Phyll Opoku-Gyimah argues in proposition for gay parents to be given the right to raise children. SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ▻ http://is.gd/OxfordUnion Next…
[wrc_home_page_widget]
Phyll Opoku-Gyimah | Gay Rights Debate | Oxford Union
Related Posts
32 Comments on “Phyll Opoku-Gyimah | Gay Rights Debate | Oxford Union”
Comments are closed.
Rather than pointing out the ‘nicer’ parts of the Bible, I would have
mentioned that the book tells you to stone people around the part that it
tells you to hate gays. Why do you reject one part but follow another? Why
don’t you just recognize that it’s a man made book and move on? It also
supports slavery but we moved on from that too. Why don’t we move on form
believing in the bloody book? That doesn’t mean that you have to hate or
laugh at every single story in it, but you should be more critical.
Where is my right to go to the moon on nasas next mission?
I agree with the proposition, that doesn’t mean I can’t spot a speech not
worthy of the Oxford Union.
SHE HAS NO ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The bottle line ix being Homosexual is wrong, if we stood by this we
wouldn’t even be having a debate about homosexual people being able to
adopt. And about the judging thing we chrisitians are allowed to judge in
an extent because the gospel is about telling others (in sin) that they are
living in sin and that Gods way is the right way, so people need to stop
pulling out the judging card.
They were not treated decently either. Hebrew debt slaves may have been
treated ok but unsurprisingly, people who criticise biblical slavery aren’t
referring to them. Exodus 21:20-21 “Anyone who beats their male or female
slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two,
since the slave is their property.” Numbers 31:17-18 = slaughter of male
children and taking of female children for sex slavery.
wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Scientific_racism The whole Bible is dedicated to
describe what it means to be a Christian, and what kind of people will get
in the Kingdom of God.
Not true. Leviticus 25:44: “Your male and female slaves are to come from
the nations around you”…”and they will become your property. 46 You can
bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them
slaves for life”. 1 Peter 2:18: “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit
yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate,
but also to those who are harsh.”
Also, as an afterthought, the second paragraph of the doobly-doo video
synopsis, usually used for summarising the speech, is unusually terse. This
is because of the sheer lack of any kind of substantive content in Ms
Opoku-Gyimah’s address. Weak, weak, weak.
1. You’re an idiot. 2. Learn how to write.
Black, Lesbian & Christian – that most certainly is an interesting mix o.O
Good speech!
beautiful 🙂
cool reply. no depth. kinda like this one. aha
What are you an Oxford troll?
“scientific racists” – Are you kidding me? What’s a scientific racist?
Those people that were pro slavery had a solid base for their case in the
bible: Leviticus 25:44-46;Exodus 21:2-11&20-21;Ephesians 6:5;1 Timothy
6:1-2;Luke 12:47-48. Also: my original question still stands: How do we
determine a true Christian? The bible calls for killing and discrimination
quite often: Exodus 22:17;Deuteronomy 17:12;Deuteronomy 13:13-19;… You
should probably read your bible.
Neither are you…”Judge not lest ye be judged, for as you judge so shall
ye be judged, and as you measure so shall it be mesured unto you.” Your
contradicting the Bible and therefore by your own flawed logic your not a
true Christian.
The reason I mentioned black is because the bible is pro slavery and was
used to ‘legitimate’ enslaving Africans. Anyways: the bible calls for
stoning unruly children and not too many do that. Does that mean that they
are not true Christians either? Are people wearing clothing made out of 2
materials not true Christians either? How about those who eat shellfish?
What about those eating bacon, are they not true Christians either? How do
we determine a true Christian?
who hurt you?
Could only stand it for 4 minutes. Just a collection of worthy politically
correct clichés strung together.
I wonder how this grandmother got those children? By a miracle or what?
The wonderful thing about the infallible word of the various deities that
have seen fit to share their contradictory versions of it with us is that
it can generally be interpreted or picked and chosen in innumerable ways
and is, seemingly by all theists.
Throwout your argument I have agreed with you. I will not look at the
scienticfic racism. Because Racism is a choice. And ignorance is a choice.
I agree with you though.
A true Christian should follow the God’s words in the Bible like he exists,
not just claim to believe in God. Those rules which you mention did only
exist in Judaism, before Jesus’ arrival on Earth. The slavery which existed
in Galilea was not the same form of slavery in modern time, as the slaves
choose themselves to work for their masters and it was a way to pay debt.
They were treated decently and not like slaves taken in war, which was not
accepted by the Bible.
I was a bit stunned at first as I don’t know of any science that supports
racism. Considering that ‘scientific racism’ is pseudo-scientific, sort of
explains is. The one unforgivable sin in the bible is denying the holy
spirit. If you murder 200 people you can still be saved an go to heaven,
but if you’re an atheist, there’s no way you can be saved and apparently
you deserve eternal torture for it. Is that a fair system? Is god so
insecure?
Animals are gay. They never show the gay ones on tv like the bonabo monkeys
but do show a chimpanaee. Because the mefia is run by straight mother
fuckers so duck my sick!
Weakest Prop speech by a mile. No stats, little substance, a surfeit of
simplistic crowd-pleasing one-liners and over-stretched under-explained
analogies to the black civil rights movement. Who is this lady?
Great Speech!
Oh gosh, that look at the beginning she gives the opposing side, she’s just
remarkable! She definitely confidently put her point across!
Skin colour is not relevant, but homosexuality is contradicting the Bible
which is why she cannot be a true Christian.
The religious leaders and scientific racists which tried to justify slavery
did not take the Bible into account. As killing, discrimination and many
other things were condemned by the Bible, religious leaders didn’t want the
poppulation to have access to the book. So actually the priests and the
pope were afraid of the Bible.
She makes a critical error used commonly by those hoping to use John 8 to
deflect any appraisal of their actions as “Sinful” or wrong in the eyes of
God.
Foremost, it is utterly dumbfounding to me how often John 8 is quoted as a
means of undermining any appraisal (not Judgmental Damnation) of
homosexuality or any deviance as “not sin” or use it as a method for
undermining a counter argument as merely hypocritical.
I believe no true Christian can contest that Jesus saying, “He who is
without sin, cast the first stone” indicates that mortal man has no right
to call the soul of a person judged and Damned for earthly actions, and I
concur with this notion.
Yet, there are two problems with the speaker applying that statement to
herself and her actions:
1. She has equated homosexuality with the “sin” of harlotry; thusly, she
has undermined her entire point about being both a homosexual and a proud
Christian. Thus to use this verse as argument she must either concede that
homosexuality is a “sin” or that she is not living her life guided
by “Biblical Christianity,” as the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as
sin. To deny this is to be, therefore, not a true “Biblical Christian,” in
the strictest sense of the term.
(Personal Note: there are things about the Bible that I do not take
literally: i.e. Creation in 7 24 hour days, thus by my statements I also
fall into the Quasi-Biblical Neo-Christian category.)
2. She does, as almost everyone who uses this verse does, Ignores the rest
of the story. Jesus did not cease talking at the word “Stone,” as so many
want to believe. He also, in Verse 11, turns to the woman and says, “Go and
sin no more.” Again, this statement both affirms that the woman’s harlotry
is indeed a sin and that she must cease that sin as to not be judged by God
(Not Man).
Just my 2 cents in the hope that the willfully ignorant or the
intentionally manipulative cease using John 8 as a deflection for their
actions, or as a demonization of anyone calling out the fact that their
actions are clearly defined by the Bible as sin, such as harlotry and
homosexuality. All said, if you chose to ignore the fact that the Bible
does call these actions out as sin, fine, but you better begin defining
yourself as a sort of Neo-Christian and not a “Christian” as outlined by
Biblical morality.