Debate Rounds (3)
Real progress would be a way to achieve this without restricting the liberties of those within the Christian community. What is progress when there is a group of people who are being forced to commit actions that go against what they believe in? I do not believe in this at all, but if it must be done then why can't gay couples go somewhere else that accepts this behavior? That is the common sense solution here. There are plenty of other places that gay couples can go, but instead, they choose a Christian church or a Christian owned business to go to. It is like they are asking a question that they should already know the answer to. Also, by the constitution, it is a right for us to practice what we believe in.
What helps keep societies thriving is the presence of people. A growing population full of minds that can come together and create great things. For this to happen, there has to be people that can reproduce these people with these great minds. Tell me, with a society of gay people who only adopt kids.. how would it ever grow? Gay parents will most likely end up with gay children who also will not be able to reproduce. Then when there are no more kids to adopt, when every couple is homosexual, when that generation of gay people dies off, who carries the torch and keeps that society going? No one will because no one was able to reproduce kids to grow up and keep things going. This is not a step forward.. this is more so of America shooting itself in the foot.
Our founding fathers started this country from the ground up based upon Christian beliefs. This is an abomination in the bible (Leviticus 18:22) and I do not see how gay people are using the bible to defend this rather huge endorsement of sin. There is nothing in the bible to justify gay marriage. God designed this to be between a man and a woman. This grotesque new definition of marriage is sinful under the eyes of the Lord and needs to be corrected. Just as other sin needs to be corrected, not endorsed.
Now, you say that "real" progress is not restricting Christian churches and businesses, and that homosexuals should just go somewhere else. I would like to point out the fact that a church is not forced to conduct a gay marriage, and I am going to assume that you are talking about cake companies and the such when you bring up "Christian businesses." What you are talking about is called segregation, which we had in America before. If you have a business, you are open to the public, meaning your beliefs shouldn't interfere with money making. You use the Constitution to support yourself, and the first amendment does say that you have a right to practice your freedoms. But, it also says, the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning that the government's choices must be secular and logical, not based on any archaic religious rules.
You go on to rant about children, how homosexuals cannot have children, and a delirious hypothetical situation with a "society of gay people," and state that all the kids they will adopt will be homosexual and that the torch will burn out. You are assuming the fact that marriage is all about raising children and that there will be no straight couples, which is an impossibility. The Supreme Courts decision did not make everyone in the United States gay, at least I hope not, because then your anecdote would become true, if it wasn't for one detail. You say that "Gay parents will most likely end up with gay children." This is incorrect. Many straight children come out of homosexual households, because they are taught that your love for another person is natural and it varies from person to person. If marriage was all about children, why are barren people allowed to get hitched? What about couples that refuse to make kids?
A lot of Christians say that our country was founded on their values, and this is just incorrect. While most of the population was Christian, nearly all the founding fathers were deists, meaning they believed that a god had created the universe and the natural processes, but didn't treat any species special or set any special rules. I find it a hypocritical of Christians to use the Bible to support their argument, even though the first amendment says that the government shall not cater to any religions. The Bible also bans jewelry and revealing clothing (1 Timothy 2:9), foods we eat all the time (Leviticus 7), tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), remarrying (Mark 10:11), women speaking in churches (1 Corinthians 14:34), mixed breeds and hybrids and clothes with mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), shaving and getting round haircuts (Leviticus 19:27). Why are these things allowed but homosexuality isn't? Because gays are a minority and people's views didn't evolve like they did for things like shellfish.
I believe in the evolution of marriage. It has been interpreted in many ways by different cultures and societies. The original "traditional marriage" allowed for a man to have side-wives called concubines. Here in America, "traditional marriage" used to mean "one man and one woman of the same race." Why do our definitions change over time? Because everything changes over time. Marriage, since it was integrated into the government, has become a secular milestone in most relationships. That's why atheists can get married. I think we need to accept our homosexual population into society. Denying them marriage is creating discrimination. Thousands of homosexuals die every year due to bullying, segregating, discriminating, belief-bashing, etc. Marriage is a statement on how close you and your lover are, and as long as they are both above the age threshold and its consensual, I see nothing wrong with allowing two people to love each just as much as a straight couple.
Secondly, it was a hypothetical situation, but to be honest, it isn't like it wouldn't be the case if it were to happen. This is really simple, people get married, have sex, have kids, the kids grow up, and then follow the same steps as their parents did. This is an elementary version of the birds and the bees. Do you understand? Or are you blind to these simple facts with your ignorance too? There are straight couples that do not want children. I understand that. But why throw gasoline into a blazing fire? Why add gay couples in the mix of single couples that can't/won't contribute to society through childbirth? It not the main point of having kids, but it's pretty important when it comes to marriage. Most married couples talk about it before they get married. I also never stated that all kids from gay homes come out gay, however, I know some of them will. Those are the people that I am talking about.
