The debate "You can not be gay and christian at the same time" was started by
September 20, 2016, 5:55 pm.
By the way, fadi is disagreeing with this statement.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
blakelovesjesus posted 16 arguments, fadi posted 1 argument, neveralone posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, fadi posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 16 arguments to the disagreers part.
ashutosh, blakelovesjesus and 10 visitors agree.
fadi, Nemiroff, NationalistGuy, MW13, thereal, ankii23, cookinglover12, debatingdalek, beingboss23, Hijumi, allyssa, redeemed, human, MrLuke and 21 visitors disagree.
yes u can be gay and Christian at the same time but in the Christian faith it is a sin to be gay. but we have all sinned and as Christians we shouldn't condemn people or judge them for there sins
What? I said i would pursue a different union that defined heterosexuality. If marriage was defomed by homosexuality, why would I want that?
right there. that's your problem. you see one man and one woman as the "true form". you refuse to look at this from the other side. despite the fact that you can see how if the roles were reversed you would be outraged, you continue to see your position as correct.
you don't want to debate this. you just want to repeat your opinion over and over again.
If homosexuality was the true form of marriage, why would i want to do that. If it were that, i wouldnt want that, but something for heterosexuals
and if we changed the law to only allow homosexual marriage would you be totally fine with that? you would have every opportunity to do what homosexuals do.
They have every opportunity to do what heterosexuals do
they just wanted to marry the person they were in a relationship with.
who said they didn't want marriage? they openly demanded it!
Because the creation of rights by government have always been dangerous. What were homosexuals excluded from nemiroff. They could have everything a heterosexual could. They didny want marriage
yes. many Republican lawmakers are pushing to overturn same sex marriage. why do you think it took a supreme Court ruling to establish that right? cause the more conservative members of this nation fought that right tooth and nail.
So a homosexual can't get married? What right are we revoking. They can do exactly what a heterosexual can. The exact same thing.
Your blaintant claims are contradicting the subject. There is no way you can compare a Christian to a slave owner. You are like a tree that yields no fruit in season.
you think allowing everyone into a defininition is a perversion? just like slave owners thought calling slaves people was a perversion. the traditional defininition very explicitly said they had to be white to be a person. just like your traditional defininition says that it has to be a man and a woman.
you, just like slave owners, want to use tradition as an excuse to prevent people from having rights.
Being heterosexual would be coincidental; the problem is I would want to marry a woman, and that doesnt fit the requirements.
Beyond perverting the definition, they wouldnt be discriminating against anybody. Its built for homosexuals like medicare is for 65 up.
they are not allowed to marry the person they love. if we passed a law changing the defininition of marriage to only be gay marriage would that not be discriminatory? I mean you can still marry a man, so that isn't discrimination at all by your defininition.
Because homosexuals arent discriminated against. A homosexual man could marry a lesbian. If it was discriminatory towards homosexuals, that would be impossible.
except for the fact that it is absurd. but defininitionally there isn't a problem. but I don't see how it is even remotely relevant.
Yeah there would be no problem
a gay man and a lesbian woman could totally marry if they wanted to. I don't see why they would. that's like asking if a kkk member could marry a black panther... in theory there is no problem.
"I suppose they could have. both would have been unhappy and no children would have resulted. in short it would have accomplished nothing and pleasing no one."
If the definition is purely discriminating against homosexuals, how could that possibly happen?
my conclusion is that an old definition had to be updated to include everyone because it became obvious they were excluding people for no reason. laws banning gay people were excluding people for no reason and therefore had to be removed.
I suppose they could have. both would have been unhappy and no children would have resulted. in short it would have accomplished nothing and pleasing no one.
Are you making the conclusion then that homosexuals werent people then. That is the only way to make a true equivalency.
As a little thought experiment, could a homosexual marry a lesbian under the archaic definition.
and there is no reason a gay couple should be restricted either.
the definition of "people" started as white men. that's no reason for the original definition to be kept forever. eventually people have to be forced to accept that women and other races are in fact people.
why would a gay man marry a gay woman? that doesn't even make sense.
"in archaic definitions a black man wasn't a man. he wasn't even a human. I don't care what archaic definitions used to be."
Precisely, there was no reason for a black man to be restricted from anything.
"homosexual couples CAN have children. they can adopt, they can use artificial insemination. so your rediculous idea that a homosexual couple can't raise children and have a family is completely erroneous."
Never said they couldnt. Im telling you how it started. It was designated for men and women.
Now i would really like to know of a homosexual man cany marry a lesbian.
in archaic definitions a black man wasn't a man. he wasn't even a human. I don't care what archaic definitions used to be.
homosexual couples CAN have children. they can adopt, they can use artificial insemination. so your rediculous idea that a homosexual couple can't raise children and have a family is completely erroneous.
Ill ask you this. Could a homosexual man and lesbian marry each other under "archaic" definitions?
