Sooooo.... me and my friend were talking ont he train about Proposition 8 Not passing. I felt that i was a good thing and this guy butts into our conversations and challenges my views.
Me being the zealous fool I was, I entered into it totally unpreparred and couldnt properly express my views.
Any ideas on how to refute these pro-gay people? I find that I am uncontrollably inclined to use religion in every one of my arguments and apparently this doesnt fly well with random people on the train....who knew? LOL
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 11-08-2008 at 05:33 AM.
ain't the train ride over?
There is nothing to refute, this is a religious position, there needs not be anything to back it up.. you are not going to stand there and quote him a 1973 DSM-II on acts of sexual deviance....
It is wrong as pre-marital or extra-marital , or pederast sex is wrong and 75% of the time for the same reasons -- Marriage that is recognized by God is a union between man and woman, and that is what is defined (religious books are a done deal and not open for re-interpretation) I don't know much about state marriages, but as secular as most western countries concede they are, many of their laws are religious in origin.
'Democracy' is about majority rule.. that means a great deal will not be happy.. 1/3 to 1/2 the country can't stand Obama and voted McCain. well Obama won, so tough.. deal with it...
the majority of people are not homos.. if homos wish to practice their homoness they can do it on their own private time without infringing on the rules of the majority .....
It is a point of view, he is entitled to his as you are to yours!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Ok, first of all, do not try quoting religion at people who are FOR homosexuality cos that won't fly. You'll just get a billion refutations and if they're atheistic, hahahah you might as well be arguing with a wall.
& 2ndly, random people on the train? lol. There are a dozen other topics of interest I could've ignited.
hahaha you could use the old cliche
'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'
lol
This isn't completely related to your question, but it's a hadith I came across the other day, and it's a sort of example of how "victimless" crimes aren't really victimless. Or something like that, anyway.
"It has been reported by Nu’man bin Bashir (Radhiyallahu Anhu) that Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “There are people who do not transgress the limits (laws) of Allah Ta’ala, and there are others who do so. They are like two groups who boarded a ship; one of them settled on the upper deck, and the other on the lower deck of the ship. When the people of the lower deck needed water, they said, “Why should we cause trouble to the people of the upper deck when we can have plenty of water by making a hole in our deck”. Now, if the people of the upper deck do not prevent this group from such foolishness, all of them will perish; but if they stop them, they will be saved”."
Sahih Al Bukhari Vol.3 Pg.152
But yeah, ultimately, it's just another belief you have that other people disagree with; to them their belief, and to you yours.
The homosexual community may not want to look at the issue through the lens of religion, but they need to understand that those who voted to deny homosexual marriage do. If you look at the statistics, 70% of blacks, 51% of Hispanics, and 49% of whites voted to deny gay marriage. They did so on the basis of religion.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
bro its soooo easy all you gotta do is say its immoral - spreads disease - and causes destruction to society - and telle m if 100% people were gay we'd go extinct
-
My tears testify that i have a heart
yet i feel me and shaytan never part
-
bro its soooo easy all you gotta do is say its immoral - spreads disease - and causes destruction to society - and telle m if 100% people were gay we'd go extinct
Immoral- they will say "according to who" and I lose my temper :enough!:
Spread disease- I tried this one, they he said if we should prevent ppl with syphilis or other stuff from marrying to, since it spreads disease.....
BUT WAIT!!!
Lookie lookie
TOP GAY ORGANIZATION COMES CLEAN: "Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."
coupled with the fact that:
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
destroys society: One word.... "Netherlands"
Darn that fool. He had SUCH a SMUG face on while arguing with me. GRRR to think he started off by denying that HIV was a primarily GAY PROBLEM. Next time I see him... he is in freaking trouble....:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Debate is only possible when all sides agree to the rules and agree to using the same sources of reference.
With out debate you only have an argument. There are no winners in an argument, only the possibility that the weaker will succumb and give token agreement until the stronger leaves.
It makes no sense to argue and it is fruitless to try to debate with the ignorant.
I think the hardest thing for Religious people to accept is that other people believe in different things completely different to your own set of beliefs and will almost always contradict each other.
Everyone knows that it's there, but the ability to accept is extremely difficult especially when you have unshakeable faith of your particular religion.
The best likeness that comes to mind (which is admittedly extremely crude and flawed) is the pronounciation of words.
Squash the whole faith of Islam into the oral pronounciation of the word tomato phonetically pronounced toh-mah-toe and Christianity also as the word tomato, but phonetically pronounced toh-mae-toe.
Now, no matter how much each side argues that they are right, neither side will ever sway and admit the otherside as telling the truth.
(And just to open this up a bit more)
Agnostics are the people who believe that both words could be used, so they're open to being persuaded why the one side is better than the other.
And the Atheist watches from the side lines bemused, as s/he believes that the whole discussion, when all is said and done, pointless.
..hopefully, you can see where I'm coming from, hehe.
Homosexuality isn't a belief, so I am not really sure where you are coming from?
it is a sexual act, a sexual act that on the lowest common denominator has no use whatsoever from an 'evolutionary scale' if we are to break down everything to the materialistic...
further amazes me that most 'evolutionists' are such staunch defenders of homosexuality, yet have no way of reconciling it with their own set of beliefs!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I think the hardest thing for Religious people to accept is that other people believe in different things completely different to your own set of beliefs and will almost always contradict each other.
Everyone knows that it's there, but the ability to accept is extremely difficult especially when you have unshakeable faith of your particular religion.
The best likeness that comes to mind (which is admittedly extremely crude and flawed) is the pronounciation of words.
Squash the whole faith of Islam into the oral pronounciation of the word tomato phonetically pronounced toh-mah-toe and Christianity also as the word tomato, but phonetically pronounced toh-mae-toe.
Now, no matter how much each side argues that they are right, neither side will ever sway and admit the otherside as telling the truth.
(And just to open this up a bit more)
Agnostics are the people who believe that both words could be used, so they're open to being persuaded why the one side is better than the other.
And the Atheist watches from the side lines bemused, as s/he believes that the whole discussion, when all is said and done, pointless.
..hopefully, you can see where I'm coming from, hehe.
Totally off topic.
But I disagree with your pronunciation analogy. It is very reductionist towards religion. Contrary to what you believe, this isnt a game. It is not just some kindergarden argument. THis is about you as a person, us as a people, and the entire workings of reality and eternity. Don't dismiss it.
I also disagree with your view that both sides wont admit the other side has a point. THis statement shows a lack of understanding of any of the religions. There is a clear line from Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam. They are NOT distinct entities. Judaism and CHristianity are stepping stones toward Islam.
Agnostics are people who cant mke up their mind, belive me I know many of them in real life.
Atheists watch bemused because they think its pointless? How about I bemusedly watch athiests who go around thinking they are too smart for God and then cry in repentance when they are dying or when they meet their Lord, after wasting their existence in vanity?
Sorry if my post came across as harsh but such reductionist attitudes towards religion boil my blood.
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 11-09-2008 at 05:35 AM.
Homosexuality isn't a belief, so I am not really sure where you are coming from?
it is a sexual act, a sexual act that on the lowest common denominator has no use whatsoever from an 'evolutionary scale' if we are to break down everything to the materialistic...
further amazes me that most 'evolutionists' are such staunch defenders of homosexuality, yet have no way of reconciling it with their own set of beliefs!
cheers
Perhaps they want to enjoy homosexuality while it lasts before it goes extinct.
But I disagree with your pronunciation analogy. It is very reductionist towards religion. Contrary to what you believe, this isnt a game. It is not just some kindergarden argument. THis is about you as a person, us as a people, and the entire workings of reality and eternity. Don't dismiss it.
I also disagree with your view that both sides wont admit the other side has a point. THis statement shows a lack of understanding of any of the religions. There is a clear line from Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam. They are NOT distinct entities. Judaism and CHristianity are stepping stones toward Islam.
Agnostics are people who cant mke up their mind, belive me I know many of them in real life.
Atheists watch bemused because they think its pointless? How about I bemusedly watch athiests who go around thinking they are too smart for God and then cry in repentance when they are dying or when they meet their Lord, after wasting their existence in vanity?
Sorry if my post came across as harsh but such reductionist attitudes towards religion boil my blood.
I understand completely that it is not a game to you, I never meant to imply that and I apologise for any offense given.
The "Atheists watched bemused.." line is simply the way I see atheists and only atheists view religion.
You have to understand and be humble about the way different people are brought up.
I was never taught Islam as I reside (or resided) in a majorly Christian social upbringing, so more patience and explanations is required.
Getting angry at my seemingly arrogant, even offensive, replies is folly as it is like being angry at a child.
The ability to offend in something as complex as religion is extremely high, the offence is not intended; more a byproduct of curiosity.
I meant to imply that it's hard to accept the gay culture being part of the world, and I didn't realise that, if I'm correct in this, Islam is against homosexuals.
Greetings and peace be with you Trollomore; welcome to the forum.
I meant to imply that it's hard to accept the gay culture being part of the world, and I didn't realise that, if I'm correct in this, Islam is against homosexuals
In Islam and Christianity we search for a God that is a greatest good in all things. When it comes to searching for a greatest good relationship, it seems to make more sense that it should be between a man and a woman who are kind, loving and faithful towards each other. This would be the greatest good way to bring children into this world and nurture them.
If we seek to become a greatest good these are the moralities that we should strive towards for ourselves and our family…..BUT
Many of us fall short in many different ways, and we possibly become hypocrites when we judge other people who have different faults from our own, homosexuality, children by different partners, adultery, etc.
The dilemma seems to be that if someone is a homosexual then should we drive them away from being a Christian, a Muslim, Hindu etc.
We are all created by the same God; and it makes more sense that the same God hears all our prayers, even the prayers of a homosexual.
In the spirit of searching for a greatest good God.
Like people have already stated on this thread, you can never win a debate on homosexuality (or even most things) - when the medium you are debating on is the secular platform.
Like people have already stated on this thread, you can never win a debate on homosexuality (or even most things) - when the medium you are debating on is the secular platform.
i disagree, you can win, they'll just deny it
GET ON MSN !
-
My tears testify that i have a heart
yet i feel me and shaytan never part
-
When you take a logic class in college it always starts with an accepted premise that both sides agree on. However, when it comes to questions of religious morality vs. secular liberty there is no commonly accepted premise. For people of faith, the truth is God. That is the starting point of any debate on morality. Not so with the majority of homosexuals, who are basing their argument on secular liberty. It is difficult to have a constructive debate when you can't agree on the framework.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Immoral- they will say "according to who" and I lose my temper :enough!:
Spread disease- I tried this one, they he said if we should prevent ppl with syphilis or other stuff from marrying to, since it spreads disease.....
BUT WAIT!!!
Lookie lookie
TOP GAY ORGANIZATION COMES CLEAN: "Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."
coupled with the fact that:
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.
destroys society: One word.... "Netherlands"
Darn that fool. He had SUCH a SMUG face on while arguing with me. GRRR to think he started off by denying that HIV was a primarily GAY PROBLEM. Next time I see him... he is in freaking trouble....:mad::mad::mad::mad:
most individuals with HIV are straight.
Arguing that homosexuality spreads disease just leads to "have a condome" Same with with monogomy, it can just be responded that heterosexuals can also be unfaithfull. You simply have to admit that you both base your morals upon different foundations. I know Tariq Ramadan said that an intrinsic part of marriage in Islam is so couples can have children legitimately. Obviously if Islam makes procreation an integral aspect of marriage homosexuality cannot be part of it. Of course this leads to the problem of a steril/impotent man or a barren women. Would that be an immoral marriage?
I guess what I am getting at is you need to articulate exactly what marriage is in Islam, what is it about marriage that allows for sex when before the marriage such relations would be sinfull. From there you need to work out why homosexualiy does not accord with this concept of marriage.
Also you could demand he tell you exactly what he beleives marriage to be, and what the limits of it ought to be. Would two men and three women getting "married" constitute marriage? If he says no, as I would suspect he would, then demoand to know how he can justify such an exclusive view of marriage. If he cannot articulate any firm definition/exclusive principals then simply say his notaion of "marriage" is so vacuous that it is literally without meaning and he has no inteligable reason to claim anything "ought" to be marriage
The risk of HIV is far greater in the gay community. It is probably why, in UK, in some cases, gays are restricted from donating blood (and we know thats not down to religious reasons).
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks