Is homosexuality unnatural?

Gilles de Rais said:

Here are more then, all of which are peer-reviewed. For the record, however, I wasn't going to "cry victim" in your case. Your post was polite and well-read, which is more than what I can say for pretty much the rest of the thread.

Click to expand...

Adding links in your post and professing that they support your argument does not support your argument. So far, I know your argument is that homosexuality is bad. But why? And how do those websites support your argument? To the extent that you haven't hashed out your argument, posting those links is akin to saying "well these guys also agree with me".

I have a lot to say about how all of those websites make fallacious arguments and that being peer-reviewed doesn't change those fallacies. If all your peers accept a faulty argument then it's no surprise that you'd publish faulty arguments.

Gilles de Rais said:

If there is a social stigma about something, perhaps that should be researched. Why do we have a social stigma about child marriage, for example, even though it's legal with parental consent? Why do we have a social stigma about religious indoctrination? Why do we have a social stigma about slavery? Why do we have a social stigma about genocide? I'm sure you'd all consider all of these things evil, and therefore be supportive of the social stigma against them all, but why?

Click to expand...

The stigma against homosexuality as we've experienced in the West comes from Christianity. Technically, it predates Christianity because it's documented in the book of Leviticus when it was part of the Torah, but when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, that's when the mass scale persecution of homosexuality could flourish. The Germanic invaders that succeeded Rome converted to Christianity and so brought that persecution to the remainder of Europe. By medieval Europe, homosexuality was associated with capital punishment and homosexuals were frequently scapegoated for natural disasters.

I don't support the social stigma against homosexuality because there's no reason to. Think about it this way, how does loving another man and participating in anal sex cause anything bad to happen? It's kind of hard to develop a cause-effect relationship in the way that you might claim that having sex without a condom promotes diseases because there's no barrier to prevent the transmission of diseases. There it's easy to explain the cause-effect relationship.

A lot of the negatives that homosexuals experience can be explained by the social stigma they experience. It's not so much that the negatives cause the stigma, but that the stigma has been there for nearly two thousand years and that's been making like difficult for gay people ever since it was around.

Gilles de Rais said:

What do you base your morality on, exactly?

Click to expand...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; peace, order, and good government. My morality is about improving the individual and the public good. The method is using reason, insight and empathy in order to properly weigh what is due to one and what is due to others.

Kanzler said:

Adding links in your post and professing that they support your argument does not support your argument. So far, I know your argument is that homosexuality is bad. But why? And how do those websites support your argument? To the extent that you haven't hashed out your argument, posting those links is akin to saying "well these guys also agree with me".

I have a lot to say about how all of those websites make fallacious arguments and that being peer-reviewed doesn't change those fallacies. If all your peers accept a faulty argument then it's no surprise that you'd publish faulty arguments.

The stigma against homosexuality as we've experienced in the West comes from Christianity. Technically, it predates Christianity because it's documented in the book of Leviticus when it was part of the Torah, but when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, that's when the mass scale persecution of homosexuality could flourish. The Germanic invaders that succeeded Rome converted to Christianity and so brought that persecution to the remainder of Europe. By medieval Europe, homosexuality was associated with capital punishment and homosexuals were frequently scapegoated for natural disasters.

I don't support the social stigma against homosexuality because there's no reason to. Think about it this way, how does loving another man and participating in anal sex cause anything bad to happen? It's kind of hard to develop a cause-effect relationship in the way that you might claim that having sex without a condom promotes diseases because there's no barrier to prevent the transmission of diseases. There it's easy to explain the cause-effect relationship.

A lot of the negatives that homosexuals experience can be explained by the social stigma they experience. It's not so much that the negatives cause the stigma, but that the stigma has been there for nearly two thousand years and that's been making like difficult for gay people ever since it was around.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; peace, order, and good government. My morality is about improving the individual and the public good. The method is using reason, insight and empathy in order to properly weigh what is due to one and what is due to others.

Click to expand...

I will refer to the conversation in this thread. Because Christianity is correct, homosexuality is not. Because of that, homosexuality should be thrown out the window, along with every other sin. No human being is going to do that perfectly, but that's exactly why Christ did what He did. It is fallacious to state that any part of Christianity is wrong, because God is never wrong. If we were to throw Christianity out of the equation, then we may as well allow murder, rape, slavery, genocide, and whatever else just because we felt like it. Reason, morality, and the laws of nature are impossible without the God of the Bible, and there is absolutely no disputing that, ever. You can debate all you like, but all you've really got is a self-refuting position at best, because you ultimately have to borrow from the Bible to argue against the Bible (see the golden rule case earlier in this thread).

