Hey guys, how about a little philsophy and debate game :D
I want you to take your opinion about h.omosexuality (by that I mean the moral and religious implications and consequences of it) and play devil's advocate.
That's right, we're all going to have a backwards debate! I want you to try debating from the opposite of what you believe concerning h.omosexuality. I think this little excercise will sharpen not only our critical thinking and writing skills, but also give us an interesting perspective into the opponent's thought processes.
Good luck to all!
I'll start us off:
I believe h.omosexuality is inherently wrong because of God (I'm referring to the Christian God btw) specifically d.amns it in the Bible.
That's not to say that God didn't have his own reasons of course, h.omosexual activities have a higher chance of s.ex related injuries and illnesses, as well as higher rates of a.dultery, p.olygamy, and s.exual impurity. As well as the fact that h.omosexual couples often do not possess the stability or mix of masculine and feminine qualities to ideally raise a child.
You're turn! Don't be afraid to be creative :)
Hmmmm. So I need to argue that ho.mo.sexuality is 1) morally right and 2) must be banned or at least strictly regulated by the government.
*scratches head. I'll have to think this one out. :P
Hmmmm. So I need to argue that h.omosexuality is 1) morally right and 2) must be banned or at least strictly regulated by the government.
*scratches head. I'll have to think this one out. :P
Okay, I got this.
H.omosexuality is completely okay. We should follow our emotions and feelings, no matter what they are.
Forget about the Bible, it only ties us down; all those petty rules. I mean, God only created us and cares about us with an infinite love. Why would he care if we follow our carnal desires?
We should be allowed to do whatever we want. We live, we party, we die. That's all there is to our short existence.
Sure, the Bible gives the original marriage as a union between man and woman, but who cares? The Bible is just an old, uninspired book.
Hmm... Too sarcastic?
Anyways, that's all I've got time for right now. I'll discuss more later this week.
But, Breece, I like this "argue from the other side" idea. We should do it on other topics, too.
I'm serious, I'm already thinking up an alter ego.
I'll be a feministic, hedonistic atheist. I want to vote NDP when I'm eighteen, I eat bacon on Saturday morning while watching television, and I never smile or sing.
I shall be christened: "note.half"!
Or, perhaps, "whole.note" or "quarter.note"... I can't decide.
Oh yeah, we'll have some fun with this. :D
One doesn't need to denounce the Bible to support homosexua.lity. After all, there are also Old Testament verses outlawing tattoo.s, and I don't think very many people get circum.sised on the 8th day (if that's the day it says in the Old Testament) any more. The Bible also has been used to justify outlawing interrac.ial marriage (there's a text about being "equally yoked" with your spouse). Jesus spent time with and forgave many terrible sinners, and has forgiven you and me. Why should we say our sins "aren't as bad" as someone else's?
I'm in the middle of a Bible study with my family and some friends right now, but I will take a moment to comment.
The Old Testament should be taken seriously.
I personally keep the Sabbath and follow the other Ten Commandments.
However, I don't sacrifice animals or believe that males should be circumcised.
"Why?" you may ask.
Well, it's quite simple. Those things pointed towards Christ. He fulfilled circumcision and the sacrificial system when he died on the cross.
“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.” (Matthew 27:50-51)
Why would the temple curtain be “rent in twain” (ripped in two)?
Simple, the temple represented the sacrificial system and all that was involved. When Christ died on the cross, the sacrificial system was ended.
Jesus even says in Matthew 5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
However, this doesn’t mean that all the laws in the Old Testament are done away with.
In fact, Jesus reinforces many of the Old Testament rules in the New Testament.
And since the laws about h.omosexuality were never given as part of the message of the sacrificial system, they still remain.
Even just the creation story and the original marriage between Adam and Eve speaks of how our relationships should be. H.omosexuality is “confusion” and “an abomination”.
Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t meant to accuse h.omosexuals.
No sin is worse than any other. In fact, any transgression of the law counts as breaking all of the laws:
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)
God loves the sinner, just hates the sin, that is important to remember.
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
Also, those verses about being "unequally yoked" with a spouse does not refer to interacial marriages.
Rather, they refer to the religious life.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14)
Someone who follows God shouldn't marry someone who doesn't believe there is a God. These two people will have different goals and worldviews, and the marriage will be strained.
