-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
gay marriage
- Thread starter yummynbeefy
- Start date
- Status
Rush4216
Smash Rookie
i think u should, they bring out different studies each day saying one thing then the next saying its the other way
We are on topic, no matter how tangential our specific discussion might be.
In any case, **** off; you're not part of this conversation.
Then what was the whole point of your "Do you ever question science" spiel? Because it seemed like you were trying to equate religious people questioning their silly religious beliefs with a healthy skepticism of scientific standards. It should be obvious why the two are not equally practiced.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
It's not really our job to challenge RK's religion. However, there is definitely a difference between religious beliefs and moral correctness. As I stated before, the religious aspect of this should only apply to homosexuals who follow the bible.
RK, for you to state whether or not something is morally correct, you need to form your own opinion, not someone else's. You also have to consider those who don't follow Christianity.
As I stated before, I do recognize the possibility of two different views: your religious standpoint and your view of the overall morality of the issue.
RK, for you to state whether or not something is morally correct, you need to form your own opinion, not someone else's. You also have to consider those who don't follow Christianity.
As I stated before, I do recognize the possibility of two different views: your religious standpoint and your view of the overall morality of the issue.
Wiz. I used to respect you as a competitor, but not any more. You are not here to question my beliefs.
My point, RDK, was that so many athiests don't question science, they just accept it and ignore religion. That is very much true.
Oh, and Krazy, I have formed my own opinions. Oh, and I did state my opinions on this subject.
My point, RDK, was that so many athiests don't question science, they just accept it and ignore religion. That is very much true.
Oh, and Krazy, I have formed my own opinions. Oh, and I did state my opinions on this subject.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Yeah, I saw your post. It was just confusing because you said due to your religion you believe being gay is wrong but personally you believe that gay marriage is ok because God doesn't like divorce. I'm just a little confused here.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
And your proof or source is? So many atheists?? Really? Try not to recant on this claim of yours when you reply.
Stick to it.
w!zard
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 153
no, i'm trying to make YOU question your OWN beliefs. this is proving to be impossible, as you prefer to stay blissfully ignorant. that's not a trait that is wanted in any debate. if you want me to respect your beliefs, you have to earn it. i can give you a valid reason for everything i believe. you apparently, cannot.
strawman. it doesn't matter if there are some atheists who don't question science (assuming your claim is true). it doesn't give anybody else a reason to illogically stick to their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.
Comments in Orange - Yellow.
w!zard
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 153
if you could you would answer my questions instead of hide behind the "you don't understand me" nonsense. everything you post here is up for criticism. if you don't want something criticized, don't post it.
it was implied. what else would your point be?
Comments in X + Yellow = Orange
Um, no, opinions can't be wrong nor mean nothing. Oh, and a fact stated by the Bible. Here:
http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/homosexuality.html\
On top of that, I already gave my position on the topic at hand.
As for YOU RDK... well you still wouldn't understand until you became more mature in the faith. I ask my parents plenty of questions where there are seeming contradictions. You, on the other hand? You merely read through, saw contradictions, wrote it off and left, apparently. Did you ever ASK your pastor? Did you check theological studies? Better yet, did you realize that through all of this there are Bibles with the ORIGINAL translation that explain things far better? Maybe because you saw it as a whole bunch of cover-ups, you didn't get that. If you actually tried, there'd be a rather large difference.
First of all, don't make assumptions when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, I did question my pastors (I had multiple ones, as my parents liked to switch churches if there was something in the doctrine they didn't like). I did question my parents. I even did a little research and looked up the original Greek and Hebrew for certain portions I thought were important.
So don't tell me I don't know enough about the Bible, because I can guarantee I know more than you. Know how I can tell you don't know enough? Because no rational person in his right mind would embrace a literal interpretation of the Bible after taking a good hard look at it.
I meant no offense and as such I did say "apparently".
I suppose it could be because of the multiple pastors. My current pastor was considered for the 1% of all pastors in America to preach at America's largest church. He declined, however.
Maybe it's the teachings, maybe. However, my current pastor clears things up rather well. As he is probably busy, I shall ask my youth pastor to prepare a response for you on this subject. Then again, I can try to ask my normal pastor.
Oh, and whether or not you know more about the Bible than me, the simple fact of the matter is that you had so many interpretations, it doesn't matter at this point.
But I pose this: What do you have to lose for believing?
I suppose it could be because of the multiple pastors. My current pastor was considered for the 1% of all pastors in America to preach at America's largest church. He declined, however.
