Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Marriage equality

Posted May 4, '13 at 8:57am

TerminatorXM214

TerminatorXM214

236 posts

Again I'll say that I will try to answer everything, but I don't know if I can answer the people who asked near the beginning, due to the amount responding back now.

First I want to say: The purpose of this debate is not defending the existance of God, nor the validity of the Bible. I may take part in a debate regarding those, but for now this is regarding homosexuality. I mentioned in my first post that I could only convince you of homosexuality being if you believed the Bible. So, I am not using circular reasoning to defend the Bible, because I am not defending the Bible now.
Recall my mentioning "for people who don't believe in the Bible, and who don't think there is a God, or at least not the Christians God, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals getting married to the same gender."
Got it?

Okay, let's continue then.

Kasic:
   

It depends on the translation.

Okay, I'm bolding this so it's noticed, because several people metioned it, and I want you to read the whole verse

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29

So, by reading that you can realize that in the first part it is speaking of rape, when a man rapes a woman in a place where there is no one to come help her. The second part refers to when it happens in a place where there is the chance of help, if she calls out. But notice the specific wording in the middle "If they are found out". That is very two-sided. [iThey[/i]. not him. They. I believe I can let it rest there, especailly since this is going into rape, when the topic is homosexuality.

All evidence available points to there being no supernatural deities of any sort. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if proof can be provided.

All evidence available. That's pretty broad. But, I have to point out, you may want to say "The evidence as interpreted by me points to there being no supernatural deities." Because there isn't too much evidence that there is no deity. I will admit, the evidence that there is a deity is often misinterpreted, and appears faulty, but in the same way that the evidence is small regarding that there isn't a deity.

I'm sorry I couldn't answer more, but I have to go. I think you can understand how hard it is for one person(me) to debate several, especially considering the sheer number of posts I still have to respond to here.

 

Posted May 4, '13 at 12:11pm

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

Mage's philosoraptor: Read Paradise Lost. It has the answers you seek. Unless you don't actually want answers and instead want to be sarcastic. Which is fine.

Regarding women as companions for men: Read The Second Sex. It has the truth you need. Unless there's only one book you look to.

I'm sorry I couldn't answer more, but I have to go. I think you can understand how hard it is for one person(me) to debate several, especially considering the sheer number of posts I still have to respond to here.

Well personally, I'd suggest you simply address the Greatest Hits, then. In particular, you have not addressed the point raised about other sins in Leviticus.

Why is gay marriage bad but eating shellfish okay? Why don't you have equal problems with people shaving and eating pork and wearing blended fibers? Those are forbidden too. Don't waste everyone's time demanding citations on those sins, because if you read the book, it would be pretty hard to miss the part where they're forbidden. Why do you care about one thing and not the other? What dictates the arbitrary enforcement?

 

Posted May 4, '13 at 1:27pm

danielo

danielo

1,394 posts

The bible premit to shave. Exept last mounth, in which you dont.

This is what i like about christianity. The "piety" choose what rules to follow. Mmm, kosher is quite tough? Delete. Cutting the friend down there?  Hell no. Celebrating the holidays? Lets make others so the pagan would accepet to join in. Gays? No! The bible say so!

And btw, the rule for kosher food demand a speicel way of buchering (which mean no hunting), only sea creaters with scales. Some birds are forbidens. Only animals with some rules. No milk and meat.
How many did you acomplished so far?

 

Posted May 4, '13 at 5:34pm

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

The purpose of this debate is not defending the existance of God, nor the validity of the Bible.

It's relevant to the conversation. Your god, according to you, created everything with forethought as to how it would all turn out; thus he is ultimately responsible for everything, including the things which he later says he finds abominable. If god is omniscient and created the entire universe, than he is wholly and completely responsible for homosexuals existing and being homosexual, and so he is condemning something that he knowingly caused and could stop at any point with the greatest of ease.

 

Posted May 4, '13 at 10:58pm

TerminatorXM214

TerminatorXM214

236 posts

It's relevant to the conversation. Your god, according to you, created everything with forethought as to how it would all turn out; thus he is ultimately responsible for everything, including the things which he later says he finds abominable. If god is omniscient and created the entire universe, than he is wholly and completely responsible for homosexuals existing and being homosexual, and so he is condemning something that he knowingly caused and could stop at any point with the greatest of ease.

