why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

Yeah. That's just how Saul talked about Christ before his eye scales fell away. Poor Christ.

What in the world? Christ caused the scales to form on his eyes. They were removed long after he had accepted the truth. Your irrelevant analogies are not even right.

Since you offer no evidence that God opposes homosexuality, I have no need to counter anything. All I need do is present God's Correct Opinion. Do you have any evidence that God dislikes homosexuality? If so, I think we'd all be happy for you to try and present it.

Actually I do, though it as I have said many times was your burden first.

1. Homosexuality produces its own punishments. Which is consistent with most of the things the Bible prohibits. Nature seems to agree with God's idea of what is ok and what is not and only permits homosexuality at great cost to humanity.
2. The book most often believed to be from a divine source in human history records God's intolerance for homosexuality.

No matter how bad or good that evidence is, it certainly beats that absolutely nothing you provided even when the burden was yours originally, not mine.

I'm here in this particular thread to correct the mistaken notion that God opposes homosexuality. That's really all. Well, except I'm also here to help certain unnamed posters become better debaters, if possible.

So far you have not provided a single thing has any power to persuade so if that is your goal you are not very likely to succeed. I like you but as far as poster's skill goes almost all those that I do not even like are more capable. I do not think debate your field. However I have no right and no wish to suggest you shouldn't do it. Just that you should not expect the type of claims you make to be very effective.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

1. Homosexuality produces its own punishments. Which is consistent with most of the things the Bible prohibits. Nature seems to agree with God's idea of what is ok and what is not and only permits homosexuality at great cost to humanity.

And I've proven that heterosexuality produces even worse punishments, but you ignored my proof, so....

2. The book most often believed to be from a divine source in human history records God's intolerance for homosexuality.

The boat most often believed to be unsinkable went down in the North Atlantic like a turnip in a washtub. And so it goes.

Anyway, I'm like Jesus. I don't swallow the Truth as handed to me by the current crowd in power. I simply announce the Actual and True Truth.

Take it or leave it!

So far you have not provided a single thing has any power to persuade so if that is your goal you are not very likely to succeed. I like you but as far as poster's skill goes almost all those that I do not even like are more capable. I do not think debate your field. However I have no right and no wish to suggest you shouldn't do it. Just that you should not expect the type of claims you make to be very effective.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If only you could see yourself as others see you.

 

[1robin]

And I've proven that heterosexuality produces even worse punishments, but you ignored my proof, so....

I refuse to debate the worth of my evidence until you at least admit I am the only one who actually even attempted to provide any. I do not agree with what you said above but will not debate that until you do what I requested.

The boat most often believed to be unsinkable went down in the North Atlantic like a turnip in a washtub. And so it goes.

So if anything that ever existed (most boats do not sink) ever defied what was said about then no educated opinion about anything is meaningful I guess. I will get into just how bad or good my evidence was once you admit I am the only one who supplied any.

Anyway, I'm like Jesus. I don't swallow the Truth as handed to me by the current crowd in power. I simply announce the Actual and True Truth.

No you are not like Jesus. Jesus supplied that which you have not even attempted to. Evidence and a mastery of what is known. Jesus also confirmed that same book you compared with the Titanic so no you are not like him.

Take it or leave it!

I believe I will leave you similarity to Jesus claims.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If only you could see yourself as others see you.

Is triteness and triviality a substitute for the evidence you should have but did not even attempt to supply?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I refuse to debate the worth of my evidence until you at least admit I am the only one who actually even attempted to provide any. I do not agree with what you said above but will not debate that until you do what I requested.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Provided what evidence for what?

So if anything that ever existed (most boats do not sink) ever defied what was said about then no educated opinion about anything is meaningful I guess.

Whatever you say. All I was telling you was that Arguments from Authority are pretty worthless. Claiming that the Bible is true since lots of people think it is true? That's wasted on me and on anyone else who has thought deeply about evidence and truth.

No you are not like Jesus. Jesus supplied that which you have not even attempted to. Evidence and a mastery of what is known.

No, actually he didn't. But his writers sure tried to make it seem that way. From John to Joseph Smith.

Don't worry. My writers will do a bang-up job, too. Just wait and see.

Is triteness and triviality a substitute for the evidence you should have but did not even attempt to supply?

One sure sign of a losing debater is his anger toward other debaters.

Have you noticed that I've never been angry at you? Why would I? Your argumentation sure doesn't unsettle my world.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, actually he didn't. But his writers sure tried to make it seem that way. From John to Joseph Smith.

Don't worry. My writers will do a bang-up job, too. Just wait and see.

On that note, I just I had an idea about the part of the book where you fed those two homeless guys from a bag of half-eaten french fries. I thought I might replace the two guys with twenty-thousand blind orphans, and that, instead of a half-eaten bag of french fries, it might sound better if I said you fed them all miraculously from a single french fry.

Just thought I'd run it by you before I sent it to the editor.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

On that note, I just I had an idea about the part of the book where you fed those two homeless guys from a bag of half-eaten french fries. I thought I might replace the two guys with twenty-thousand blind orphans, and that, instead of a half-eaten bag of french fries, it might sound better if I said you fed them all miraculously from a single french fry.

Just thought I'd run it by you before I sent it to the editor.

I could've sworn it was just a bit of batter from my last onion ring which multiplied into enough grub to feed the 38,000 deaf, dumb and blind minority homeless orphans... but whatever you think. We shouldn't risk exaggerating things.

Anyway, the editor will fix it up with severe reportorial accuracy in every detail. He's been one of my disciples from the beginning. I have taught him never to fudge things unless it's in the service of the Greater Good, so....

 

[1robin]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Provided what evidence for what?

If you don't know that kind of proves my point.

Whatever you say. All I was telling you was that Arguments from Authority are pretty worthless. Claiming that the Bible is true since lots of people think it is true? That's wasted on me and on anyone else who has thought deeply about evidence and truth.

Yet they are used every single day in virtually every courtroom and classroom on Earth. You misunderstand that fallacy because it does not apply to anything I said and is a very stupid fallacy if used outside it's narrow band of application.

No, actually he didn't. But his writers sure tried to make it seem that way. From John to Joseph Smith.

Don't worry. My writers will do a bang-up job, too. Just wait and see.

Here is where that pesky and arch nemesis of yours (EVIDENCE) comes into play, yet always seems to be as absent from your posts as common sense is in the liberal party. I can sit around attempting to assert reality into existence but do not do so. I wish I could expect the same in return. You do not know nor could know anything you claimed above even if it was true which it isn't. Does it ever stop.

One sure sign of a losing debater is his anger toward other debaters.

Find either a debater that is angry or one that is loosing to you and that might be relevant. That is at least the second time in just this short post where you claimed to know what you can't (and in this case I can) and just asserted the non-fact into existence. Why?

Have you noticed that I've never been angry at you? Why would I? Your argumentation sure doesn't unsettle my world.

I do not remember being angry with you either. And? The kind of world it appears you have constructed is immune to fact and logic because it has no use for them. I see it was well worth it, in checking to see if you had decided to engage in a meaningful debate since yesterday. I just can't imagine what you gain from this stuff.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I do not remember being angry with you either. And? The kind of world it appears you have constructed is immune to fact and logic because it has no use for them.

That's hilarious, man. Thanks.

I'm not angry with you, you logicless, immune-to-fact, inadequate debater!

Really funny.

 

[1robin]

That's hilarious, man. Thanks.

I'm not angry with you, you logicless, immune-to-fact, inadequate debater!

Really funny.

Are you saying I have no choice but to be angry with something that does not value logic? I said that because it is literally true. If I was angry I would have used far different words and logic would not have been mentioned. You can't make this stuff up. If a person did not see what you typed they would not buy it. I am far too lazy to get mad at what you have been doing and have only been killing time. If I was angry I would have ended this discussion long ago.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you saying I have no choice but to be angry with something that does not value logic? I said that because it is literally true.

Please don't make me analyze you here in public, 1robin. You're not ready for that.

 

[1robin]

Please don't make me analyze you here in public, 1robin. You're not ready for that.

Short verson: You're no more ready to engage my level of logic and rational argumentation than a highschooler might be. Remember all those books you declined to read in college -- the ones you told me about -- and your disdain for grammar?

Mistake.

Sorry. You made me say it.

Yeah I am sure that is it. It's too late for this today. Try again tomorrow.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah I am sure that is it. It's too late for this today. Try again tomorrow.

Actually I deleted my analysis. I really don't think you're ready for that.

 

[payak]

I got tired of arguing on here about something I cannot claim to know anything about.

I took my homophobic self out today to talk directly to gay people on the matter.

My conclusion,what if the man John I was talking to was me,and his boyfriend was my wife, we would not be married,we would be judged by ignorent people like myself.

I could not take to be kept from my wife, would be torture, why should I expect 2 gay people who have the same love to torture themself.

I was wrong, go for it.

 

[philbo]

1. Homosexuality produces its own punishments. Which is consistent with most of the things the Bible prohibits. Nature seems to agree with God's idea of what is ok and what is not and only permits homosexuality at great cost to humanity.

My word, you are a bigoted little ****, aren't you? Your position is logically ridiculous, and only maintainable by having a really nasty mind. This isn't even confirmation bias, it's almost more like wilful delusion.

1. No, it doesn't: for a start, you're confusing homosexuality with promiscuity. The spread of STDs is not confined to nor even statistically more likely in homosexuals globally - you're looking at a small section of a population and wanting to believe nasty things are happening to them to justify your own bias.
There are plenty of homosexuals (i.e. a large majority) who have not contracted any kind of disease at all - surely this for you would have to be proof positive that God likes these people, even if he doesn't like the ones who have got some nasty disease? There are plenty of heterosexuals who have contracted the same diseases: why does this happen if it's even remotely connected to God's dislike for homosexuality?

As for this "great cost to humanity" - that's in your mind only. Christianity has been at great cost to humanity at many points through its history - does that mean god doesn't like you lot, too?

Does God not like the people of Haiti, New Orleans, New York and many others?

If you're going down the idiotic route of tying in nature with what you think your god wants, why does any church need a lightning conductor?

 

[Whiterain]

God very well may disagree with homosexuality and same sex marriages, assuming he does or doesn'tmay
equally be wrong. It not being directly addressed in numerous literature's may also be a key. It's easy to assume
brutality or execution of these homosexuals is not necessary to please God, if he addresses the act of Men or Women
fornicating each other a sin.

Homosexuals are harmless to Mankind, there would be no Mankind if homosexuals were a 'threat' to
Mankind. Harmless, although the acts of homosexuality are unsanitary, unmanly and undignified.

Men that dwell in sexual acts of sodomy have no sense of dignity a normal Man has. I am not a
Mother or Woman. I see homosexual Men as comedic, even though some have a strong sense of
dominance. Anal sodomy used to be, in some cases is, a form of domination.

Monogamy is customarily between a Male and Female. The act of sex can be a sin called lust, the
act of reproduction is entirely different.

I try to be fair in my reasoning, I am not against homosexuality but I do not agree marital rights are
necessary. nor are laws for them. They can get along with society and civilization just like the rest
of Mankind.

Marriage is a holy ceremony, Matrimony a holy bond between a Man and Woman, not a judicial union.

More than anything I would prefer their 'rights' stop being ******* about and they accept traditional
customs that go back to the beginning. Monogamy and Matrimony between a Man and Woman,
Matrimony exclusive to lust.

I consider it a psychological disorder more than anything.

It effects my conscience, I feel what their doing is wrong, a sin.

I care.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I got tired of arguing on here about something I cannot claim to know anything about.

I took my homophobic self out today to talk directly to gay people on the matter.

My conclusion,what if the man John I was talking to was me,and his boyfriend was my wife, we would not be married,we would be judged by ignorent people like myself.

I could not take to be kept from my wife, would be torture, why should I expect 2 gay people who have the same love to torture themself.

I was wrong, go for it.

Thank you for taking the time to talk face to face with homosexuals, for listening to their perspectives, and to put yourself in their shoes. That shows remarkable empathy, compassion, and understanding. Major major kudos to you. :flower:

 

[Agnostic75]

Marriage is a holy ceremony, Matrimony a holy bond between a Man and Woman, not a judicial union.

I consider it a psychological disorder more than anything.

It effects my conscience, I feel what their doing is wrong, a sin.

I care.

No God has ever made a public, audible statement about same-sex behavior.

All religions do not oppose homosexuality.

There is not any credible medical evidence that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

People who oppose homosexuality, and same-sex marriage on religious grounds do not have a moral right to impose their religious beliefs upon other groups of people. Otherwise, it would be reasonable for people who oppose eating pork for religious reasons to prohibit all other people from eating pork. Same-sex marriage does not prevent heterosexuals from getting married.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why did you impose an audible requirement without any reason to demand it? The Bible records God's position on homosexuality and is not bound by your demands for what form is allowable.

Since the Bible contains many questionable claims, including at least some errors, interpolations, and forgeries, even if a God inspired the originals, it is impossible to know, for example, whether or not the originals contained anything about same-sex behavior.

The flood story in the book of Genesis is a good example of a questionable claim. The story is confusing since it does not clearly indicate whether the flood was global, regional, or a myth, allegory, or parable. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but the flood story is confusing.

The story of Adam and Eve is another confusing story, and so are the stories of the Ten Plagues in Egypt, and the Exodus.

Homosexuality produces its own punishments. Which is consistent with most of the things the Bible prohibits. Nature seems to agree with God's idea of what is ok and what is not and only permits homosexuality at great cost to humanity.

Jesus supposedly said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery. Lots of evidence shows that in many cases, not getting divorced is its own punishment, so your argument is not valid.

What is all this evolutionary stuff doing in this thread? If genetics determined homosexuality then how could your story be true?

Genetics alone does not determine sexual identity, but as I showed in my post #1213, it is an important part of it. Please reply to that post.

What evidence do you have that environment primarily determines sexual identity?

Please reply to my post #1223.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1213, and #1223.

 

[1robin]

No God has ever made a public, audible statement about same-sex behavior.

Are those the only possible methods by which God is allowed to communicate. I also think that at least some of those laws were claimed to have been given audibly but that is irrelevant. You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own standards.

All religions do not oppose homosexuality.

I do not remember claiming they did but let me clarify. Most major theologies did.

There is not any credible medical evidence that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

I do not remember claiming it was. IMO it is a spiritual disorder but that can't be judged accurately. Why is this relevant even the fourth time you posted it?

People who oppose homosexuality, and same-sex marriage on religious grounds do not have a moral right to impose their religious beliefs upon other groups of people. Otherwise, it would be reasonable for people who oppose eating pork for religious reasons to prohibit all other people from eating pork. Same-sex marriage does not prevent heterosexuals from getting married.

I do not need religious beliefs to show homosexuality is justified. I spent maybe 50 posts making that clear. Homosexuals force the effects of their habits on humanity at large why do you object to faith based things being forced on them? Not that I need to or would. We have to pay for their troubles by the billions but are not allowed to reduce them by legislation I guess.