Total Posts:107|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To the liberals!

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:31:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Christian liberals primarily - those who believe that Noah's Flood never really happened, those who think evolution is scientific, and to those who believe abortion is justified well through the hardships of a mother, or to those who believe homosexual marriage is right with God.

There are a number of debates on this site that argue between abortion, homosexuality, and evolution, but I want those who believe in these liberal views of Christianity to link it with Christianity, a biblical and historically accurate Christianity. What are your reasons behind your liberal beliefs?

Go!
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
liberals dont base their opinions off of what they read in the Bible, your thinking of conservatives.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:43:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:42:09 PM, imabench wrote:
liberals dont base their opinions off of what they read in the Bible, your thinking of conservatives.

He means the "liberal Christians" not necessarily liberal in politics. The "Christians" who think the Bible is literature and that Jesus is a good role model and stuff.

Like I said:

liberalism > Christianity (to a liberal)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:45:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:31:54 AM, GodSands wrote:
Christian liberals primarily - those who believe that Noah's Flood never really happened, those who think evolution is scientific, and to those who believe abortion is justified well through the hardships of a mother, or to those who believe homosexual marriage is right with God.

There are a number of debates on this site that argue between abortion, homosexuality, and evolution, but I want those who believe in these liberal views of Christianity to link it with Christianity, a biblical and historically accurate Christianity. What are your reasons behind your liberal beliefs?

Yeah, I want to know how these anti slave christians link it with christianity, a biblical and historically accurate Christianity. What are the reasons behind your liberal anti slavery beliefs Godsand ? What are the reasons behind your liberal not stoning homosexuals to death Godsand ?

Go!

indeed, go !
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:53:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:42:09 PM, imabench wrote:
liberals dont base their opinions off of what they read in the Bible, your thinking of conservatives.

+1000000000

But Jesus does not link conservative homophobic, bigoted, and sexist opinions with his teachings (I'm trolling here).

Plus, to ALL RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES:

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

^ Top priority

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

^ My critique of conservative "family values"

Abortion:

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So, if a miscarriage is forced by two fighting men, a penalty is paid to the woman determined by the man. However, the harm inflicted is talking about the woman, since babies obviously don't have teeth.

Gay Marriage

God is not punitive. He views those who respect him with grace and nurturance. Plus, why should I impose my views on others.

Death Penalty

Thou shall not kill.

Liberal Christianity = God gives grace, nurturance, compassion
Conservative Christianity = Punitive, you must obey God or face the fires of hell

^ See, two different worldviews on Christianity based on morals (politics are also based on morals).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:53:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:42:09 PM, imabench wrote:
liberals dont base their opinions off of what they read in the Bible, your thinking of conservatives.

+1000000000

But Jesus does not link conservative homophobic, bigoted, and sexist opinions with his teachings (I'm trolling here).

Plus, to ALL RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES:

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

^ Top priority

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

^ My critique of conservative "family values"

Abortion:

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So, if a miscarriage is forced by two fighting men, a penalty is paid to the woman determined by the man. However, the harm inflicted is talking about the woman, since babies obviously don't have teeth.

Gay Marriage

God is not punitive. He views those who respect him with grace and nurturance. Plus, why should I impose my views on others.

Death Penalty

: Thou shall not kill.:

Liberal Christianity = God gives grace, nurturance, compassion
Conservative Christianity = Punitive, you must obey God or face the fires of hell

^ See, two different worldviews on Christianity based on morals (politics are also based on morals).

Thy shall not murder.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:51:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:53:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:42:09 PM, imabench wrote:
liberals dont base their opinions off of what they read in the Bible, your thinking of conservatives.

+1000000000

But Jesus does not link conservative homophobic, bigoted, and sexist opinions with his teachings (I'm trolling here).

Plus, to ALL RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES:

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

^ Top priority

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

^ My critique of conservative "family values"

Abortion:

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So, if a miscarriage is forced by two fighting men, a penalty is paid to the woman determined by the man. However, the harm inflicted is talking about the woman, since babies obviously don't have teeth.


Yes but how does this justify killing your unborn baby on purpose? This is an accident obviously. Your connection is nonsensical.

Gay Marriage

God is not punitive. He views those who respect him with grace and nurturance. Plus, why should I impose my views on others.

Yes, but God commands us not to sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore those who openly practice it openly defy God.

Death Penalty

Thou shall not kill.


Kill =/= murder. Thou shall not murder.

Liberal Christianity = God gives grace, nurturance, compassion
Conservative Christianity = Punitive, you must obey God or face the fires of hell

^ See, two different worldviews on Christianity based on morals (politics are also based on morals).

Liberal Christianity = bending the Bible to your personal agenda
Conservative Christianity = actually listening to the Bible

See the difference?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 12:20:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:51:35 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:53:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:42:09 PM, imabench wrote:
liberals dont base their opinions off of what they read in the Bible, your thinking of conservatives.

+1000000000

But Jesus does not link conservative homophobic, bigoted, and sexist opinions with his teachings (I'm trolling here).

Plus, to ALL RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES:

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

^ Top priority

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

^ My critique of conservative "family values"

Abortion:

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

So, if a miscarriage is forced by two fighting men, a penalty is paid to the woman determined by the man. However, the harm inflicted is talking about the woman, since babies obviously don't have teeth.


Yes but how does this justify killing your unborn baby on purpose? This is an accident obviously. Your connection is nonsensical.

I explain it fully in this debate: http://www.debate.org...


Gay Marriage

God is not punitive. He views those who respect him with grace and nurturance. Plus, why should I impose my views on others.

Yes, but God commands us not to sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore those who openly practice it openly defy God.

Luke 6:37

"Stop judging others, and you will not be judged. Stop criticizing others, or it will all come back on you. If you forgive others, you will be forgiven."

Where in the Bible does it say that we have to take God's role and judge others? Doing this imposes our religion on others, a violation of Church and State and the freedom of religion (because freedom of religion is also freedom from religion).

Pwned

Death Penalty

Thou shall not kill.


Kill =/= murder. Thou shall not murder.

Liberal Christianity = God gives grace, nurturance, compassion
Conservative Christianity = Punitive, you must obey God or face the fires of hell

^ See, two different worldviews on Christianity based on morals (politics are also based on morals).

Liberal Christianity = bending the Bible to your personal agenda
Conservative Christianity = actually listening to the Bible

See the difference?

Conservatives such as yourself see religion (specifically God) as a Strict father model in the Strict father metaphor. Therefore, you see God as punitive and see God as demanding authority.

In Strict Christianity, God is seen as setting the rules and demanding authority, and if we obey, we get nurturance. Nurturant Christianity sees God authority and accepts it because of God's original and continuing nurturance.

This is probably an oversimplification though.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 12:32:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.

Same here. I just think that I shouldn't impose my views on others though. This is a classic conservative/ liberal divide.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 12:43:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.

Banning or restricting their relationships by claiming that they are inferior to heterosexual relationships or marriages is an act of judgment. The only way you could claim that they are inferior is if you judge them.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 12:47:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 12:43:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.

Banning or restricting their relationships by claiming that they are inferior to heterosexual relationships or marriages is an act of judgment. The only way you could claim that they are inferior is if you judge them.

I dont think they are inferior, well I do, but if you look at it they dont fulfill the rights needed to allow their marriage. Before you allow something in a secular society you must find a secular reason, gay marriage advocates fail to do this. So yes gays are inferior in that sense, but I am not denying they are themselves good people.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 12:51:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 12:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:43:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.

Banning or restricting their relationships by claiming that they are inferior to heterosexual relationships or marriages is an act of judgment. The only way you could claim that they are inferior is if you judge them.

I dont think they are inferior, well I do, but if you look at it they dont fulfill the rights needed to allow their marriage. Before you allow something in a secular society you must find a secular reason, gay marriage advocates fail to do this. So yes gays are inferior in that sense, but I am not denying they are themselves good people.

The secular reason is that governments are created to protect rights are are beholden to the people. They cannot restrict the rights of the people unless those rights are infringing on the rights of others. I have no burden to prove that the state should permit SSM. You have a burden to prove that it should be banned. All activities are legally permissible unless there is a compelling reason to ban them.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:02:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 12:51:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:43:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.

Banning or restricting their relationships by claiming that they are inferior to heterosexual relationships or marriages is an act of judgment. The only way you could claim that they are inferior is if you judge them.

I dont think they are inferior, well I do, but if you look at it they dont fulfill the rights needed to allow their marriage. Before you allow something in a secular society you must find a secular reason, gay marriage advocates fail to do this. So yes gays are inferior in that sense, but I am not denying they are themselves good people.

The secular reason is that governments are created to protect rights are are beholden to the people. They cannot restrict the rights of the people unless those rights are infringing on the rights of others. I have no burden to prove that the state should permit SSM. You have a burden to prove that it should be banned. All activities are legally permissible unless there is a compelling reason to ban them.

Before you can assume gays have a right on anything, you must define that right and what the right we are looking for is. So before we claim liberty is being violated, we must first define what marriage is, therefore the burden of proof is equal.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:04:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
brb, writing a debate arg
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:35:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am Catholic and I thnk some of these posts on this thread were coming across condescending to people with strong religious views.

When in the Bible we are told not to judge others it was not meant as not to point out immoral actons, we should do this. It was simply not to hold an opinion of superiority over them. We are all sinners, I have greatly sinned in my lifetime.