Thirdly, as far as all of the scripture you listed.... Well... What you are using to support your cause I can squash it with two words. Are you ready for them? They are the words "New Testament". A lot of what you mentioned were ceremonial practices used to repent for their sins. This was before Jesus..in the Old Testament. When the new covenant was made, the New Testament, a lot of those went out of the window. Jesus was a game changer for all of that. Some of was was mentioned in all of those passages was for moral values. Not actual commandments. If you have a stroke of common sense, you should be able to decipher the two.
Lastly, how is this evolution? Gay freedom of expression at the expense of the Christian community? That doesn't sound like freedom to me. America is the land of the free...or so I thought. The church and state need to stay separate for this reason. Had they just stayed separate, then we probably wouldn't be debating right now. But that's not the case. You say evolution it is evolution because of the passing of the bill...but look at what it is costing. Re-evaluate what you define as progress.
Let's delve deeper into your exaggerated hypothetical situation. You say people get married, have kids, and the cycle continues. If we allow gay people to marry, they will adopt children and will raise them to a possibility of them being gay. And gayness will spread across the nation, and the population will just die off due to everybody being gay. Now, not everyone follows the cycle you describe. There are barren people who get married. We currently have 7.325 billion on the planet, with 318.9 million of those people living in the United States. Approximately 10959 babies are born every day in the United States, and those gay people won't ever have children. I don't see why the idea of two people getting married bothers you so much. What makes you so upset about people not "contributing to society through childbirth?" Having the choice to have a children is a right, and I respect that right of people. You admit not every gay couple raises gay children, but you say you don't want to treat gay children the same. Well here's an idea that you refuse to accept: Homosexuality is not a choice. Straight people having a child have a possibility of raising a gay child. It's called nature. There have been over 1500 species that show gay behavior, including our own kind. We need to accept it.
If Jesus wiped out all the sins (except blasphemy, Mark 3:29) why is homosexuality still effective? There's nothing in the New Testament that explicitly states that God disagrees with homosexuality. He does set more rules on marriages, but there is nothing against gays. I suggest you look at your own doctrine before you judge others for their choices.
You claim that you are not free due to the homosexuals being allowed to marry. Well guess what? If you deny homosexual marriage, you are denying them rights. You are discriminating against people who do not have a choice over how they choose their romantic partners. You are free. You are not disobeying your God's word, and your doctrine says (In the New Testament) that you shouldn't judge others and treat them differently. You are supposed to pray and bless them, but zealots deny that part, I guess. I say it is evolution because we are slowly accepting a portion of our population. We should treat everybody equally, not judging them by race, sexuality, and other factors they have no control over. You have a right to be a sexist, a racist, a homophobe, but it's when you take away other's rights, or kill them, or discriminate, that we need to push for equality. This is a country of freedom, where pastors don't have to perform a gay marriage, but gays can get married. This is a place where people like you can express your opinion, but you can't treat other's like garbage because some of your Old Testament highlights. Jewish people might have created marriage, but throughout history, the definition has changed. This is not a Christian nation. Marriage is no longer about religion. The reason why people go to churches to get married is because it's a tradition, and churches tend to make marriages beautiful and flamboyant. Not all churches deny gay marriages. They accept them into their practices, because they recognize that Jesus wiped all the sins. They are the true Christians, praying and blessing the people who go against God's word, and thanking Jesus for making us all equal. We need more Christians like that.
When did I say I didn't want to treat gay people the same?? Ok, not everyone is going to be gay and the situation was obviously hypothetical, but if it were to happen then a fall off of societies would happen rather quickly with the combination of what you mentioned with barren people getting married. It's like throwing gasoline into a burning fire hoping that it will go out. Personally, I do not care that gay marriage is legalized. What pisses me off is what the Christian community is going through just because we decide to follow what our God tells us. Not everyone will have children, I know this as well. There are plenty of couples who I know personally that do not want kids. I shake my head at them too. My point is why add to the potential deficit of people? It does not help to have gay people who couldn't have kids if they tried along with heterosexual couples that just refuse. Sure, the world can accept a detriment to society, but we will not condone in it and we have a right not to. Period
As long as we repent and believe in him as our personal savior, then our sin is wiped away. We are given a clean slate, and are told to live as he did. We won't be perfect, but we can live our lives with him in our hearts and fight against all worldly temptations and struggles. There were older ceremonial practices that became non-existent when Jesus came into the picture. There were some things that God instructed to stay in place (i.e. Murder, adultery, thievery etc) homosexuality falls in that category as well. God is pretty consistent with telling us what he likes and hates. If what you say is true about homosexuality being biblically correct, then why are there no homosexual couples in the bible that were looked in favor upon God's eyes in the entire bible? Look in the old and New Testament..I bet you won't find anything to support such an idiotic claim.
