The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Scaff]

God.

That would lead to a number of questions, such as which god and if we assume you mean the Christian god why he/she can't get the various sects to agree on a single definition. The Catholic and Anglican churches both place different limits on it, it would seem God can't make his mind up (and that still doesn't explain why it exists before God).

Oh and according to that same god, you have now committed a crime (idolatry) that is punishable by death and on a par with homosexuality in that regard, odd how you seem happy with one rule, yet are quite happy to break another.

 

[Agent_47]

That would lead to a number of questions, such as which god and if we assume you mean the Christian god why he/she can't get the various sects to agree on a single definition. The Catholic and Anglican churches both place different limits on it, it would seem God can't make his mind up (and that still doesn't explain why it exists before God).

Nothing existed before God. I got to say, this is getting fun, but off topic. Like I said, I don't care if gay people get civil unions, and it gets all the same legal protections as a marriage, but I have a problem with calling it marriage.

 

[Exorcet]

God.

Rights still take precedence, so even if God declared gay marriage to be wrong, he would in fact be wrong. He also wouldn't be able to do anything about the term marriage predating his religion.

In the end God would just be another guy spouting opinions and possibly non facts.

Nothing existed before God. I got to say, this is getting fun, but off topic.

God was invented by people, so it would logically be that people predate God.

 

[Jet Badger]

Nothing existed before God. I got to say, this is getting fun, but off topic.

It surely will be fun when you'll back up your claims.

 

[Scaff]

Nothing existed before God. I got to say, this is getting fun, but off topic.

Citation required (in another thread), but you may have missed my edit so I will ask again:


Oh and according to that same god, you have now committed a crime (idolatry) that is punishable by death and on a par with homosexuality in that regard, odd how you seem happy with one rule, yet are quite happy to break another.

 

[Agent_47]

Rights still take precedence, so even if God declared gay marriage to be wrong, he would in fact be wrong. He also wouldn't be able to do anything about the term marriage predating his religion.

In the end God would just be another guy spouting opinions and possibly non facts.


God was invented by people, so it would logically be that people predate God.

God was not invented by people.

 

[Scaff]

God was not invented by people.

Again citation required in another thread.

 

[Famine]

Nothing existed before God. I got to say, this is getting fun, but off topic. Like I said, I don't care if gay people get civil unions, and it gets all the same legal protections as a marriage, but I have a problem with calling it marriage.

Great. You're free to, but your definition of marriage is predated by one that doesn't exclude people the same way you want to. You don't get to redefine things to suit you, but you can keep pretending if you like.

 

[JulesJackson]

Yes it is - and you already conceded that when you didn't address it earlier:"Playing house" is in fact exactly what marriage is.

Marriage is through religion, the LBGT bashes religion yet they want to use it. They contradict themselves. It's a civil union. The commercial aspect of the LBGT is being broadcast 24/7, it's a propaganda machine.

Just like heterosexuals which can be married in most states, but not all, and can't kiss on TV without some random guy shaking his head.

You're a striking example of why it's clear that LGBT people aren't being fairly treated. You're acting as if they're outcasts or that they're doing something wrong. You're demanding that they cover up and get out of your sight and you're putting your very biased world view above their rights.

Do you know what gays want? The ability to marry in all states and countries and for people like you to stop making them a big deal.



And ism is a bad thing. However racism seems to be a weaker issue than homophobia is at the moment in developed nations. Most people seem to be over "other people" having rights. Gay's can't kiss on TV without people complaining about a made up agenda (because why would a [wo]man kiss a [wo]man that {s}he loved?). That people are offended by literally nothing is a serious issue.


You don't get to vote people's rights away. Any law banning gay marriage is wrong by default.

Not all of us have the complexion for the protection. Racism is a much stronger agenda and should never be mingled with the LBGT bedroom issues.

 

[Agent_47]

Rights still take precedence

Right but that doesn't make it marriage.