By no means am I claiming that anyone calling himself or herself Christian has always handled the problem of X sin flawlessly. Even Christians, especially Christians, are works in progress. However, that does not change anything. Homosexuality is still wrong, just as adultery and murder are wrong.

If that is truly what you base your morality on, you should be giving Christianity a closer look. It was recently proven that atheism is un-American, and furthermore, history has proven time and again that the only good governments are the ones that honor God first and foremost.

Gilles de Rais said:

I will refer to the conversation in this thread. Because Christianity is correct, homosexuality is not. Because of that, homosexuality should be thrown out the window, along with every other sin. No human being is going to do that perfectly, but that's exactly why Christ did what He did. It is fallacious to state that any part of Christianity is wrong, because God is never wrong. If we were to throw Christianity out of the equation, then we may as well allow murder, rape, slavery, genocide, and whatever else just because we felt like it. Reason, morality, and the laws of nature are impossible without the God of the Bible, and there is absolutely no disputing that, ever. You can debate all you like, but all you've really got is a self-refuting position at best, because you ultimately have to borrow from the Bible to argue against the Bible (see the golden rule case earlier in this thread).

Click to expand...

Why is Christianity correct? Is there an answer that does not boil down to "faith and faith alone"? And I've just given you in the last post an example of my own morality where neither God nor the Bible plays a role at all. I mean, just because the Bible tends to agrees with me in certain areas doesn't mean that I borrowed it from the Bible.

Gilles de Rais said:

If that is truly what you base your morality on, you should be giving Christianity a closer look. It was recently proven that atheism is un-American, and furthermore, history has proven time and again that the only good governments are the ones that honor God first and foremost.

Click to expand...

It turns out that I am atheist. And my morality is truly atheist - God is not necessary to making my morality "work". And what exactly is this proof that atheism is un-American and that the only good governments honour God first and foremost?

Kanzler said:

Why is Christianity correct? Is there an answer that does not boil down to "faith and faith alone"? And I've just given you in the last post an example of my own morality where neither God nor the Bible plays a role at all. I mean, just because the Bible tends to agrees with me in certain areas doesn't mean that I borrowed it from the Bible.

It turns out that I am atheist. And my morality is truly atheist - God is not necessary to making my morality "work". And what exactly is this proof that atheism is un-American and that the only good governments honour God first and foremost?

Click to expand...

James 2 famously states that "faith without works is dead." In other words, Christians should live as God would have us live as best we can, and repent for our failings. Repentance is not a mere apology, it's a promise to never make that mistake again, and we do our best. A real Christian lives a life of constant repentance, not because that does anything to increase or decrease his/her standing with God, but out of love for God. It's similar to how a child obeys his father because he loves his father, not because he fears punishment or anything.

I was referring to this and the pattern of nations falling when they become too decadent and corrupt, such as the Roman Empire. Or are you not a student of history?

If you taught a philosophy class, and I was your student, I'm sure you'd reprimand and report me if I were to cheat on the final exam. However, what basis would you have for doing that as an atheist? According to what you believe, there's no reason to play by the rules if I can do better by cheating due to the infamous "survival of the fittest" mentality. As a Christian, however, I recognize that the existence of morality is justified by God. You, as an atheist, have no reason to do anything other than what makes you happy, because you have no idea when you will die, only that you will. Then you'll be gone, and nothing could matter to you because you'd be dead.

Without God, all things are permissible.

Gilles de Rais said:

James 2 famously states that "faith without works is dead." In other words, Christians should live as God would have us live as best we can, and repent for our failings. Repentance is not a mere apology, it's a promise to never make that mistake again, and we do our best. A real Christian lives a life of constant repentance, not because that does anything to increase or decrease his/her standing with God, but out of love for God. It's similar to how a child obeys his father because he loves his father, not because he fears punishment or anything.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this is referring to but it doesn't answer why Christianity is correct.

Gilles de Rais said:

I was referring to this and the pattern of nations falling when they become too decadent and corrupt, such as the Roman Empire. Or are you not a student of history?