Marriage is the union of two people and their commitment to help and support each other.
If they can't even agree on something as basic as religion, how can they have a successful marriage?
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3)
Oh, and sorry, Breece, for getting out of character. I've just broken the only rule of your thread, but I just couldn't resist.
My humblest apologies.
This is hard! But I will do my best.
Homosexuality is good. Infact, its great! Its around around true love. God can't condemn it. Its says in the Bible that God is love. God is also good. Therefore, If you feel love for someone, it is good. For God to forbid love between one man and another is against his very nature.
Also, I think that its better than the tradition 'one man one woman' deal. Two people of the same sex get one another. They would understand eachother better than if they were of opposite sex. They probably would get in less fights, such as the toilet seat fight, or sunday football. It is probably best for people to have relations with their own kind util they are physically healthy/ capable of bearing one child. Then they should have a short term (9 months-18 years) relationship with the opposite sex, and then go back to their old partner.
Well, that's it. I ignored the Bible in this argument. Commited equivolal fallacies. And barfed in my mouth. No offence.
Halfnote: Haha. I was just arguing opposite of my beliefs. I don't really believe homose.xuality is morally right, not to be hateful to people who are L.GBT etc.
Well, everyone's entitled to equality and freedom, right? Freedom means that we can do whatever we want, and equality means the state must give legal recognition to it.
(Half.note's right. It's really hard to do this without being sarcastic.)
God is love. God is good. Therefore, any love between anyone, regardless of gender, is good. The bible is useful for teaching and rebuking and stuff (2 Timothy 3:16), but it is outdated in a lot of topics. H.omos.ex.uality is one of 'em. God's love is infinite. So, he loves the lgbt community more than those who are part of the community.
Fun game. I kinda want to tell you why I'm wrong now...
Yeah... I guess I should of realized that.
Wow, this game can get confusing.
Anyways, sorry for ranting at you. :)
God bless. <3
This is interesting. Just yesterday I interviewed for a Summer program here in Georgia related to Social Studies, and part of the process was a debate over a certain current issue, except that they randomly assigned us roles. I was an untra-liberal Democrat from California. What's worse, I think I won. :( Kinda makes you wonder whether people (including yourself, I guess) just believe you cause you present your ideas well, or because you're actually right. :)
Anyways . . .
The debate on h.omosexual marriage should not be a debate at all. So what if you think it's wrong? Do we refuse marriage licenses to known liars or lusters or boasters? Modern America's descrimination towards g*@ys is only taken seriously because it's been around for so long. A lot like other descriminations we've eliminated. (Black marriages were not recognized in some states until the passage of the Black Codes after the Civil War.) One does not have the right to deny another a fully happy and fulfilling life simply because they don't agree with their actions.
And I'm not convinced h.omosexuality is wrong. To define human relationships by the kind of reproductive organs each member has is to cheapen the depth of human relationship. Religious people claim s.ex is more than merely a physical act: that it draws two people together emotionally . . . as well as spiritually--they become one flesh. Would this divine action truly be petty enough to care what body parts go where in the process? Is it any less beautiful to see two loving eskimos kiss with their noses than to see two loving Anglo-Americans kiss with their lips? Does the act lose its significance? Do the heart and spirit of each member draw closer to the other moreso in one than the other? I say no.
This is interesting. Just yesterday I interviewed for a Summer program here in Georgia related to Social Studies, and part of the process was a debate over a certain current issue, except that they randomly assigned us roles. I was an ultra-liberal Democrat from California. What's worse, I think I won. :( Kinda makes you wonder whether people (including yourself, I guess) just believe you cause you present your ideas well, or because you're actually right. :)
Anyways . . .
The debate on h.omosexual marriage should not be a debate at all. So what if you think it's wrong? Do we refuse marriage licenses to known liars or lusters or boasters? Modern America's discrimination towards h.omosexuals is only taken seriously because it's been around for so long. A lot like other discriminations we've eliminated. (Black marriages were not recognized in some states until the passage of the Black Codes after the Civil War.) One does not have the right to deny another a fully happy and fulfilling life simply because they don't agree with their actions.
And I'm not convinced h.omosexuality is wrong. To define human relationships by the kind of reproductive organs each member has is to cheapen the depth of human relationship. Religious people claim $.ex is more than merely a physical act: that it draws two people together emotionally . . . as well as spiritually--they become one flesh. Would this divine action truly be petty enough to care what body parts go where in the process? Is it any less beautiful to see two loving eskimos kiss with their noses than to see two loving Anglo-Americans kiss with their lips? Does the act lose its significance? Do the heart and spirit of each member draw closer to the other moreso in one than the other? I say no.
Glad you're all having fun :D
And Collin, yeah, I can see why you won, you're argument is pretty good actually :P
Yeah, yeah. Your turn to refute me. :)
This sounds fun!!! :D My real position is a bit iffy right now, but I'll stick with habit and say I'm really against h.omose.xual acts. So...
The current discrimination against h.omos.exuals is simply based on the refusal to recognise the freedom of human beings, and especially of their emotions. History is full of discrimination against two people loving one another without harming anyone else. Rationally, there is no argument against h.omose.xuality, and thus it is very hard to argue for it when there are no valid arguments against it! Nevertheless, I shall attempt to do so:
1. Some argue that h.omos.exuality has been looked down upon in all societies since the dawn of man. While this is blatantly untrue (though I shall not argue that it has never been prevalent), what does that matter? It is completely irrelevant. As the old adage goes, if your .. um ancestor jumped off a bridge, would you follow him?! Since when have ancient societies, based on false belief and uncountable prejudices, been our standard for anything? Shall we also revert back to burying our baby daughters alive and speaking in Caveman all day? What rubbish.
2. Others say that h.omos.exual acts are harmful physically, either because they spread STIs, or because they literally cause...rippage [ew]. Either way, so can h.eteros.exual acts, and clearly we shouldn't allow for any sort of pre-marital or post-marital s.exual relations, as any form of pro.miscuity can spread STIs. In fact, this is not an argument against h.omose.xuality, but against p.romiscuity. Another red herring in the H.omos.exual Debate.
3. The third reason is religious reasons. Well, keep your religion to yourself, this is a secular state (regardless of the Founding Fathers' intentions, it is what America has become in the eyes of her people [lol I'm not even American]). No religion is preferred over another [or so they say -- anyone remember the Is Obama a Muslim scandal?]. The Bible is full of random rules that many Christians themselves blatantly ignore. This is a new age, and we cannot allow ancient books written by anonymous authors with dubious authority dictate how we treat our citizens. Religion and state should not interfere with one another.
4. Some argue that h.omos.exuality will lead to other random marriages being alowed, e.g. to your dog. To all y'all folks: Look up the Slippery Slope Fallacy.
5. Others say that h.omos.exual marriage will devalue what marriage is. What sort of sentimental and baseless reasoning is this?! If anything, it will expand the meaning of marriage to be more inclusive! To not just be about security, children, etc, but truly about Love, the greatest of all emotions!
Having dealt with all the above arguments, I see no reason why we should not accept h.omos.exuals into the public fold as equal citizens, and not just that, but as following a lifestyle that is equally beautiful as any other moral one, and engendering relationships full of love that deserves every inch of our envy as a h.eterose.xual relationship draws.
Ta da. :D
(beats head against desk)
I'd really like to find whatever idiot started the 'Obama is a Muslim' rumor.
And whoever started the 'birther' thing.
And the creators of many other stupid myths...
The reason h.omosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed (or action condoned) is because it has profound negative effects on both the individual, and society as a whole.
H.omosexuality has proven to be associated with promiscuity, AIDS, increase risk of colon and digestive problems, depression, and suicide.
On top of that, h.omosexual marriage not only destroys the traditional value of marriage, but also the concept itself. It is basically spitting in the face of over two thousand years of tradition and culture, completely disrespectful.
Once h.omosexuality is considered appropriate, promiscuity, casual s.ex, p.olygamy, b.estiality, and all other s.exual perversions will begin to creep their way into society. That kind of society is no place to raise a child, or live in yourself for that matter.
Marriage is a sacred tradition that should be preserved out of respect. H.omosexual marriage should not be allowed under any circumstances, due to the fact that it is detrimental to both society and the individuals involved.
Your turn :D
No fair Breece! I've already replied to every single one of your arguments.