I support same sex marriage after reviewing the evidence for it. Here is why. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News, And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

I support same sex marriage after reviewing the evidence for it. Here is why.
in Religion

By YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 160 Pts edited July 19
https://www.gaychristian101.com/ I put this in the religion section because I will be discussing religion as well as politics. I met with my job coach today who quote sounded like he was gay. He is a human, so he should have legal protections for his God given rights. I am bisexual, and knew I was different when I was about 13. I did not choose to be this way, and the consenting adult human I happen to love is between my spouse and the person officiating my wedding and Jesus. Marriage is a human right. Why should I feel unsafe or dirty because of the adult that consents to marry me. Show me your objections, every last one of them, and I will disprove them with facts, evidence, and logic. Don't believe me, believe the link I have provided, and review further evidence I will provide for you. I am addressing Jews and my fellow Christians, but will engage anyone who wants to speak with me. One final question: If I am wrong, is God cruel that He would cast me into Hell forever that i am unable to refute the evidence I have read and watched? No. Jesus is a loving God and He knows that I am not. Please click the link I have provided as my introductory evidence, an no lying or attacking anyone, please. Just be respectful, and present your views.


George_HorseAgility_Dude
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 636 Pts
    There are two levels of the subject of same sex marriage that I would like to address from my libertarian point of view.

    1. Whether same sex marriage should be legal or not depends on what we see as a purpose of marriage. I personally have always seen marriage as a state- or church-supervised contract between two people who love each other. In this case, the important fact is the presence of love between the two people, and their gender does not play any role in this aspect, hence should not be a factor. 
    On the other hand, someone else may see marriage as an agreement to pursue the matter to and beyond child conception and birth. In this case, legalizing same-sex marriage, or marriage between a man and a woman who cannot give birth, would be counter-productive, because those types of couples cannot conceive a child.
    Finally, one may take a stance that marriage serves some purpose unknown to us, but known to the authors of one of the religious books. In this case, what types of marriage should be legal and what not will be determined by the guidelines in that book.

    2. I see marriage in itself as an outdated concept, from the dark times when every breath a person takes has to first be approved by their lord who owns their lives. Nowadays a couple should not have to register their relationship with a government or a church; simply loving each other is enough. I would like to see marriage de-officialized, and wedding as a mere legally not biding tradition.
    Polaris95Applesauce
  • @YeshuaBought

    You cannot be a Christian. It's impossible. You're bisexual. Scripture calls homosexuality an abomination unto God. Yes, I know you said bisexual. They are the same thing in God's eyes. A man having sex with another man. Nope. No way you're a Christian. Repent and be saved!
    YeshuaBoughtPolaris95George_Horsewith_all_humilityApplesauce
  • @MayCaesar For me, marriage is when two lovers want to spend their lives togather, but I generally think the government should neither prmote nor oppose it, but allow adults to make their own choices. Is that what you are saying?
    George_Horsepiloteer
  • @Mr_Bombastic Did you review my evidence before you spewed your no true Scotsman fallacy. Don't be too scared to say why you object. Go on, prove me wrong.
    George_Horse
  • @YeshuaBought
    The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. I don't care about your "evidence" Scripture disagrees with all of it.
    with_all_humilityGeorge_Horse
  • @Mr_Bombastic ; Prove it using the KJV or NRSV. 
    George_Horse
  • https://www.allaboutgod.com/is-homosexuality-a-sin.htm

    Here's your proof. Of course, you'll probably just ignore it.
    George_Horse
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 636 Pts
    @MayCaesar For me, marriage is when two lovers want to spend their lives togather, but I generally think the government should neither prmote nor oppose it, but allow adults to make their own choices. Is that what you are saying?
    Essentially, yes. I do not generally approve of such lines of reasoning as "These two people love each other and want to spend their lives together. Here is the certificate stating that we officially acknowledge this fact". This simply should not be the government's business, in my opinion.

