveness is irrelevant to rights.
Also, rights can be subjective.
Rights are not subjective, by definition. If they are not subjective, then why in what way are they rights?
"The above account of rights has been written largely from the point of view of Anglo-American law and philosophy. It should, however, be mentioned that there is one aspect of legal rights which is to be found amongst the European Continental writers, but of which there is no trace in the Anglo-American tradition. That is the description of rights as being ‘subjective’ (droits subjectifs; subjektive Rechte)."
As can be seen, 'rights' in America are not subjective. Europe is not using 'rights' in the same sense that Americans use them.
-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/
There are many opinions on philosophy encyclopedias. Don't simply pick and choose what you want.
Right, i know what a red herring is... you can commit a red herring fallacy, but a red herring is not what you commit, it is the specific thing... I'm not saying that that is a part of the argument, just trying to correct grammar...
Its not even bad grammar. I commit acts. 'Acts' is a noun. Substitute 'acts' for 'red herring.'
And if I committed a straw man, what would I be doing?
Attacking an argument that is not being argued, in a simplified explanation.
Subjective doesn't mean choice based. It simply means that it is subject to something, namely in this case the desires of the person.
So you think people's rights should be based solely on things out of their control? And anything in their control or anything they care about is irrelevant to what they get?
Why can't people get rights for having sexual relations with dogs? What about children? What about a desire to kill people? What about a kleptomaniac syndrome? Subjectiveness is irrelevant to rights.
And yet you are asking people to have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to. I'm assuming your straight (just because 90% of society is, for no other reason than that), would you want to have sex with someone of your own sex?
And no, subjectiveness does not create right. However, the number of people who engage in sex with people of the same gender of themselves is much higher than the number of people who have sex with animals, children, and those who kill people or are kleptomaniacs. More importantly, having sex with people of the same gender is legal. If we're letting people be with other people who they love, why should be deprive them of the right of marriage?
As can be seen, 'rights' in America are not subjective. Europe is not using 'rights' in the same sense that Americans use them.
Can you provide me a source that explains how rights in America are in no way subjective? Because I am doubtful of this fact.
Its not even bad grammar. I commit acts. 'Acts' is a noun. Substitute 'acts' for 'red herring.'
A red herring is not an act... acts are actions, and according to the dictionary: a thing done; a deed. The verb done modifies thing, making acts connected to the very. A red herring is not an action that can be completed.
So you think people's rights should be based solely on things out of their control? And anything in their control or anything they care about is irrelevant to what they get?
If someone doesn't care about an absolute truth, it doesn't make it any less an absolute truth. Likewise, preferring X over Y doesn't change absolute truths. So why should rights, which are absolute and objective to all humans be different?
And yet you are asking people to have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to. I'm assuming your straight (just because 90% of society is, for no other reason than that), would you want to have sex with someone of your own sex?
Thats irrelevant.
And no, subjectiveness does not create right. However, the number of people who engage in sex with people of the same gender of themselves is much higher than the number of people who have sex with animals, children, and those who kill people or are kleptomaniacs. More importantly, having sex with people of the same gender is legal. If we're letting people be with other people who they love, why should be deprive them of the right of marriage?
So if subjectiveness does not create a right, then we have no further argument.
Can you provide me a source that explains how rights in America are in no way subjective? Because I am doubtful of this fact.
The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The concept that has been handed down for Americans is objective. Go to any philosophy classroom in America and they will tell you that 'rights' in America is objective. Moreover, the reason why is because our Creator has given them to us. So, without God, under America, there are no rights. Continued, the primitive definition of 'rights' in America is simply that of being objective. Its like reducing 1 down to 1... it simply is that way. You can call a rose a triangle, but that doesn't make it any less a rose. The same with America. You can call what is subjective a 'right' but that doesn't make it in any way a 'right'
A red herring is not an act... acts are actions, and according to the dictionary: a thing done; a deed. The verb done modifies thing, making acts connected to the very. A red herring is not an action that can be completed.
"The force the person who is
committing the fallacy is appealing to might be physical in nature, or it might be economic."
If someone doesn't care about an absolute truth, it doesn't make it any less an absolute truth. Likewise, preferring X over Y doesn't change absolute truths. So why should rights, which are absolute and objective to all humans be different?
All rights are absolute? Are you kidding? Do you think people have the right to live? And yet the death penalty still exits (not wide spread, but it still does.)
And I wasn't just talking about preference or changing the right... I'm saying that people should have
And yet you are asking people to have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to. I'm assuming your straight (just because 90% of society is, for no other reason than that), would you want to have sex with someone of your own sex?
Thats irrelevant.
No, it's not. Straight people are being allowed to get married to people they are sexually attracted to. In a hypothetical situation, would you be ok with marriage if everyone was allowed to marry people of the same sex, and that's it? You'd still be sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, but if you wanted to get the benefits of marriage, you'd have to marry someone of the same sex.
Is that still equal?
So if subjectiveness does not create a right, then we have no further argument.
I feel like you stopped reading after my first sentence there, so I'm going to copy paste is so you actually respond to my argument. You claimed that there was no difference between someone who wants to have sex with someone of their same gender and someone who wants to have sex with an animal, child, or someone who kills people or steals from them.
