If they changed genders, then they biologically would be the gender they changed into. Besides, I honestly don't see your point.
You say you're against the marriage of Gays, Lesbians etc
But then in the edit, you say you don't want to stop them. I'm confused. If you're not going to stop them, then why say anything at all in the first place? It's fine to have your own beliefs, but if you're just going to angrily shout and wave your finger, I don't think it's constructive or time efficient to do so.
I do want them to stop, but I'm not going to force them. If they don't want to listen, they don't, and I'll not intervene.
That's my point. Wink
I've posted both these videos in this thread already, and I'm gonna post them again. And again. Each time someone brings up a biblical argument. This one was recommended to me by elfprince, our resident smartest-person-on-the-forum-(who-also-happens-to-be-christian):

A great line from this is "shut up and love them".
There's also this one, done by Matthew Vines. Elfprince didn't agree with everything he had to say, but he's gaining a lot of traction, and I think his message is quite great.

If you're not willing to watch these videos--whether because they might challenge your beliefs or they might present you with arguments you were previously unaware of and you don't want to think about--please do not post in this topic anymore; it's clear you're not interested in debate, but rather just parroting your beliefs.
Well let me tell you they're not going to listen to you. So my point was why do you bother to tell them in the first place? And I can tell you for sure they're not going to listen because I, myself, am gay. And I don't really appreciate people like you going around quoting the bible and generally calling us out. We're people too. Besides you wouldn't want other people walking around calling people who believe in God and the bible "ignorant, behind on times, wrong, insane etc" Just because you have a book, doesn't mean your right.
If you want a shorter video to refute the biblical argument:

God how I wish this was a real president.
I forgot to mention this in my post:
"Another explanation is that it is simply a recessive gene, like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia. "

Or blue eyes, or having five fingers instead of six. Razz I know it might not have been intentional to list negative traits, but there are some negative dominant traits and some positive recessive traits (for those not familiar).

This is a topic of personal interest. I know there are people that think that my marriage is worth less than a "traditional" marriage and I know that there are people that will automatically judge me to be a bad person simply because of who I have devoted my life to. That is one aspect of my marriage-- I am devoted to this one person for the entirety of my life and if I am wrong and there is an afterlife, then my devotion will continue for as long as I am capable of it. To tell me that the person I love is not worth my devotion, and that I should be devoted to somebody else that I do not love or feel devotion for is kind of bothersome. My goals in life revolve around helping people. I want this world to be a better place and I have been given the ability to that. I admit that it may be selfish of me to want to spend the rest of my life with my spouse while trying to improve the lives of others. But if there is any reason for why I cannot do this, then that same reason can be applied to anybody else.

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't care how much my marriage is worth to others. That is not important. To me, my marriage is worth my life and that is the highest value I can attribute.

Now, aside from that rant, I will say that it irritates me the way a few people are responding in this thread. I don't like guns. I think people shouldn't use them, but that is my opinion. I am not going to say people don't have a right to bear arms, though. I come from a family of hunters and it is a poor family at that. I grew up in poverty, so I understand that hunting can be essential for food and using a gun makes a cleaner and easier kill. I just prefer other means because guns are too loud and violent for me.
So when Stefan says, "Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm not really going to try to stop them marrying or anything,"
I don't think it makes much sense to jump down his throat and say that he has no right to voice his opinion if he isn't going to forcibly act on those beliefs. My wife is afraid of spiders and thinks they should all die. She will tout this often, especially when a particularly creepy one has been sighted, but she isn't going to go on a crusade to kill all of the spiders. Of course, that is partly because I very much enjoy spiders, but do you get the point? I like to teach. I will spew off all sorts of random ideas that I do not have the time or will to pursue, but it is my hope that simply voicing my ideas or beliefs will make it to the ears of those with the will or the means or the stamina to do what I could not. Likewise, I believe that Stefan was simply stating his beliefs and opinions with the idea that he cannot force people to remain separated, but he can use his words. You should never silence somebody by telling them to shut up. Educate people. If you think they are wrong, use knowledge and logic. Use a point of reference-- that is what mathematicians do whenever they need to work with a system. This is what Stefan was doing.
Xeda112358 wrote:
Use a point of reference-- that is what mathematicians do whenever they need to work with a system. This is what Stefan was doing.

