Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#26 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 11:50 AM

I'm just going to ignore Sida, must be stoned or something.

#27 brandonxan

brandonxan
  • 114 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 12:07 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 08:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No it wasn't about energy. I guess that went over your head.




Forcing churches into marrying gays is taking away their power of free choice. Please don't try and humilate me as that can be a hard thing to do.

So now you need to gain just a tiny bit of knowledge before just typing.
No one would force any certain church at all to "marry gays"
Marriage is a certificate from the courthouse...people go to a church for a ceremony.
You are married once you sign your certificates in a courthouse.

Disliking gays is one issue and that's perfectly ok for you to not like them. So go post a "I hate gays" thread...don't come advertise your lack of intelligence wink.gif

#28 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 01:48 PM

QUOTE (brandonxan @ Apr 21 2009, 09:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So now you need to gain just a tiny bit of knowledge before just typing.
No one would force any certain church at all to "marry gays"
Marriage is a certificate from the courthouse...people go to a church for a ceremony.
You are married once you sign your certificates in a courthouse.

Disliking gays is one issue and that's perfectly ok for you to not like them. So go post a "I hate gays" thread...don't come advertise your lack of intelligence wink.gif


You have civil unions yet want to use the christian tradition of marriage in a christian country which goes against christanity?

Make sense now?

#29 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:01 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You have civil unions yet want to use the christian tradition of marriage in a christian country which goes against christanity?

Make sense now?

America has no 'one religion'. It just so happens that Christianity is the dominant religion.

If homosexuality was explicitly stated to be against christian values, the debate would be much easier.

However, because there are homosexuals that practice Christianity, the line is not drawn completely in place.



#30 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:25 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 21 2009, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
America has no 'one religion'. It just so happens that Christianity is the dominant religion.

If homosexuality was explicitly stated to be against christian values, the debate would be much easier.

However, because there are homosexuals that practice Christianity, the line is not drawn completely in place.



Democracy in action yes?

18:22, 20:13, 23:17, 23:18, 14:24, 15:12, 22:43, 6:9 all state that homosexuality is wrong.

And just because you are a crap christian doesn't mean you represent them.

Edited by Frizzle, 21 April 2009 - 02:26 PM.


#31 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:29 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Democracy in action yes?

18:22, 20:13, 23:17, 23:18, 14:24, 15:12, 22:43, 6:9 all state that homosexuality is wrong.

And just because you are a crap christian doesn't mean you represent them.

Ummm, which books are those from?

#32 sonic

sonic
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:30 PM

QUOTE (brandonxan @ Apr 21 2009, 06:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LOL how about that made no sense at all.
You have an extreme habit of completely confusing the issue at hand in every single debate topic you post in.
This topic is about what you think about gay people getting married. Letting two dudes or two girls legally declare that they want to be together forever has absolutely nothing at all to do with "taking power from other people"
Lol...


It would make sense if you knew what the theory of relativity is.

#33 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:31 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Democracy in action yes?

18:22, 20:13, 23:17, 23:18, 14:24, 15:12, 22:43, 6:9 all state that homosexuality is wrong.

And just because you are a crap christian doesn't mean you represent them.

No.

Most of those versus have nothing to do with homosexuality. The last one:
"our father lord in heaven, hallowed be thy name" does not deal with homosexuality.

The second one is a popular one:
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Scientifically, a man cannot lie with a man as he does with a woman. However, being the old testament without science is where you get the view that it encompasses homosexuality as a whole.

I'm not Christian, nor do I claim to represent them. Quit being ignorant.

Edited by Bryan, 21 April 2009 - 02:32 PM.


#34 sonic

sonic
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:33 PM

And about this gay thing.
The people have voted to not allow gay marrige.
We are a fucking democracy.
Complain when we don't get a voting choice on something, and then complain when we do.

Ether reason your really just mad they didn't vote what you wanted.
Should we just rename ourselves sidaworld? Urbanworld? Elton Johnworld, or brandonworld. (replace any of those names with other gays who want to get married.
Stop complaining.
If you don't like what laws your PEERS have picked for you then move.

(your only rebbutlle is going to be about some state were the people didn't vote on it. Well fine, you found one, but I'm talking mostly about california. Most states hate gays so much they won't even vote on it.
Half of Cali is gay.
99% of SanFran
99% of inmates in oakland and LA.
all that was enough to bring about a vote, but even those hippie cock loving calyfornians won't let ya'll elope then there is not much of a chance in the rest of the country.)

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 21 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The second one is a popular one:
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Scientifically, a man cannot lie with a man as he does with a woman. However, being the old testament without science is where you get the view that it encompasses homosexuality as a whole.


Oh jeez.
It's a friggen figure of speech.
It means fucking without saying fucking.

Edited by Joshizzle, 21 April 2009 - 02:39 PM.


#35 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:36 PM

QUOTE (Joshizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh jeez.
It's a friggen figure of speech.
It means fucking without saying fucking.

No, it doesn't.