    Especially since, in theory, the bond does not have to be between necessarily two people. There are love triangles, there are swingers, there are people with multiple lovers who are not lovers in between themselves... There is such variety in the ways that love and desire to maintain the relationship forever may manifest, that limiting the official recognition to purely recognizing secular couples is unnecessarily restrictive.
  • @Mr_Bombastic You ignored my evidence, so why should I care about your subjective opinion, and you don't have the right to dictate whether I am a Christian or not, only Jesus does who is my number one true love and reason for living. If you said "I disagree wiuth you, but" instead of using the no true Scotsman fallacy, I would respect you, but you crossed the line, and are a petulant troll.
    George_Horse
  • @YeshuaBought
    I showed you what Scripture says about homosexuality. If you are a practicing homosexuality you cannot be a Christian. Nothing you say will ever change that. God calls homosexuality an abomination. That's a fact. Deal with it.
  • @Mr_Bombastic
    The bible is a book of fictional stories written by men. Religion was created as a guideline for particular morals.
    Polaris95
  • pocopoco 88 Pts
    You:You cannot be a Christian. It's impossible. You're bisexual. Scripture calls homosexuality an abomination unto God. Yes, I know you said bisexual. They are the same thing in God's eyes. A man having sex with another man. Nope. No way you're a Christian. Repent and be saved! YeshuaBought


    me:  All sin is an abomination to God, so please do  not differentiate between sins bc God/Jesus never had. 

    Does everyone sin?  Yes.  If we accept Jesus we are saved & will attain heavenly reward.  There is no stipulation on what life we led b4.  We confess our sins to God & we are cleansed from them.  Then we start the whole process over again.  The Holy Spirit leads us to a renewed life.  But to say a bisexual is any different than a cheating spouse is ridiculous.  Sexual sin is sexual sin ...... & all sin is sin ..... & all sin is what we repent from. 

    Are you not doing the exact opposite of what Jesus told us by judging the person you are telling they cannot be a Christian?  Nobody knows what another person's heart has in it.  Only God knows this. 
    WordsMatterFaustianJustice
  • @YeshuaBought
    Can you imagine Jesus engaging in a homosexual act? If you answer no, that should tell you something. If you answer yes, then you are not a Christian.
  • @poco
    First of all, he has not repented, because he is a practicing homo.
    Second, homosexuality is a perversion of what God intended.
    So no. He can't possibly be a Christian.
    with_all_humility
  • https://www.gaychristian101.com/ I put this in the religion section because I will be discussing religion as well as politics. I met with my job coach today who quote sounded like he was gay. He is a human, so he should have legal protections for his God given rights. I am bisexual, and knew I was different when I was about 13. I did not choose to be this way, and the consenting adult human I happen to love is between my spouse and the person officiating my wedding and Jesus. Marriage is a human right. Why should I feel unsafe or dirty because of the adult that consents to marry me. Show me your objections, every last one of them, and I will disprove them with facts, evidence, and logic. Don't believe me, believe the link I have provided, and review further evidence I will provide for you. I am addressing Jews and my fellow Christians, but will engage anyone who wants to speak with me. One final question: If I am wrong, is God cruel that He would cast me into Hell forever that i am unable to refute the evidence I have read and watched? No. Jesus is a loving God and He knows that I am not. Please click the link I have provided as my introductory evidence, an no lying or attacking anyone, please. Just be respectful, and present your views.
    You state "Marriage is a human right" how do you conclude that?  Please examine the following scriptures.  
    • Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
    • When asked about marriage Jesus said this...Mat 19:3-6  And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”  He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 
    So after the creation of Adam and Eve, Gon instituted marriage between men and women.  There was not an Adam and Steve and this was instituted long before the left-leaning Supreme Court ruling a few years ago.  So, marriage is not a human right, but a God-given Right or a divine institution. 

    Jesus said if you love him you would follow all of his commandments (Jn 14.2)

    You ask "is God cruel"...No God in not cruel but He is a just God and cannot be associated with iniquity or unrepentant sin. 

    So bring disprove me yours with facts, evidence, and logic.  Oh, by the way, is the logic of man or is it the wisdom of the scriptures?  
    George_Horse
  • @Mr_Bombastic

    You state "For me, marriage is when two lovers want to spend their lives together, but I generally think the government should neither promote nor oppose it, but allow adults to make their own choices. Is that what you are saying?"

    Since when do we interpret God word to fit our own situation.  You don't say the bible says...you state "For me marriage is..."  This is blasphemy, know you are telling God He is wrong and you are right. WOW!
  • @with_all_humility
    I believe you are replying to the wrong person.
  • pocopoco 88 Pts
    a practicing homo .... sure it's sin, but don't we all sin each day the same way, only our version of practicing whatever we do wrong ..... while working to better ourselves to get out of sin ........ which is pretty much impossible. 

    Repenting, means working on changing ourselves from a sinful life.  Key word is 'working.' 

    Yes, it's also a perversion of what God intended.  But that does not make it any worse of a sin than the next sin.  All sin is a perversion of what God intended ..... also an abomination in God's eyes. 

