Total Posts:161|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay marriage is wrong

Pboy21
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:07:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
my part in this topical discussion is to ban gay marriages
while there are numerous numerous homosexuals that are through out the world.
i feel that morally gay marriage or sexuality should not be presented inside schooling system.
Morally
lesbian or gay
relationship is morally wrong.
man on man, women and women relations is an abomination by God as well among society.
i feel that all gay actions as well marriages should be banned.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Pboy21
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:21:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?
it is immoral for one to marry as well to have sex
and two it is the complete opposite response to what gay marriage is it is not virgins by which virgins are not gay .. so that is still beyond the point and does not make sense it is an abomination by both natures Gods and ours
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:23:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Meh, I don't think the state should regulate one's actions unless one's actions directly conflict with others.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:30:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:21:45 PM, Pboy21 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?
it is immoral for one to marry as well to have sex

Wait what? Am I reading this out of context?

and two it is the complete opposite response to what gay marriage is it is not virgins by which virgins are not gay .. so that is still beyond the point and does not make sense it is an abomination by both natures Gods and ours
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:31:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:30:03 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:21:45 PM, Pboy21 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?
it is immoral for one to marry as well to have sex

Wait what? Am I reading this out of context?

Oh, are you saying it's immoral for one to marry to have sex? (As in "I'm going to get married so I can have sex.")


and two it is the complete opposite response to what gay marriage is it is not virgins by which virgins are not gay .. so that is still beyond the point and does not make sense it is an abomination by both natures Gods and ours
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:32:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:21:45 PM, Pboy21 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?
it is immoral for one to marry as well to have sex
and two it is the complete opposite response to what gay marriage is it is not virgins by which virgins are not gay .. so that is still beyond the point and does not make sense it is an abomination by both natures Gods and ours

0_o

What??
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

According to what standard?

For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?

Without an objective standard, once again, you have no grounds to declare anything moral or immoral.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Pboy21
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

According to what standard?

For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?

Without an objective standard, once again, you have no grounds to declare anything moral or immoral.

correct. sexuality as having sex with out marriage is not an abomination just immoral cause you should be married as marriage is a gift and should be respected as well a women
but gays both gender
is and abomination as well should never be taught in school systems
let alone able to be presented equal for it is just saying it is okay to kill
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:40:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

Fornication is generally understood to mean sexual activity outside of marriage in the first place, so that might seem a little redundant.


For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

According to what standard?

For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?

Without an objective standard, once again, you have no grounds to declare anything moral or immoral.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:41:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

According to what standard?

Well it's obvious isn't it? Human beings have rights. Therefore I'm not going to assert that they should be forced to stay a virgin their whole life. That's cruel.


For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?

Without an objective standard, once again, you have no grounds to declare anything moral or immoral.

I am turning the con gay marriage argument that homosexuality is immoral because it goes against our nature around. For a homosexual person having sex with the opposite sex is going against their nature, and the way God made them. Whereas being with someone they are naturally attracted too, is corresponding with their nature.

By what standard do you deem homosexuality wrong?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:40:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

Fornication is generally understood to mean sexual activity outside of marriage in the first place, so that might seem a little redundant.

That's what I was thinking...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Pboy21
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:48:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:42:46 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:40:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

Fornication is generally understood to mean sexual activity outside of marriage in the first place, so that might seem a little redundant.

That's what I was thinking...

first off lets go to the creation of man and women
now God didnt make anyone gay
it is a choice
and your taking this out of context no one forces
a virgin to be never married
or should stay married that is on their decision
practiciing homosexuality is immoral for its teaching that it is okay to have sex with another man or women
while the moral thing is to do is to have sex with man and women
that is why they were created to reproduce
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:51:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:50:16 PM, Koopin wrote:
Answer Koopin's question for a free money cash prize...

What does banning gay acts mean?

Gay Batman.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:53:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:50:16 PM, Koopin wrote:
Answer Koopin's question for a free money cash prize...

What does banning gay acts mean?

Banning Koopin! JK!
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:54:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:53:30 PM, TUF wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:50:16 PM, Koopin wrote:
Answer Koopin's question for a free money cash prize...

What does banning gay acts mean?

Banning Koopin! JK!

I'll admit that was pretty good.
kfc
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:56:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:41:20 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

According to what standard?

Well it's obvious isn't it? Human beings have rights. Therefore I'm not going to assert that they should be forced to stay a virgin their whole life. That's cruel.

Ok, so whos standard detemines that humans have rights? And what makes that standard correct over a different standard - say that of the romans?

Without a standard, nothing is objective... so you could be right, but could also be wrong - depending on who you talk to.


For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?

Without an objective standard, once again, you have no grounds to declare anything moral or immoral.

I am turning the con gay marriage argument that homosexuality is immoral because it goes against our nature around.

Thats what makes it weird to most poeple, but not what makes it explicitly wrong.

For a homosexual person having sex with the opposite sex is going against their nature, and the way God made them.

Wrong. God did not make them that way.. they did; Or there sinful nature did. So you would argue that because it's in someones nature, it should be acceptable; this opens a whole can of other problems. do i need to really get into them?

Whereas being with someone they are naturally attracted too, is corresponding with their nature.

What of people naturally attracted to children? or murder?

By what standard do you deem homosexuality wrong?


The standards set forth in the Bible.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:48:16 PM, Pboy21 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:42:46 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:40:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

Fornication is generally understood to mean sexual activity outside of marriage in the first place, so that might seem a little redundant.

That's what I was thinking...

first off lets go to the creation of man and women
now God didnt make anyone gay
it is a choice
and your taking this out of context no one forces
a virgin to be never married
or should stay married that is on their decision
practiciing homosexuality is immoral for its teaching that it is okay to have sex with another man or women
while the moral thing is to do is to have sex with man and women
that is why they were created to reproduce

Tone up your grammar/spelling and take the time to form logical and coherent arguments, and I may decide to converse with you.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 5:14:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:56:09 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:41:20 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

According to what standard?

Well it's obvious isn't it? Human beings have rights. Therefore I'm not going to assert that they should be forced to stay a virgin their whole life. That's cruel.

Ok, so whos standard detemines that humans have rights? And what makes that standard correct over a different standard - say that of the romans?


Without a standard, nothing is objective... so you could be right, but could also be wrong - depending on who you talk to.

I am a theist you know. I do believe in objective morality, and my moral sense strongly dictates the truth in my moral assertion that humans should have rights. I'm not going to throw away my moral intuition simply because it's possibly wrong.


For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?

Without an objective standard, once again, you have no grounds to declare anything moral or immoral.

I am turning the con gay marriage argument that homosexuality is immoral because it goes against our nature around.

Thats what makes it weird to most poeple, but not what makes it explicitly wrong.

Actually it's a common argument.

For a homosexual person having sex with the opposite sex is going against their nature, and the way God made them.

Wrong. God did not make them that way.. they did; Or there sinful nature did. So you would argue that because it's in someones nature, it should be acceptable; this opens a whole can of other problems. do i need to really get into them?

Bare assertions...And no, I don't believe that actions can be considered right simply because they are in their nature. Like I said, I'm turning a negation into an affirmation.

Whereas being with someone they are naturally attracted too, is corresponding with their nature.

What of people naturally attracted to children? or murder?

The first one is not a bad point, but you're just losing track of my argument. Contenders of gay marriage assert that it is immoral because it goes against human nature. But the ironic thing is it coincides with their nature. That was my point.

By what standard do you deem homosexuality wrong?


The standards set forth in the Bible.

And therefore your missing premise is, "the state has an obligation to set down laws in concordance with Biblical teaching."
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 5:24:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 5:22:43 PM, Rusty wrote:
FYI, this exact topic was posted to politics as well...

http://www.debate.org...

And society. It got deleted though.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 5:46:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:56:09 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:41:20 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:32:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:15:22 PM, phantom wrote:
But God is also against fornication, therefore in your view gay people should either 1. Never marry, and never have sex. 2. Marry someone from the opposite sex.

Right, but utlimately wrong.

It is immoral to fornicate outside of marriage, not simply to fornicate; but sexual immorality is equally the 2: Practicing homosexuality and practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage.

For this first option, it is simply unjust and immoral to hold the view that someone should stay a virgin their whole life as well as never being able to marry.

According to what standard?

Well it's obvious isn't it? Human beings have rights. Therefore I'm not going to assert that they should be forced to stay a virgin their whole life. That's cruel.

Ok, so whos standard detemines that humans have rights? And what makes that standard correct over a different standard - say that of the romans?

Without a standard, nothing is objective... so you could be right, but could also be wrong - depending on who you talk to.


For the second option, would it not be more immoral for someone to go against his/her nature and marry a person in whom he/she is not attracted to rather than someone he/she naturally has an attraction for?

Without an objective standard, once again, you have no grounds to declare anything moral or immoral.

I am turning the con gay marriage argument that homosexuality is immoral because it goes against our nature around.

Thats what makes it weird to most poeple, but not what makes it explicitly wrong.

For a homosexual person having sex with the opposite sex is going against their nature, and the way God made them.

Wrong. God did not make them that way.. they did; Or there sinful nature did. So you would argue that because it's in someones nature, it should be acceptable; this opens a whole can of other problems. do i need to really get into them?

Whereas being with someone they are naturally attracted too, is corresponding with their nature.

What of people naturally attracted to children? or murder?

By what standard do you deem homosexuality wrong?


The standards set forth in the Bible.

What's you standard? The Bible was written by men, I'm a man, my word is just as valuable. You just take it on faith that it's the word of God, when you are really just following a standard written by man.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 6:42:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagree with Rational Thinker for the key reason of the warranted slippery slope argument.

A destructive habit should be penalized as it causes further and 'more' destructive habits.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 6:42:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nature suggests:

gay gene exists (http://www.popsci.com...)

rape is A-OK (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

But here's some fun ones:

Vegetarianism is evil among humans

Fox hunting bans among humans are evil

Societies larger than 230 people are evil (230 is Dunbar's number, the number of organic society's average population).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:02:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 5:14:52 PM, phantom wrote:
I am a theist you know. I do believe in objective morality, and my moral sense strongly dictates the truth in my moral assertion that humans should have rights. I'm not going to throw away my moral intuition simply because it's possibly wrong.


Thats what I thought at first, it had me a bit confused.

So, as a Theist, what do you actually believe these rights are? And is it edifying to endorse such a 'right', even if it violates what you know to be objectively moral?

I am turning the con gay marriage argument that homosexuality is immoral because it goes against our nature around.


Since I believe that our nature only produces immorality in almost every way; I don't find the natural argument very convincing for either position.

Even the good things we do are diluted with sin -

Prov. 16:2
2 All a person's ways seem pure to them,
but motives are weighed by the LORD.

Mark 7:9-23
9 And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,'[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them." [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: "What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person's heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person."


Bare assertions...And no, I don't believe that actions can be considered right simply because they are in their nature. Like I said, I'm turning a negation into an affirmation.


I'm asserting this based on scripture (read above).

But i apologize i still don't see what your trying to accomplish..

The first one is not a bad point, but you're just losing track of my argument. Contenders of gay marriage assert that it is immoral because it goes against human nature. But the ironic thing is it coincides with their nature. That was my point.


Yea it appears we are arguing about different things.. lol

You are saying that the argument, centered, on homosexuality being immoral because of it being unatrural isn't adequate?

which i am inclined to agree with, but i think it's unatural in another way.. and that's the 2nd nature we have - our spiritual nature.

And therefore your missing premise is, "the state has an obligation to set down laws in concordance with Biblical teaching."


No.

P1. Sexual acts outside of a MAN/WOMAN marriage are biblically immoral.
P2. Practicing homosexuality is outside of this union.
C3. Therefore, Practicing homosexuality is immoral.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:17:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 5:46:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What's you standard? The Bible was written by men, I'm a man, my word is just as valuable. You just take it on faith that it's the word of God, when you are really just following a standard written by man.

My standard is:

I don't really care.

It's funny hearing a grown man speak like a woman, and it's nasty to have cowboy butt sex. lol

I absolutely take it on faith. So what?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:22:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 6:42:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I disagree with Rational Thinker for the key reason of the warranted slippery slope argument.

A destructive habit should be penalized as it causes further and 'more' destructive habits.

"A destructive habit should be penalized as it causes further and 'more' destructive habits."

This is of course, begging the question. How is being gay a destructive habit?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:26:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 8:17:32 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/20/2012 5:46:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What's you standard? The Bible was written by men, I'm a man, my word is just as valuable. You just take it on faith that it's the word of God, when you are really just following a standard written by man.

My standard is:

I don't really care.

It's funny hearing a grown man speak like a woman, and it's nasty to have cowboy butt sex. lol

I absolutely take it on faith. So what?

"It's funny hearing a grown man speak like a woman, and it's nasty to have cowboy butt sex. lol"

It's funny hearing a grown man who believes in supernatural magical beings, but of course these are ad hominem atacks. Also gay sex is disgusting to me, but it's not them, what gives me the right to tell them what to do exactly? Oh ya, that's right, nothing.

I get grossed out when I see gay people making out in public, but I also feel grossed out when I see people puking, should we ban puking too?