Except that his only point of reference is a book that says I can't eat bacon and that its ok for me to murder my mom for wearing composite fabric.
That is still a point of reference, though. If you define an a set and an operation such that A>B, B>C and C>A for some elements A,B,C, it might be ridiculous if you are accustomed to using the axioms of Real numbers or some similar set of axioms, but you can still figure out how some arguments follow if you know the frame of reference. It isn't 'stupidity' causing it and his beliefs do follow from logic just as anybody else's.

By the way, I legitimately blew my own mind when I decided to figure out what that system implied. I also found a slew of realworld examples of where that is used and it is used very much.
tifreak8x wrote:
Now that they are a couple, their overall household income just went up. Now they are in a higher paying tax bracket, so the government gets more money from them.

Let them enjoy the same 'benefits' that straight married couples do!

Well, their taxes will likely be lower but that's not even the point. There are things were only a legal guardian or spouse is allowed to make a decision (most often in the realm of health care and such), and gay couples are either SOL on some of them or have to do a ton of work in advance that married couples don't.

stefan bauwens wrote:
Since the Bible clearly notes that those things are wrong(rape, murder, slavery). Although God himself, sometimes allowed murder(that is, when he specifically asked it), but that's it.

No, actually, it doesn't:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 wrote:
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Zechariah 14:1-2 wrote:
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

Ephesians 6:5 wrote:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

Luke 12:47-48 wrote:
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

Rape, murder, and slavery are all *APPROVED OF* by the Bible. Like I said, unquestionably evil.

Xeda112358 wrote:
That is in fact a pretty harsh 'response' with some pretty obvious flaws. You basically have said that if any part of the bible is wrong (in the moral sense), then the rest of it is wrong. So let's look at our legal system and laws. There are some pretty ridiculous/stupid laws, so does that mean that anybody that prefers to uphold laws like not murdering or stealing are stupid for holding those beliefs?

First, nobody claims the law is perfect or divine inspiration.

Second, nobody claims the law shouldn't be changed.

Third, if somebody says that because laws against murder are good therefore <insert stupid law here> is good, then you should absolutely ridicule them just as I have ridiculed you and stefan.
OK, Kllronj, I don't know how I should reply to this, but I don't think that it would be profitable to continue Bible bashing like we are. We should zoom out and see the primary issue of this thread in perspective, independent of the Bible or any other religious text.

Kllronj, I highly disapprove of your debate tactics. I do not think they are intelligent or well-thought out, and have more of a selfish focus on winning a fight than actually contributing to the betterment of the community and the world. However, I also believe that you are a child of God, as are all other people on Earth. I believe that you have infinite worth to Him, that He cares about you and always wants the best for you. I think that you can be a great force for good in this world, but I believe that your debate tactics are merely introducing confusion and simply making you miserable. It certainly is difficult to change, and it does involve fighting a lot of natural tendencies, but I believe that you, Kllronj, will be personally happiest by either adopting new, more positive and intelligent debate tactics, or - if you can't manage to do that without slipping into negatives - simply do not participate in debates at all.

I actually appreciate his a-whoppings, even though I'm often on the receiving end of them. I would argue that his debate tactics have improved my understanding of quite a few subjects. For example, I knew there were parts of the bible that permitted or encouraged activities like rape, murder and slavery, but I did not know what the exact passages were or to what extent they permitted the behavior. Now I know.

@Merthsoft I watched both videos, and I disagree. Here's why:
It is not wrong to judge, as Greg Boyd, falsely states.
He states that according to the Bible we should not judge others. He is completely wrong with this, since the Bible states in numerous verses that we should judge, but just not judge falsely, hypocritically, etc..
As a matter of fact the quote he uses is clear, but not when taken out of context as he did.
For he said(Matthew 7:3):
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?"

But in context we see this(Matthew 7:1-5):
"Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.  Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
That last sentence is already clear enough that you may judge, but just not hypocritically.
This great article features even more overwhelming proof: (http://www.christianciv.com/Judge_Others.htm)

In fact, we must judge according to the Bible, so Greg Boyd is completely wrong, and giving a false teaching there.

And if anyone still cares, I was NOT judging, but actually only repeating what the Bible says is sin.

Now, up next is the video from Matthew Vines.
Since the sin doesn't suit him he takes every verse against it, and twists it till he gets what he wants, even the very obvious.

Because of faith we are no longer under the law(not meaning we may sin), so I can somehow "skip" the old testament laws to make it easy.
The thing is, where Matthew Vines is obviously mistaken is in what Paul says, in context(Romans 1:18-32):
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Matthew Vines says, because Paul uses the words "exchange", it means it counts only for those who weren't born straight/gay and change afterwards to gay/straight respectively.