    All I'm trying to get you to see is leave judging to God, while you pray for this person.  He/she may be exactly what you claim, but all you're showing is a typical "Christian self-righteous" judgement, which only pushes people away.  Are we not to judge, & treat others with love?
  • pocopoco 88 Pts
    If you can prove your statement re the bible being a fictional book, since this is what you have stated here, by all means, the floor is yours.  If you're successful, then you'll make millions on the talk show circuit.  Have at it.
  • The problem is Marriage is not a human right it is a United State Constitutional right. The United State of the likely-hood is made between a man and woman. To get right to the point the plagiarism that was started publicly ends as a perjury in a Court of law or witness account on license. The criminal act Perjury is committed as a united state as the witness has been instructed what to say against there will for simply being unable to prove one of the hardest crimes to prove in the world.

    The licensing of Marriage was based on the introduction of citizen by way of child birth to a Nation. A witness has a United State Constitutional right which supersedes human right as the united State is not to be forced to commit crime but witness truth in an impartial way.

    It is our United States Constitutional right to file grievance and to express a common defense to the general welfare by describing private likely-hoods as seen. Binivir and UnosMulier this protection of right can go even farther by saying a couple who has devoiced is still married and the second union of state was VirMulier. As this would clear the likely-hood for slander created against it by the misuse of plagiarism by state and the public.

    ethang5
  • The question should not be how you feel about gay marriage, but whether gay marriage is good or bad for society.
    This way a person avoids the fallacy of approving or condemning something based on their personal tastes.
  • Hmmmmm, you're Christian, yet bisexual, looks like you're not going to heaven!

    "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)" 


    Nathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @etgang5

    I do not think that whether a given action is good or bad for the society should define whether it should or should not be permitted, however; this would be a very harsh restrictive system. For example:
    • Smoking is bad for the society => smoking should be banned.
    • Alcohol is bad for the society => alcohol should be banned.
    • Coca-cola is bad for the society => Coca-cola should be banned.
    Aside from the difficulty of enforcing such restrictive policies, they would just lead to a very bland and monotonous society. Some things that are bad for the society actually make living in that society more and interesting. Indulgence to our flaws is one of the things that defines our diversity and uniqueness!

    I think, rather, that the answer should be defined by whether a certain policy leads to violations of human rights. For example, murder definitely should not be allowed, since murdering a person violates their right to live. But, for example, drinking beer should be allowed, since, while beer is harmful for the society, drinking beer is something the person does to themselves, not to others. Now, their actions when under the influence of alcohol may violate other people's rights, and those actions should not be permitted - but drinking beer in itself should.

    ---

    From this point of view, homosexual marriages definitely should be permitted. It is a matter of consent between two people, and it does not infringe on anyone's rights. It does hurt some people's feelings, of course, but nobody has a right to not have to feel hurt over violation of some ancient religious dogma.
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    We already restrict actions based on it's perceived effect on society. Smoking has been banned based on the negative effects of second hand smoke on others. This may be harsh but necessary for the good of society as a whole.

    Additionally, you are simply wrong about alcohol. Drunk drivers kill hundreds of people every year. And sugary drinks causes societal harm by harming health and increasing healthcare costs.

    But an action can have degrees of permission. It need not be prohibited outright in every case, as it is with smoking.

    While I agree that indulging our flaws may sometimes make life more interesting, who will decide which flaw is acceptable? What happens when people disagree on whether a "flaw" is too bad to be indulged?

    Your argument fails with alcohol, because prohibiting actions while on alcohol is useless when alcohol is a drug that reduces a person's ability to make sensible decisions.

    You have stated that homosexual marriages hurt no one, but that is just a bald assertion. The family is the core building block on which societies form all other structures of human interaction.

    Marriages can bring in children, and marriages have legal and societal implications for other people. Gay marriages have great potential to harm others.

    What is the effective distinction between a policy that harms society and a policy that violates human rights? It seems to be a difference without a difference.

    Finally, I have no idea what your comment about ancient religious dogma means or why you felt the need to voice it. Did I mention religion? Did any of my points in support of my position use religion or dogma?

    Basically, all you've done here is state your personal opinion and dressed it up as a as a logical argument. It isn't.
    George_Horsewith_all_humilityetgang5
  • The problem with changing the definition of commonly understood terms is where do you draw the line?  What does the term "marriage" mean now?  Why did it need to be changed?
    with_all_humility
  • @YeshuaBought:

    I am an atheist, as you already know, but I still disagree with the act of homosexuality itself, or rather gay marriage. When we look at the intent of marriage traditionally, it has been to have a child, correct? Two people usually of the opposite sex getting together to have a child. It has been commonly known that the absence of a mother or a father in a child's life can cause negative mental health effects. So if a man and a man getting married to have a child have a child, it will cause very negative mental health effects to the child due to the absence of a mother in that situation. That is the problem. I respect you, and understand that you are trying to make the world a better place don't get me wrong, I just think that your beliefs are incorrect ones.

    Now the question has to be asked: Should the child be put before the parents or not? If yes, then homosexuality is a bad thing, but if not, than maybe it is a good thing. I believe that a healthy child is better then two adults with hearts potentially broken. What do you think?
  • @MayCaesar

    Yes, we do restrict a lot of actions based on the arguments such as "This action will urge others to act the same, destabilizing the society" - which is wrong, since it violates such a fundamental concept in any modern legal system, as presumption of innocence. Just because something "might" cause harm, does not mean it will. When it does, then the perpetuator should be persecuted; not just because "it could". Otherwise we might as well just jail every single person in the world, because every person "could", in theory, commit a crime for a number of reasons.

    We restrict smoking, because fumes from cigarettes directly affect people's inhalation system. We also restrict driving while drunk, because we know that drunk drivers do not maintain control over their vehicles well. However, we do not restrict smoking in a specially designated place, or drinking in a bar, because those actions are private, they do not infringe on anyone's rights.

    Two males getting married do not infringe on your rights, they do not affect your family in any way. Marriage is people's private business, it does not affect directly anyone but them. Your marriage can just as well lead to childbirth and traditional family as before; there is no reason to restrict other people's legal relationships to not harm your marriage.

    If you ask me, however, I think all marriages should be a thing of the past. "We need a legal document that we love each other and want to live together" makes little sense. It is like getting a certificate stating that you like coffee, or that you exercise regularly. You can just do these things, you do not need an official approval of it.

  • edited August 6
    @MayCaesar For me, marriage is when two lovers want to spend their lives togather, but I generally think the government should neither prmote nor oppose it, but allow adults to make their own choices. Is that what you are saying?
    YeshuaBought:

    Your first error is when you stated: "For me..." If you call yourself a Christian then you should know that marriage is a convent relationship established by God and therefore a divine institution.  Consider the following verses...

    Mat 5.31-32:  "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'  But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

    • Notice Christ is speaking of marriage here and speaks of what constitutes a rightful divorce in God's eye.   Next, examine Mat 19.
    Mat 19.1-10:  Now it came to pass when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.  And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.  The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"  And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,' and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?  So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

    They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"  He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning, it was not so.  And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."  His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
    • Note here Jesus is quoting from the Old Testament in Gen 2.24 to be exact "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." This is God instituting marriage between man and woman.  Nowhere is ever recorded that God blessed the union between male and male or female and female. There are several scriptures that actually speaks against relations with the same sex. Leviticus 18.22, 1 Corinthians 6.9-11, 1 Timothy 1.8-11 and Rom 1.26-32
    So as you can see from the scriptures marriage is not a man-made thing, but divine institution brought into existence by God Himself.  So it does not matter what you think or what I think.  


    etgang5
  • MayCaesar said:
    @MayCaesar

    Yes, we do restrict a lot of actions based on the arguments such as "This action will urge others to act the same, destabilizing the society" - which is wrong, since it violates such a fundamental concept in any modern legal system, as presumption of innocence.

     Just because something "might" cause harm, does not mean it will. When it does, then the perpetuator should be persecuted; not just because "it could". Otherwise we might as well just jail every single person in the world, because every person "could", in theory, commit a crime for a number of reasons.

    We restrict smoking, because fumes from cigarettes directly affect people's inhalation system. We also restrict driving while drunk, because we know that drunk drivers do not maintain control over their vehicles well. However, we do not restrict smoking in a specially designated place, or drinking in a bar, because those actions are private, they do not infringe on anyone's rights.

    Two males getting married do not infringe on your rights, they do not affect your family in any way. Marriage is people's private business, it does not affect directly anyone but them. Your marriage can just as well lead to childbirth and traditional family as before; there is no reason to restrict other people's legal relationships to not harm your marriage.

    If you ask me, however, I think all marriages should be a thing of the past. "We need a legal document that we love each other and want to live together" makes little sense. It is like getting a certificate stating that you like coffee, or that you exercise regularly. You can just do these things, you do not need an official approval of it.