I believe abortion to be wrong not only because of my beliefs, but for rational reasons also. When is it ever right to take innocent human life, why does someone get decided who is worthy of living and who is not.

Also being gay is not a sin, it is the giving into your desire that is the sin. Hetrosexual people also have urges that they to should do their utmost to restrain from. Sex outside of marriage, masturbation, pornography, all these are base feelings. We wrongly assume these things will bring happiness, they come habit forming and leaving you feeling numb to what it is you truly seek. I have someone very close to me who is gay yet they try to live a christian life as best they can. Everyone has there only particular cross to bear. The thing is people try to justify their sin by tellimg temselves and others there is nothing wrong in what they are doing. I am not just talking about homosexuality I am talking about all those other things I mentioned earlier and more besides. We all have our own particular weakness.

Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, all through history marriage meant the union between a man and woman. If you have gay marriage then the term marriage no longer has the same meanin as what it once had.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:35:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:02:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:51:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:43:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.

Banning or restricting their relationships by claiming that they are inferior to heterosexual relationships or marriages is an act of judgment. The only way you could claim that they are inferior is if you judge them.

I dont think they are inferior, well I do, but if you look at it they dont fulfill the rights needed to allow their marriage. Before you allow something in a secular society you must find a secular reason, gay marriage advocates fail to do this. So yes gays are inferior in that sense, but I am not denying they are themselves good people.

The secular reason is that governments are created to protect rights are are beholden to the people. They cannot restrict the rights of the people unless those rights are infringing on the rights of others. I have no burden to prove that the state should permit SSM. You have a burden to prove that it should be banned. All activities are legally permissible unless there is a compelling reason to ban them.

Before you can assume gays have a right on anything, you must define that right and what the right we are looking for is. So before we claim liberty is being violated, we must first define what marriage is, therefore the burden of proof is equal.

The right to marriage stems from freedom of association, which in turn stems from the right to liberty. My right to liberty lets me do anything that does not harm others. When I consent to a government, the government agrees to not constrain my liberty unless it harms others. This is where the BOP comes from. In order for anything to be banned, you have to demonstrate that marriage is harmful to others. The BoP is not equal. This is basic social contract theory.

Under your argument, everything ought to be banned unless we have a compelling reason to permit it. What are the compelling reason to let us chew bubble gum or to make paper airplanes or to eat steaks?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:36:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, all through history marriage meant the union between a man and woman. If you have gay marriage then the term marriage no longer has the same meanin as what it once had.

Appeal to traditional logical fallacy.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:36:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:36:21 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, all through history marriage meant the union between a man and woman. If you have gay marriage then the term marriage no longer has the same meanin as what it once had.

Appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

fixed
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:39:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In addition, I fail to see how permitting others to get marriage cheapens one's own marriage. Like, how does homosexual marriage make heterosexual marriage any worse? Who cares if marriage is redefined?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:46:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:35:13 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:02:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:51:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:43:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.

Banning or restricting their relationships by claiming that they are inferior to heterosexual relationships or marriages is an act of judgment. The only way you could claim that they are inferior is if you judge them.

I dont think they are inferior, well I do, but if you look at it they dont fulfill the rights needed to allow their marriage. Before you allow something in a secular society you must find a secular reason, gay marriage advocates fail to do this. So yes gays are inferior in that sense, but I am not denying they are themselves good people.

The secular reason is that governments are created to protect rights are are beholden to the people. They cannot restrict the rights of the people unless those rights are infringing on the rights of others. I have no burden to prove that the state should permit SSM. You have a burden to prove that it should be banned. All activities are legally permissible unless there is a compelling reason to ban them.

Before you can assume gays have a right on anything, you must define that right and what the right we are looking for is. So before we claim liberty is being violated, we must first define what marriage is, therefore the burden of proof is equal.

The right to marriage stems from freedom of association, which in turn stems from the right to liberty. My right to liberty lets me do anything that does not harm others. When I consent to a government, the government agrees to not constrain my liberty unless it harms others. This is where the BOP comes from. In order for anything to be banned, you have to demonstrate that marriage is harmful to others. The BoP is not equal. This is basic social contract theory.

You obviously dont understand the argument, before you declare anything an infringement on liberties you MUST define your terms.
"[B]efore we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 246, 251


Under your argument, everything ought to be banned unless we have a compelling reason to permit it. What are the compelling reason to let us chew bubble gum or to make paper airplanes or to eat steaks?

That is a straw man, as it fails to look into the societal aspects of the argument as well. Heterosexuals are indispensable, without them there is no society, however homosexuals are not as valuable as a whole to society.
see: http://www.debate.org...
and
http://www.debate.org...

That should clear it out.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:48:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:31:54 AM, GodSands wrote:
Christian liberals primarily - those who believe that Noah's Flood never really happened, those who think evolution is scientific, and to those who believe abortion is justified well through the hardships of a mother, or to those who believe homosexual marriage is right with God.

There are a number of debates on this site that argue between abortion, homosexuality, and evolution, but I want those who believe in these liberal views of Christianity to link it with Christianity, a biblical and historically accurate Christianity. What are your reasons behind your liberal beliefs?

Go!

I'm not sure many Christians think Noah's flood never happened, but there are Christians that think it was not world wide. Just the known world. There's also many Christians who believe the world is 13.7 billion years old because that is what the best evidence point to and they do not think God is a deceiver. I am not claiming that I myself hold these views, but I think that is an explanation.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:51:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:39:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
In addition, I fail to see how permitting others to get marriage cheapens one's own marriage. Like, how does homosexual marriage make heterosexual marriage any worse? Who cares if marriage is redefined?

Lot's of people do. It makes you feel like there is no such thing as tradition and that nothing truly means anything because you can just change the definition on a whim because a group of people feels slighted.

It's irritating.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:51:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:46:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:35:13 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:02:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:51:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:43:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/28/2012 12:26:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
^

I don't judge homosexuals but I don't like their sin. Just as I don't like liars or thieves I don't like homosexuals. I'm not judging them I merely know what they do is wrong.

Banning or restricting their relationships by claiming that they are inferior to heterosexual relationships or marriages is an act of judgment. The only way you could claim that they are inferior is if you judge them.

I dont think they are inferior, well I do, but if you look at it they dont fulfill the rights needed to allow their marriage. Before you allow something in a secular society you must find a secular reason, gay marriage advocates fail to do this. So yes gays are inferior in that sense, but I am not denying they are themselves good people.

The secular reason is that governments are created to protect rights are are beholden to the people. They cannot restrict the rights of the people unless those rights are infringing on the rights of others. I have no burden to prove that the state should permit SSM. You have a burden to prove that it should be banned. All activities are legally permissible unless there is a compelling reason to ban them.

Before you can assume gays have a right on anything, you must define that right and what the right we are looking for is. So before we claim liberty is being violated, we must first define what marriage is, therefore the burden of proof is equal.

The right to marriage stems from freedom of association, which in turn stems from the right to liberty. My right to liberty lets me do anything that does not harm others. When I consent to a government, the government agrees to not constrain my liberty unless it harms others. This is where the BOP comes from. In order for anything to be banned, you have to demonstrate that marriage is harmful to others. The BoP is not equal. This is basic social contract theory.

You obviously dont understand the argument, before you declare anything an infringement on liberties you MUST define your terms.
LOL

Are you kidding me? I just defined my terms. Marriage is a type of association which is an extension of the right to liberty. I literally just defined it for you.
"[B]efore we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 246, 251



Under your argument, everything ought to be banned unless we have a compelling reason to permit it. What are the compelling reason to let us chew bubble gum or to make paper airplanes or to eat steaks?

That is a straw man, as it fails to look into the societal aspects of the argument as well. Heterosexuals are indispensable, without them there is no society, however homosexuals are not as valuable as a whole to society.
see: http://www.debate.org...
and
http://www.debate.org...

LOL, this argument is nonsensically horrendous.

Just because something is not essential for society to function does not mean that it can or should be arbitrarily banned.

Chewing bubble gum is not necessary for society to function. Should it be banned?

Jews are not necessary for society to function (since we can have people of every other race). Should they be banned from joining society and not recognized as citizens?

In order to ban something, the state has to have a compelling reason to ban it. "It's not necessary for society to function" is not a compelling reason to ban anything.
That should clear it out.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:52:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:51:09 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/28/2012 1:39:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
In addition, I fail to see how permitting others to get marriage cheapens one's own marriage. Like, how does homosexual marriage make heterosexual marriage any worse? Who cares if marriage is redefined?

Lot's of people do. It makes you feel like there is no such thing as tradition and that nothing truly means anything because you can just change the definition on a whim because a group of people feels slighted.

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Slavery was also a grand part of European tradition. That was not a reason to keep it.
It's irritating.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By making gay marriage illegal, you are doing something destructive. First, you are letting the government define how you can and cannot marry. Second, the leap from defining who you can and can't marry to telling you who you have to marry is a much small leap from denying gay marriage. Slippery slope.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:54:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Allowing interracial marriage redefined it for many people, ConPo, and a lot of people were against the "redefinition of marriage" when it occurred. Why is that a reason to violate liberty? Was keeping interracial marriage banned justified?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:54:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:53:33 PM, Contra wrote:
By making gay marriage illegal, you are doing something destructive. First, you are letting the government define how you can and cannot marry. Second, the leap from defining who you can and can't marry to telling you who you have to marry is a much small leap from denying gay marriage. Slippery slope.

It's not even a slippery slope. It literally is telling people who they can and cannot marry.