gay marriage

[yummynbeefy]

today in algebra 2 this gay kid in my class got us off topic and started discussing gay marriage whether we approve or not approve

to my suprise maebe an eighth of the class said they approve
personally im fine with it w/e it doesnt affect me enough to go agenst it
what do you guys feel on it

 

[Aorist]

I certainly approve of homosexual marriage. Homosexual people should have the same rights as people or any orientation - be treated with equality.

This should definitely extend to marriage.

 

[Maniclysane]

Banning gay marriage won't stop gay people. I don't see what could come out of banning gay marriage.

 

[.Marik]

Banning gay marriage won't stop gay people. I don't see what could come out of banning gay marriage.

Or help the situation, either.

Yes. I'm fine with gay people getting married.

 

[Aorist]

Banning gay marriage won't stop gay people. I don't see what could come out of banning gay marriage.

Er, won't stop them what? Getting married?

It's not like drugs or something - you can't get a black market back-alley marriage. Marriage has certain legal ramifications, and it would become fairly evident if you were married illegally.

Precisely the reason it shouldn't be banned.

 

[CT Chia]

The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

While we can't base everything off of region for the sake of atheists or people who believe different things, marriage essentially started with the bible as it was even mentioned in over 500 passages. The reason for posting this quote though is because it was originally meant that man was not meant to be alone. While this may have been the original purpose of women in this passage, what if a man does not want to be alone with a woman, and instead another man? To each his own. Many people aren't that way (including myself), but there's no denying that there are gay people out there who would like to spend their life this way.

Marriage, since it's inception, has grown to be very important dealing with various benefits financially, being a social status, etc. A gay couple should certainly benefit the same way, however I would be against them using the word "marriage." I feel people just want to want to get married for what it seems to be by today's standards. People have lost the original meaning of marriage, which was the union of a man and woman set forth by god.

 

[Aorist]

By dividing the name for gay marriage and straight marriage, what you are doing is calling "otherising". You are treating homosexuality as the "other", which has the effect of marginalising them. This may not seem bad to you, but it allows for discrimination to be that much easier.

If we separate marriage based on orientation, it will set a precedent. Why not have gay and straight toilets? Why not have gay people in jobs have a different job title? And so on.

Moreover, things can be appropriated for new things. Just because my book was originally intended for drawing in, doesn't mean I can't do my maths homework in it. Why is it that what it originally was is that important, anyway?

The road to equality is paved by inclusion, not exclusion.

 

[Maniclysane]

While we can't base everything off of region for the sake of atheists or people who believe different things, marriage essentially started with the bible as it was even mentioned in over 500 passages. The reason for posting this quote though is because it was originally meant that man was not meant to be alone. While this may have been the original purpose of women in this passage, what if a man does not want to be alone with a woman, and instead another man? To each his own. Many people aren't that way (including myself), but there's no denying that there are gay people out there who would like to spend their life this way.

Marriage, since it's inception, has grown to be very important dealing with various benefits financially, being a social status, etc. A gay couple should certainly benefit the same way, however I would be against them using the word "marriage." I feel people just want to want to get married for what it seems to be by today's standards. People have lost the original meaning of marriage, which was the union of a man and woman set forth by god.

Separation of church and state.

It does not matter what your holy writings say, they hold no ground on the government. People should be free from religious belief's set forth by others.

Telling me I cannot be married with another man, because the Bible says so, goes against separation of church and state. If you can provide reasons that are non-religious, then I will listen to them.

 

[Cheapless Jared]

Separation of church and state.

It does not matter what your holy writings say, they hold no ground on the government. People should be free from religious belief's set forth by others.

Telling me I cannot be married with another man, because the Bible says so, goes against separation of church and state. If you can provide reasons that are non-religious, then I will listen to them.

Two men married is an intrusion on a sacred bond that is supposed to be shared with loved ones. But, I suppose if they are actually in love with each other, and they aren't doing it for attention, or are gonna break up in a minute, then true love marriages should be allowed.

But usually, that's not the case.

 

[Aorist]

...Hang on. Did you just say that gay people aren't as likely to be in love as straight people?

And why, really, is two men (and why did you omit the case of two women?) an intrusion on a sacred bond that is "supposed to be shared with loved ones"?

EDIT: Also, try giving me a source on your assertion that homosexuals don't often have love. This is a debate, not a centre of opinion.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Two men married is an intrusion on a sacred bond that is supposed to be shared with loved ones. But, I suppose if they are actually in love with each other, and they aren't doing it for attention, or are gonna break up in a minute, then true love marriages should be allowed.

But usually, that's not the case.

What? You don't get married unless you love someone, and if you love someone, no matter your sexual orientation it should be legal for two people who are in love and want to get married then I don't see a good argument against it.

 

[.Marik]

A bit off topic, but people don't always marry each other out of love.

Greed is also a strong factor.

So in other words, people "claim" to love a particular individual only to reap financial gain.

But I love how people don't "approve" of gay marriage, when it has nothing to do with them.

 

[RDK]

MarikYoshi, try not to post your signature in here.

Two men married is an intrusion on a sacred bond that is supposed to be shared with loved ones. But, I suppose if they are actually in love with each other, and they aren't doing it for attention, or are gonna break up in a minute, then true love marriages should be allowed.

But usually, that's not the case.

If you're going to pretend to know whether or not every gay couple married for love, and not just for "attention", or so they can "break up in a minute" (whatever that even means), then the least you could do is provide some sources. Without hard data on this, you come off sounding like a pompous ***hole.

As Aorist said, this is the Debate Hall, not an opinion poll. Please try to stick to facts.

 

[fsdfsdgsgdf]

it's ok if it's 2 chicks getting married.

 

[RDK]

it's ok if it's 2 chicks getting married.

Who the hell let you in here?

 

[fsdfsdgsgdf]

Who the hell let you in here?

Make a topic, and we will debate about why i got let in here

 

[Maniclysane]

it's ok if it's 2 chicks getting married.

This made me lol, assuming it was a joke. You still shouldn't post jokes here.

If you were serious, then the debate hall isn't for you.

 

[.Marik]

I don't assume he was being serious.

I mean, you would have to be pretty ignorant to not be joking with a comment like that.

 

[fsdfsdgsgdf]

It was a joke guys

but in all seriousness, i don't believe in gay marriages. Religious reasons, so ill leave it at that.

 

[RazeveX]

It was a joke guys

but in all seriousness, i don't believe in gay marriages. Religious reasons, so ill leave it at that.

yeah, how about we all just "leave it at that", hey?

I mean, to hell with premises or reasons, right? Let's just state irrational conclusions as we please!

Seriously; from your recent posts, it seems like you've got a one way ticket out of here.

Personally, I'd love to debate this topic; but so far there's nothing to debate against. No one has yet supplied a reason why gay people should not be able to marry, or why sexual orientation should diminish one's rights.

Suspect, I think a good idea for you would be to reply with your reasons, much more in depth, for being against gay marriage. Then we can have a good ol' debate, yes?

 

[fsdfsdgsgdf]

why when it would then turn into a religious debate? seriously think before you speak.

all i can add on to that is "what my religion is, or falls under" and and maybe a few simple un needed opinions.

 

[Aorist]

I bet that all Christians can provide a number of reasons why we shouldn't lie or steal or murder. Despite it being part of their religion, there are bases for it.

Is your opinion completely baseless bar the fact you are told it is bad?

 

[Aesir]

why when it would then turn into a religious debate? seriously think before you speak.

What exactly is wrong with a religious debate? This is a proving grounds into the Debate hall, if you're not going to debate why did you even bother entering? This seems like a lot of work to just have a pink name.

So again either debate or stop spamming.

all i can add on to that is "what my religion is, or falls under" and and maybe a few simple un needed opinions.

You can offer opinions, you can offer whatever you like as evidence. So if it's against your religion to allow gay marriage you need to explain this and present it in a logical argument. Say "it's against my religion guys" isn't valid you need to explain this.