It isnt a strong defense to say that a black man isnt as much of a man as a white man. There is no difference between the two other than color.
Homosexual marriage is however obviously different from heterosexual marriage. Can both couples love, yes. Are both consenting unions, yes. In your mind this makes them equal; however, marriage is designated for a man and woman. There is a clear distinction in gender and purpose. Can homosexuals procreate, no. Are homosexual marriages between a man and woman, no.
Well then what does It matter if they are of the same gender. The answer is that marriage encompassed the propensity that men and women had together. The union was made to give a structured union for men and women to raise a family and be together. That was what marriages were. An exclusive institution designed to unite men and women.
to the people who wanted to bar blacks from education etc it was perfectly logical as well. to their minds, blacks were inferior. therefore they obviously shouldn't be allowed to educated.
your view is no different. you see being gay as wrong because of your cultural and religious background. therefore your discrimination against others is perfectly logical to you. to other, non homophobic, people your views are archaic and wrong. the same way you, I hope, see description against black people as wrong.
Equal protection requires meaningless discrimination. It was used for blacks beacuse there is no logical reason to bar blacks from education, relations, etc. Marriage is entirely different. Marriage is between a man and woman, and there is logic behind keeping homosexuals out. Marriage required a man and woman because it was created for a man and woman, and it existed between a man and woman.
if the institution is discriminatory, then yes. equal protection is in the Constitution.
I will follow your digression. This isnt an establishment clause issue: it is whether or not government is permitted to change foundational ideas to suit their desires. That is the fundmental question. Not should government be able to recognize homosexual unions, but should government be able to change a fundamental instituion to do it.
but to the greater issue. Catholic marriage should have nothing to do with city hall nor the law of the land. the same goes for other denominations
To the topic at hand, it is quite related. He questioned the properties of an annulment, a catholic process, and i answered in a defense of the catholic marriage.
Well whats also unimportant, is a Catholic marriage rules to anyone not a Catholic.
Are you talking to me,
You dont understand what a Catholic marriage is then. You pervert it with the secular definition: that its a unimportant and can be treated as a trial.
Hey hey, in fact I could turn that statement right back at you. being an atheist makes no sense, how could you believe in a world God created was made by accident. In fact. I believe Charles Darwin was a Christian even though he is claimed to be the Father of evolution.
so two people get married and have different expectations of how their marriage will work. your solution is not to simply the end the marriage, as common sense would dictate. your solution is to pretend no marriage ever happened.
your religion makes no sense.
Because one didnt enter the union in full expectation of the marriage. Their purpose wasnt marriage in the entirety of its sanctity.
why is that? an annulment means the marriage never exist. in what way does using contraceptives mean the marriage never existed?
if your partner doesn't want children and you do that is a good reason to get a devorce. but I don't see how you could possibly annul it and say it didn't happen.
If one were to lie and use contraceptives unbeknownst to the other, it is grounds fo annulment. If one has no inention of children but lies, that is grounding for annulment
so in your opinion a Catholic person is obligated to have children?
You are arguing from a secular perspective. A Catholic marriage is under more implications than just love.
again I don't know what you mean. lots of people get married who don't want children. children are not a requirement of marriage.
If one never had the intention of children and says "I do" and refuses to have them.
I don't understand the question. two people are married when they say I do in front of a suitable officiant and witnesses.
saying that you can just prevent that marriage from ever having existed just to get around the rule against devorce is a cop out.
You can get a divorce--it's a secular institution. You need to understand that marriages are not just love and union alone, they are more. If somebody doesn't meet these requirements, how can they be married?
no. I've gone into accurately describing the church with a humorous flare.
the Catholic Church has locked itself into a dogma that no longer fits into the modern world. so they use annulments as a way to skirt their own rules.
you can't get a devorce, that's against the rules. just pretend the marriage never happened though and everything is perfectly fine. I didn't end my marriage. even though yesterday i had a wife and today I don't.
You don't understand it, and have purely resulted into ridicule.
which is hilarious. an annulment is just a Catholic devorce. it is a cynical way around your dogma. "I didn't devorce my wife, our marriage just never happened".
They could seek annulment
so someone marries young and their spouce is abusive. your religion gives them the option of staying with them until they violence escalates to their death, or spending their entire life alone and miserable. your religion is terrible.
What do you mean
There's something blinding you from the truth.
Other sinners can be kept from communion. Any separation of grace is ground for it.
They can get an annulment if they have good grounds for it. Catholics value marriage unlike society. Its a sacrament and highly sacred.
and the Pope himself wants those who are remarried to be able to be able to be accepted. at least some leaders of Catholicism have the sense to try to modernize your woefully outdated religion.
It is adultery do that. Did Jesus not command us? A wife and a man shall become one flesh. Not a man and a man nor a woman and a woman. They shall not split till death do them part.
you punish them for moving on with their life and not being alone and miserable for the rest of their life. that sounds like punishing devorced people to me.
Nobody punishes anybody for divorce.
Divorce isnt an issue. It means nothing. If you get a divorce, there is no sin. If you remarry, it is adultery. That bars you from communion.
that is exactly my point. devorce is not always something that can be controlled. divorces can happen no matter how devout you are. punishing them or insisting they spend the rest of their life alone is completely moronic. you are only driving people away from the church.
the Pope wants remarried people to be able to have communion and be able to participate in the church.
Again, no. It is considered adultery to remarry with only a divorce. Divorce means nothing in the catholic church. If they dont remarry, them they've not committed adultery. You are married unless annulled in the church. Annulment is not divorce, and if they do in fact commit adultery, then cannot participate in thr Eucharistic feast while they are out of grace.
not to encourage people to get divorced. but the way things are now if you get remarried, as many people do, you basically out of the church. which means your children are pretty much out of the church. he's smart enough to realize that driving people away is a bad idea.
did you not read about the synod of the family in 2014? the Pope wants the church to accept divorced people by allowing them to fully participate in the church.
It is completely against God's law to divorce. Where are you getting this idea that the church is trying to change this idea? I'm sorry to say it but that's incorrect, where is your proof. My proof is in the scriptures.
Because it is a rediculously outdated idea. if you get married too fast and they are a complete jerk, if I followed your rules I have to stay with them forever. it's just moronic.
well every man has only one wife until her death and vice versa what is bad about this i can not understand
It's a secular institution. It doesnt change a marriage in a religious scope. In the eyes of the Church, thr marriage still exists.
and what does "divorce means nothing" mean?
Divorce means nothing.
that is an antiquated belief that doesn't fit into the modern world. the Catholics have been fighting change for almost 2000 years. If they don't try to stay relevant to the real world then they are going to become irrelevant.
Getting divorced is against God. That's why Jesus said it.
but allowing people who are devorced to be full members of a church is tacit approval. if they can get divorced and continue on in the church as if nothing has happened then the church obviously doesn't object.
this is what the Pope is pushing for. divorce is a fact of the world. ignoring it and punishing people for it is only driving people away from the church. the Pope sees that.
your views on homosexuality are the same. they are old, outdated rules that make no sense. they only undermine your credibility. the church needs to modernize or die. personally I'm ok with either.
That isnt in context: divorce means nothing to the Catholic church. If you get a divorce and then commit adultery, you are technically married to the one with whom you had the divorce. The only time you can separate is by an annulment which proves that the marriage was not legitimate in the first place.
no, not yet. but the Pope is pushing for devorced people to be allowed to have communion etc. which is pretty much accepting the necessity of devorce.
change takes time, but it has already taken a big step forward.
Thats a lie. The catholic church does not recognize divorces.
well since that second passage says the no one can ever have a devorce. good luck trying to enforce that. even the Catholic Church is moving away from that. it is simply an archaic rule. just like the anti gay rules.
But from the beginning of creation, ?God made them male and female.? ?Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.?
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
here is a list of things banned in Leviticus.
I think you'll find many of them are frequently broken by "good Christians." the rules in Leviticus don't make any sense. if you follow one you have to follow them all. so the next time you take communion in church, spread slander (which Republicans do constantly), eat fruit from a tree within four years of it being planted, fail to stand in the presence of the elderly or work on the Sabbath then you are no longer a christian.
I don't think there are many Christians in the world if they have to follow all the rules of the old testament.
I'm not asking if they are innocent. I am not asking if they will go to heaven. I am asking if they can be christians, in this life.
Nemiroff, I believe Leviticus is one of the five books of the Torah, is it not?
Why I believe this is because homosexuals don't change their sin. People who repent try to never commit the sin. Homosexuals just keep on sinning. There's no realization that they did something wrong.
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
and it is also very clear that everyone is a sinner and that they are still Christians. why do you believe that being gay is different than every other sin?
No but God does, and it's strictly spoken of in the Bible about the fate of homosexuals.
does an ordinary Christian have the authority to declare someone unfit to be a christian?
I'm pretty sure the only group that isn't considered a Christian are people who don't accept christ. anyone can be a Christian if they accept christ no matter what.
no sorry my mistake I meant to say you can't get get to heaven if you are gay. it's intolerable
therefore you can be gay and a Christian at the same time. we agree.
You can get to heaven if you are gay. Even if you are a gay Christian. Your aren't repenting of your wrong doing, therefore you never asked for forgiveness in the first place.
and if you do act on that temptation, you sin, but you can still be a Christian, no?
Homosexuality is just another temptation. It can lead you to further sin if you act upon it. Gays can be saints, but if you act upon it, you are sinning.
and a person with a sin can still be Christian correct?
one sin serperated us from God, but Jesus redeemed us of all sins.
if a single sin disqualifies you from being a Christian, and everyone is a sinner. then Christianity is a dead religion.