"the number of people who engage in sex with people of the same gender of themselves is much higher than the number of people who have sex with animals, children, and those who kill people or are kleptomaniacs. More importantly, having sex with people of the same gender is legal. If we're letting people be with other people who they love, why should be deprive them of the right of marriage?"
The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The concept that has been handed down for Americans is objective. Go to any philosophy classroom in America and they will tell you that 'rights' in America is objective. Moreover, the reason why is because our Creator has given them to us. So, without God, under America, there are no rights. Continued, the primitive definition of 'rights' in America is simply that of being objective. Its like reducing 1 down to 1... it simply is that way. You can call a rose a triangle, but that doesn't make it any less a rose. The same with America. You can call what is subjective a 'right' but that doesn't make it in any way a 'right'
...Rights are not absolute. They have restrictions, and are greatly detailed. For example, you have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. And at school, all of your rights are hugely limited.
And also, you're sort of backing up what I'm saying. Being gay is something that you are born with (if you wanna argue against that, you're going down.) That means that, if you believe in God, He gave gay people the right to love people who are the same gender as you. Why can't this God-given right extend to the rights that people wish for in life... God gave straight people the right to marry those who he gave them the right to be attracted to, why are gay people any different?
According to the dictionary, "rights" are "things to which you are entitled or allowed." That says nothing about those things being objective. Or, you could be objectively allowed to have choice, or preference. At an ice cream store, I have the right to decide what flavor of ice cream I get. It's still an objective right, the right to choose, and the right to get what you desire, and yet there is a subjective choice involved. You're arguing that it's fair for people who are gay to marry people they are not sexually attracted to because straight people can marry those people and they ARE sexually attracted to them. That would be like saying that at an ice cream store, everyone can only get chocolate. That works out fine for people who like chocolate, which is most everyone, but what about the people who hate chocolate, or are allergic to chocolate, etc.? You're saying that something is fair because the same option is available to everyone?
You can commit logical fallacies.... Are you seriously still challenging this? Stop being thick headed...
Oh yeah, I know you were right about that. I was just being annoying. xD I'll drop it.
All rights are absolute? Are you kidding? Do you think people have the right to live? And yet the death penalty still exits (not wide spread, but it still does.)
Thats why rights in America are wrong. ;) Thats another topic for another day. Its irrelevant to discuss the logical ins and outs of a system, when already operating within that framework. We are operating within that framework, so don't commit another red herring.
No, it's not. Straight people are being allowed to get married to people they are sexually attracted to. In a hypothetical situation, would you be ok with marriage if everyone was allowed to marry people of the same sex, and that's it? You'd still be sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, but if you wanted to get the benefits of marriage, you'd have to marry someone of the same sex.
You're bringing back the very thing I already addressed. Preference is irrelevant to rights.
And also, you're sort of backing up what I'm saying. Being gay is something that you are born with (if you wanna argue against that, you're going down.) That means that, if you believe in God, He gave gay people the right to love people who are the same gender as you. Why can't this God-given right extend to the rights that people wish for in life... God gave straight people the right to marry those who he gave them the right to be attracted to, why are gay people any different?
We are all born with evil characteristics. They all have to be shaken down.
All you have done here is challenge the definition of 'right.' I don't believe in American 'rights' so you're preaching to the choir. I'm not arguing that here. I'm arguing that within the conceptual framework of 'rights' gays already have equal rights as all others. You cannot deny that without going outside of the conceptual framework, which I do not agree with anyways.
Thats why rights in America are wrong. ;) Thats another topic for another day. Its irrelevant to discuss the logical ins and outs of a system, when already operating within that framework. We are operating within that framework, so don't commit another red herring.
My point is that we are operating in this framework, and denying gay's rights is going against both the ideals of rights and the goals of the rights we have now.
You're bringing back the very thing I already addressed. Preference is irrelevant to rights.
You didn't respond to this argument I made, which counters what you addressed.
you could be objectively allowed to have choice, or preference. At an ice cream store, I have the right to decide what flavor of ice cream I get. It's still an objective right, the right to choose, and the right to get what you desire, and yet there is a subjective choice involved. You're arguing that it's fair for people who are gay to marry people they are not sexually attracted to because straight people can marry those people and they ARE sexually attracted to them. That would be like saying that at an ice cream store, everyone can only get chocolate. That works out fine for people who like chocolate, which is most everyone, but what about the people who hate chocolate, or are allergic to chocolate, etc.? You're saying that something is fair because the same option is available to everyone?
We are all born with evil characteristics. They all have to be shaken down.
All you have done here is challenge the definition of 'right.' I don't believe in American 'rights' so you're preaching to the choir. I'm not arguing that here.
So, you think being gay is an evil characteristic? And what would lead you to believe that?
I'm not really challenging right, you were arguing that gays do not have equal rights. I believed that by that argument, your definition of right was flawed.
I'm arguing that within the conceptual framework of 'rights' gays already have equal rights as all others. You cannot deny that without going outside of the conceptual framework, which I do not agree with anyways.
My point is that we are operating in this framework, and denying gay's rights is going against both the ideals of rights and the goals of the rights we have now.
No, you're challenging the framework of rights.....
You didn't respond to this argument I made, which counters what you addressed.
It doesn't, though.... You can't apply preference to rights. I've told you that so many times. How long does it take for you to realize this?
I'm not really challenging right, you were arguing that gays do not have equal rights. I believed that by that argument, your definition of right was flawed.