 

[Chis]

I bet that all Christians can provide a number of reasons why we should lie or steal or murder. Despite it being part of their religion, there are bases for it.

Excuse me, but what is this supposed to mean? Why would a Christian support murder and stealing?

Also I think this turning into a religious debate would be off topic.

 

[RDK]

Also I think this turning into a religious debate would be off topic.

The whole reason gay people aren't allowed to marry in some states right now is because of religious people who, for some reason, think it's immoral or bad or wrong. Religion is 100% relevant to this topic.

And as for using opinions as possible evidence in arguments--go ahead and post your opinions. Arguing is nothing but flinging your opinions at other people. It's the opponent's job to display your opinions as ridiculous, and / or vice versa.

 

[:mad:]

If everyone here is going to agree, what's there to debate about?

 

[Aorist]

Excuse me, but what is this supposed to mean? Why would a Christian support murder and stealing?

Also I think this turning into a religious debate would be off topic.

Spelling fail. I'll fix that up.

 

[Ryan Ludovic]

It was a joke guys

but in all seriousness, i don't believe in gay marriages. Religious reasons, so ill leave it at that.

It's hard to follow the rules of a former Nazi. But of course, why would the pope care about ratlines. I'm speaking of your pope, ofcourse. Do you know what his job is? To be God until God shows himself. He's the substitute teacher who thinks he/she can make the entire school-year rubric. A disgusting, hellbound, pompous fool whom is encrusted with diamonds and gold, stepping on the hands of the hungry, and saying he's God all the while. Of course, I'd gladly let him influence the governments choice. Smashing idea.

The issue here is not that Christianity or other religions disagree with homosexuality, but that the government does not disagree with religions. Consistancy and inconsistancy with religion is fine when it comes to the church and the state, however, when one is based off the other, as they often are, we are voiding the constitution, and we are soiling the holiness of ones religion. Homosexuals should not be allowed to be married in a christian church. Homosexuals should be allowed to be joined in marrige, however, seperate from the chrurch, as the country should still atleast pretend to offer equal rights.

Of course, that then becomes 'seperate but equal', and we know what an unjust hit that was.

Really, if you can provide reasons that arent biased off of prejudice of your own religion or sexuality, I'd really enjoy debating this one.

 

[Chis]

It's hard to follow the rules of a former Nazi. But of course, why would the pope care about ratlines. I'm speaking of your pope, ofcourse. Do you know what his job is? To be God until God shows himself. He's the substitute teacher who thinks he/she can make the entire school-year rubric. A disgusting, hellbound, pompous fool whom is encrusted with diamonds and gold, stepping on the hands of the hungry, and saying he's God all the while. Of course, I'd gladly let him influence the governments choice. Smashing idea.

The issue here is not that Christianity or other religions disagree with homosexuality, but that the government does not disagree with religions. Consistancy and inconsistancy with religion is fine when it comes to the church and the state, however, when one is based off the other, as they often are, we are voiding the constitution, and we are soiling the holiness of ones religion. Homosexuals should not be allowed to be married in a christian church. Homosexuals should be allowed to be joined in marrige, however, seperate from the chrurch, as the country should still atleast pretend to offer equal rights.

Of course, that then becomes 'seperate but equal', and we know what an unjust hit that was.

Really, if you can provide reasons that arent biased off of prejudice of your own religion or sexuality, I'd really enjoy debating this one.

First of, I don't see where he mentions the pope in that statement at all. The Pope is actually the successor of the founder of the 1st Church (Made by Peter), and is the leader of the catholic church. There are many 'kinds' of Christians, so making the assumption that he was catholic was wrong. Yeah, you really went to town to insult him, severed no purpose really.

Also can I get the source showing he was a Navi?

Furthermore, I've seen the bible. It's not their prejudice, it's their faith.

 

[Rain(ame)]

I don't agree with gay marriage at all. In the matter of this...it IS a situation where religion has a strong hold on it. Men were created to be with women. That was the way things were originally designed.

Taking note of what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, they were destroyed completely, because men had left the natural purposes of themselves. The term "sodomy" and it's other derivatives came from that city which was destroyed. It's not natural. The original purpose was for Man and WOMAN to fill the earth with offspring. Not Man and Man and not Woman and Woman. Neither of them are capable of producing children.

I personally am not going to protest on the streets and do anything else. I'm also not going to shun someone who has gone down the path of homosexuality, either. It's not my right to judge a person, so I won't. If I see a homosexual person I will not treat them any different than I treat heterosexual person. I don't condone their lifestyle, but who am I to treat a person rudely?


That being said...the separation of religion and state is not singularly a valid argument. You can't just say that and leave it as a reason to denote anyone who uses the bible in their reasoning. A lot of our own principles and addicts to live by are derived from the bible. Exiling a person after committing a crime as opposed to just killing them. That is imprisonment in its earliest form. That was instituted by god in the situation of Cain after he killed his Abel. It was kept as well, and used as an alternate for corporal punishment. Execution was also created in the bible. As was the judicial system. All of these things were recorded in the bible for a reason. In principle, the bible is applied to things we do today.

So what is separation of state and religion? It means that religion should not be involved in political matters between states. It should not be involved in war. In disputes, religion should not take sides, but rather stay neutral. The crusades are the precise reason why Religion and State should not mix. What happened with Hitler is another reason why they should not mix. Religion should not influence the government to make biased judgements because religion has no place in casting final judgement over people. They should leave it up to god as they are taught by the bible. THAT is keeping religion and State separate.

In principle, the fact that Man and Man or Woman and Woman isn't natural...is more than enough reason to not legalize gay Marriage. Marriage was implemented so that two people could be together in union, as one, and create offspring. Now there are couple that choose not to, and that is their business. However, their union is still natural, and children, even if by accident between a couple, are the result of marriage. Men and women were designed to be infatuated with the opposite sex.

 

[Skrah]

That doesn't mean that gay marriages shouldn't be allowed. If two people love each other, it doesn't matter if they're both men or both women. They should be able to live together and united by the state. So what if they can't have children?

So what I'm saying is that them not being able to have offspring isn't a real reason for them not being able to marry. Marrying is more than having kids. Marrying involves living with the person and working together to piece together their family.

Gay couples adopting kids is another matter entirely.

 

[RDK]

One of the more sensible temp debaters please respond to Rain(ame)'s post. I really want to, but I think I'd rather sit back and see if you guys have the chops to take that one one. I mean wow.

 

[Big-Cat]

I don't agree with gay marriage at all. In the matter of this...it IS a situation where religion has a strong hold on it. Men were created to be with women. That was the way things were originally designed.

Without saying this from a religious standpoint, can we really say this? The closest I can say that this is true from a scientific standpoint that you need a male and a female in order to reproduce, but this applies to only a majority of animals, but that's not relevant.

Taking note of what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, they were destroyed completely, because men had left the natural purposes of themselves. The term "sodomy" and it's other derivatives came from that city which was destroyed. It's not natural. The original purpose was for Man and WOMAN to fill the earth with offspring. Not Man and Man and not Woman and Woman. Neither of them are capable of producing children.

Actually, if I recall, homosexuality is not really touched on at this point in the Bible. One of the reasons Sodom, at least, was destroyed was because of this, straight from Ezekiel 16:

48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

From this it seems that their doom was mostly due to self-indulgence, not necessarily homosexuality.

I personally am not going to protest on the streets and do anything else. I'm also not going to shun someone who has gone down the path of homosexuality, either. It's not my right to judge a person, so I won't. If I see a homosexual person I will not treat them any different than I treat heterosexual person. I don't condone their lifestyle, but who am I to treat a person rudely?

I'm not sure if homosexuality is a path so to speak. I think it's a thing that happens naturally. I personally think sexuality is determined by genetics. If this is the case, then you can't blame them for being gay. It also raises the question of if God wanted it this way, maybe as some weird form of population control while still letting people be happy.

That being said...the separation of religion and state is not singularly a valid argument. You can't just say that and leave it as a reason to denote anyone who uses the bible in their reasoning. A lot of our own principles and addicts to live by are derived from the bible.

While it is true most of the American government's principles come from the Bible, the Bible is no more of an influence than the personal experiences of the people who made those laws.

Exiling a person after committing a crime as opposed to just killing them. That is imprisonment in its earliest form. That was instituted by god in the situation of Cain after he killed his Abel. It was kept as well, and used as an alternate for corporal punishment. Execution was also created in the bible. As was the judicial system. All of these things were recorded in the bible for a reason. In principle, the bible is applied to things we do today.

Again, the Bible was likely one of many influences. However, I have a strong feeling that other cultures throughout the world developed similar systems of trials, punishments, and more. Assuming God kept himself to the Jews, this would mean that those concepts are actually more of a manmade concept than a divine one.

In principle, the fact that Man and Man or Woman and Woman isn't natural...is more than enough reason to not legalize gay Marriage. Marriage was implemented so that two people could be together in union, as one, and create offspring. Now there are couple that choose not to, and that is their business. However, their union is still natural, and children, even if by accident between a couple, are the result of marriage. Men and women were designed to be infatuated with the opposite sex.

Let's that my genetics theory is true regarding sexuality. Would this mean that homosexuality is natural. And if it's natural do two gay people who love each other have as much right as a straight man and a straight woman who hate each other?

 

[Skrah]

One of the more sensible temp debaters please respond to Rain(ame)'s post. I really want to, but I think I'd rather sit back and see if you guys have the chops to take that one one. I mean wow.

He just basically said that gay marriages shouldn't be allowed because men are supposed to be with women. Not every post needs to be replied to with lengthy posts with multiple quoting.

 

[Aorist]

That being said...the separation of religion and state is not singularly a valid argument. You can't just say that and leave it as a reason to denote anyone who uses the bible in their reasoning. A lot of our own principles and addicts to live by are derived from the bible. Exiling a person after committing a crime as opposed to just killing them. That is imprisonment in its earliest form. That was instituted by god in the situation of Cain after he killed his Abel. It was kept as well, and used as an alternate for corporal punishment. Execution was also created in the bible. As was the judicial system. All of these things were recorded in the bible for a reason. In principle, the bible is applied to things we do today.

Actually, yes, we can. If you have to resort merely to citing Biblical quotes, you clearly don't have proper reasoning. If you have reasoning, that is independent of the Bible and can be considered.

It's not natural. The original purpose was for Man and WOMAN to fill the earth with offspring. Not Man and Man and not Woman and Woman. Neither of them are capable of producing children.

What is natural and why does that matter?

Homosexuality is widespread in nature.

Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

SOURCE

Again, why does it matter what something is designed for? Badly-made bread can be a good paperweight. Books can be burned for warmth. So many things can be used for purposes other than what they were designed for. Am I sinning when I do that?

 

[RazeveX]

My turn!

I don't agree with gay marriage at all. In the matter of this...it IS a situation where religion has a strong hold on it. Men were created to be with women. That was the way things were originally designed.

To me, your religion is preposterous, so there is no reason for me to take it as a credible source.
Sorry if this seems rude; but it's true, and I couldn't argue against your points properly if I didn't mention that.

If I started quoting the history of scientology and how the world came about, you'd probably tell me it was crazy; yet both theories should have the same amount of validity.

(For the record: I'm not a scientologist)

Yes, I know, you're religion has an impact on how you live your life; but should religious people really force others to live a certain way based on a questionable source?

Taking note of what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, they were destroyed completely, because men had left the natural purposes of themselves. The term "sodomy" and it's other derivatives came from that city which was destroyed. It's not natural. The original purpose was for Man and WOMAN to fill the earth with offspring. Not Man and Man and not Woman and Woman. Neither of them are capable of producing children.

How exactly were these cities destroyed because of gay relationships? if it was through lack of procreation, then know that nothing similar would ever happen in this day and age.
There is already an excess of population, and many gay couples are very happy to adopt.
If it was because of something else, then how did gay relations affect it at all? Or is that just what the book said?

I personally am not going to protest on the streets and do anything else. I'm also not going to shun someone who has gone down the path of homosexuality, either. It's not my right to judge a person, so I won't. If I see a homosexual person I will not treat them any different than I treat heterosexual person. I don't condone their lifestyle, but who am I to treat a person rudely?

So...you have no objection to gay marriage?

So what is separation of state and religion? It means that religion should not be involved in political matters between states. It should not be involved in war. In disputes, religion should not take sides, but rather stay neutral. The crusades are the precise reason why Religion and State should not mix. What happened with Hitler is another reason why they should not mix. Religion should not influence the government to make biased judgements because religion has no place in casting final judgement over people. They should leave it up to god as they are taught by the bible. THAT is keeping religion and State separate.

Hmm...so, if religion should have no impact on final decisions, why are there so many people trying to stop gays from having relationships? Do you support them, or are you against them?

In principle, the fact that Man and Man or Woman and Woman isn't natural...is more than enough reason to not legalize gay Marriage.

Oh, cool; contradiction? So, now religion has more than enough right to stop these people marrying completely?

Marriage was implemented so that two people could be together in union, as one, and create offspring.

Just because gay couple cannot create babies does not mean they cannot adopt and do everything you said above. Even so, there is absolutely no reason everyone should have to have babies, as you said below. Theoretically we should be stopping it. The Bible is out of date; there are now TOO MANY PEOPLE. So maybe you should stop using it as a guide of what we should do today.

Now there are couple that choose not to, and that is their business. However, their union is still natural, and children, even if by accident between a couple, are the result of marriage. Men and women were designed to be infatuated with the opposite sex.

Religions dictate that we are given free will; why would we be given that if we were not able to make our own choices?

Me: Why isn't gay marriage natural?

Your answer: because it is not what we were designed to do.

Although personally that is a bogus answer to me (no offense), even if it were completely valid, what should if matter what we were designed to do?
Were we designed to play video games? No? It's not natural? Oh, I guess we shouldn't be doing it then.
Really: what is natural, by your definition? Should we abandon all technology? It doesn't make any sense.

I'm trying my best to use points that are contradictions even if I accepted your religion. However, keep in mind; even if all of these points are ridiculous (I sure hope they aren't), my biggest point will always be that I do not believe that god exists or ever existed, and we should therefore religions should not impact on how we live. Of course, I don't think we should debate that.

 

[Rain(ame)]

Wow....far too many people to quote, but I will do my best to address everything that was said. I'll go in order of things seemed to be highly misunderstood.

1.) oh cool contradiction]- I do fail to see how I contradicted myself. I just said IN PRINCIPLE. whivch means that due to what natural principle is, it's unnatural. It is more than enough reason to not.

2.)So you have no objection to gay marriage?- I don't approve of it, but I also have no right to condemn someone. It's much like a parent may not appove of their child's marriage, but (more than likely) won't condemn them.

3.) free will/being genetic/happening naturally- The free will situation is so that we are given free will to obey or disobey the laws that are set before us. Adam and Eve had their perfection taken away from them because they CHOSE to disobey God. It's much like you have free will to do your work at school, but you may not. What is the result? Well, you fail. You have free will to decide that you want to murder a person...what is the result? You get punished. The religion DOES promote free will, in saying that they aren't FORCING you to stay. They aren't FORCING you to learn. It's your free will.

A person has free will to do things that are natural and aren't. Tihs also includes homosexuality. There's a guy who said he went that route because he didn't like how it made his member smell afterwards. That's a choice, and not something that's genetic. Are you saying that if a person has anger problems that run in their genes, it's natural for them to give in to fits of anger at whim? No...they make a CHOICE to be an angry person. I've got bad tempers that run all around my family, and yet, I'm the most patient among them, and other people wonder how I'm even as patient as I am. It's because I CHOOSE to not give into the anger that's there. A person has Asthma that runs in their family and they get it. Do they just give in, and accept it? No...people CHOOSE to let asthma limit them. While other people CHOOSE to push past it. People CHOOSE to become Homosexual because the choose to let their surroundings influence their lives.

Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn’t one so-called “gay gene.”

It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309724/
source

5.)Genesis 19 clearly shows the attitude of the city of Sodom. This is what was meant as they have gone from their way. 1 cor. 9:9-11. Genesis 13: 13 says they were gross sinners against God. That goes far beyond just being arrogant. Men who lie with Men are quite mentioned there. It also says "that's what some of you WERE." (indicating that yes...there IS a choice) ! Tim. 1: 8-11 2 Peter 2:6 says that it'd be an example for those to come. Of course It had been around, but those people were given a choice...obey or not obey.

6.) My illustration given by Cain and Abel was the first incident of murder, since they were the first two children to be born. Other cultures weren't developed yet. We're talking about the beginning.

7.) I am in full understanding that some things aren't used naturally for what they're designed to be. Holographic technology has many uses that are practical and it should be applied to. We don't have it available to us because it isn't done being tested for military use. In essence.....more unnatural uses for it. An Ice pick was designed to be used for ICE purposes. However, people use it for murder. Video games were designed for entertainment. Now they are used to train military combatants. (true story, they even did a news piece on it. If i find it I'll post it up). We have simple house hold cleaning items that can be used to kill people. THESE are unnatural uses of things. There has been the opposite affect as well, though. Video Games have been turned into a learning tool. So has television. What was once merely entertainment is now a source for education. (This WAS mentioned before, I'm just reinforcing) It can also be a source for knowledge. Although...in the aspect of unnatural use of men and women....has there been any TRUE good that has come out of it? (That is a question you can answer if you feel ike it.)

Let's think about this for a second. While I do agree that unnatural use isn't ALWAYS bad....how many times has unnatural use brought good as opposed to bad? I'd say it weighs heavily in bad's favor. People don't complain when something is used unnaturally for the good of people. Granted, that may be true when an unnatural use of it has been used for bad already, but there lies my point. If there is SO much controversy over this, is that saying something? From ancient times it was looked at as something that isn't right. Then we'll go a step further and mention a pedophile. That IS homosexuality, no matter how you slice it. The only differences are that there's a LARGE age gap between what is usually a man and a boy(or teenager) and it quite possibly is only one sided (Although not always). What if that boy grows up and becomes a homosexual? Would you say he was always meant to be one? Would you say it's genetic?


Oh and in conclusion, once again, I won't sit there and condemn a person. I'm not going to object if they want to speak to me, sit next to me, or (and this happened) may want to give a friendly hug. I don't condone the lifestyle, either, which means I'm not winking at it and saying "I approve of your lifestyle, you can come over and do whatever you want in my household." It's like dealing with a person at arm's length. You don't necessarily hate them, but at the same time, you're not going to go out of your way for them either.

I hope I covered the points...it was quite a lot and only me >.< No Johns though. If I missed something, feel free to let me know.

 

[RyokoYaksa]

I usually do not participate in this pathetic stalemate's excuse for a debate topic, but I just had to take note of something Rain(ame) posted.

Did you seriously just equate pedophilia to homosexuality with a straight face?

 

[RDK]

I usually do not participate in this pathetic stalemate's excuse for a debate topic, but I just had to take note of something Rain(ame) posted.

Did you seriously just equate pedophilia to homosexuality with a straight face?

First of all, it's pathetic because it's the Proving Grounds. Cut them some slack. This is the place where people come to apply for the Debate Hall. If you want actual intelligent conversation, go to the actual Debate Hall.

And yeah, he did just compare homosexuality to pedophilia, which is a very very unfortunate thing for a temp debater to do.

 

[RyokoYaksa]

-.-

I challenge you to find me any kind of homosexuality debate thread that's actually moving. Or read between the lines.