I gave the common sense solution already.. They just have to find another place to go to! That is it..I don't know how many times I have to say it. I never said we weren't free because of this new definition of marriage. Honestly, it doesn't affect us until a gay couple walks into our building demanding a wedding service. The bible does say not to judge, however this is not judging. It is just what he says. If God didn't have a problem with it, we wouldn't either. As far as CHOOSING to be gay, my friend, that is another debate. On that note I'll leave you with this little bit of info....are you ready?? Ok, thoughts do not define reality. What you are born as is what you are. Period. Take that for food for thought. You shouldn't speak about freedom when it isn't coming across the whole country equally. There is a solution, but gays and yourself choose to support methods this country left behind centuries ago. Those methods were not freedom. Not even close. Christians, if they read the same bible I read, the bible starting with Genesis and ending with Relevations would agree with me. We love the person, hate the sin. That is what we are told to do. How would we hate the sin of homosexuality, if we choose to endorse in it through a gay marriage? It's contradictory. It isn't biblically supported and it's immoral.
You claim that you are being oppressed, or scrutinized. You're playing the victim card, and I fear that you might have Martyr complex, or Persecutory delusions. Christians are not being oppressed. Allowing homosexual people to get married is not oppressing you. Pastors and priests are not being forced to perform wedding ceremonies. Is it wrong not to allow people who love each other to not move to the next step, because of your beliefs? Yes. Would you be oppressing homosexuals by making them go "somewhere else" and not associating with them? Yes. It's because of Christians and bigots that the suicide rates are so high in homosexuals. You say you don't care about gay marriage, just about Christians being persecuted. This is simply not true. Look at what you titled the debate. Look at what your arguments are centered around. If you truly did not care about gay marriage, you would've created a debate about Christians being oppressed, and how.
You say that homosexuals should just respect Christian's beliefs and go somewhere else. You say that we shouldn't teach kids about it. Guess what? If we did this, we would be treating homosexuals differently. We would be acting like it is not natural, and treating them like second class citizens. The Clauses don't protect you from shoving people out of your public business. The population of the United States won't be effected at all for letting two people get a piece of paper. If gay marriage wasn't legal, I highly doubt that the gays that want to be married would have children. If they wanted to, they could easily get a surrogate mother.
You fail to quote ANY scripture to help your argument. In the New Testament, the only scripture that can be interpreted as against homosexuality are Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Matthew 19:4-6. And all of these things can easily be debunked due to alternative interpretations, not just the "SEE GAYS BAD," view. Romans 1:26-27 has been interpreted as a rule stating that heterosexuals shouldn't act like homosexuals or that someone can change their sexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 has been interpreted as "guys shouldn't act like girls," which reinforces gender roles and stereotypes, but does not directly effect homosexuals. And finally, Matthew 19:4-6 is simply stating Jesus' views on divorce. You say that there is no homosexual couples in favor of God in the Bible. While this does seem like you are grasping for straws, trying to defend your stance, numerous Christian do admit to the possibility of two gay relationships: Naomi+Ruth in the Book of Ruth, and David+Jonathan in 1 and 2 Samuel.
You call sending people away from your church and business "common sense." You say "they just need to find another place to go." I, personally, think that churches should marry all people, but churches do have the right to pick and choose, but a public business does not. You say you're not judging the person, just "hating the sin," like your God said to do. The definition of judge is "to form an opinion after careful thought" or "decide if something is good or bad." You are judging gay people. You're opinion is that gays are immoral. You believe that they demand marriages and that they should go somewhere else. You are judging them.
Christians are not being oppressed. Their beliefs are not being challenged. You are not being forced to do anything that will drag you to second class citizens. Things are simply not going your way and you're whining about it. You have a right to do so. As I've said before, you have a right to be a sexist. You have the right to be a racist. You have the right to be a homophobe. You don't have the right to take others' rights. You don't have the right to force your beliefs onto people, or to make laws based on religious beliefs.
I would like to thank Dnelms77 for challenging and allowing me to debate, and I would like to thank everyone willing to read our arguments and vote for who they think had the better ones.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.