If we knew what it meant, there would be no arguments. Because of the different forms of truth we've established, there wont be a clear answer. Mainly because these passages are translated from a different language and do not represent what the originals said 100%. Also because it was written before modern science, which seems to be the most popular way of distinguishing truth.

#36 sonic

sonic
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:41 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 21 2009, 02:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, it doesn't.

If we knew what it meant, there would be no arguments. Because of the different forms of truth we've established, there wont be a clear answer. Mainly because these passages are translated from a different language and do not represent what the originals said 100%. Also because it was written before modern science, which seems to be the most popular way of distinguishing truth.


So you think lay with a man as you would a woman, are you thinking it meant play chess with a man as you would with a woman? Read with a man as you would for a woman. All these could work, if you accept god will hate you if you play chess.

#37 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:43 PM

QUOTE (Joshizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So you think lay with a man as you would a woman, are you thinking it meant play chess with a man as you would with a woman? Read with a man as you would for a woman. All these could work, if you accept god will hate you if you play chess.

You're thinking too simply. Just read what I said when you actually want to think please.

#38 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:48 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 21 2009, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No.

Most of those versus have nothing to do with homosexuality. The last one:
"our father lord in heaven, hallowed be thy name" does not deal with homosexuality.

The second one is a popular one:
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Scientifically, a man cannot lie with a man as he does with a woman. However, being the old testament without science is where you get the view that it encompasses homosexuality as a whole.

I'm not Christian, nor do I claim to represent them. Quit being ignorant.


6:9 is Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10; NKJV)

and don't say that those verses have nothing to do with homosexuality when they mention it directly.

And yes it is to deal with sex, you'd be ignorant to think otherwise.

And I didn't mean you personally, it was just a rebuttle that just because some gays are christians you believe that christians have to accept this fact.





#39 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 03:01 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
6:9 is Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10; NKJV)

and don't say that those verses have nothing to do with homosexuality when they mention it directly.

And yes it is to deal with sex, you'd be ignorant to think otherwise.

And I didn't mean you personally, it was just a rebuttle that just because some gays are christians you believe that christians have to accept this fact.




Our definitions of words today are different from words written in another language years ago. Homosexuals could be something different just like sodomites could mean something different. (Could be referring to Sodom and Gomorrha, or to modern day sodomy). And it also states that fornicators cannot inherit the kingdom of god, as well as drunkards. You practice both I assume, but should be not allow you to drink nor have sex? Why should homosexuality be the only thing excluded?

How am I ignorant to say that you cannot claim a word means 'x' when it was written millenia ago?

It wasn't a rebuttal because I never claimed to make that point.

#40 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 22 2009, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Our definitions of words today are different from words written in another language years ago. Homosexuals could be something different just like sodomites could mean something different. (Could be referring to Sodom and Gomorrha, or to modern day sodomy). And it also states that fornicators cannot inherit the kingdom of god, as well as drunkards. You practice both I assume, but should be not allow you to drink nor have sex? Why should homosexuality be the only thing excluded?

How am I ignorant to say that you cannot claim a word means 'x' when it was written millenia ago?

It wasn't a rebuttal because I never claimed to make that point.


I never said I was christian, that's an assumption.

And all you're doing is making assumptions which are entirely wrong.

#41 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 03:06 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I never said I was christian, that's an assumption.

And all you're doing is making assumptions which are entirely wrong.

I never said you were Christian either.

If my assumptions are entirely wrong, disprove them. All you're doing is citing translated text from books written thousands of years ago.

#42 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 22 2009, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I never said you were Christian either.

If my assumptions are entirely wrong, disprove them. All you're doing is citing translated text from books written thousands of years ago.


You implied it.

You ask for when in the bible it disapproved of homosexuality and I showed you. And now you're berating me for it?

Can't fucking win.

#43 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 03:16 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You implied it.

You ask for when in the bible it disapproved of homosexuality and I showed you. And now you're berating me for it?

Can't fucking win.

I did not implied it. You cited versus, I merely asked questions why in a particular verse you chose to single out two words in a particular translation.

I said that if the bible EXPLICITLY stated that, then the debate would be easier. My reasoning for that statement was the only reason there is a debate worldwide is because it's not clearly written.

I'm not berating you for anything, merely clarifying points you seem to think I've made.

Of course you can't win. If there was an answer we wouldn't be arguing now.

#44 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 03:30 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 22 2009, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I did not implied it. You cited versus, I merely asked questions why in a particular verse you chose to single out two words in a particular translation.

I said that if the bible EXPLICITLY stated that, then the debate would be easier. My reasoning for that statement was the only reason there is a debate worldwide is because it's not clearly written.

I'm not berating you for anything, merely clarifying points you seem to think I've made.

Of course you can't win. If there was an answer we wouldn't be arguing now.


You did imply it, you were stating whether or not why I would get into heaven and a homosexual wouldn't, considering I'm not a christian it wouldn't matter yet you tried to play a game in which it made me look hypocritical which obviously failed.