So,Matthew Vines is only defending "born-gay" people. However, it is obvious that this is not what Paul is saying. He uses the word exchange in general.
Even if a person is born gay, you can say he exchanged his natural use for the unnatural, for it is not natural.
He always keeps saying" people with a homosexual orientation". The Bible does not mention these people. God apparently does not know these kind of people., and does not make a difference between born-, or not born-gay.
Can a person be born evil? Yes. It is said by God himself that the human naturally is evil.

Anyway, what Matthew Vines "forgot" to talk about was:
"... men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.".

To me it's obvious that Paul is talking about AIDS. Are you going to tell me that people who are born gay are not going to(or have a much less chance to not) get AIDS than the other, not-born-gay's? It's ridiculous.
Homosexualiy remains a sin. Not only in law, but also for the Holy Spirit apparently(Since the Holy Spirit was in Paul).

Mr. Vines also does not see, that if you truly repent of your sin, you become free from it. If you become free from it, he doesn't have to live alone, but can marry a woman.

That first thing is not slavery, but servent. There's a clear difference.
Anyway, Jesus clearly states that what comes in your mouth(or if you have unclean hands), does NOT make you unclean. But rather what comes out of it, since that comes from your heart. And all evil comes from the heart.
Many laws out of the Old Testament are based on certain things from that time.
For example, it was forbidden by God in the OT to shave on certain places, but that was because the other people, who weren't Jew had these customs. God didn't want that the Jews wanted to be as the others, who were idol-worshippers.

In your first example, God is orderering something to be done. It clearly is forbidden by God to murder, but he specifically asks it, that's something quite different.
In your second quote, it is a prophecy; something that will happen.
God doesn't always predict good things, and he does make use of sinners to let things happen. It is also noted that fornication is a sin.

Again, God doesn't approve slavery, but he does say that if you are slave, to obey your masters.
You obviously do not understand the Bible, and apparently for some reason look at everything negatively.

My conclusion is that I believe in something that seems to me to be true. For example, the creation of the world is indeed a proof for me that there's a God. You may not want to believe, but please hold yourself responsible for your sins, if there does appear to be a God.
We should zoom out and see the primary issue of this thread in perspective, independent of the Bible or any other religious text.

I didn't bring the Bible into this "debate", I'm just kicking it back to the curb where it belongs.

In your first example, God is orderering something to be done. It clearly is forbidden by God to murder, but he specifically asks it, that's something quite different.


You also missed the slavery and rape part there.

In your second quote, it is a prophecy; something that will happen.

A prophecy of pure evil with God's blessing.

Again, God doesn't approve slavery, but he does say that if you are slave, to obey your masters.


You can attempt mental gymnastics to avoid it, but the truth is simple - the Bible approves of slavery.

You obviously do not understand the Bible

I'm pretty positive I understand it far, far better than you do.
Kllrnohj, Hypocrisy is incorrect.
God wishes to "delete" a part of his creation, but dissalows his creation to do this, except when he asks it specificallly.
God does not have to live up to the rule of murder, since he may kill what he created, but man may not kill it's own kind.

Why may man not kill? Since, they would follow their "fleshly desire", which is not good is God's eyes.

Also, rape was not obvious there, and I don't think it was rape.
God does not allow rape and is condemns it a sin. God is a just God, and is not a hypocrite.

"A prophecy of pure evil with God's blessing."
Erm, the Bible also phropecieses that people will turn against him. This doesn't mean it has his blessing. But as I said, God doesn't only use Christians, and good people is his plan.

No, you are wrong and this is just another proog that you in fact do not understand the thing you are discussing, and are just looking for verses that seem fit to use against me. I think you should read this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Let people here judge for themselves, who knows it better.
Keep the arguments in this topic related to homosexuality or I'll start deleting off topic stuff.
The fact that it's 2013 and we still even have to attempt to argue about the morality of homosexuality is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Luckily, across the country and world, the side of equal rights is winning.
Personally, I don't care about same-sex marriage.

People do whatever they want, and they won't have any biological children, that's all.
pimathbrainiac wrote:
Personally, I don't care about same-sex marriage.

People do whatever they want, and they won't have any biological children, that's all.


