Same Gender Marriage [MGTD]

Discussion in 'Other KaW Discussion' started by Seth, May 18, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I would like point out that judging is a much different thing to believing that something is not right because of what they believe. If someone steals and I get asked whether I think stealing is right, I should be able to say no, because it's against what I believe to be right, without being accused of judging.

    Next is, just because ppl are born differently or have become that way (or both) does not make it morally justified. I for instance, and I use this example with the upmost delicacy, if I kid was born Mentally handicapped in some way, and were therefore prone to do things.... Not morally considered ok more often than others, such as swearing and other more extreme things, it doesn't mean we accept the issue as right. Of course we have more understanding for their situation and we should ALWAYS accept the person, it doesn't mean we accept the practice as now, right.
  2. i say legalize it, but each religion should have full say weather they will perform said marriages, im not one to say how anyone lives thier life, but would not want to be forced to do something that goes against the churches beliefs, that way if i choose i can find another church if they no longer think the same way i do
  3. Who is passing judgement? Don't blame us Christians: God himself condemns it. Therefore we are following His laws by being against it also
  4. I do believe you need to learn Christianity. Christians do not follow the (Old) Testament but the (New) Testament.
  5. Legalise same gender marriage in 'Merica.
    Already legal here (UK) and has been widely accepted.
  6. You sir are a moron. The bible was translated into the King James Version by 7 groups of 7 scholars working under the hand of God. If the Old Testament was not relevant to us today, God would not have permitted it to be included in the Holy Bible.

    How can you say it is not relevant? What did the first churches use to preach with? The New Testament? No! The New Testament didn't even exist then. They preached to their congregations from the Old Testament. And if I'm not mistaken we are also in New Testament ages....

    I encourage you to check yourself and your misplaced ideas in future.
  7. You sir are a moron or just illiterate. I said Christians do not follow the Old Testament. Did I say it was or wasn't relevant? No.

    Also they did not Preach from the Old Testament. Can you get that through your thick skull?
  8. They did not? Since when? I have attended very many churches over my country and they all use it. Now what you're most likely referring to is the laws in Leviticus; a specific set of rules God gave the Jewish people.
    Are you a Christian? If not I'm not sure you're not the right person to comment on what Christians do and should preach on. And if you are: then I'm afraid you are a hypocrite and you need to reassess your 'salvation'.
  9. To those of you that use the point that ****** would be the next thing we allow if this passes. There is a large difference between the two, the biggest one being ****** DOES affect other people. Keeping it in the family causes a higher probability of serious birth defects. Maybe not always the first time, but it happens and the probability only increases the more it happens. On the other hand, same sex couples are more likely to adopt and help give some child who was abandoned by their heterosexual parents a better life away from the nightmare that is the adoption system.
  10. So what if youre a religious christian and you figure out youre into the same sex? Should you start punishing yourself daily because your book says it isn't right?
  11. Absolutely. Take up cutting, or dropping bricks on your toes. You're a bad person for liking another person the same gender as you.
    //end extreme sarcasm
  12. Thou shalt not eat from another mans sausage. Now REPENT you devilish sinner and take that sausage out of your mouth
  13. I laughed too hard at this :lol:
  14. Well this is going no where now. Supporters taking pot shots at the religion while trying to maintain a solid, "you believe what you want as long as it doesn't affect me" mentality while trying to use parts of the bible to fit their agenda.

    Most of the non-supports aren't unified properly because of the many ways the bible can be interpreted.


    Think we are going in circles now.

    The real question I want to know is how will the LGBT community react if it gets shot down? Thoughts?
  15. You claim to be Christian?? You need to learn your own religion, I am not Christian, but attended a catholic school, and I know that Christians DO in fact follow the Old Testament, as well as the New. The Church teaches that the New Testament, Jesus' teachings and the divinely inspired writings, DO NOT REPLACE the Old Testament, but fulfill it, why else would it be included in your bible?

    Before making claims on your own religion, I'd suggest reading a few books.
  16. Oh my God, I can't take this, what do you think the preached from until they complied the New Testament?

    Jesus didn't bring the New Testament with him when he came to the Earth.
    The New Testament was compiled after the Edict of Toleration in the early 300s AD, but, Christian priests had been performing the Mass since Jesus had the Last supper with the Apostles.
    As I said earlier, LEARN YOUR RELIGION
  17. I think this is an unfair assessment of the argument. Supporters are not "taking pot shots at religion." It is the non-supporters who are "trying to use parts of the bible to fit their agenda."

    Having no other legitimate arguement, non-supporters justify their non-support by hiding behind a supposed authority. They believe an all-mighty creator is on their side, as can be found in certain passages in a book.

    If non-supporters are going to cherry-pick which verses they will rely on while ignoring others, supporters have a legitimate argument against the use of their supposed authority to bolster an otherwise untenable position.

    The bible has been used to justify torture, inquisitions, war, slavery, racism, and everything else under the sun. I'm sure non-supporters say that those people weren't reading the bible properly, or certain rules aren't really rules, or that times have changed.

    Supporters are merely pointing out that: a) those other people thought they were correct, just as current people think they are now, and they could be wrong; b) if people decide which rules to follow and which ones to ignore, then they are just using whatever rules to justify themselves as per their unrelated personal opinions; and c) if times have chamged since the biblical support of slavery, racism and such, then it is arrogant to think that things cannot continue to change and these archaic anti-gay rules will still be valid.

    In short, non-supporters are the ones using the bible as a weapon. Defending against that with the internal logic of the bible is not attacking or "taking pot shots" at religion itself.
  18. 

    Well said. Very well said
  19. Again, in short for you:

    There are many different types of sects and denominations in the christian religion. Using the same generalization for all is an insult. That's what I'm seeing here

    But, yet again, my points on interpretation of the bible is glanced over because it doesn't fit the christian norm.

    And maybe I could have used the phrase, "some supporters" if that would make the assessment seem more fair.

    But the whole jokes on punishments and repenting? Potshots.


    My question went unanswered
  20. Simply because you disagree with the supporters' arguments, does not allow you to pretend to dismiss them as mere pot shots.

    Pointing out inconsistencies in the bible-based opposition, is a Legitimate argument undermining apparently arbitrary selections of what interpretation of the bible a person uses.

    Until the discrepancies between which bible verses are rules and which are ignorable is competently addressed, illustrations of those discrepancies is legitimate and expected.

    If you do not want your bible questioned, do not use it as your rationale. And certainly do not mischaracterize the people who point out those glaring discrepancies as merely taking "pot shots."

    And no. I think this debate is doing just fine without an obvious attempt to change the topic to avoid how the bible-based arguments fail.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.