You don't know what you're talking about. I'm banning you from here on. I'm not arguing that gays do not have equal rights... I've been arguing the entire time that they do. You're even given me a quote saying that the notion of rights in America is objective, not subjective. Stop trolling.
The gay marriage movement is all about the abnormal invading the normal ... the profane invading the holy .. and in a Biblical sense ... the Harlot invading the Bride just as it indicates in Revelation 17 .. they suppress the truth in unrighteousness and they seek to force by law your acceptance of their perversion
So if you aren't born gay, I assume you mean that you are born straight?
So, as babies, children are sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender? You are implying that sexuality is present from the first seconds of birth...
I see. Because being gay is a choice, as you are implying, could you help show people how easy it is to change by becoming gay for a month? That would really make it so much easier for all of to understand that the ability to be straight or gay can be easily controlled by human beings.
I, for one, am tired of people trying to emotionally manipulate me by appealing to the historical civil rights movement, which has no place in equivalence to today's gay politics. Quite frankly, I might have been offended by this movement, had I actually been a victim of the discrimination before or during the historic civil rights movement.
Please explain to me with facts and analysis how it is possible for a gay person to wake up one morning and then say "Hmm I might try some pussy today" your logic is shit!
It's a right, right-wingers need to get over it...............................................................................................................................................................................
Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to sex? Before 1973 when did the supreme court even hint that there may be a right to have sex? The government has been regulating sex since the founding of the country, still do today, and you want them to continue doing so in the future.
Can you rape a person? Can you have sex with a child? Can you have sex with an animal? Can you marry a family member? Can you marry more than one person at a time?
I agree with what the OP has said. Marriage is between one man and one woman. If we change that, people could get married to anyone. You can see the trouble with that.
I am tired of the gays pushing their agenda. They need to stop. Their movements only angers conservatives. I like the way the Russians respond to their parades.
Homosexuals already do have the same rights as heterosexuals. How do they not have the same rights? Homosexuals cannot marry those of the same sex, and neither can heterosexuals. Homosexuals can marry those of the opposite sex, and so can heterosexuals.
That might be a more valid point if heterosexuals had any interest whatsoever in marrying the same sex. But they don't want it. And homosexuals don't want to marry the opposite sex any more than that. It is an unfair, heteronormative philosophy you espouse.
They don't have the right to a marriage in which they would be satisfied. We do. So no, it IS a case of equal rights.
Just think about it this way. Heterosexuals are ultimately responsible for the existence of homosexuals. Heterosexuals are the ones that keep giving birth to homosexuals, so maybe you should be complaining about heterosexuality...
Frankly, we shouldn't have to pay for any marriage unless we offer.
But as long as marriage as an institution is supported by the government, the Constitution forbids us from using a strictly Christian definition of marriage.
Thats like saying that the Constitution, because it is not bound to any particular social convention, can define a bachelor whatever way it wants to. No! A bachelor is a bachelor, an unmarried man. A rose is a rose regardless of how you name it. Marriage is marriage, regardless of how you name it. And marriage is, by definition, only between a man and a woman.
The definition of a bachelor never changes. Ontology does not change... that is logically contradictory. We might change the name of the thing, but this does not negate the definition of the thing, since the definition of the thing is part of the essence of the thing.
And the essence of marriage is a recognized union. The heteronormative nature is implied, but that is due to the fact that heterosexuality is dominant and more socially acceptable.
And the essence of marriage is a recognized union. The heteronormative nature is implied, but that is due to the fact that heterosexuality is dominant and more socially acceptable.
No, it is what God defined it as from the very beginning, to reflect the relation of Christ and His church.
And yet we have archeological evidence of marriage around the world dating back thousands of years prior to the earliest extant copy of the Bible, in places where Judeo-Christian theology was not to be found until much later.
And yet we have archeological evidence of marriage around the world dating back thousands of years prior to the earliest extant copy of the Bible, in places where Judeo-Christian theology was not to be found until much later.
Actually it isn't. The general concept of marriage is more universal than God. Even if your unprovable assertion was correct, it has since evolved. Polytheistic societies have marriage. Some societies used marriage primarily for political and/or economic reasons. Most modern societies root it in love. Atheists marry. All of these are defined commonly and around the world as forms of marriage and are respected by governments all over. Christians do not have the monopoly on definition of pan-cultural institutions.
It doesn't have anything to do with marriage at all. The constitution allows the government to define marriage between a man and a woman, but the reason for defining it that way can't be because they want to use the Christian definition. That would violate the first amendment by favoring one religion over another. What if we used the Mormon definition of marriage? I didn't say anything about the constitutionality of marriage.
Before the religious argument springs up, because I know it will:
1) People are married under many religions and none
2) Marriage has benefits under the state, which are nothing to do with religion
3) Many marriages that are unacceptable in modern society are allowed under religions: i.e. rapist-victim marriages, adult-child marriages, forced marriages and polygamy.
"Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws." ~Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (Well... wikipedia)
But more importantly, marriage is an oath between two (or more) people that they love each other and shall live together for the rest of their lives. If two people cannot do this for some legal reason, they are being denied equal rights unless marriage is completely outlawed within that nation.
No. Marriage is about reflecting the relationship of Christ and His church. Love is within this relationship, most assuredly, but to degrade this sacred bond is blasphemy of the most highest sort. That is what both gay marriage and unjustified divorce do.
Actually, God is having us Christians do something about it by proclaiming the truth that God stands up for traditional marriage rather than gay marriage. So it seems He has left it up to the Christian people to tell people the truth.
How is it unnatural for someone to have sexual attraction to the same gender? It's no more unnatural than heterosexuality is.
God designed us to be attracted to the opposite gender not the same. The reason why they are attracted to the same gender is because God gave them over to what they were in to as what's said in Romans 1.
Besides, if God is meant to be infalliable, then how is it possible to have a deviation from his blueprint of how homo sapiens are "meant to be?"
God designed us to be attracted to the opposite gender not the same. The reason why they are attracted to the same gender is because God gave them over to what they were in to as what's said in Romans 1.
Then this would mean virtually ever other orientation is considered immortal by Christianity; asexuality, sapiosexuality, pansexuality, demisexuality, etc. Again, I don't care about bible verses.
Ok, I understand that you follow the Bible because of faith, and that is fine. Hypothetically, say that I'm not Christian, and have never heard of the Bible. How can you prove that the Bible is accurate? Like, why should I believe Romans 1:26 any more than I should believe Greek Myths?
I agree we should proclaim it but sometimes I think moving through a man made system to proclaim spiritual things is a little silly. we can teach the people, not force the government.
We can actually know that God does condemn gay marriage because of many examples in the Bible. In Genesis, we see that God made male and female and he created them for each other. If he was for gay marriage, God would have created two males or two females but He didn't.
Also if you look in Matthew 19:3, the Pharisee's asked Jesus about marriage and Jesus quoted Genesis 2. So yes, Jesus did say something about homosexual marriage even tho it didn't say the word homosexual. He made it perfectly clear in the beginning that marriage is between one man and one women.
We can actually know that God does condemn gay marriage because of many examples in the Bible. In Genesis, we see that God made male and female and he created them for each other. If he was for gay marriage, God would have created two males or two females but He didn't.
That is a stupid argument because he eventually let's gay people get together.
Also if you look in Matthew 19:3, the Pharisee's asked Jesus about marriage and Jesus quoted Genesis 2. So yes, Jesus did say something about homosexual marriage even tho it didn't say the word homosexual. He made it perfectly clear in the beginning that marriage is between one man and one women.
Talk about taking things out of context. He is clearly talking about divorce being bad:
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”"
The Bible may have condemned gay relationships, but not gay marriage. Mostly because it would be redundant to ban the result of a banned action.
That is a stupid argument because he eventually let's gay people get together.
He gave them over to a deprived mind as it said in Romans 1.
Talk about taking things out of context. He is clearly talking about divorce being bad:
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”"
The Bible may have condemned gay relationships, but not gay marriage. Mostly because it would be redundant to ban the result of a banned action.
It was just a little joke though.
I knew the context of that verse anyway. Still Jesus still quoted Genesis 2 about how the man will leave his parents and be reunited with his wife. What we can know from the beginning is that He does condemn gay marriage.
He gave them over to a deprived mind as it said in Romans 1.
See? I am right.
I knew the context of that verse anyway. Still Jesus still quoted Genesis 2 about how the man will leave his parents and be reunited with his wife. What we can know from the beginning is that He does condemn gay marriage.
No, he condemned divorce. You condemned gay marriage.
No, he condemned divorce. You condemned gay marriage.
Yes, he condemned divorce but what we can observe for what He said, is that He quoted Genesis 2 about how man and women are meant to be together and basically saying that marriage is for one man and one women and not gay marriage.
First, if someone asks you about divorce and you give them an answer and they use it against gays those people are real jerks. Second, that doesn't mean gay marriage is a sin. That just means gay marriage is not recognized by God.
First, if someone asks you about divorce and you give them an answer and they use it against gays those people are real jerks.
I dunno where your going at this but okay?
Second, that doesn't mean gay marriage is a sin. That just means gay marriage is not recognized by God.
It's still a sin because it's throughout the Bible, it talks about marriage being meant by man and women. Nothing about gay marriage, if they talked about gay marriage then they would have mentioned it in the Bible and even in the beginning when God created man and women to be together.
It's still a sin because it's throughout the Bible, it talks about marriage being meant by man and women.
There is a difference between God not recognizing it as proper and seeing it as a sin, right?
Nothing about gay marriage, if they talked about gay marriage then they would have mentioned it in the Bible and even in the beginning when God created man and women to be together.
This is the point I was making. They never talk about gay marriage, so He never attacks gay marriage.
In Genesis, we see that God made male and female and he created them for each other. If he was for gay marriage, God would have created two males or two females but He didn't.
Here's the thing: No where in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve were married! And even if you move past that, there's another big problem with this...
Adam and Eve were very specific people. If your claim is that marriage is just for people like Adam and Eve, you can argue that people who are not white cannot get married, people who do not share body parts (Eve was made of a bone of Adam), etc.
The genetic difference between everyone is about 0.1% of the genes... that is true between a gay person and a straight person, a white person and a black person, even a male person and a female person. Why are you so focused on gender when there are so many other ways you can spin that argument you just made!
Nope. Marriage predates Christianity, and even written records.
Also, keep in mind, America is not a theocracy. It's marriage is not a biblical based marriage, therefore, you can't use religion as an argument. However, churches should be able to refuse to marry gays, seeing as they are religious.