Not trying to be rude here, just thought I'd point this out.
There has also been work on creating sperm cells from the cells of females, though it has yet to work in humans. As well, there has been work to grow certain other pieces of anatomy, though those applications are geared more toward males returning from war with certain injuries >.> (Was I vague enough?) There has not been enough work on the primary goal for experiments in trying to get it to work with genetic females, but that is bound to happen. I am not aware of any successes that might lead to producing ovaries from male cells, but if we manage that, then most same sex couples could have biological children. The only potential trouble I can see in this is that with two males, there is more risk of producing a YY chromosome pair which I do not believe can develop further. With two females, they can only both supply an X chromosome, so they will only produce females-- unless there is some way to change an X chromosome to a Y.

But that is getting a bit off topic, so I will try to veer at back on topic. One view that I find irritating is from those that hold the following beliefs:
1] Homosexuality is a genetic trait that needs to be culled from the human race
2] Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to act all homosexy-like and should try to create a family with a member of the opposite sex.

As ridiculous as this may sound, there are people opposed to same-sex marriage that hold these views. There was even one woman who said that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they shouldn't be allowed to make gay children. Sometimes I think people like that are just jealous because they haven't figured out how sexual reproduction works. But still, even if it is for the wrong reasons, they should support same-sex marriages. I am pretty young, but I do remember a time when homosexuality was much more taboo and could earn a beating from others. I came from a conservative area, true, but it was more than one couple that I learned of that divorced because one partner came out as homosexual. If homosexual people are allowed to marry each other, then the person with the above beliefs can rest assured that they will not be spreading their 'gay genes', but more importantly, there won't be families ruined. In fact, there will be families created and strengthened because as has been pointed out many times: An opposite-sex couple might have a child on accident or unplanned and some may not want to take care of the child. A same-sex couple plans for a child, and wants the child. There is no accident about it, and many children are adopted from a place without parents into a home with parents.

I would also like to point out that homosexuality is common enough in other mammals as well as in humans that it seems likely that there is a good reason for it. I have views on evolution that basically correspond with what science has shown, so that may be offensive to some. With that said, the reason for why homosexuality exists comes down to one reason-- it is advantageous to our species' survival. For the fools that think that survival of a species relies on all members being able to reproduce, I would kindly direct your attention to some animals like bees. They are not mammals, but the majority of bees cannot reproduce. But the bees that do not reproduce (the worker bees) are crucial to the survival of the hive and thus the queen. There are many hypotheses about how homosexuality in humans is advantageous and you are welcome to search for them or create your own. But even if you think that there is no 'natural' reason, then that means that homosexuality has survived in our species because of cultural influences forcing opposite sex couples together to mate. But a neater explanation is that there are a good number of people that are bisexual or some other variant of sexuality and so homosexuality will continue to be prevalent as well as heterosexuality.

But hey, there aren't enough opposite-sex couples to take in and care for orphans and displaced children-- if there were, there wouldn't be any for same-sex couples to look after, right? So if we are caring for abandoned children and children who have already lost a family once and family is important, do we not deserve the same protections that are granted families? I cannot remember off hand, but I believe it is article 26 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man that defines the most basic unit of society as 'the family' and as such, no consenting adults should be denied the right to marry and nobody should be forced to marry if they do not consent.

Err, sorry, I always rant in order to stay on topic .__. Also, I know that much of that is not clear and many thoughts are left unfinished, but I cannot concentrate on this at the moment, sorry :/
Xeda, you raise a lot of good points, though I think you also oversimplify both though evolutionary argument (for example the debate over kin selection - i.e. the gay-uncle hypothesis), and the arguments used by some opponents of gay marriage.

Ultimately though, what it comes down to is individual freedom of conscience. Regardless of individual views within a personal moral framework, you don't have the right to force someone else to live by them. This isn't to say that morality is or should be subjective, but rather to say that even within a framework of objective morality, the right to evaluate moral choices is held only by the individual making them, and they can do so only based on their own conscience.

Furthermore, government should have no say in defining the institution of marriage.
The thing about marriage: It is only a title, really. It means that you vow to stay loyal to a person, but:

A: People cheat


B: You can vow to stay loyal to a person without marrying.

Long story short: You can have same-sex couples living in the same house, and acting as if they were married, and, in the eyes of the law, not be married. That is true with heterosexual couples as well. Pretty much all banning same-sex marriage does is making it so that same-sex couples can't file their taxes together a married partners.

The debate is stupid: Regardless of religious belief (You can get married at a courthouse, and not at a place of worship if you so desire).

Just let the people do what they want to do. It does not matter.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
» Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 19 of 21
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum