Total Posts:208|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Opposition To Gay Marriage

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:13:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've put this topic in the religious section because, you might as well face it, religious reasons are the only ones people having for opposing gay marriage. Excluding the argument that marriage, in legal standing, as a whole should be abolished, I have never once seen any argument against gay marriage for any reason other than religious ones.

Even worse, it seems as though these religious reasons are completely made up and have nothing to actually do with their religion.

I don't know much about the Quran, so lets just address the Christians here. Pleeeease show where exactly in the bible it says that we should not allow gays to marry. I just can't find it. Show me what your justification is. Because the only thing I can find is the command to kill gay people. What's your excuse for not following that command? And if it no longer applies, as I'm sure you'll create rationalization for, why is it that banning gay marriage does still apply, even though that isn't even a command?

Also, if your argument is that marriage is supposed to be a religious institution and that allowing gay marriage simply destroys the meaning of it, why isn't your position that individual churches should decide what marriage is? Otherwise, you are simply imposing one church upon all the others and negating separation of church and state.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage 2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy, pedophile marriage, ect.

Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:21:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage

Wut

2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy,

So?

pedophile marriage, ect.

Wut

Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:22:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So this is the FREEDO I've heard so little about....something about a vortex....;)

So you're a joint smokin nun? Cool!

I have no opposition to Gay marriage.....love, respect and mutual support between to people is just that. May God bless them even more in their union.

And if some one has a problem with similar body parts.....who the heck do hermaphrodites marry? Themselves? Another herm? And you think you have a problem finding some one you can live with for the rest of your life?

Me thinks the nay-sayers are chewing hard on the fruit of the knowledge (judgement) of good and evil....
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:25:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:21:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage

Wut

2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy,

So?

pedophile marriage, ect.

Wut

Well, if we eventually get to the whole, maybe twelve year olds can think for themselves deal.....I wouldn't be surprised.

And, not saying I agreed with these, but I'm just throwing some out there.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:25:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am agnostic
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
9/20/2012 11:28:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:25:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:21:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage

Wut

Depends on your view. The current regulations (no-fault divorce) already do that. The argument he states two wrongs dont make a right, and the the extra law makes things WORSE. That is true based on a 2006 study: http://www.law.harvard.edu...


2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy,

So?

pedophile marriage, ect.

Wut

Pedophilia is a fringe part of the gay crusade and the point is if you define marriage between two loving individuals the pedophiles now have a case.


Well, if we eventually get to the whole, maybe twelve year olds can think for themselves deal.....I wouldn't be surprised.

And, not saying I agreed with these, but I'm just throwing some out there.

I dont support either of the arguments as a whole above, by the way.
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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:29:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:25:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:21:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage

Wut

2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy,

So?

pedophile marriage, ect.

Wut

Well, if we eventually get to the whole, maybe twelve year olds can think for themselves deal.....I wouldn't be surprised.

that doesn't establish any causal link, nor does it detract from the validity of allowing gays to marry. I don't really get it. "Oh ma gawd if we recognize that these consenting adults love each other and deserve recognition then why not just let old men fvck 7 year olds?"

And, not saying I agreed with these, but I'm just throwing some out there.

Kewl.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:33:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:28:42 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:25:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:21:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage

Wut

Depends on your view. The current regulations (no-fault divorce) already do that. The argument he states two wrongs dont make a right, and the the extra law makes things WORSE. That is true based on a 2006 study: http://www.law.harvard.edu...

That only follows if you define marriage as its been defined in just the last few hundred years or so. Why not say the same thing about arranged weddings? Point is taking tradition to be ultimately perfect in every respect is kinda retarded.


2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy,

So?

pedophile marriage, ect.

Wut

Pedophilia is a fringe part of the gay crusade and the point is if you define marriage between two loving individuals the pedophiles now have a case.

The "gay crusade"? And I don't think the point is that marriage is between two loving individuals (I don't think it has to be two and I don't think one has to be in love). The point is that marriage is between consenting adults i.e., someone capable of entering into a contractual relationship. You know, not kids or turtles or trees.


Well, if we eventually get to the whole, maybe twelve year olds can think for themselves deal.....I wouldn't be surprised.

And, not saying I agreed with these, but I'm just throwing some out there.

I dont support either of the arguments as a whole above, by the way.

K.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:33:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:29:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:25:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:21:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage

Wut

2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy,

So?

pedophile marriage, ect.

Wut

Well, if we eventually get to the whole, maybe twelve year olds can think for themselves deal.....I wouldn't be surprised.

that doesn't establish any causal link, nor does it detract from the validity of allowing gays to marry. I don't really get it. "Oh ma gawd if we recognize that these consenting adults love each other and deserve recognition then why not just let old men fvck 7 year olds?"

http://www.nambla.org...


And, not saying I agreed with these, but I'm just throwing some out there.

Kewl.
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
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:34:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage

This is a religious argument.

2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy, pedophile marriage, ect.

Alright. I guess that's one. As misguided as it is.

Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zaradi
Posts: 14,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:37:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm surprised 16k hasn't brought up his horrible procreation argument. It's, arguably, the most well-known secular argument against gay marriage.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:37:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even granting that gay marriage is somehow some monstrous form of sacrilege (which I don't grant for a second, btw) I don't understand why more Christians just don't follow the venerable C.S. Lewis in this?

"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:33:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:29:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:25:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:

Well, if we eventually get to the whole, maybe twelve year olds can think for themselves deal.....I wouldn't be surprised.

that doesn't establish any causal link, nor does it detract from the validity of allowing gays to marry. I don't really get it. "Oh ma gawd if we recognize that these consenting adults love each other and deserve recognition then why not just let old men fvck 7 year olds?"

http://www.nambla.org...

Duuuude where's the causal link? Where's the causal link between recognizing two consenting dudes or chicks who like to get down and some pervy old dude hitting on a little kid?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:34:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage

This is a religious argument.


It could easily be an atheist one as well. Its not exclusively religious.

2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy, pedophile marriage, ect.

Alright. I guess that's one. As misguided as it is.

Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:43:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:37:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Even granting that gay marriage is somehow some monstrous form of sacrilege (which I don't grant for a second, btw) I don't understand why more Christians just don't follow the venerable C.S. Lewis in this?

"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

Very nice.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:44:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:39:29 PM, OberHerr wrote:
It could easily be an atheist one as well. Its not exclusively religious.

Explain to me how.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:47:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:44:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:39:29 PM, OberHerr wrote:
It could easily be an atheist one as well. Its not exclusively religious.

Explain to me how.

If an Atheist thought of marriage as a institution that should not be changed? I mean, explain to me how its exclusively theistic view.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:48:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:20:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
There are several non-religious based arguments. Whether or not they are good...

1. It will destroy the institution of marriage
Utter and total destruction....by showing up the straights in a better divorce rate percentage? Oh snap!

2. it will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy, pedophile marriage, ect.

You forgot bestiality, fecophilia, newport news and walla walla washington

Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.

You must have a very small head.....;P
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:52:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:37:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Even granting that gay marriage is somehow some monstrous form of sacrilege (which I don't grant for a second, btw) I don't understand why more Christians just don't follow the venerable C.S. Lewis in this?

"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

Yeah, this is a good example of how I feel. I put my foot down on a couple issues, but not many.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:55:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:47:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:44:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:39:29 PM, OberHerr wrote:
It could easily be an atheist one as well. Its not exclusively religious.

Explain to me how.

If an Atheist thought of marriage as a institution that should not be changed? I mean, explain to me how its exclusively theistic view.

Marriage is either a religious institution or not. If it is, there are grounds for it being corrupted based on gay marriage. If not, there is no grounds. One would have to make up some ridiculous rationalization that I've never heard before.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:09:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:13:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Here is the passages. Say's nothing of killing them. Just that it is a error.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

There is one major argument that is not religious also.
1) It can not be natural physically created.
We are of course naturally evil. This is why I put adultry, porno and lust as the same as homosexuality.
There are men and women, that is the natural creation of human's. If it was nature to be homosexuals or any variance then we would be both sex's.
TheAsylum
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:16:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 12:09:53 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:13:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Here is the passages. Say's nothing of killing them. Just that it is a error.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

It's a good thing the above quote mentioned marriage or it would be totes irrelevant to the OP.

There is one major argument that is not religious also.
1) It can not be natural physically created.
We are of course naturally evil.

Of course.

This is why I put adultry, porno and lust as the same as homosexuality.

Adultery might not be cool since marriage is technically a contract but the rest of that stuff seems aight.

There are men and women, that is the natural creation of human's. If it was nature to be homosexuals or any variance then we would be both sex's.

What is natural =/= what is moral and what is unnatural =/= what is immoral. Btw how do you define natural anyways? Like if gay people chose to be gay it would be unnatural. I've got some bad news bro, you can't choose that. Go ahead. Try.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:18:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:52:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:37:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Even granting that gay marriage is somehow some monstrous form of sacrilege (which I don't grant for a second, btw) I don't understand why more Christians just don't follow the venerable C.S. Lewis in this?

"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

Yeah, this is a good example of how I feel. I put my foot down on a couple issues, but not many.

So in your eyes it only makes you a little hypocritical and malevolent, amiright?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:19:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 12:09:53 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:13:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Here is the passages. Say's nothing of killing them. Just that it is a error.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

There is one major argument that is not religious also.
1) It can not be natural physically created.
We are of course naturally evil. This is why I put adultry, porno and lust as the same as homosexuality.
There are men and women, that is the natural creation of human's. If it was nature to be homosexuals or any variance then we would be both sex's.

Those verses say nothing about condemning gay marriage. All it does is present the scientifically invalid idea of Paul's that homosexuality is unnatural.

Though I'll give you props for even finding that, cause I haven't seen these verses before. Doesn't surprise me that it's Paul. He was a scumbag. Funny how he seems to always pull his own teachings out of his ass without any recorded guidance from Jesus.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:23:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 12:16:20 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I've got some bad news bro, you can't choose that. Go ahead. Try.:
No need, you did for me! "Like if gay people chose to be gay it would be unnatural."
I know we all are sexual deviants in some form or fashion. Homosexuals are not different. They get a bad wrap, not that it is ok, but that others hide their own and seek to through it on the homosexuals.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:40:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 12:19:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

Those verses say nothing about condemning gay marriage. All it does is present the scientifically invalid idea of Paul's that homosexuality is unnatural.

Though I'll give you props for even finding that, cause I haven't seen these verses before. Doesn't surprise me that it's Paul. He was a scumbag. Funny how he seems to always pull his own teachings out of his ass without any recorded guidance from Jesus.

Wow, say's Freedo, the DDO moral expert.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
TheAsylum
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 12:52:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 12:40:18 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/21/2012 12:19:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

Those verses say nothing about condemning gay marriage. All it does is present the scientifically invalid idea of Paul's that homosexuality is unnatural.

Though I'll give you props for even finding that, cause I haven't seen these verses before. Doesn't surprise me that it's Paul. He was a scumbag. Funny how he seems to always pull his own teachings out of his ass without any recorded guidance from Jesus.

Wow, say's Freedo, the DDO moral expert.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Are you trying to tell me that you want my body?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 1:07:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 12:52:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/21/2012 12:40:18 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

Are you trying to tell me that you want my body?

ROFL! No, Freedo!
TheAsylum