    I'm sorry, but you are just not correct. Smoking and and alcohol restrictions have been upheld in courts for years. They violate no legal principle.

    That a thing might cause harm, and therefore provisions made to mitigate that possibility, is sensible governing that occurs in most societies everyday.

    Thank you for your conceding that smoking and alcohol can appropriately and legally be restricted under certain conditions in the interest of society.

    Again sorry, but marriage is more than just private business. Marriage has moral, societal, and legal implications for more than just the two getting married. If one partner dies, does the other partner assume their debt? If two men have a toddler daughter, which restroom do they use? What do children say on official forms asking for mother?

    Notice that there are restrictions on traditional marriage. One may not marry his sister, or marry more than one person, or marry a person without their consent. The concept of restrictions on marriage to limit potential damage to society is already in effect, and is not only legal, but often sensible.

    Whether you like coffee or whether you exercise are not equivalent to marriage. A marriage involves at least one other person, and often several other people, some of whom may be infants.

    Given these things, I think it would be prudent and in the interest of society to consider certain restrictions on homosexual marriage.
  • JoesephJoeseph 481 Pts
    Well if that’s the case you cannot proclaim to be a Christian , and if so why ? 

    I’m an Atheist and personally I do not care about people’s sexuality but I do like the fact that at least people proclaiming to be Christian are at least consistent in rejecting the idea that the Bible, God and  Jesus would have supported your assertions regarding same sex marriage . 
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    What assertions are those?
  • JoesephJoeseph 481 Pts
    @ethang5

    assertion
    əˈsəːʃ(ə)n/
    noun
    1. a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
      "his assertion that his father had deserted the family"
      synonyms:declaration, contention, statement, claim, submission, postulation, averment, opinion, proclamation, announcement, pronouncement, assurance, attestation, affirmation, protestation, profession, swearing, insistence, avowal; More
      • the action of asserting something.
        "the assertion of his legal rights"
        synonyms:defence, upholding; 
        insistence on
        "the demonstration was a principled assertion of the right to march"

        Maybe you need to read that definition and then the opening statement for “ enlightenment “ on the matter ? 
  • @etgang5

    Just because something is the case right now, does not mean it is reasonable. "Some restrictions already exist" is an acknowledgment of the current (non-ideal) situation; it is not an argument in favor of reasonability of those restrictions.

    Smoking and alcohol, just like everything else, can and should be restricted when a related action constituted violation of other people's rights. When I smoke in public, other individuals are forced to inhale the fumes, which harms their health without their consent - it is essentially a passive form of violence. But when I smoke in a smoking-allowed bar, I do not infringe on anyone's rights, since everyone entering that bar has consented on the possibility of having to inhale cigarette fumes. Same with alcohol: I cannot drive while intoxicated, because I do not maintain control of my vehicle then and I endanger other people's right to live - but I can drink with my friends on a party, where everyone has consented on the possible consequences of drinking.

    Marriage is a private voluntary contract. Yes, marriage affects both partners - that is why they have to sign a consensual form before the marriage occurs. Marriage does not infringe on the rights of anyone, unless you are talking about a forced marriage - which is, for that exact reason, outlawed.
    As for adoption, it is governed by a separate set of laws (since the adopted child cannot give consent, obviously), and there the gender of the parents may be considered (there is an argument to be made, for example, that a child needs both a father and a mother for the best parental education - I disagree with this argument, but it does have its points).

    I argue that the law should be based on guaranteeing individual human rights and nothing more. In case when the rights of individuals are in conflict, they are free to sign a consensual contract that resolves that conflict via compromise. What other people consider "appropriate", "just", "logical" or whatever should not be a part of the equation. 
  • I don't think there is much doubt that homosexuality is defined as a sin in Christianity, The question is whether it should therefore be a secular crime.  Blurring the distinction between 'sin' and 'crime' is the mark of a theocracy; keeping them distinct is the sign of the proper seperation of church and state.

    That is to say the state cannot define what is a sin and the church cannot define what is a crime.









    WordsMatter
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    @Joeseph ;

    I did not ask for a definition of "assertion",  I asked for what  assertion you thought I was  making.

    And why would whether Jesus agreed or not with me matter here?
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Sorry then, for I fail to see what "evidence" you reviewed that brought you to you to your conclusion. Your claim that marriage affects no one but the married couple has been refuted. 

    You posted opinions, not evidence.
  • I don't think there is much doubt that homosexuality is defined as a sin in Christianity, The question is whether it should therefore be a secular crime.  Blurring the distinction between 'sin' and 'crime' is the mark of a theocracy; keeping them distinct is the sign of the proper seperation of church and state.