And it does fucking explicitily state it, I've already shown the verses which says it directly, which in your previous point is why I did it. (This is a thread about gay marriage, maybe thats why I chose sodomy and homosexuality?)

And I didn't mean in a general context I meant in your little childish games of trying to prove me wrong. And before you start with this is a debate section, I meant in the context of you being pedantic and trying to find loop-holes in anything.

#45 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 04:16 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You did imply it, you were stating whether or not why I would get into heaven and a homosexual wouldn't, considering I'm not a christian it wouldn't matter yet you tried to play a game in which it made me look hypocritical which obviously failed.

And it does fucking explicitily state it, I've already shown the verses which says it directly, which in your previous point is why I did it. (This is a thread about gay marriage, maybe thats why I chose sodomy and homosexuality?)

And I didn't mean in a general context I meant in your little childish games of trying to prove me wrong. And before you start with this is a debate section, I meant in the context of you being pedantic and trying to find loop-holes in anything.

I didn't attempt to make you look hypocritical. To be honest, you've yet to state your opinion on the matter, so how am I able to make you look wrong when you're merely citing texts?

It doesn't explicitly state it Lee. You're failing to realize that you're citing one translation of a book. There are other translations out there that don't include homosexuality or sodomites, yet you chose the translation that included those two specifically. It may say it in your translation, but there is no 100% without a doubt clear view of homosexuality being bad (if there was, there'd be no topic about such to argue).

If you don't mean in a general context, you should state that. Assuming that others are going to understand your view with no evidence or hints is wrong. I see no reason why being pedantic is bad in this case, nor am I trying to find loop-holes. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, merely stating questions and playing the devils advocate (if you will). You give reasoning, I give reasoning back as to why it is false.

I've yet to clearly state my view on the matter, all I'm saying is that there is nothing that explicitly states that homosexuality is wrong. Because, if such a thing did exist, we wouldn't be arguing about it currently.

explicit:
leaving no question as to meaning or intent

If we're using a translated work, how can you say that it's explicit? That's my point.

#46 Myrddin

Myrddin
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 04:27 PM

Der it's what plants crave

#47 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Bryan @ Apr 22 2009, 01:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
tl;dr you're wrong


If you can find a translation for those verse in the according books that doesn't state homosexuality I would be shocked as all I have found so far do.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, as the fact is a bible is a media text and is written by a skewered perspective. You don't believe everything you read, correct, but tell me this. Can you seperate fact from fiction from a biased peice of media? Say Fox for example did a peice of peadophiles, would you be able see both sides of the story and see the actual event itself?

#48 brandonxan

brandonxan
  • 114 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 04:50 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You have civil unions yet want to use the christian tradition of marriage in a christian country which goes against christanity?

Make sense now?

You honestly don't think or read what you type at all do you?

No one said they were trying to model a "christian" or "biblical" marriage.
Marriage is done once you sign the certificate in court. That's it. No "forcing churches to marry gays"
You are absolutely wrong about what you said. Period.

Furthermore as you've decided to copy and paste verses you've googled (lol some of which have nothing to do with it)
look at Romans 10:9,

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

That's it. If you confess you are saved. Not "if you confess and aren't gay".

You have no idea what you are talking about which puzzles me time and time again.
I mean with that teddy bear avatar I would think you are gay-friendly, at least wink.gif

#49 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 05:13 PM

QUOTE (Frizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you can find a translation for those verse in the according books that doesn't state homosexuality I would be shocked as all I have found so far do.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, as the fact is a bible is a media text and is written by a skewered perspective. You don't believe everything you read, correct, but tell me this. Can you seperate fact from fiction from a biased peice of media? Say Fox for example did a peice of peadophiles, would you be able see both sides of the story and see the actual event itself?

Why the translation and not the original text? Why should we base 'the ultimate view' on what someone else thought was said.

I don't watch media for the point that it's biased. But yes, I could easily see both sides of the story. Will I know both sides? No.



#50 Nick

Nick
  • <img src="http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg">

  • 6,051 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 April 2009 - 07:09 PM

QUOTE (Joshizzle @ Apr 21 2009, 06:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And about this gay thing.
The people have voted to not allow gay marrige.
We are a fucking democracy.
Complain when we don't get a voting choice on something, and then complain when we do.

Ether reason your really just mad they didn't vote what you wanted.
Should we just rename ourselves sidaworld? Urbanworld? Elton Johnworld, or brandonworld. (replace any of those names with other gays who want to get married.
Stop complaining.
If you don't like what laws your PEERS have picked for you then move.

(your only rebbutlle is going to be about some state were the people didn't vote on it. Well fine, you found one, but I'm talking mostly about california. Most states hate gays so much they won't even vote on it.
Half of Cali is gay.
99% of SanFran
99% of inmates in oakland and LA.
all that was enough to bring about a vote, but even those hippie cock loving calyfornians won't let ya'll elope then there is not much of a chance in the rest of the country.)


Please let me know when the right of heterosexuals to marry is put on the ballots, I'll be sure to vote 'no.'


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users