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm a student of political science, but I know the difference between history as an academic discipline and "popular history". The Crisis of Third Century demonstrated had already shown that Rome was too big to govern centuries before its eventual collapse. Rome had already accepted disunity by expanding into lands and peoples it couldn't possibly integrate. And Germanic tribes pushed westward by the Huns threatened the security of the state. Not exactly an issue of "decadence and corruption" as your uncle or your primary school teacher might've told you.

Gilles de Rais said:

If you taught a philosophy class, and I was your student, I'm sure you'd reprimand and report me if I were to cheat on the final exam. However, what basis would you have for doing that as an atheist?

Click to expand...

The morality that I just mentioned.

Gilles de Rais said:

According to what you believe, there's no reason to play by the rules if I can do better by cheating due to the infamous "survival of the fittest" mentality.

Click to expand...

According to what I believe, what you just mentioned has nothing to do with what I believe.

Gilles de Rais said:

As a Christian, however, I recognize that the existence of morality is justified by God. You, as an atheist, have no reason to do anything other than what makes you happy, because you have no idea when you will die, only that you will.
Without God, all things are permissible.

Click to expand...

Again, pointing back to the morality I just mentioned. I have reason to promote my individual and the common good because I assume those things to be good.

Gilles de Rais said:

Then you'll be gone, and nothing could matter to you because you'd be dead.

Click to expand...

Then I must fear for my future wife and children and community at large, for my atheism has stricken their interests from my consideration.

JohnnyMustang said:

I'm gonna answer this, I missed it before I replied.



You cannot blame me for thinking this person is just someone who created an account to troll everyone else in a topic that he didn't had the guts to show up with his main account. Isn't it weird that someone with a post count so low comes in and start ranting about homosexuality and how the thread is just STUPID becase homosexuality is obviously unnatural?

I'm just fighting fire with fire, I will not be called stupid just for being open-minded and accepting that things like this can be debated. I do not let my emotions blind my judgement, I've stated several times that everything's relative and I believe every outcome is possible, whether I believe it or not. And yes, if a person who apparently has never posted anywhere else, comes here, calling people stupid and EVIL because of something they didn't choose to be; I will assume this person is a bad person. Is that breaking the rules? No, it's not. I will not spoil primitive and homophobic behavior like that, if we keep allowing this, society will never evolve and we're just moving backwards.

This debate was totally cool headed, until two people questioned the intellectual grade of the debate itself.

Bad people are not just the ones who performs bad actions; those who do nothing about it are the problem, because most of the times, those who we call bad people are either sick or perform bad actions believing they're doing the right thing.

Click to expand...

Disregarding that you mentioned me in your statement despite the fact that we move passed that, I agree with you. If someone were to come on here and write a big rant about how much they hate other ethnic groups or women or etc. we shouldn't be reprimanded for responding accordingly.

In answer to the question, I absolutely personally think homosexuality is natural. However, human's are complex, and thus that does not make the answer easy or uniform for everyone. Everyone's life experiences will play into what they believe, and not everyone has the same life experiences. It's important to remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how different it is to your own.

Scientists can argue that it is natural, and religious theologians can argue that it is unnatural. They can argue whether it's right or wrong, whether it's moral or immoral. At the end of the day though, it really is up to each individual.

I would like to add though, in light of some other posts, that I am a Christian who is accepting of the LGBT community. I'm not going to judge anyone, that's not my job, and being kind and accepting to everyone that I meet is very important to me. There is enough negativity in the world already.

Kanzler said:

I'm not sure what this is referring to but it doesn't answer why Christianity is correct.

Personally, I'm a student of political science, but I know the difference between history as an academic discipline and "popular history". The Crisis of Third Century demonstrated had already shown that Rome was too big to govern centuries before its eventual collapse. Rome had already accepted disunity by expanding into lands and peoples it couldn't possibly integrate. And Germanic tribes pushed westward by the Huns threatened the security of the state. Not exactly an issue of "decadence and corruption" as your uncle or your primary school teacher might've told you.

The morality that I just mentioned.

According to what I believe, what you just mentioned has nothing to do with what I believe.

Again, pointing back to the morality I just mentioned. I have reason to promote my individual and the common good because I assume those things to be good.

Then I must fear for my future wife and children and community at large, for my atheism has stricken their interests from my consideration.

Click to expand...