I just have time to say, I already went over why and how God would have made homosexuals. They are no more condemned than you or I. They simply have a different struggle. They have the choice not to let their sin take over them, or to ignore God's laws and sin.

Regarding the relevence of the Bible's authenticity, in my very first post here I said that I couldn't convince a non-Christian that homosexuality was wrong. I said I could however show a Christian gay supporter that it was Biblically wrong.
You obviously don't believe in God or the Bible, so how can I possibly convince you to follow God's law? I can't. To try to would be pointless, because if you don't even believe in the existance of the Lawmaker, how can I convince you to follow his laws?

 

Posted May 4, '13 at 11:11pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

how can I convince you to follow his laws?

By providing proof of the bible's validity, but that's another topic.

I said I could however show a Christian gay supporter that it was Biblically wrong.

This reminds me of fanverse arguments. No matter how much you argue and prove it to one another, it (should) have no reflection in law because it is fictional. The entire debate on we're having on whether the bible says homosexuality is wrong or not is irrelevant to marriage between homosexuals, as much as it's irrelevant whether Thor could beat Hulk.

 

Posted May 4, '13 at 11:52pm

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

I just have time to say, I already went over why and how God would have made homosexuals. They are no more condemned than you or I. They simply have a different struggle. They have the choice not to let their sin take over them, or to ignore God's laws and sin.

But you see, according that that logic, your god created the universe along with all of his moral laws knowing ahead of time exactly every transgression of them that would occur, as well as how he could have created the universe so that there would be no transgressions of his moral law- yet apparently, according to your position, he intentionally created the universe intentionally in a way so as to generate people that would proceed to rebel against him, which he than punished them for doing.

You obviously don't believe in God or the Bible, so how can I possibly convince you to follow God's law? I can't. To try to would be pointless, because if you don't even believe in the existance of the Lawmaker, how can I convince you to follow his laws?

First off, can you even define god so as
A) to distinguish him from every other god and interpretation of him that you disagree with.
B) to demonstrate that he exists in reality outside the minds of his believers.
C) to distinguish him from non-sentient natural forces.

 

Posted May 5, '13 at 12:57am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,978 posts

Regarding the relevence of the Bible's authenticity, in my very first post here I said that I couldn't convince a non-Christian that homosexuality was wrong. I said I could however show a Christian gay supporter that it was Biblically wrong.

I've already temporarily suspended reality to accept scriptural arguments. I already pointed out that to accept one law of Lev because "God said so" is to accept all of them. You're picking and choosing from the same set of laws. Please address that. Many Christians chuck nearly all of them. When I was a JW, the reasoning was that those were part of the Mosaic laws, recited through Moses specifically to the Jews, not God's direct laws which were meant for everyone. There are biblical points differentiating them. When Jesus came, only the laws directly spoken by God remained in effect. So I wouldn't have accepted laws in Lev as a good reason anyway. Got anything else?

 

Posted May 5, '13 at 9:41pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

I just have time to say, I already went over why and how God would have made homosexuals. They are no more condemned than you or I. They simply have a different struggle. They have the choice not to let their sin take over them, or to ignore God's laws and sin.

Regarding the relevence of the Bible's authenticity, in my very first post here I said that I couldn't convince a non-Christian that homosexuality was wrong. I said I could however show a Christian gay supporter that it was Biblically wrong.
You obviously don't believe in God or the Bible, so how can I possibly convince you to follow God's law? I can't. To try to would be pointless, because if you don't even believe in the existance of the Lawmaker, how can I convince you to follow his laws?

Fair enough.

Just understand that the reason you oppose homosexuality is based not off of logic, but merely obedience to your god.

Since there is supposed to be separation of church and state, gay marriage should be recognized since the basis for keeping homosexuality outlawed is rooted in religion, not logic.

 

Posted May 6, '13 at 12:04am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

Regarding the relevence of the Bible's authenticity, in my very first post here I said that I couldn't convince a non-Christian that homosexuality was wrong.

If your argument was actually reasonable, yes you could.

You obviously don't believe in God or the Bible, so how can I possibly convince you to follow God's law?

By demonstrating this God exists and is worth following to such a degree.

 
Reply to Marriage equality

You must be logged in to post a reply!