Maybe it's the teachings, maybe. However, my current pastor clears things up rather well. As he is probably busy, I shall ask my youth pastor to prepare a response for you on this subject. Then again, I can try to ask my normal pastor.
Oh, and whether or not you know more about the Bible than me, the simple fact of the matter is that you had so many interpretations, it doesn't matter at this point.
But I pose this: What do you have to lose for believing?
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
The problem is you are focusing on your religion, which not all people follow. You can't factor religion into law or morality because someone's religious beliefs are a personal choice, and certainly most (or at least some) gay people aren't Christian. Like I said before, your religious beliefs can only be applied to homosexuals who are in the same religion.
And that's why I made a completely unrelated decision on this topic.
BTW, I pose that we disallow all religious discussions for the simple reason that neither side will sway.
We're certainly mature enough to handle it, but honestly, what is the point?
BTW, I pose that we disallow all religious discussions for the simple reason that neither side will sway.
We're certainly mature enough to handle it, but honestly, what is the point?
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
I have a problem with this line.
Saying "Their homosexuality is a sin" means that you know this is true. This may be your belief, but that does not mean it's in the least bit true. Maybe change the wording, but saying it as straight up as this with no possibility of anything else being correct is invalid.
Anyway, I'm all for gay marriage, our society is just full of intolerant people that can't get around the fact that gays are out there. Marriage between people that love each other shouldn't be prohibited, that's completely ridiculous. Studies have shown that most likely 4-9% of the world is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. (I got this from multiple sites, including WikiAnswers and answerbag.com, idk if that can be trusted) If we go by that, that means that there are from 240,000,000 to 540,000,000 homosexuals in the world, and that's a huge number. I don't see why homosexual marriage is any different than other marriage, it's just two people that love each other getting married. We should be able to look past the fact that homosexual marriage isn't the "norm" and just accept that two people that care for each other, no matter what, should be able to get married.
The argument that the bible dictates that marriage is between a man and a women isn't valid, because in our current society, church and state are separate entities.
Just my thoughts.
w!zard
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 153
of course opinions can't be wrong, but you have not justified your opinion. the debate hall isn't for posting just your opinions. you have to be able to defend them too. and if you can't do that, don't post here.
and that link doesn't even work.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
Keep one liners to a minimum, people. 
Opinions CAN be wrong, if wrong information is used. Anyway, he can still post around here, it's just that things would work a lot better if everyone could provide a reasonable why for every statement they make, with appropriate linking to valid sources and such.
How about we start over, RK? Give us your premise so we can respond to you properly without getting off-topic.
Opinions CAN be wrong, if wrong information is used. Anyway, he can still post around here, it's just that things would work a lot better if everyone could provide a reasonable why for every statement they make, with appropriate linking to valid sources and such.
How about we start over, RK? Give us your premise so we can respond to you properly without getting off-topic.
w!zard
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 153
opinions are subjective statements. they can never be wrong. a person could change his opinion about something, but the opinion itself can never be disproved to be valid.
I think what he means to say is that some opinions should be valued above others due to the quality of information used when formulating that opinion.
But that's just my opinion.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
"opinions are never wrong, that's what separates them from facts" --Sui
Sui was an idiot. Let's define opinion first:
There's nothing in the definition that exempts it from being right or wrong, nor anything in the definition that precludes it from being wrong, therefore it is possible for opinions to be wrong.
Anyway, still waiting on RK's premise.
w!zard
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 153
where did you get that definition from? dictionary.com gives what i find to be a much better one: "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." so they can't be right or wrong. they are completely subjective.
what we need from RK isn't the premises he wants us to work under, it's any type of support for what he says.
what we need from RK isn't the premises he wants us to work under, it's any type of support for what he says.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
I hope you're not posting for the sake of posting, wiz. Did you not understand what I said or do you not understand the goal yourself?
You need to find the part of the definition that excludes opinion from the applicability of right or wrong. Belief or judgments are subject to being right and wrong:
Resting on insufficient grounds to be certain does not disqualify it. You can say that "The intent of opinion is that it is not strictly qualified by right and wrong" but you can't say that opinions are never subject to being considered right or wrong. "Blue is ugly" may be an opinion which is exempt. "The world is flat" is not. Do we understand each other now?
You need to find the part of the definition that excludes opinion from the applicability of right or wrong. Belief or judgments are subject to being right and wrong:
Resting on insufficient grounds to be certain does not disqualify it. You can say that "The intent of opinion is that it is not strictly qualified by right and wrong" but you can't say that opinions are never subject to being considered right or wrong. "Blue is ugly" may be an opinion which is exempt. "The world is flat" is not. Do we understand each other now?
w!zard
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 153
an opinion is a subset of "belief" and "judgment." statements that have to do with objectivity are not opinions, but misconceptions or knowledge (depending on whether the statement is true of false).
"the world is flat" is not an opinion. it's an incorrect belief, or a misconception.
"the world is flat" is not an opinion. it's an incorrect belief, or a misconception.
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
We'll take this debate to profile messaging, and let the actual debate of the topic continue.
Lixivium
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,689
All right, I think I understand the problem, let me see if I can explain it to RK Joker in a better way:
On any subject, rational argument can only take you so far, at some point you will get down to some core VALUES you hold for which there is no rational basis. You might call these values "opinions" if you like. For example, I couldn't tell you why I like the color red better than yellow. The only argument you can give for why you hold your values is "I just do," they are not debatable.
Now RK, you said that you think homosexuality is a sin. When asked why, if you had just responded "I just do", then no one can argue against that, any more than they can argue against me liking red more than yellow. But that's not what you did.
You cited the Bible as a source for why you think that way: I think homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. Okay, but the Bible also says that it's a sin to eat shrimp and shellfish, (Source) among other things why don't you believe those as well?
Now I already defended your right to choose what to believe out of your religion, but what you haven't explained is WHY you chose to believe this particular passage vs. any other passage. What exactly makes homosexuality different from eating shrimp? They're both prohibited in the Old Testament - furthermore, homosexuality is only implicitly prohibited while eating shrimp is explicitly prohibited.
If at this point you had said, "I accept the part of the Bible that states homosexuality is a sin because it is consistent with how I feel", in other words, "I just do", then again, no one can argue with that. But if that's the case, then you need to realize that the Bible is no longer a valid justification of your beliefs (at least when it comes to homosexuality), it is merely a convenient excuse to reinforce them.
You believe that homosexuality is wrong not because the Bible says so, but because you just feel it in your gut at some primal level, and the Bible happens to agree with it. You know what? That's FINE, because no one can tell you how to feel about something, any more than they can tell me how to feel about red vs. yellow. But you ought to acknowledge that's the case if you want the other posters off your back.
On any subject, rational argument can only take you so far, at some point you will get down to some core VALUES you hold for which there is no rational basis. You might call these values "opinions" if you like. For example, I couldn't tell you why I like the color red better than yellow. The only argument you can give for why you hold your values is "I just do," they are not debatable.
Now RK, you said that you think homosexuality is a sin. When asked why, if you had just responded "I just do", then no one can argue against that, any more than they can argue against me liking red more than yellow. But that's not what you did.
You cited the Bible as a source for why you think that way: I think homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. Okay, but the Bible also says that it's a sin to eat shrimp and shellfish, (Source) among other things why don't you believe those as well?
Now I already defended your right to choose what to believe out of your religion, but what you haven't explained is WHY you chose to believe this particular passage vs. any other passage. What exactly makes homosexuality different from eating shrimp? They're both prohibited in the Old Testament - furthermore, homosexuality is only implicitly prohibited while eating shrimp is explicitly prohibited.
If at this point you had said, "I accept the part of the Bible that states homosexuality is a sin because it is consistent with how I feel", in other words, "I just do", then again, no one can argue with that. But if that's the case, then you need to realize that the Bible is no longer a valid justification of your beliefs (at least when it comes to homosexuality), it is merely a convenient excuse to reinforce them.
You believe that homosexuality is wrong not because the Bible says so, but because you just feel it in your gut at some primal level, and the Bible happens to agree with it. You know what? That's FINE, because no one can tell you how to feel about something, any more than they can tell me how to feel about red vs. yellow. But you ought to acknowledge that's the case if you want the other posters off your back.
Hi, I was asked to post here. So I shall. This thread needs some direction. More specifically, it needs a purpose.
There are really two different aspects to this debate, which must be kept explicitly clear and separate.
1) Gay marriage as a policy decision.
2) Gay marriage from a moral standpoint.
These are not the same thing, not even close. There are many illegal things which are not immoral, and there are many immoral things which are not illegal. So arguments for one do not in any way roll over to the other.
The first subject is far more interesting, as the second is entirely subjective and almost never supported by any substance. But you are free to debate this, so long as you try to add substance.
Arguments for or against gay marriage can include:
- Why it is or is not beneficial to society
- Whether or not it impedes freedom / does or does not violate constitutional rights
- Similarities or differences to other civil rights movements
- etc...
Something that is NOT a valid argument
- "I believe that it is morally wrong." -This is an argument for the second half of the debate, not the first.
- "Being gay is / is not a choice" -Entirely irrelevant, except from a moral standpoint. See above.
- Anything to do with religion. The government cannot make policy decisions on the basis of religious belief. Period. No religious arguments here.
- etc...
Continue
There are really two different aspects to this debate, which must be kept explicitly clear and separate.
1) Gay marriage as a policy decision.
2) Gay marriage from a moral standpoint.
These are not the same thing, not even close. There are many illegal things which are not immoral, and there are many immoral things which are not illegal. So arguments for one do not in any way roll over to the other.
The first subject is far more interesting, as the second is entirely subjective and almost never supported by any substance. But you are free to debate this, so long as you try to add substance.
Arguments for or against gay marriage can include:
- Why it is or is not beneficial to society
- Whether or not it impedes freedom / does or does not violate constitutional rights
- Similarities or differences to other civil rights movements
- etc...
Something that is NOT a valid argument
- "I believe that it is morally wrong." -This is an argument for the second half of the debate, not the first.
- "Being gay is / is not a choice" -Entirely irrelevant, except from a moral standpoint. See above.
- Anything to do with religion. The government cannot make policy decisions on the basis of religious belief. Period. No religious arguments here.
- etc...
Continue
I gave an internet link explaining the morality of gay marriage. :/
Okay, so my premise is that if homosexual sex is wrong according to the Bible, then according to many members here, that means that homosexuality is wrong, due to marriage leading to sex. I respectfully disagree. Commitment is important in this day and age, between anybody. If you think literally, then there is no such thing as gay marriage, since marriage is described as a bond between a man and a woman. Whether I think that gay marriage in itself is wrong, I will not stand in its way. Gays will do whatever they will do, and I feel that not allowing them to have marriage is impeding them from natural human rights. Are not Christians supposed to still treat gays like people, and homosexuality as we would any other sin? As two sentient human beings, they are entitled to the benefits of marriage. Especially in this financial state America is currently in. You see, many sources have said that it's better to have someone special to go through the hard times with. It is also financially wiser to have a partner. Some gays in this world do marry straight people, and if out of desperation, they do so, or by societal pressure, how can this be right? First of all, they would be messing with the straight person's emotions. Secondly, if society has forced them into this, then they won't have become "straight" for their own sake. For all Christians reading this, should we not love our neighbors? Then why do we leave them in the cold while we are in comfort with our partners? At the very least, we should have them have some way to gain marital benefits, because gays are entitled to human rights as well, and remember that the love of God is still bestowed upon sinners. So if we should wish to continue our lives (which are less than perfect as well, and homosexuality is but a single sin in comparison to many) being forgiven by God, then we should not hold sins against others, who may love God and attempt to change but merely find it difficult. To conclude, this quote from Jesus "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Don't throw these painful stones, friends, but give human rights where human rights are due. Jesus died for sinners. Surely you can share rights?
Erm, that's it... I know I may have conflicted some beliefs about the Bible, but I do have my own interpretation, and if someone can prove me wrong, please do this.
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
You're using religion as pretty much your only backup, and AltF4 just said not to do that.
We want to know what you think, not just stuff from the bible.
Forget religion and go off why you actually think it is wrong, go off what AltF4 said.
Arguments for or against gay marriage can include:
- Why it is or is not beneficial to society
- Whether or not it impedes freedom / does or does not violate constitutional rights
- Similarities or differences to other civil rights movements
- etc...
We want to know what you think, not just stuff from the bible.
Forget religion and go off why you actually think it is wrong, go off what AltF4 said.
Arguments for or against gay marriage can include:
- Why it is or is not beneficial to society
- Whether or not it impedes freedom / does or does not violate constitutional rights
- Similarities or differences to other civil rights movements
- etc...
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
Fine, I'm just saying that it clearly says "anything religious" in AltF4's list of what not to use in your argument, and that big paragraph you just wrote was pretty much all based on religion, I'd like to know what you actually think.
Look, if your only defense is religion and the bible, you might as well not post.
Look, if your only defense is religion and the bible, you might as well not post.
I still don't get it. How is my defense the Bible, when I'm clearly making my own opinion on the subject, without using religion ,and only using religion to explain my argument to the religious. That entire paragraph is MY opinion. How do you not see this?
S.O.L.I.D., while he still used religion as a backing to his argument, this post is a large improvement over what usually gets spewed from the forum's religion camp.
Most of the time it's just a one-liner that usually consists of "The Bible sez it's wrong," or "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!".
- Status