In Romans 1, Paul writes about those who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." That is what comes to mind here. I'm grateful that you're being nice about this (unlike a couple other people I could mention), but this is in effect what you're doing. It's like you put on a blindfold and refuse to accept that you can't see.

JohnnyMustang said:

I'm gonna make it easy for you, pal.

You claim to have knowledge to prove why homosexuality is EVIL, but your proofs are a bunch of websites that aren't really proof, what is in there doesn't proves anything.

Accept the fact that you're just a man, you cannot talk in God's behalf. And buddy, talking about maths and facts do not help your story, all the contrary.

Click to expand...

If you're sick of reading what I'm posting, read the Bible instead. The Bible really is all the proof anyone needs anyway. Science and everything else just confirms the Bible is right.

JohnnyMustang said:

I'm gonna answer this, I missed it before I replied.

You cannot blame me for thinking this person is just someone who created an account to troll everyone else in a topic that he didn't had the guts to show up with his main account. Isn't it weird that someone with a post count so low comes in and start ranting about homosexuality and how the thread is just STUPID becase homosexuality is obviously unnatural?

I'm just fighting fire with fire, I will not be called stupid just for being open-minded and accepting that things like this can be debated. I do not let my emotions blind my judgement, I've stated several times that everything's relative and I believe every outcome is possible, whether I believe it or not. And yes, if a person who apparently has never posted anywhere else, comes here, calling people stupid and EVIL because of something they didn't choose to be; I will assume this person is a bad person. Is that breaking the rules? No, it's not. I will not spoil primitive and homophobic behavior like that, if we keep allowing this, society will never evolve and we're just moving backwards.

This debate was totally cool headed, until two people questioned the intellectual grade of the debate itself.

Bad people are not just the ones who performs bad actions; those who do nothing about it are the problem, because most of the times, those who we call bad people are either sick or perform bad actions believing they're doing the right thing.

Click to expand...

Actually, an acquaintance of mine IRL recommended this site. I can see now that he was in error. I don't have another account here, and I don't really have much to talk about when it comes to Pokémon. I dislike competitive battling, and I generally keep to myself to begin with. However, when I saw this thread, I simply could not keep silent. While I agree that I could have phrased a few things differently, I don't believe anyone would have posted any differently in any case. The moment someone posts the truth about anything, that person is attacked without fail, and you don't see that any more viciously than in the case of the Gospel.

Jessie said:

In answer to the question, I absolutely personally think homosexuality is natural. However, human's are complex, and thus that does not make the answer easy or uniform for everyone. Everyone's life experiences will play into what they believe, and not everyone has the same life experiences. It's important to remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how different it is to your own.

Scientists can argue that it is natural, and religious theologians can argue that it is unnatural. They can argue whether it's right or wrong, whether it's moral or immoral. At the end of the day though, it really is up to each individual.

I would like to add though, in light of some other posts, that I am a Christian who is accepting of the LGBT community. I'm not going to judge anyone, that's not my job, and being kind and accepting to everyone that I meet is very important to me. There is enough negativity in the world already.

Click to expand...

If it's up to each individual, why should God bother judging? I'd like to refer you to Romans 1 as well. However, it's also important to make a distinction between hating a person and hating a sin. Christ said that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, but if we really care about others, why are we letting them harm themselves and others?

Gilles de Rais said:

In Romans 1, Paul writes about those who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." That is what comes to mind here. I'm grateful that you're being nice about this (unlike a couple other people I could mention), but this is in effect what you're doing. It's like you put on a blindfold and refuse to accept that you can't see.

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody should accept that which they cannot perceive. It's one thing to not see God, but I honestly do not think that I have grappled with him in one way or another. I cannot see his influence in the world. I have not experienced him as Jacob or Isaac have.

In general, it is a good rule of thumb that we do not accept that which we cannot "see" - have evidence for or support. I don't accept that unicorns exist because I cannot see it. I don't accept that I am a woman because I do not feel like a woman. I don't accept that there is a New World Order or Illuminati ruling the world because, well, I haven't perceived anything that would lead to such a conclusion.

Perhaps it is true that I cannot see God, but I honestly feel that I have not felt his touch in my life at all. Why should I, or anybody else for that matter, believe in something that has no impact on our lives? Why should such beliefs be considered correct?

But could I not say to you that you're refusing to accept that one can have morality without God? Except you can see that - if you take me in good faith, then you have evidence, an example of someone who claims to have morality without God.

Bringing this conversation back to homosexuality - it may very well be the case that homosexuality is harmful, but that does not necessarily reflect on whether it is natural or not. There are plenty of things that are harmful, but that doesn't make them any more unnatural. I don't think the debatable harmfulness of homosexuality has any impact upon the topic in this thread.

Gilles de Rais said:

Because Christianity is correct, homosexuality is not. Because of that, homosexuality should be thrown out the window, along with every other sin. No human being is going to do that perfectly, but that's exactly why Christ did what He did. It is fallacious to state that any part of Christianity is wrong, because God is never wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm going to stop you right there. It is unbelievably arrogant for mankind to assume we could possibly understand the thoughts of a higher power. It is also extremely foolish to base your arguments and beliefs on something a bunch of "profits" came up with hundreds upon hundreds of years ago because they thought everyone should do what the voices in their heads said.

Now I'm not saying that there's no God. In fact, I believe in the existence of a power above ourselves. The difference here though, is that I'm not using the higher power as an excuse to be a bigot and I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can understand anything that a being higher than myself thinks or does. Doing so would be the same as an ant trying to rationalise human beings, it's completely beyond it.

If we were to throw Christianity out of the equation, then we may as well allow murder, rape, slavery, genocide, and whatever else just because we felt like it. Reason, morality, and the laws of nature are impossible without the God of the Bible, and there is absolutely no disputing that, ever. You can debate all you like, but all you've really got is a self-refuting position at best, because you ultimately have to borrow from the Bible to argue against the Bible (see the golden rule case earlier in this thread).

Click to expand...

How can you possibly compare homosexuality to things like rape, slavery or genocide. Those are horrible things that negatively impact people for years upon years. Things that have far-reaching, painful effects that last for years. Homosexuality hurts nobody. Even assuming that God hates homos, it still has absolutely no effect on anyone but those involved and it is deplorable for you to compare these things.

As for morality, morality is a social and biological construct. It begun as a behavioural evolution to allow our species to survive more efficiently and as society has grown and changed morality has too. All those terrible crimes you just mentioned for example used to be okay, but morality has developed and now we understand it is wrong to harm another human being like that. So no, morality is not dependent on God or the bible. Rather ironically, it has a lot to do with evolution.

If that is truly what you base your morality on, you should be giving Christianity a closer look. It was recently proven that atheism is un-American, and furthermore, history has proven time and again that the only good governments are the ones that honor God first and foremost. [/I][/COLOR]

Click to expand...

Questioning God is un-American? I don't care, I'm Australian.
Homosexuality is unnatural? It happens in a multitude of species.
God hates homos? Why on Earth would a power beyond humans subscribe to human standards of morality? Don't use something we can't understand as an excuse to justify your own bigotry. God doesn't hate the gays, you do.

Now that I'm done with that, I'm not going to tolerate any immature behaviour in here from anyone, regardless of which side of the debate you're on. So unless you want me to start dumping infractions on you, be civil to each other and don't comment unless you plan on contributing to the conversation.

Kanzler said:

I don't think anybody should accept that which they cannot perceive. It's one thing to not see God, but I honestly do not think that I have grappled with him in one way or another. I cannot see his influence in the world. I have not experienced him as Jacob or Isaac have.

In general, it is a good rule of thumb that we do not accept that which we cannot "see" - have evidence for or support. I don't accept that unicorns exist because I cannot see it. I don't accept that I am a woman because I do not feel like a woman. I don't accept that there is a New World Order or Illuminati ruling the world because, well, I haven't perceived anything that would lead to such a conclusion.

Perhaps it is true that I cannot see God, but I honestly feel that I have not felt his touch in my life at all. Why should I, or anybody else for that matter, believe in something that has no impact on our lives? Why should such beliefs be considered correct?

But could I not say to you that you're refusing to accept that one can have morality without God? Except you can see that - if you take me in good faith, then you have evidence, an example of someone who claims to have morality without God.

Bringing this conversation back to homosexuality - it may very well be the case that homosexuality is harmful, but that does not necessarily reflect on whether it is natural or not. There are plenty of things that are harmful, but that doesn't make them any more unnatural. I don't think the debatable harmfulness of homosexuality has any impact upon the topic in this thread.

Click to expand...

It's not possible to run chemical tests on something as abstract as a concept or idea, so empiricism in and of itself should not be one's worldview's ultimate standard. I agree that it's useful as a secondary standard, but no better than that.

Anyone who sincerely seeks God out will find Him. This is what I would have you do.

The simple fact is that God has had a huge impact on everyone's lives. Without Him, our lives wouldn't exist to begin with.

gimmepie said:

I'm going to stop you right there. It is unbelievably arrogant for mankind to assume we could possibly understand the thoughts of a higher power. It is also extremely foolish to base your arguments and beliefs on something a bunch of "profits" came up with hundreds upon hundreds of years ago because they thought everyone should do what the voices in their heads said.

Now I'm not saying that there's no God. In fact, I believe in the existence of a power above ourselves. The difference here though, is that I'm not using the higher power as an excuse to be a bigot and I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can understand anything that a being higher than myself thinks or does. Doing so would be the same as an ant trying to rationalise human beings, it's completely beyond it.

How can you possibly compare homosexuality to things like rape, slavery or genocide. Those are horrible things that negatively impact people for years upon years. Things that have far-reaching, painful effects that last for years. Homosexuality hurts nobody. Even assuming that God hates homos, it still has absolutely no effect on anyone but those involved and it is deplorable for you to compare these things.

As for morality, morality is a social and biological construct. It begun as a behavioural evolution to allow our species to survive more efficiently and as society has grown and changed morality has too. All those terrible crimes you just mentioned for example used to be okay, but morality has developed and now we understand it is wrong to harm another human being like that. So no, morality is not dependent on God or the bible. Rather ironically, it has a lot to do with evolution.

Questioning God is un-American? I don't care, I'm Australian.
Homosexuality is unnatural? It happens in a multitude of species.
God hates homos? Why on Earth would a power beyond humans subscribe to human standards of morality? Don't use something we can't understand as an excuse to justify your own bigotry. God doesn't hate the gays, you do.

Now that I'm done with that, I'm not going to tolerate any immature behaviour in here from anyone, regardless of which side of the debate you're on. So unless you want me to start dumping infractions on you, be civil to each other and don't comment unless you plan on contributing to the conversation.

Click to expand...

You know, at least Nah was fair. Let's tackle these things one at a time, shall we?

First, by no means do I claim to know and understand everything that God does. However, the Bible exists, so it's more than possible for any human being to understand enough of what God wants from us. Do you assume that the Bible is just another piece of literature, and/or do you assume that the 500+ people who saw the risen Christ are wrong, in spite of the fact Christianity could not possibly have survived if not for the Resurrection?

It's actually very easy. A homosexual lifestyle is, at its core, selfish and dangerous. Homosexual acts are proven to endanger the health of the participants, to say nothing of the psychological damage involved to both parties or the biological fact that a man and a woman are required for the reproductive process. If this act is natural, then you may as well also say rape is natural. Both are selfish sexual acts, both cause some form of harm, and both are evil in the eyes of God. And by the way, there's a huge difference between hating the act and hating the person. God hates homosexuality, not homosexuals. You would do well to remember that.

Regarding morality, everything you've just said I have already proven wrong either earlier in this thread or in the thread about the existence of God. I doubt you're interested, considering your tone, but you might want to do some reading.

All of creation is affected by sin, and eventually Christ will return and redeem everyone and everything, except for the human beings who sided against Him. Seeing homosexual behavior in animals now is just more proof of this, not proof that homosexuality is in any way okay or natural.

Although, because all of creation is affected by sin, I suppose one could try to argue that sin is natural. The problem with that, though, would be the fact that sin and death weren't originally part of creation, as they were introduced by Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and will be removed by Christ eventually, with the Resurrection ending the problem of evil in the meantime.

A bigot is defined as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion," so I'd like to question why that's so bad in certain cases. For example, I would claim it would be beneficial to be a bigot when it comes to rape. Is there a reason I should be tolerant of the idea that rape might be okay in certain circumstances? Is there a reason I should be tolerant of the idea that rape is perfectly acceptable? I sincerely doubt it. So, if I am a bigot because I don't tolerate the idea that homosexuality is okay, I am perfectly fine with that. From my point of view, it's not even really an insult.

JohnnyMustang said:

I've read the Bible and there is no proof of anything. Does this means I should believe what every book that is as old or even older than the Bible says? Please point out when has science confirmed anything that bible says.

Yes, you could've phrased things differently and you should have. The entire flow of the debate would've go smoother if people would've refrained from saying certain words.

You say you speak the truth, that your word is somehow an axiom and requires no further investigation or proof but you don't back up what you say. You refer everybody to the bible, but you gotta understand that the bible does not offer proofs, it just asks for your faith on what it's written there. Faith does not equal proof or facts.

Click to expand...

I did point out ICR and Answers in Genesis before. Check 'em out.

I agree with the first sentence here and not the second.

Faith based on facts is rational, not blind. I have, in fact, given plenty of evidence. You don't see it because you are clinging to a fallacious worldview that assumes Christianity is wrong. Ultimately, everything comes down to a single choice, and that's what you decide on regarding Christ.

Gilles de Rais said:

It's not possible to run chemical tests on something as abstract as a concept or idea, so empiricism in and of itself should not be one's worldview's ultimate standard. I agree that it's useful as a secondary standard, but no better than that.

Anyone who sincerely seeks God out will find Him. This is what I would have you do.

The simple fact is that God has had a huge impact on everyone's lives. Without Him, our lives wouldn't exist to begin with.

Click to expand...

You don't need a chemical test to perceive anything. I'm not even talking about empiricism. There's just not one iota of perception that leads me to believe in God.

That's an unfalsifiable claim. I'm sure you would say that if you have not found God, then you haven't sincerely sought him out. How do you even know that you have found God? How do you know you're not just fooling yourself?

Why would we not even exist without God?

Kanzler said:

You don't need a chemical test to perceive anything. I'm not even talking about empiricism. There's just not one iota of perception that leads me to believe in God.

That's an unfalsifiable claim. I'm sure you would say that if you have not found God, then you haven't sincerely sought him out. How do you even know that you have found God? How do you know you're not just fooling yourself?

Why would we not even exist without God?

Click to expand...

"Not one iota of perception" denotes empiricism, so I debunked it. I've already gotten the point of metaphysics.

That's what the Bible says. The Bible is inerrant. You're basically placing your own reasoning over everything else here, and human reasoning can only go so far. Even if God Himself stood before you today and said hello, you would probably still not believe, not because of a denial of the evidence (although you do do that as well), but because skeptics can try to explain away anything. Even the Pharisees claimed Christ cast out demons by the king of demons.

No other origin story works logically.

Gilles de Rais said:

In Romans 1, Paul writes about those who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." That is what comes to mind here. I'm grateful that you're being nice about this (unlike a couple other people I could mention), but this is in effect what you're doing. It's like you put on a blindfold and refuse to accept that you can't see.

If it's up to each individual, why should God bother judging? I'd like to refer you to Romans 1 as well. However, it's also important to make a distinction between hating a person and hating a sin. Christ said that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, but if we really care about others, why are we letting them harm themselves and others?

Click to expand...

Sorry, can't hear your christianity rant over the Constitution of the United States of America and the weight of nearly two and half centuries of secular, "separation of church and state" political tradition. We don't live in a Theocracy, and I highly suggest you quit demeaning this thread now with your vitriol and poor reasoning. Or don't, and I will infract you, profusely. Have a good night.

Staralfur said:

Your username is of a French gay serial murdering pedophile and you say that homosexuality is unnatural...

Click to expand...

Is it really? I actually pulled it from a TCG I casually play called Cardfight!! Vanguard, so I didn't know that. Still, that shouldn't detract from my points. In fact, Paul was once known as Saul, and he made his living persecuting God's people before his conversion. The historical Gilles de Rais may have been a complete and total asshole, but even the worst of all mankind can be saved by Christ, and will be if he or she makes such a choice.

Gilles de Rais said:

"Not one iota of perception" denotes empiricism, so I debunked it. I've already gotten the point of metaphysics.

That's what the Bible says. The Bible is inerrant. You're basically placing your own reasoning over everything else here, and human reasoning can only go so far. Even if God Himself stood before you today and said hello, you would probably still not believe, not because of a denial of the evidence (although you do do that as well), but because skeptics can try to explain away anything. Even the Pharisees claimed Christ cast out demons by the king of demons.

No other origin story works logically.

Click to expand...

If God himself stood before me today I'd at the very least do a double take.

How do you know the Bible is inerrant? Who decides that? Did you decide it? Probably not, so where did you hear it from? I'm not putting my reason over anything. All I want to know is how we know that Christianity is true. Is that too much to ask?

Anyways, we're already having this conversation in another thread, so let's try bringing this back to homosexuality.

Livewire said:

Sorry, can't hear your christianity rant over the Constitution of the United States of America and the weight of nearly two and half centuries of secular, "separation of church and state" political tradition. We don't live in a Theocracy, and I highly suggest you quit demeaning this thread now with your vitriol and poor reasoning. Have a good night.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. Several of us were reprimanded for our attitudes toward one another, and you do exactly the same thing and expect me to back down? In the USA, since you claim to be so patriotic, things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion are guaranteed by the very Constitution you're referring to, not to mention the fact that people in positions of power are supposed to be held even more closely to the laws of the land.

By that logic, you should be receiving a yellow card now as well, at the very least.

And by the way, you are taking the phrase "separation of church and state" completely out of context. It actually comes from an exchange of letters between former president Roosevelt and a concerned woman who asked if any religion would be forced on the population. The answer, of course, was no. It does not mean religion is kept out of the reasoning of those whom we elect, it means that the government does not choose one religion and make it unlawful to follow something different. It is also a fact that the USA was founded on Christian principles and ideas, and you can look at such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as to my evidence for that claim.

I don't care if you hate me or if you hate God, but if you're going to use vitriol and poor reasoning to accuse me of vitriol and poor reasoning, I don't believe I can take you seriously. Besides, all you can really do is ban me, and people like Peter and Paul were executed for believing what I believe.

Gilles de Rais said:

And by the way, you are taking the phrase "separation of church and state" completely out of context. It actually comes from an exchange of letters between former president Roosevelt and a concerned woman who asked if any religion would be forced on the population. The answer, of course, was no. It does not mean religion is kept out of the reasoning of those whom we elect, it means that the government does not choose one religion and make it unlawful to follow something different. It is also a fact that the USA was founded on Christian principles and ideas, and you can look at such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as to my evidence for that claim.

Click to expand...

No, it goes all the way back to Jefferson. I'm not even American and I know that.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Click to expand...

Seriously, google that. It's proof.

So reading over this thread, one thing is clear.
Gilles de Rais isn't really here to debate, he's here to preach his religion. I'd suggest that everyone wanting a proper conversation should move on and ignore him.


On the subject of is homosexuality unnatural that we've discussed so far, I think a good follow up to question to everyone would be how does this perceived naturalism effect your opinion?
If it were to come out today, that according to scientists homosexuality is unnatural with a fault, what would you do? How would you feel? For those of who fall under the queer umbrella, do you think it would shake your identity?

I want to say that it wouldn't matter to me, that what I feel feels...natural to me! So why would that reasoning change this? But as a logical person, I can't help but want to believe that I am acting logically as well. It makes me feel secure at least.

Gilles de Rais said:

Let me get this straight. Several of us were reprimanded for our attitudes toward one another, and you do exactly the same thing and expect me to back down? In the USA, since you claim to be so patriotic, things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion are guaranteed by the very Constitution you're referring to, not to mention the fact that people in positions of power are supposed to be held even more closely to the laws of the land.

By that logic, you should be receiving a yellow card now as well, at the very least.

And by the way, you are taking the phrase "separation of church and state" completely out of context. It actually comes from an exchange of letters between former president Roosevelt and a concerned woman who asked if any religion would be forced on the population. The answer, of course, was no. It does not mean religion is kept out of the reasoning of those whom we elect, it means that the government does not choose one religion and make it unlawful to follow something different. It is also a fact that the USA was founded on Christian principles and ideas, and you can look at such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as to my evidence for that claim.

I don't care if you hate me or if you hate God, but if you're going to use vitriol and poor reasoning to accuse me of vitriol and poor reasoning, I don't believe I can take you seriously. Besides, all you can really do is ban me, and people like Peter and Paul were executed for believing what I believe.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do, because your holier-than-thou troll stunt here is entirely self-serving, poorly reasoned, trollish, etc. You will basically do exactly what I tell you to do, should you decide not to shape up and drag this thread down further.

The constitution entitles you to first amendment rights, and the freedom to practice your own religion. It does not, however, protect you from the ramifications of speech nor does it permit you to project religious views on other people, hence the secular thing I told you about that I suggest you go google again, like the rest of your copy & pasted talking points from some fundamentalist webzine because you clearly don't grasp its meaning.