 

[Famine]

Marriage is through religion

Nope. Marriage predates organised religion.

I'm married - God wasn't invited.

Right but that doesn't make it marriage.

... according to your latterly redefined version of marriage.

 

[JulesJackson]

Again citation required in another thread.

Then I'll also ask for proof that there isn't a God. An agnostic approach is the best for this debate, that's being neutral.

 

[squadops]

You cannot prove that, read over the god thread.

 

[Famine]

Then I'll also ask for proof that there isn't a God.

Ah, you appear to understand the scientific method and the burden of proof just as much as you understand the use of the Edit button.

 

[Exorcet]

Marriage is through religion, the LBGT bashes religion yet they want to use it. They contradict themselves. It's a civil union. The commercial aspect of the LBGT is being broadcast 24/7, it's a propaganda machine.

Marriage and religion are completely separate. There is a subset of marriage that is religious and religions can do whatever they want with this. Christian marriage can be between a man and woman and no one else, but Christian marriage is a subset of marriage.

Not all of us have the complexion for the protection. Racism is a much stronger agenda and should never be mingled with the LBGT bedroom issues.

Racism and homophobia are basically the same thing. "I don't like you because stupid reasons".

Right but that doesn't make it marriage.

You're right. The definition of marriage does. I'm just pointing out that pointing to God doesn't help since he can't overturn rights or change definitions.

If God says that marriage between two people of the same sex is wrong, God is wrong.

If God says that marriage has always been between a man and woman he doesn't know anything about history.[/quote]

 

[TheCracker]

Marriage is through religion, the LBGT bashes religion yet they want to use it. They contradict themselves. It's a civil union. The commercial aspect of the LBGT is being broadcast 24/7, it's a propaganda machine.

What has marriage got to do with religion?

Not all of us have the complexion for the protection. Racism is a much stronger agenda and should never be mingled with the LBGT bedroom issues.

Why not. Why is racial equality more important than sexual equality?

 

[Bo]

Marriage is through religion, the LBGT bashes religion yet they want to use it. They contradict themselves. It's a civil union. The commercial aspect of the LBGT is being broadcast 24/7, it's a propaganda machine.

So homosexuality is not just a normal choice in life, but marriage, a religion bashing cult and a propaganda machine instead? Are you aware of how ludicrous this is?

Not all of us have the complexion for the protection. Racism is a much stronger agenda and should never be mingled with the LBGT bedroom issues.

It's not a "bedroom issue". It's about accepting a person for being a person. If we were to look at this from the hate crime aspect from before, would you say that a racially motivated murder is more important than a sexuality motivated one?

 

[Agent_47]

So homosexuality is not just a normal choice in life, but marriage, a religion bashing cult and a propaganda machine instead? Are you aware of how ludicrous this is?

Wait, what?

It's not a "bedroom issue". It's about accepting a person for being a person. If we were to look at this from the hate crime aspect from before, would you say that a racially motivated murder is more important than a sexuality motivated one?

Right, but why the need to call it marriage? The entire point is that this is not normal, calling it marriage would legitimize it.

 

[Rallywagon]

Then I'll also ask for proof that there isn't a God. An agnostic approach is the best for this debate, that's being neutral.

You can't prove a not. And the burden of proof is on those who claim he exists. Most atheist will say they don't know. They just aren't swayed by the whole have faith thing. The amount of proof for his not existing is equal to his existing. Which is to say, there is none either way.
Regardless. In this debate, it is your god that has issue with gay marriage. Good for him. Many other gods (don't be selfish, there can be more than one) don't share that same bigotry. Pagan gods, Wicca, those Greek ones. Only the Judaic, Mohammed, Abrahamic god seems to hate homosexuality. Makes no sense to me. But I'm an atheist. Believing in fairy tales has that affect on me.

 

[Scaff]

Then I'll also ask for proof that there isn't a God. An agnostic approach is the best for this debate, that's being neutral.

I didn't make the claim, nor did I pick an item that can't be subjected to falsifiability to make such a claim against. The burden of proof isn't mine in either case. Get to the right thread and feel free to prove me wrong (and nab a Nobel prize in the process).

 

[JulesJackson]

Ah, you appear to understand the scientific method and the burden of proof just as much as you understand the use of the Edit button.

You forgot to mention the latter half of what I stated: "An agnostic approach is the best for this debate, that's being neutral."

 

[Agent_47]

You can't prove a not. And the burden of proof is on those who claim he exists. Most atheist will say they don't know. They just aren't swayed by the whole have faith thing. The amount of proof for his not existing is equal to his existing. Which is to say, there is none either way.
Regardless. In this debate, it is your god that has issue with gay marriage. Good for him. Many other gods (don't be selfish, there can be more than one) don't share that same bigotry. Pagan gods, Wicca, those Greek ones. Only the Judaic, Mohammed, Abrahamic god seems to hate homosexuality. Makes no sense to me. But I'm an atheist. Believing in fairy tales has that affect on me.

Isn't Jesus Christ proof enough of God? You cannot conclusively prove that there is or is not a "God" so arguing about it is pointless. But hey let's save that for another thread.

 

[JulesJackson]

You can't prove a not. And the burden of proof is on those who claim he exists. Most atheist will say they don't know. They just aren't swayed by the whole have faith thing. The amount of proof for his not existing is equal to his existing. Which is to say, there is none either way.
Regardless. In this debate, it is your god that has issue with gay marriage. Good for him. Many other gods (don't be selfish, there can be more than one) don't share that same bigotry. Pagan gods, Wicca, those Greek ones. Only the Judaic, Mohammed, Abrahamic god seems to hate homosexuality. Makes no sense to me. But I'm an atheist. Believing in fairy tales has that affect on me.

Same can be said about the other way hence the agnostic approach. The gay agenda is a commercial aspect that the public will eventually become aware of.

 

[TheCracker]

Right, but why the need to call it marriage? The entire point is that this is not normal, calling it marriage would legitimize it.

It is normal as it occurs in nature too. They want to call it marriage because that's what it's called when people have a wedding.

@ GTP_GTDOJO - What is this 'agenda' that you so speak of?

 

[Scaff]

Right, but why the need to call it marriage?

Why the need to not?

The entire point is that this is not normal,

Citation required.

calling it marriage would legitimize it.

Why is it not?

 

[Bo]

Wait, what?

The commercial aspect of the LBGT is being broadcast 24/7, it's a propaganda machine.

Apparently, being gay is some kind of media stunt.

 

[Scaff]

Isn't Jesus Christ proof enough of God?

Not even close given that around about the same amount of proof exists for both.

You cannot conclusively prove that there is or is not a "God" so arguing about it is pointless.

Rather flimsy ground upon which to base your entire argument then isn't it?

Something you acknowledge you can't prove exists is a mandate for defining marriage!

But hey let's save that for another thread.

Go on then.

 

[Rallywagon]

Isn't Jesus Christ proof enough of God? You cannot conclusively prove that there is or is not a "God" so arguing about it is pointless. But hey let's save that for another thread.

Actually. The only proof of Jesus is the bible. In academic history, not biblical. There are lots of prophets and messiah's. But nothing naming a Jesus. Only in the bible. And if I remember correctly, wasn't he originally called Yahweh then Yesus, then Jesus?

 

[JulesJackson]

Actually. The only proof of Jesus is the bible. In academic history, not biblical. There are lots of prophets and messiah's. But nothing naming a Jesus. Only in the bible. And if I remember correctly, wasn't he originally called Yahweh then Yesus, then Jesus?

Same can be said about your stance.

 

[TheCracker]

He was called Steve originally. Changed it to Jesus to sound more ethnic. Bloody hipster.