Again, that is your religious opinion, not fact. People have the right to do what they want. If a same sex couple wants to get married, you have no right to stop them. They are not hurting anyone.
When make people make their own choices it own brings them away from God and it depends on the choice. If they make the wrong choice they are only distancing themselves from God.
I am not forcing any kind of religious opinion. So I guess atheists have a right to say their own opinion but when it comes to a Christian's opinion they can't have their own opinion and people say we are "forcing our opinion on others?" People asked what our opinion was and I am only answering. Basically what your telling me is that I shouldn't be giving out for a opinion.
I dont care. Bugger off. I want nothing to do with someone who says I was raped do to possible sin in my life, now step and dont come back without an apology.
If you say no true Christian would vote to legalize same sex marriage, you are guilty of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Chrstians surely can support gay rights.
People do have the right to make their own choices. Is anyone saying homosexuals can't have relationships or even hold ceremonies professing their love. However the public has the right to chose to recognize those relationships as valid and religious institutions and businesses absolutely have the right to recognize those relationships.
So marrying someone purely because you love them I assume in your eyes is a sin and I guess the clergyman that conducted the service committed a sin as well
I love my sister, and I love my cats. This does not mean that I should marry them. Marriage is a specific covenant and bond between a man and a woman that God has instituted to reflect His relationship of Christ and the church. Gay marriage and divorce are both blasphemy and a defilement of this sacred covenant, and thus a sin.
You are taught to love, not to hate. An unhappy marriage will not increase love, but likely increase hate. Not allowing gay marriage will not increase love, but increase hate. A world in which everyone is happy and respectful of each others needs can not lead to trouble. But a world in which you condemn these types of actions, because they do not suit your beliefs, will only lead to more trouble and more hate.
I think that Matthew 7:3-5 applies to you: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
How can you not see which parts of the Bible were corrupt additions? One of the reasons we have so much trouble in the world is because messages like that have diluted the true loving messages. Being sinful is giving into egotism and materialism. God would hate the opposite of spirituality, wouldn't he? To hate something is to want it to go away, and our sinful outlooks certainly do need to go away, and we need to realize the big picture. Someone who is gay cannot stop being gay, and an unhappy marriage tends to remain unhappy. God did not introduce the concept of marriage, man did.
All throughout the Bible it is said that God hates evil. One huge part of the Bible is God telling us that we are evil, saying that He hates this, but also that He will restore our souls to spiritual health, making us only bear good fruit.
God hates evil just as our own souls hate evil. Sins are a result of our human forms. When we die, we are without sin. Our goal on earth, I believe, is love and unity. The traditional Christian mindset is not a good pathway to that.
The Kingdom of God is within you, just as the Bible says. You are not given that which you must seek, especially something that you already have. It is hidden, and you must find it. Corrupt teachings will not lead you there.
Luke 17:21 "nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
The best way to translate the word in that sentence from Greek to English is among or in the midst of. Look at the context after this verse. He was saying that the kingdom of heaven was bound up in Christ, himself.
How about you quote the verses you want me to read?
Romans 3:11 - "no one seeks for God."
Romans 10:20 - "Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
'I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.'"
In the same sense that the deep down inner Self IS God.
God inhabits the inner self of a Christian. Non-Christians are spiritually dead; they must be raised to life by God, in God making home there.
The best way to translate the word in that sentence from Greek to English is among or in the midst of. Look at the context after this verse. He was saying that the kingdom of heaven was bound up in Christ, himself.
There are only two English translations that I know of that have put it in the words you say. The Bible in Basic English translation and Darby's English translation. All of the others say "within". So, lets look at the word that was used in the Greek translation:
ἐντὸς (en-tos)-"1) within, inside 1a) within you i.e. in the midst of you 1b) within you i.e. your soul"
Midst- center: the middle or central part of something
Within, midst... Whichever you choose, they were saying the same thing.
It was Jesus who said that the Kingdom of God is within us... So, how am I out of context? Plus, he wasn't referring to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Romans 3:11 - "no one seeks for God."
Context helps with that bit:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
So, explain to me how that states that people should not seek?
Romans 10:20 - "Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
'I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.'"
2 Chronicles 12:13-15
And he did evil, because he did not prepare his heart to seek the Lord.
Psalm 9:10
And those who know Your name will put their trust in You; For You, Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You.
Psalm 14:2
The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
Matthew 6:33
But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
Matthew 7:8
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
God inhabits the inner self of a Christian. Non-Christians are spiritually dead; they must be raised to life by God, in God making home there.
I would say that most who take part in a religion are spiritually dead. A lot of what you preach on this site is a prime example of that. In my opinion, it is a false, intolerable, egotistical, materialistic message that you are trying to spread. I would think that a firm believer such as yourself would be capable of reading the Bible spiritually not literally. All of the mainstream religions teach a similar message, but they have been added to by others. Someone as smart as yourself should be able to separate the truths from the falsehoods that are in the Bible.
Your user pic mentions Parmenides, so you should be familiar with the concept of oneness. Most of the mainstream religions teach it, and only a few seem to notice it in the Abrahamic religions... But it is there. Love and unity is most important. It seems to me that you are hesitant to step away from something that has had such a major impact on your life, which is Calvinism, right? You don't need to take my advice, but it may be a wise choice to reevaluate your current outlook.
And many people could be wrong. They probably are the same thing, though. Jesus' parables would be evidence of this.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
People should seek. But they cannot seek. Those who seek have already found God, God having shown Himself to them.
Does that not make sense if God is within you? It is our egocentric selves that hides God, but if you try and remove the veil, in other words, seek, you come closer to finding God and the true reality. You must realize that it is you who has hidden God.
There are not falsehoods in the Bible.
And how would you know that? You were not there when it was written. It does not take a genius to see that OT and NT connect because Jesus was working with a Jewish crowd. He had a message that needed to be given in terms that the people could understand. Does this mean that all of OT is wrong? No. There are truths in it too, but much of the Bible is riddled with the fingerprints of corrupt men.
"Faith is a state of openness or trust. To have faith is like when you trust yourself to the water. You don't grab hold of the water when you swim, because if you do you will become stiff and tight in the water, and sink. You have to relax, and the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging, and holding on. In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be." - Alan Watts
You forget the United States is not a Christian theocracy,we do not make laws based on religion or bigotry because we are a free country! Marriage is about commitment it has nothing to do with Jesus it is man made, it is a secular institution. Marriage has existed BCE so that mean God has nothing to do with marriage. You must also be one of the people who think sex is about procreation aren't you?
You forget the United States is not a Christian theocracy,we do not make laws based on religion or bigotry because we are a free country!
Do I care if the United States is not a Christian theocracy?
Marriage is about commitment it has nothing to do with Jesus it is man made, it is a secular institution. Marriage has existed BCE so that mean God has nothing to do with marriage.
Not it doesn't. God instituted it when Adam and Eve were created.
You must also be one of the people who think sex is about procreation aren't you?
Do I care if the United States is not a Christian theocracy?
By saying that your opposition to the US legally allowing same sex marriage is because marriage is about reflecting a relationship with God and the Christian church it certainly sounds like you want a Christian theocracy.
God instituted it when Adam and Eve were created.
I think carbon dating, geographical analysis, studying fossils and studying data for evolution disproves creationism and the existence of Adam and Eve this evidence goes in favor of evolution. The only thing that supports creationism is blind faith!
By saying that your opposition to the US legally allowing same sex marriage is because marriage is about reflecting a relationship with God and the Christian church it certainly sounds like you want a Christian theocracy.
Atheists never have learned to look at context. Its sad... truly sad.
I think carbon dating, geographical analysis, studying fossils and studying data for evolution disproves creationism and the existence of Adam and Eve this evidence goes in favor of evolution. The only thing that supports creationism is blind faith!
Carbon dating has many flaws. Geographical analysis doesn't prove anything: both creation and long term evolution can be proven by it. Fossils don't prove anything the same as the one before. Nothing you have supplied proves evolution. You atheists really need to be more intellectually genuine.
With that ill logic you should also protest against Muslim, Hindu, Atheist marriage, because they also don't give a shit about dead homeless carpenter...
Even if we were you assume your premise to be true, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't also have the right to marry someone of the same sex.
The issue is actually about the right to marry the person you love, and about the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. These relationships are no different than those of opposite-sex couples, so why shouldn't there be the same right to get married and receive legal recognition and benefits of marriage?
Gays have the same rights as straights. Same sex couples have the same right to get married as straights. It is wrong to force your religious opinions on other people.
You imply that murder would be legal if not for christianity. Legislation around the world seems to suggest otherwise.
Legislation should be written with valid, rational reasons. "Because my religion says so" is not a valid, rational reason.
There are valid, non-religious benefits to carrying a number of laws that mirror those in the bible. Stealing, for example, is illegal, not because of 'thou shalt not steal' but because it is a violation of the rights of others. Murder is illegal, not because of 'thou shalt not steal,' but again due to it's nature of violating the rights of others.
Can you provide a valid, rational, non-religious reasoning for not allowing gay marriage? If you can't, then your only reason is "Because my religion says so" which is not only insufficient, but ILLEGAL to base legislation upon in the US.
What we would consider murder is legal in Islam, the former USSR, communist China, and communist North Korea. Laws in the west are based of the Bible, and your life is better for it.
That's misleading. While some cases would certainly be considered murder in the US that would not be considered murder in these places, it's just a matter of drawing the line at a different place. You make it seem like murder is flatout legal in these places, and it is not.
Furthermore, If we were to go by the bible's specifications regarding what cases of killing are and are not murder, a man would be entirely justified in killing his adulterous wife. This is not legal in the US, and is considered murder. This is based off of the bible? No. It is based off of a general consensus on what constitutes legal vs illegal killing.
1.) The Gay Rights Movement is in no way related to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s. Race and sexual orientation are not comparable as one chooses to act on sexual impulses and one does NOT choose to be born into a race. Furthermore, homosexual people aren't being lynched, they're being elevated.
2.) Marriage: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Marriage As intended during the foundation of this nation and onward. This is the 1828 dictionary of Noah Webster, it doesn't get more foundational than that. Man and woman, sorry.
3.) I do not disagree with homosexual couples being afforded the same tax breaks and employer benefits afforded to married homosexual couples pending a legal contract. I do, however, have a major problem with homosexual individuals forcing businesses and churches to forego their religious beliefs and recognize this union as a marriage or to perform services related strictly to the union of such homosexual couplings against their will or faith- as protected by the first amendment of our constitution.
4.) Ironically, the APA does not consider homosexuality a mental disorder and yet it fits the bill by their definition as homosexuality renders the biological process of reproduction inoperable without external influence (artificial insemination, for example). Also, it should be noted that the APA changed its stance on homosexuality as a result of pressure from the movement, NOT scientific breakthroughs or evaluation.
5.) Slightly off-topic, I believe that transsexual individuals are suffering from an identity crisis that may be brought on by delusions, hormonal imbalance, or simply bad parenting and should not be treated as the sex they are masquerading as (i.e. can't use the opposite sex's restroom). These persons are akin to people who believe they are super heroes and are given a cape instead of proper psychological evaluation and treatment.
I never said it was intolerable, merely that there's a fault in the wiring. I don't hold with the idea of alienating or even rehabiltating homosexual persons, I just provided factual information that proves the homosexual drive for marriage isn't a matter of civil rights- it's just plain misguided and used to manipulate the masses into supporting liberal agendas without having to address actual policy issues. I do hold that transgendered people are undergoing and supporting a delusion and should seek help for their identity crisis. Homosexual persons, however, do not face oppression in the United States, but there are same-sex marriage advocacy groups that actively seek to (albiet unintentionally) rid other persons of their first amendment rights. I agree there are distasteful things said of homosexual persons, but these issues are not the realm of legislation.
There is nothing wrong with being liberal either. you need to stop blaming gays, women, prochoicers, and liberals for your problems. You are also mistaken to think that gays dont face persecuting in the US. Many gays are murdered here. Go learn some facts before you open your mouth.
Many more heterosexuals are murdered here. It's a statement that is utterly twisted and can be molded to suit your mood. Fact: a very small number of homosexual people are murdered because of their sexuality in the United States. I don't blame homosexuals or women for my country's problems, merely liberal politicians and policies. Now could you please post an argument that contains more information than your personal feelings.
Christians believe that gays are going to a realm of torment and horror for the rest eternity every single era after death and onwards! And because of that they inact legislation that prevents them from the right to marry and allows businesses to discriminate based on sexuality because of their prejudice belief that being gay is a sin!
Precisely no doctors or scientists have concluded, treated or diagnosed homosexuality, bisexuality, pan-sexuality or any other sexual disorders as mental disorders you just pulled that out of your ass!
Also you do not understand what the word prejudice (pre judging) means, even if you are saying that there is nothing wrong with a mental disorder that is still FAR from being prejudice! (pre judging)
The Bible condemns getting haircuts, The Bible condemns mixed fabrics, The Bible condemns eating lobster. Plus more irrational and out of touch sins! Are you sure you try to follow every command of The Bible?
The Bible condemns getting haircuts, The Bible condemns mixed fabrics, The Bible condemns eating lobster. Plus more irrational and out of touch sins! Are you sure you try to follow every command of The Bible?
God condemned these things for the ancient nation of Israel. The laws that you mention are part of the civil laws of the Mosaic period these had the effect of separating the people from the Gentiles in the land and were never meant for Gentiles anyway.
Jesus fulfilled the Law with his death, burial, and resurrection. We are now under the New Covenant which is the covenant of grace. Being under grace does not allow us to live any way we want however. We are to be obedient to the moral laws of God so we are no longer the slaves of sin.
Romans 10:4
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Galatians 3:22-25
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Romans 6:14-16
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
The dietary laws were lifted in God's revelation to Peter in
Acts 10:9-16:
9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.
So those arguments about haircuts, mixed fabrics, and shellfish are invalid to be applied to Christians.
The reason that homosexuality is still a sin is that it is also condemned in the New Testament as are the rest of the sexual immorality sins as laid out in the Old Testament (any sex outside of a God ordained marriage, adultery, bestiality, prostitution, etc) and theft, murder, drunkeness, and many others. See Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corintinans 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10.
Everyone will be judged by the moral laws that God set in place in the bible. Human laws that are in contrast to His laws are of no relevence to Him.
The only important thing at the time of judgement is if we have come into agreement with God about our own sins and rebellion against Him and if we have accepted the free gift of allowing Jesus to pay for our crimes.
If caring about civil liberties, wanting clean water, wanting clean nongmo food, opposing the current big pharma, and not wanting to police the world makes me a liberal, then I am a liberal. I am not sorry for what I believe and unless God proves me wrong, I never will be. I am not at all threatened, insulted, or confused by your cleverly disguised ad hom attack, and I never will be. I am not sorry for being a free thinker. I am not sorry for wanting actual intellectual discourse.
Ok, your wording made more sense as a dispute to number 1.
I just looked it up. Bakeries are, it turns out, not churches. Weird right. I thought bakeries were churches too, but I am big boned, so it makes sense.
Still not sure about the London mention since it was the same link.
A florist (not a bakery) who is a Christian is being forced to participate in a wedding which is against her beliefs. It's not a church, but let us move from semantics so you can understand my point.
You can completely disregard the first article because a florist isn't a church (even though I do believe it is synonymous because forcing a church is similar to forcing Christians and vice versa), but the second one is obvious.
Semantics? You think this has to do with semantics? The florist is randomly picking which sins to deny her services to. That's discrimination, not sticking to her beliefs.
Last time I checked, the first amendment does not extend to England. No Americans are suing churches.
Don't give me any more links. You guys don't understand that your link doesn't help you. Quote the text that helps you. That article says you are wrong. There is no mention that the bakery turns down all sinners and the 1st amendment still doesn't apply to England. Your link doesn't seem to dispute what I said.
the Civil Right's movement is not exclusive to America; the parameters of the debate is not exclusive to America. I don't know what the first amendment is and i am not American. I don't care either. Moving on.
The florist stated she would not be the florist for their wedding because she did not support gays getting married. She isn't picking which sins to deny services to, she is drawing a line in the sand between her and her customers. It is obvious that selling flowers to somebody isn't a sin, however being an active participant in their wedding can be considered one. And who are you to tell her if she is practicing discrimination or her religion.
There is no indication the florist is not picking and choosing which sins she is against. Unless she checks everyone for their sins she is illegally discriminating. She is definitely practicing discrimination. The question is whether it is illegal or not.
Homosexuality is just another sin. If Christians just treated it like any other sin they wouldn't seem so crazy. But, it is better than other countries.
I don't like the lawsuits. The England church lawsuit should be thrown out, we'll see.
The England church lawsuit was months ago, i don't know how it's going. The florist doesn't care if they sin, that isn't why she refused to do it. she just never wanted to feel like an active participant in the sin. She wasn't discriminating against sinners, she just never wanted to sin herself. that is what she translated it as.
Sanity is a legal/social term, not a psychological one. Also, having a disorder does not make one insane this is a flawed misconception. No one is forcing churches to marry them, but businesses (like bakeries) are being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them. Small businesses can't survive a civil suit even if they win and that is surpressing someone's ability to exercise their first amendment rights. Furthermore if these suits fall in favor of the homosexual couple, it often forces the state to recognize those unions- sometimes against that state's constitution. Even if you agree with their "marriage" you must understand that ends do not justify the means.
Sanity is a legal/social term, not a psychological one. Also, having a disorder does not make one insane this is a flawed misconception.
A bunch of perfectly normal people, whatever term you want to use.
No one is forcing churches to marry them, but businesses (like bakeries) are being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them. Small businesses can't survive a civil suit even if they win and that is surpressing someone's ability to exercise their first amendment rights.
Bakeries aren't religious establishments. There is nothing in the Bible that says you shouldn't do your job for a sinner. Selecting the homosexual sin as a basis for not doing your job doesn't make any sense. But this lawsuit crap does suck.
Furthermore if these suits fall in favor of the homosexual couple, it often forces the state to recognize those unions- sometimes against that state's constitution.
The state is unconstitutional and you are upset that they have to change?
Even if you agree with their "marriage" you must understand that ends do not justify the means.
I am glad we've found some common ground and can agree on some points, that is the mark of a good debate. I agree that, to continue our example, a bakery is not a religious institution. But protecting the exercise of free religion goes further than that. While the Bible does not say that one must refuse service to homosexual persons (in fact, I daresay it ENCOURAGES it), it does prohibit homosexual relations. Consider that baking a wedding cake has a lot to do with that union. If it were a McDonald's not providing service, I'd understand the outrage because they has nothing to do with that union, but wedding vendors are essentially pledging their support for that union though their services and therefore encouraging it. Honestly though, if my wife and I encountered a company that was against our marriage, we wouldn't be keen on using that vendor. Or how about marriage counselor. Some services are directly related to the furtherance of those unions and businesses like that must have their rights guarded. Christianity calls its followers to hate the sin, not the sinner. I think Iran's wrong for any religious person to have to do something their faith condemns. Though we have strayed pretty far off topic- mostly by my doing an for that I apologize. I should like to see evidence of widespread denial of rights to homosexual persons.
If they wanted McDonald's to cater the wedding it would be a problem that McDonald's turned them down.
Does every person served by the bakery or florist get checked for being sinners? If not it is discrimination.
I hate the lawsuit aspect of it. I wish it was more like the boycotts of the civil rights movement. The lawsuits are unfair and I hate how effective they are.
The only rampant discrimination against homosexuals is not recognizing their union as marriage by the government. It is easy to interpret the Bible to accept gays, so not recognizing gay marriage by the government violates the religious beliefs of gay people. So, there is still a reason for the gay marriage movement. I don't think there has been rampant discrimination in other places.
2. We also practiced legal slavery and denied women the right to vote when this nation was founded. Tradition does not make something correct.
3. Legally recognized marriages would not and never have forced any religious institution to marry couples against its beliefs.
4. The APA does not consider homosexuality a mental disorder because it is not a mental disorder. Reproduction has nothing to do with a mental illness diagnosis. Your source substantiates none of your claims.
Haha, should we be made to apologize for being privileged? I'm sorry nature makes us capable of reproducing, having stable relationships, having gender aspects that complement each other, and that homosexuals choose to reject all this. Oh if only there was something I could do to make it all ok.
Ok, so I assume if the position of the gay community is that they should just be left alone, they will leave the christian community alone right? ... not suing them if they don't want to do business with you are hire you... right?
Are you complaining about the definition of marriage or that gays are suing? You guys started a war and now it has gotten out of hand. The lawsuits are ridiculous, but they are a direct result of you people not leaving them alone.
I'm a white person who wants liberty, truth, and justice for all, not just for heteronormative cisgendered white conservative rich males age 20 and over. Im pro I don't care unless someone is hurt. I just wanna live and afford the same right to others. I give so little a shit about skin color that it doesn't even register on my give a fuck radar because I believe that we are all one human race.