    That is to say the state cannot define what is a sin and the church cannot define what is a crime.


    The issue is the crime is unrelated to sin and the civil challenge of the 1980 was for the public to identify the crime as an unprotected or fanatically compilated dependent of the judicial council. Lets start with the basic question is Marriage publicly plagiarized?







  • JoesephJoeseph 481 Pts
    @ethang5

    I addressed the poster of this motion  are you them ? 
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    Yes I am. You defined assertion for me. I did not ask for a definition. I asked what assertions you thought I had made, and why Jesus had anything to do with them. @Joeseph
  • JoesephJoeseph 481 Pts


    Why do you have 2 accounts ?  You obviously don’t know the meaning of the term “assertion “ thus my definition your whole post is full of assertions , where did I say Jesus had anything to do with them ? 

    Are you saing Jesus approved of homosexuality and lesbianism ?
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    @Joeseph ;
    If you think my post was full of assertions, whether Jesus agrees with them or not is immaterial.

    I have said nothing about Jesus or homosexuality this entire thread, so I have no clue what you are asking.

    If you disagree with any assertion you think I've made, point it out.
  • JoesephJoeseph 481 Pts

    You say .....If you think my post was full of assertions,

    My reply ..... I don’t think , I know you obviously don’t 

    You say ...... whether Jesus agrees with them or not is immaterial.

    My reply ..... So it doesn’t matter what Jesus thinks regards same sex marriage ?  I agree but then again I’m an atheist , do you think Jesus was in favour as this would disagree with God the father on the matter 

    You say .....I have said nothing about Jesus or homosexuality this entire thread, so I have no clue what you are asking.

    My reply ..... My statement was too the point why is it so difficult for you ? 

    You say .....If you disagree with any assertion you think I've made, point it out.

    My reply ..... You cannot claim to be a Christian and believe same sex marriage is acceptable going on Christian teachings , is that clear enough for you ? 
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    @Joeseph

    Thanks for telling me that "You don't think" It is evident in your post.

    I am not debating Jesus, or about Jesus. For the purposes of this argument, what anyone else thinks of my argument is immaterial. Take my points on their value.

    Perhaps English is a second language for you, but I do not understand why you are inserting Jesus into the debate or what you think I should do about your question about whether He agrees or not.

    I did not claim to be a Christian. Where did you see me make that claim?

    I also did not claim that same sex marriage is acceptable going on Christian teachings. Where did you see me make that claim?

    Perhaps you are confused about whom you are debating. Please stick to what I say and not what you imagine. Thanks.
    Erfisflat
  • JoesephJoeseph 481 Pts
    Prehaps comprehension is like a second language too you , I asked were your the poster of this debate you said “ yes “ yet it’s says it’s by @YeshuaBought ;
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    OK. You are confused about whom you are debating. YeshuaBought is over there. Have a good day.
  • If a gay Christian doesn't want to marry vecause they think it is a sin then no one is going to force them!   It seems to me like making it a jailable offence for a Jew to eat pork.

  • I believe that marriage is between a man and woman, like how God intended (even though I'm not Christian but atheist). Its just natural.
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • Jesus was effectively an ancient version of a hippie. While he might not have had many thoughts with regards to homosexuality (and, very possibly, he may have had a somewhat negative opinion on that, since that was the dominant views at his time that those people were cursed or severely ill) - his "Love and forgive everyone" would definitely apply here. Jesus might not have thought that gays and lesbians are just as fine as heterosexual men and women, but he did think that, regardless of who you are and your views, you deserve love and understanding.

    I seriously doubt that Jesus would be against a same-sex marriage even at his time, let alone nowadays. It is another matter that in Christianity Jesus was merely a prophet, not the authority, and his views may have differed from those of the God on some matters.

    That is, at least, my interpretation. I have never read the Bible aside from a few selected chapters, so I do not know very well how Jesus depicted there and what exactly status in the Biblical world view he has.
  • JoesephJoeseph 481 Pts
    @ethang5

    But admitted you were @yeshuabought now  you’re denying it, make your mind up will you ? 
  • ethang5ethang5 50 Pts
    I wrote,

    "OK. You are confused about whom you are debating. YeshuaBought is over there. Have a good day."

    I am not YeshuaBought. Would it help if I wrote it in Arabic for you? أنا لست يشوع.  Did that help?

    I'm here to debate. The topic is same sex marriage. Do you have anything pertinent to contribute?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch