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

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh he exist alright!

There is black and there is white.
There is good and there is evil
There is night and there is day
There is right and there is wrong

So, therefore...there is a God and there is a Devil...whether you want to believe it or not!
Youtube this movie, "Meeting in God's Office" you'll find him them both actually having regular conversations, but this time in color.

Oh yeah! They both exist...we are living proof!

Get you some brownie points, but leave out the nuts! lol***

YouTube videos are proof of Yahweh and "the devil" existing? :no:

 

[Tiberius]

Fine. A Christian who kills atheists then. Christians have killed atheists (SOURCE and SOURCE). And the Bible tells people to kill those who don't believe in God or worship other gods.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

And also:

2 Chronicles 15:13: Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

So now that you can't avoid the issue, please answer my question. I can claim that since Christians have shown that their religion can be used for harm that Christianity should be banned. This is the exact same logic that you are using against homosexuality. "If X can be in any way shown to be the slightest bit harmful, it should not be allowed." If the logic is sound when used with homosexuality, then the same logic must also be sound when applied to Christianity.

(Now, no doubt, you are going to tell me that the Old Testament doesn't apply. But then, the bits in Leviticus that say that homosexuality is wrong don't apply either! Or are you just going to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you like and ignore the bits you don't like? But if you do that, then you are merely choosing a moral system for yourself and cherry picking from the Bible to justify it.)

In fact, I'll tell you what. You show me where Jesus said that being gay is wrong, and I'll give the point to you, m'kay?

1Robin, have you forgotten me? Surely you have an answer to this!

 

[1robin]

1Robin, have you forgotten me? Surely you have an answer to this!

I must have. I have no recollection of that post at all. Sorry. I will rectify that now.

Fine. A Christian who kills atheists then. Christians have killed atheists (SOURCE and SOURCE). And the Bible tells people to kill those who don't believe in God or worship other gods.

You are woefully misunderstanding the OT. Tell me what verse exactly you think says this and I will illustrate but until then you must understand that.

1. The OT was only binding on Israel and for a certain time frame.
2. It's purpose was in many ways to protect the integrity of the Jewish people because they were to be the conduit for revelation and the messiah. If they were just as immoral as everyone else the message would not be as effective. If a foreign nation killed them all no message at all would be communicated.
3. Even with all those strict laws they still "whored after other God's" and compromised their purpose. Less effectiveness of the message less people would be saved.
4. That verse does not mean what you think but the stakes do not get any higher.
5. God's wisdom in giving those laws is proven by the fact the son of a minor carpenter living in a minor backwater province of the Roman empire is the most influential person in human history.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

I see you had answered my question above before I asked it. I will invest whatever time is necessary to look up the original word usage, and commentator consensus, or whatever may be needed if my first off hand attempt to explain this is unsatisfactory. God comes within a context. He can not be considered apart from that context. The context in this case has two primary truths associated with it that make hard verses like the one above logical.

1. He and only he is capable of saving us from our sin. Knowledge of him is the only hope for humankind available.
2. Based on Abrahams faith God made his descendants the one and only conduit for his direct revelations. If that conduit became dysfunctional or was destroyed the message would have been impeded.

Stakes do not come any higher. Everything is on the line. Life, death, salvation, damnation, eternity, morality, God's purposes are all riding on Israel at this time.

Now if that is true what else in the human experience is more worthy of protecting at all costs. Even with God's intervention and strict laws Israel had almost rendered themselves unfit for their mission several times. Is their any price their functionality did not merit. If and when certain Hebrews lusted after other God's (that do not exist and can't save) and were dragging others with them into Hell. Is not that (if anything) worthy of the strictest sentences? People do not understand what the stakes are. One of the most terrifying experiences I have ever had is supernaturally becoming convinced of what is on the line here. If this was unsatisfactory I can get into what was involved in putting anyone to death under these laws. It was never a mandate to kill on site anyone thought to be wrong.

Let me know and we will dig further if necessary.

And also:

2 Chronicles 15:13: Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

This was a law that apply only to Israel and the Hebrews. There is not a single open ended command to kill in the 750,000 words in the Bible, there are no verses permitting violence at all in the NT.

So now that you can't avoid the issue, please answer my question. I can claim that since Christians have shown that their religion can be used for harm that Christianity should be banned. This is the exact same logic that you are using against homosexuality. "If X can be in any way shown to be the slightest bit harmful, it should not be allowed." If the logic is sound when used with homosexuality, then the same logic must also be sound when applied to Christianity.

You have not shown it to be used for harm. You have shown it to be used to do what you do not wish done. It is the same principle as having to amputate an arm with gang green before it kills the body. At least I finally understand where you are going with this.

I said homosexuality causes massive harm but you guys can never get the second part. It has no compensating reason to justify the harm. Christianity does. The integrity of the body of God's people is necessary to save a maximal amount of people. If God caused no harm and let evil thrive it would consume the good the same as an infected arm would. It has justification. The greatest justification possible. Homosexuality has none.

(Now, no doubt, you are going to tell me that the Old Testament doesn't apply. But then, the bits in Leviticus that say that homosexuality is wrong don't apply either! Or are you just going to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you like and ignore the bits you don't like? But if you do that, then you are merely choosing a moral system for yourself and cherry picking from the Bible to justify it.)

I did not make an argument using the OT against homosexuality.
I made a 100% secular argument because you guys dismiss half of reality unless you can use it to falsely claim God is evil or Christianity bad. I did not do what you said even though you are indicting Christianity under Hebrew law. It is bogus but I went with it anyway because you still had no case.

In fact, I'll tell you what. You show me where Jesus said that being gay is wrong, and I'll give the point to you, m'kay?

When I make a theological claim against homosexuality I will show where Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the OT law will pass away.

Let me state this one more time but since I have done this at least a dozen times so far it probably will not help.

1. Homosexuality massively increases human suffering, death, and costs.
2. It contains no compensating gains to justify the loss.

It does not maintain the integrity of God's people, it contradicts revelation, and it saves no one. It has no compensation for the misery it causes.

 

[1robin]

I'd like you to find him for me so I can recommend to his superiors that he be reprimanded and/or fired for disclosing people's confidential medical information.

That is not a breach of anything since he linked them with no specific individuals. This is typical, when the message does not suite the narrative liberals shoot the messenger. If doctors did not publically link effects with causes medicine would not exist. Nice logic.

 

[1robin]

My earlobes were not "designed" to have holes in them, yet I have pierced ears. Is ear piercing thus immoral?

God said no one should piece or mark their bodies, but I am not making theological claims, and the holes in your ears do not kill millions.

Human skin was not "designed" to be drawn on, yet many people have tattoos. Are tattoos immoral?

See the above.

Human veins were not "designed" to hold needles, and yet thousands of people receive life-saving IV treatments every day. Is life-saving IV treatment immoral?

Drawing comparisons between things that save life and things that take it are not really helping your side. I do not know if veins were designed to allow for needles or not. However I do know what functions and the limits there of sexual organs have. If I drive my car through your front door will you say that was fine or I had done something invalid.

If all the children born from this day forward were girls, the human race would eventually and inevitably die out. Would that make being a girl immoral?

Sexual identity is what a person is, sex acts are what people do. Equating the unequal is proof of a failed argument defended at any cost (even truth). Fortunately God being smarter than a liberal has made sure this is not the case.

Is the only defense homosexuality has the condemnation (or the irrational attempt) of something else. Theft is not right because murder is wrong (even if you manage to show murder is wrong without God in the first place).

 

[1robin]

YouTube videos are proof of Yahweh and "the devil" existing? :no:

I agree in principle but indirectly it kind of is proof. No known source for information exists beyond intelligence. If information was not primary but instead derivative no U-tube would exist. I am not officially making this argument. I have no end or far more direct arguments that this, just an observation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not a breach of anything since he linked them with no specific individuals. This is typical, when the message does not suite the narrative liberals shoot the messenger. If doctors did not publically link effects with causes medicine would not exist. Nice logic.

This is garbage. He's talking to you about the medical history of the people you served with and spent time with. How hard would it be to figure out who he's talking about, really? Why does he have such a big mouth and why does he feel he has a right to share peoples' medical history with you? Don't you wonder what he's out there saying about you?

I will indeed shoot the messenger if he doesn't do his job properly and breaks the rules he promised to follow. That's not right. Writing a scientific medical paper is a wholly different thing from blabbing peoples' medical problems to everyone you come into contact with.

 

[1robin]

This is garbage. He's talking to you about the medical history of the people you served with and spent time with. How hard would it be to figure out who he's talking about, really? Why does he have such a big mouth and why does he feel he has a right to share peoples' medical history with you? Don't you wonder what he's out there saying about you?

I will indeed shoot the messenger if he doesn't do his job properly and breaks the rules he promised to follow. That's not right. Writing a scientific medical paper is a wholly different thing from blabbing peoples' medical problems to everyone you come into contact with.

From now on when someone makes an argument that is an attempt to win a word fight rather than prove anything I am going to highlight which one of SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT were used. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of Controversy", first translated into English and published in 1896.

1. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.

2. Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.

3. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.

4. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.


This takes too long, be shorter if I listed the ones you did not do.
SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT

The man was not a doctor he was a corpsman. He violated no law and no principle of any kind. The Navy does not obey civil law anyway. It goes by the UCMJ, and he did not violate it either. Neither I nor him served together nor discussed things while in the military. I know him from my civilian job. I do not care what he could have said about me either. I would not have even cared if he used my name but he didn't use anyone's name. The worst thing I did was break an arm because I drank to much and yes it was told to everyone I knew and it did not make me upset. Practicing a behavior that kills others and costs others is fine with you, but generic incidents related about its disgusting byproducts are just a bridge to far for you I guess. The issue is the crap he had to put up with and the rest of us had to pay for. Your diverting attention to something that has no relevance. Even if he did anything wrong it has no relevance. The man served with special forces in two wars, I don't think you will be shooting anyone soon.

 

[Me Myself]

Robin1 still hasnt said why he finds children to be a justification for straight sex TODAY when we need WAY LESS CHILDREN.

Each new children is a new problem in the overpopulated world of today. On the other hand, gay monogamous couples dont present the harms of deliveringew babies into the world and do present the solution of taking care of children that are currently in foster care and that need a stable enviroment with loving parents that will be there for them for the rest of their lifes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God said no one should piece or mark their bodies, but I am not making theological claims, and the holes in your ears do not kill millions.

If your claims aren’t religious-based then why even bring this up? Could it be because they are actually religious-based?

You claimed that the “distortion of proper purpose and design [of organs] is the basis for what most societies term as wrong.” Hence my examples.

You also implied that nature shuns homosexuality, which of course, it does not.

Homosexuality does not kill millions.

Drawing comparisons between things that save life and things that take it are not really helping your side

Your strange claims aren’t helping your side. Hence my illustration of the absurdity of your claims.

Homosexuality (e.g. sexual identity) does not take lives.

I do not know if veins were designed to allow for needles or not. However I do know what functions and the limits there of sexual organs have. If I drive my car through your front door will you say that was fine or I had done something invalid.

Veins carry blood to the heart.

Please don’t play this game. But if you want to go there, who are you to say what sexual organs were “designed” for? If you don’t know if veins were designed to allow for needles, then how can you make assumptions about any other body parts? Maybe humans will start flying 100,000 years from now and they’ll be saying arms were designed for flying. It takes you down the road to nonsense.

I doubt hypodermic needles were around when the first humans walked the earth so I think we can plausibly say that veins weren’t “designed” to allow for needles. So according to your argument, IV treatments are immoral.

How would driving your car through my front door have anything to do with anything?

Sexual identity is what a person is, sex acts are what people do. Equating the unequal is proof of a failed argument defended at any cost (even truth).

Yes, I know. To say that sexual identity and sexual actions are independent of each other doesn’t make any sense.

Your argument is silly, which I was pointing out by making another silly point. You said that if everyone were gay (not their choice) the human race could not go on and therefore homosexuality is immoral. I pointed out that if everyone born tomorrow were females (not their choice) the human race would also not be able to continue. So why would being female not then become immoral, if your line of reasoning is accurate? (Not to mention the fact that lots of homosexuals actually do procreate, but that’s beside the point.)

Fortunately God being smarter than a liberal has made sure this is not the case.

Obviously I don’t think your god exists in the first place, so obviously I don’t think something that doesn’t exist is smarter than liberals. I don’t know how liberals made their way into this discussion anyway.

If “he” is so smart and actually exists, why did he create gay people to begin with?

Is the only defense homosexuality has the condemnation (or the irrational attempt) of something else. Theft is not right because murder is wrong (even if you manage to show murder is wrong without God in the first place).

Uh no, it certainly isn’t. You’ve read the whole thread, right?? It’s a counter to your silly argumentation on the subject.

Homosexual individuals deserve defense because they are human beings, no different than any other human being. Simply being homosexual doesn’t harm a single individual anywhere.

 

[1robin]

Robin1 still hasnt said why he finds children to be a justification for straight sex TODAY when we need WAY LESS CHILDREN.

Each new children is a new problem in the overpopulated world of today. On the other hand, gay monogamous couples dont present the harms of deliveringew babies into the world and do present the solution of taking care of children that are currently in foster care and that need a stable enviroment with loving parents that will be there for them for the rest of their lifes.

Yes I have, I have answered that twice, weeks before you asked it. This topic has bored me to tears. So I have only been responding to new posters or new arguments.

 

[SkepticThinker]

From now on when someone makes an argument that is an attempt to win a word fight rather than prove anything I am going to highlight which one of SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT were used. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of Controversy", first translated into English and published in 1896.

1. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.

2. Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.

3. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.

4. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.


This takes too long, be shorter if I listed the ones you did not do.
SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT

Oh gimme a break!

You keep mentioning, over and over this corpsman who has provided medical attention to gay people and finds it icky. So why are you so surprised when someone decides to address it???? You don't get to repeatedly bring it up and then cry foul when someone responds to it.

The man was not a doctor he was a corpsman.
He violated no law and no principle of any kind. The Navy does not obey civil law anyway.

Here we are talking about what’s moral and what isn’t, and you’re going to say this? Makes me wonder if you have any idea what morality is at all.

And upon closer inspection, it appears that he did violate principle:

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE MYSELF BEFORE GOD
AND THESE WITNESSES
TO PRACTICE FAITHFULLY
ALL OF MY DUTIES AS A MEMBER OF
THE HOSPITAL CORPS.
I HOLD THE CARE OF THE SICK AND INJURED TO BE A
SACRED TRUST
AND WILL ASSIST THE MEDICAL OFFICER
WITH LOYALTY AND HONESTY.
I WILL NOT KNOWINGLY PERMIT HARM TO COME TO
ANY PATIENT.
I WILL NOT PARTAKE OF NOR ADMINISTER
ANY UNAUTHORIZED MEDICATION.
I WILL HOLD
ALL PERSONAL MATTERS
PERTAINING TO THE PRIVATE LIVES OF
PATIENTS IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.
I DEDICATE MY
HEART, MIND, AND STRENGTH
TO THE WORK BEFORE ME.
I SHALL DO ALL WITHIN MY POWER
TO SHOW IN MYSELF AN
EXAMPLE OF ALL THAT IS
HONORABLE AND GOOD
THROUGHOUT
MY NAVAL CAREER.

http://www.militaryauthority.com/wiki/military-creeds/the-corpsmans-oath.html
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?85039-United-States-Navy-Hospital-Corpsman
http://navyformoms.com/photo/taking-the-corpsman-oath?context=user

It goes by the UCMJ, and he did not violate it either. Neither I nor him served together nor discussed things while in the military. I know him from my civilian job. I do not care what he could have said about me either. I would not have even cared if he used my name but he didn't use anyone's name. The worst thing I did was break an arm because I drank to much and yes it was told to everyone I knew and it did not make me upset.

It should have made you upset. What right does he have telling everyone about anyone’s medical problems? Who cares if you personally don’t mind it. I’m sure the people he’s blabbing to you about probably mind it, wouldn’t you think? Especially if they were aware of the derisive tone you use in doing so.

Practicing a behavior that kills others and costs others is fine with you, but generic incidents related about its disgusting byproducts are just a bridge to far for you I guess. The issue is the crap he had to put up with and the rest of us had to pay for. Your diverting attention to something that has no relevance. Even if he did anything wrong it has no relevance. The man served with special forces in two wars, I don't think you will be shooting anyone soon.

Homosexuality doesn’t kill others.

The crap he had to put up with? Sorry, but that’s what comes with serving in the medical field. I bet open heart surgery isn’t pretty either. Maybe he should choose another line of work if that’s the way he views it.

While this may be a diversion from the topic at hand (though you keep bringing it up over and over again in the thread and it does relate to homosexuality), I had to point out how morally repugnant I find the actions of this corpsman you speak of as well as your defense of said actions. It is a disgusting byproduct of the bigoted attitudes displayed towards other human beings and does nothing to contribute to the harmony of the human race. That’s why it’s relevant. (And obviously you think it’s relevant SINCE YOU KEEP REPEATING IT.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Robin1 still hasnt said why he finds children to be a justification for straight sex TODAY when we need WAY LESS CHILDREN.

Each new children is a new problem in the overpopulated world of today. On the other hand, gay monogamous couples dont present the harms of deliveringew babies into the world and do present the solution of taking care of children that are currently in foster care and that need a stable enviroment with loving parents that will be there for them for the rest of their lifes.

Not to mention the immense harm that's created by having a baby today in say, Africa, where it will most likely live a few torturous years only to die a horrible death from malnutrition or AIDS. Where's the morality in that?

 

[1robin]

If your claims aren’t religious-based then why even bring this up? Could it be because they are actually religious-based?

No neither one of my secular principle claims have any need of theology. You brought up something else which is your want. I said it was something else but added that even it is immoral if the half of reality that is denied by some it allowed. I answered a side issue with a side issue.

You claimed that the “distortion of proper purpose and design [of organs] is the basis for what most societies term as wrong.” Hence my examples.

No I did not. I got so sick of the same lame arguments to my primary points I added a few extra points as an adjunct to try and give someone an opportunity to make an argument. I have two primary claims.

1. Homosexuality massively increases suffering, death, and costs.
2. Homosexuality does not have anything that we gain that compensates for that loss.

What your responding to was commentary because no one has yet been able to contend wit those two claims so I added some bonus ones on to see if anyone could do anything with them.

You also implied that nature shuns homosexuality, which of course, it does not.

Yes it does.

Homosexuality does not kill millions.

Yes it does. The 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of the aids cases in the US according to the CDC. Look back a bit I have posted all this info over and over.

Your strange claims aren’t helping your side. Hence my illustration of the absurdity of your claims.

What are you talking about?

Homosexuality (e.g. sexual identity) does not take lives.

Behavior based on an assumed identity that is in conflict with anatomy does.

Veins carry blood to the heart.

I know what veins do. You are supposed to demonstrate what they are inconsistent with, not what their purpose is.

Please don’t play this game. But if you want to go there, who are you to say what sexual organs were “designed” for? If you don’t know if veins were designed to allow for needles, then how can you make assumptions about any other body parts? Maybe humans will start flying 100,000 years from now and they’ll be saying arms were designed for flying. It takes you down the road to nonsense.

Because whether God or nature is the cause sexual organs are for reproduction. Nature abhors at least in effect the improper use of them. The physical design of the organs does not in any way suggest the use homosexuals put them to. I have no idea what game is it I am not suppose to play. If you mean the game of certain organs by design are suited for certain things, I am afraid I must. There are certain things consistent with design or purpose (heterosexuality), there are certain things somewhat neutral to design (needles and such), and there are things inconsistent with design (homosexuality). A finger might be used to pull a trigger but you should not wear your liver as a hat.

I doubt hypodermic needles were around when the first humans walked the earth so I think we can plausibly say that veins weren’t “designed” to allow for needles. So according to your argument, IV treatments are immoral.

Design only is a factor if God exists. He may have designed them to be self sealing to allow for needles but it does not matter. Purpose applies to even nature. Anatomy has efficient functions. However that does not matter here. Why in the heck are you comparing a life saving neutral function, to a life taking contradictory function? This is just another irrational rationalization. Putting a bullet through a innocent persons brain is just as wrong even if a needle can be put into a vein.

How would driving your car through my front door have anything to do with anything?

I am doing something with something that is not said to be acceptable which endangers others who had no role in my decision. I would claim if needles go into veins then my car should be allowed in your house if I was you, but I only make rational comparisons.

Yes, I know. To say that sexual identity and sexual actions are independent of each other doesn’t make any sense.

The heck it doesn't, people of one type often change to another, people of one type often have no urges for the former. People even try a behavior of one type even though they are the other. Actions are incessantly independent of nature because we have choice and will that is often used to subvert nature and identity. You might even say homicide is a natural urge but you would not accept that as an excuse.

Your argument is silly, which I was pointing out by making another silly point. You said that if everyone were gay (not their choice) the human race could not go on and therefore homosexuality is immoral. I pointed out that if everyone born tomorrow were females (not their choice) the human race would also not be able to continue. So why would being female not then become immoral, if your line of reasoning is accurate? (Not to mention the fact that lots of homosexuals actually do procreate, but that’s beside the point.)

Again your are talking about adjunct things I mentioned because no one could contend with my main points. I made them easy on purpose as indicators not reasons or foundations. And you still failed to argue on the terms and context my indicators came in. Sexual identity (male female) is not a choice, behavior is. You can't justify behavior by something no choice exist for.

Obviously I don’t think your god exists in the first place, so obviously I don’t think something that doesn’t exist is smarter than liberals. I don’t know how liberals made their way into this discussion anyway.

Liberals make their way into all my discussions. I use different class designations based on mood.

If “he” is so smart and actually exists, why did he create gay people to begin with?

You nor anyone has ever shown he has. I have presented studies that strongly indicate he didn't about a thousand posts back.

Uh no, it certainly isn’t. You’ve read the whole thread, right?? It’s a counter to your silly argumentation on the subject.

Actually you are right. Condemning something else is not the only argument in defense of homosexuality. Claiming sub categories which are less risky but still have risk and no justification are good is another. Yelling through the keyboard that Christianity sucks is another. Hypotheticals that have never occurred nor can are another, etc..

Homosexual individuals deserve defense because they are human beings, no different than any other human being. Simply being homosexual doesn’t harm a single individual anywhere.

Murderers are human beings, thieves are human beings. I never judged a person. I judged a behavior. I see another argument I forgot. The old appeal to false moral high ground that does not exist and is based on distortions of the counter position. A disgusting but favorite tactic of the liberal in constant use. Your defending death with lust as justification, and calling my position immoral. Good lord. Homosexuality is just another sin like many of the failures I have. The difference is I ask forgiveness, I do not defend my own failings as virtues.


Now then. I have responded to you because you were new to the debate and I wanted to see if you had any new and effective arguments. If anything you said had any effect on my adjunct points I did not see it. Nothing you said has any relevance on my two main contentions. I will read whatever you post but I do not promise to keep banging my head against the wall of moral insanity, rationalizations, false moral high ground, and misdirection. I don't care if you are wrong, I am here to be challenged.

 

[1robin]

Not to mention the immense harm that's created by having a baby today in say, Africa, where it will most likely live a few torturous years only to die a horrible death from malnutrition or AIDS. Where's the morality in that?

So homosexuality is right because births in Africa are bad? If anything must be defended with this junk it deserves no defense and requires no critics. This is exactly like a child who got busted spending half their lunch money ion ice cream claiming Bobby spent it all on ice cream. How many babies that die in how many places does there have to be exactly to make another action moral? Is one death row convict released if any injustice or death occurs somewhere else?

 

[Tiberius]

I must have. I have no recollection of that post at all. Sorry. I will rectify that now.

Thanks.

You are woefully misunderstanding the OT. Tell me what verse exactly you think says this and I will illustrate but until then you must understand that.

As you noted, I provided two passages.

1. The OT was only binding on Israel and for a certain time frame.

So you have never used Leviticus to justify anti-gay attitudes? That's good to know.

I see you had answered my question above before I asked it. I will invest whatever time is necessary to look up the original word usage, and commentator consensus, or whatever may be needed if my first off hand attempt to explain this is unsatisfactory. God comes within a context. He can not be considered apart from that context. The context in this case has two primary truths associated with it that make hard verses like the one above logical.[/I]

1. He and only he is capable of saving us from our sin. Knowledge of him is the only hope for humankind available.
2. Based on Abrahams faith God made his descendants the one and only conduit for his direct revelations. If that conduit became dysfunctional or was destroyed the message would have been impeded.

Stakes do not come any higher. Everything is on the line. Life, death, salvation, damnation, eternity, morality, God's purposes are all riding on Israel at this time.

Now if that is true what else in the human experience is more worthy of protecting at all costs. Even with God's intervention and strict laws Israel had almost rendered themselves unfit for their mission several times. Is their any price their functionality did not merit. If and when certain Hebrews lusted after other God's (that do not exist and can't save) and were dragging others with them into Hell. Is not that (if anything) worthy of the strictest sentences? People do not understand what the stakes are. One of the most terrifying experiences I have ever had is supernaturally becoming convinced of what is on the line here. If this was unsatisfactory I can get into what was involved in putting anyone to death under these laws. It was never a mandate to kill on site anyone thought to be wrong.

Let me know and we will dig further if necessary.

This seems to be a very stretched interpretation. If what you said was actually what is meant, then surely what we see in the Bible could have been phrased better!

This was a law that apply only to Israel and the Hebrews. There is not a single open ended command to kill in the 750,000 words in the Bible, there are no verses permitting violence at all in the NT.

There are plenty of places in the Bible where orders to kill are given.

You have not shown it to be used for harm. You have shown it to be used to do what you do not wish done. It is the same principle as having to amputate an arm with gang green before it kills the body. At least I finally understand where you are going with this.

The only thing I do not wish done is for some people to be subjected to the religious interpretations of others. When you say that gay people can't get married because you think it is wrong, then that is exactly what you are doing.

I said homosexuality causes massive harm but you guys can never get the second part. It has no compensating reason to justify the harm. Christianity does. The integrity of the body of God's people is necessary to save a maximal amount of people. If God caused no harm and let evil thrive it would consume the good the same as an infected arm would. It has justification. The greatest justification possible. Homosexuality has none.

Homosexuality does not cause any more harm than a heterosexual relationship.

I did not make an argument using the OT against homosexuality.
I made a 100% secular argument because you guys dismiss half of reality unless you can use it to falsely claim God is evil or Christianity bad. I did not do what you said even though you are indicting Christianity under Hebrew law. It is bogus but I went with it anyway because you still had no case.

Okay, I agree that you didn't make a biblical case. However, I haven't seen any legitimate secular argument against homosexuality.

When I make a theological claim against homosexuality I will show where Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the OT law will pass away.

Then you are disagreeing with Jesus. You are claiming that the OT laws will always apply, but earlier you said, "The OT was only binding on Israel and for a certain time frame."

Let me state this one more time but since I have done this at least a dozen times so far it probably will not help.

1. Homosexuality massively increases human suffering, death, and costs.

No it doesn't.

2. It contains no compensating gains to justify the loss.

The happiness of a significant proportion of the population isn't good enough for you?

It does not maintain the integrity of God's people, it contradicts revelation, and it saves no one. It has no compensation for the misery it causes.

This is so full of mistakes. The people who want gay marriage obviously don't share your opinions. Why should your opinion be binding on them, yet their opinion not be binding on you? Also, who are you to claim that God's people don't want gay marriage? Did they elect you spokesperson? And saves no one? What about all that stuff about Jesus telling people to "love thy neighbour"? If it's a sin, why do you feel that it is your job to fight it? Why not let God sort it out? Was your life impacted when New Zealand allowed gay couples to get married? Did you love your wife any less? And how has your life become miserable due to gay relationships? I know my life hasn't. Perhaps the thing causing you to be miserable isn't the fact that gay people have relationships, but the fact that people do things you don't agree with. Sorry to break it to you, but not everyone's going to agree with you. You just have to learn to deal with it.

 

[Me Myself]

1robin, you still havent said how is it morally justifiable to keep on burdening this Earth with more babies as we are overpopulated.

Straight sex seems immoral too, at least for now.

 

[1robin]

Oh gimme a break!

You keep mentioning, over and over this corpsman who has provided medical attention to gay people and finds it icky. So why are you so surprised when someone decides to address it???? You don't get to repeatedly bring it up and then cry foul when someone responds to it.

After this posts I will not take the off ramp of what a corpsman did again. Right or wrong it has nothing to do with the issue.

Here we are talking about what’s moral and what isn’t, and you’re going to say this? Makes me wonder if you have any idea what morality is at all.

It ought to make you sick. A person mentioning he once had to remove a marlin spike for an orifice is not even remotely morally equivalent to risking the lives of others with the sole justification of lust and sticking the tax payers with all the bills. This is classic misdirection and obfuscation. Maybe we should quit talking about the guy who ate a family of four because one of the family may have lied on his taxes. Sound right to you.

And upon closer inspection, it appears that he did violate principle:

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE MYSELF BEFORE GOD
AND THESE WITNESSES
TO PRACTICE FAITHFULLY
ALL OF MY DUTIES AS A MEMBER OF
THE HOSPITAL CORPS.
I HOLD THE CARE OF THE SICK AND INJURED TO BE A
SACRED TRUST
AND WILL ASSIST THE MEDICAL OFFICER
WITH LOYALTY AND HONESTY.
I WILL NOT KNOWINGLY PERMIT HARM TO COME TO
ANY PATIENT.
I WILL NOT PARTAKE OF NOR ADMINISTER
ANY UNAUTHORIZED MEDICATION.
I WILL HOLD
ALL PERSONAL MATTERS
PERTAINING TO THE PRIVATE LIVES OF
PATIENTS IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.
I DEDICATE MY
HEART, MIND, AND STRENGTH
TO THE WORK BEFORE ME.
I SHALL DO ALL WITHIN MY POWER
TO SHOW IN MYSELF AN
EXAMPLE OF ALL THAT IS
HONORABLE AND GOOD
THROUGHOUT
MY NAVAL CAREER.

http://www.militaryauthority.com/wiki/military-creeds/the-corpsmans-oath.html
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?85039-United-States-Navy-Hospital-Corpsman
http://navyformoms.com/photo/taking-the-corpsman-oath?context=user

If no one person is mentioned then it is impossible any persons privacy was violated. Preachers, doctors, psychiatrists, etc... all use generic examples of things they have seen and done in private conversations. You can ask them if they have ever seen a self performed sex change, but you can't ask them if Jim did one on himself. Every doctor I have ever had has mentioned generic things associated with what they have done. Some funny, some sick, some to help me or others.

It should have made you upset. What right does he have telling everyone about anyone’s medical problems? Who cares if you personally don’t mind it. I’m sure the people he’s blabbing to you about probably mind it, wouldn’t you think? Especially if they were aware of the derisive tone you use in doing so.

I do not care.

Homosexuality doesn’t kill others.

Yes it does.

The crap he had to put up with? Sorry, but that’s what comes with serving in the medical field. I bet open heart surgery isn’t pretty either. Maybe he should choose another line of work if that’s the way he views it.

He signed up when gays were not allowed in the military. He had to do the surgeries and other things instead of throw away a retirement. No one has done anything what so ever wrong by saying a sick thing was sick.

While this may be a diversion from the topic at hand (though you keep bringing it up over and over again in the thread and it does relate to homosexuality), I had to point out how morally repugnant I find the actions of this corpsman you speak of as well as your defense of said actions. It is a disgusting byproduct of the bigoted attitudes displayed towards other human beings and does nothing to contribute to the harmony of the human race. That’s why it’s relevant. (And obviously you think it’s relevant SINCE YOU KEEP REPEATING IT.)

Ok, I get you do not like this and I will not even give my opinion about why or what purpose it is fulfilling. I get it, now can we go back to the ineffectual challenges against my primary claims?

 

[1robin]

Thanks.



As you noted, I provided two passages.



So you have never used Leviticus to justify anti-gay attitudes? That's good to know.

Your grossly over simplifying things. It takes chapters to lay out the eschatology of law and grace. I did not use Leviticus in my primary arguments against homosexuality. The law as a whole is not binding in the sense it does not provide salvation and parts of it have served their purpose and no longer apply. However moral absolutes of quality and nature are still true. The death penalty for them is no longer in force but the wrongness of the act is still true. It is beyond the scope of a post to exhaustively explain the law, however it is not a part of my primary claims in this thread so there is no need for it. I do believe that law is true, I did not use it here because the people I am talking to do not believe it.

This seems to be a very stretched interpretation. If what you said was actually what is meant, then surely what we see in the Bible could have been phrased better!

That is something derived from the Bible and inescapable. Of course I could have said it better, but when a book is required quality will suffer when only a paragraph is available. As long as you understand the general principle we should be ok.

There are plenty of places in the Bible where orders to kill are given.

Instead of countering every way you can say this let me state what you must prove or demonstrate in order to have a point here.

1. You must prove you have access to all facts involved with any act of God you wish to contend was wrong or evil.
2. You must prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to kill or allow death.

Without both, the claim is pretty hollow.

The only thing I do not wish done is for some people to be subjected to the religious interpretations of others. When you say that gay people can't get married because you think it is wrong, then that is exactly what you are doing.

No even in secular terms the purpose of marriage has always been procreation. That is it's lawful basis. Now moral truth gets very ambiguous without God but there is vast precedent against homosexual marriage in secularism as well. Since I have been speaking about sexual behavior not marriage I will leave that here.

Homosexuality does not cause any more harm than a heterosexual relationship.

This must be the 12th time I have posted this stat and there must be a hundred other just like it I have posted less often. The 4% of America that is gay produces over 60% of aids cases. If that is not more then we have a math problem.

Okay, I agree that you didn't make a biblical case. However, I haven't seen any legitimate secular argument against homosexuality.

Then allow me to post it for the 20th time or so.

1. Homosexuality massively increases suffering, death, and costs of even those that do not practice it.
2. It has no justification or compensation to justify the negative results.

Now I know the principle is right because it is the exact same principle used in law for thousands of years. The data is right because I have provided secular statistics till I sick of looking at them.

Then you are disagreeing with Jesus. You are claiming that the OT laws will always apply, but earlier you said, "The OT was only binding on Israel and for a certain time frame."

Like I said this is very complex stuff. We no longer live in the covenant of law, but with Christ's death the covenant of grace. Most moral requirements are still true even though how God handles them has changed. You might excuse a child for stealing the neighbors Ipad, but you would not excuse your friend doing so. Theft of the ipad was immoral in either case, How it was handled was changed. This just can't be fully explained in a post with other things as well. If you want a law discussion then create a thread and we can discuss it until we are both so bored we throw our monitors out the window.

Let me state this one more time but since I have done this at least a dozen times so far it probably will not help.



No it doesn't.

Yes it does and I have presented statistics proving it from the CDC in many categories ever and over and over. This reminds me of the black night in the Holy Grail. "but you arm's off", "No it isn't". "Well what is that on the ground then", I have had worse".

The happiness of a significant proportion of the population isn't good enough for you?

No. Why don't we ask all convicted murderers if they are happy. If they say yes we declare their acts morally justifiable. However lets visit fantasy land a minute and pretend I person happiness justifies another persons misery and death. Even in that morally insane fantasy 4% of the populations happiness is not compensation for 63% of the aids cases in the US alone.

This is so full of mistakes. The people who want gay marriage obviously don't share your opinions. Why should your opinion be binding on them, yet their opinion not be binding on you? Also, who are you to claim that God's people don't want gay marriage? Did they elect you spokesperson? And saves no one? What about all that stuff about Jesus telling people to "love thy neighbour"? If it's a sin, why do you feel that it is your job to fight it? Why not let God sort it out? Was your life impacted when New Zealand allowed gay couples to get married? Did you love your wife any less? And how has your life become miserable due to gay relationships? I know my life hasn't. Perhaps the thing causing you to be miserable isn't the fact that gay people have relationships, but the fact that people do things you don't agree with. Sorry to break it to you, but not everyone's going to agree with you. You just have to learn to deal with it.

Your right, your response was full of mistakes. I have not been debating homosexual marriage at all. You brought it up once, and I responded but that is not the issue under discussion nor even if it was would it make a single thing I said wrong. I am binding secular people under secular moral foundations that have been the foundation for law for thousands of years. You are mixing everything up. I did not object to gay sex based on Leviticus but on secular moral principles. You brought in what God has done and I answered questions about God in a theological context. You can't use the theological context that I used for God and apply it to my secular arguments then blame me for binding secular people by the Bible's law. That is intellectually dishonest and a tactic of last resort. Why does every defense of homosexuality claim to begin in secularism and reason and devolve into sarcasm, false burdens, condemning something else as a misdirection, claims to false moral high grounds for those defending death, why not just start off calling others homophobes or bigots and not pretend there is an actual defense at all. It is just a waste of time if that is where your side always winds up anyway.

BTW Jesus said hate the sin, but love the sinner. That is what I do. You defend the sin, even if it destroys the one who did not commit it and costs us all billions. Love the sinner, not love nor accept the sin. But now YOU are injecting theology again into a secular debate and what's worse you will blame that on me. I have never seen any issue ever defended so ineffectively of any type by anyone at any time. I used to post the laws of argumentative logic that people violated, but this post alone would violate about 20 of them and I am too lazy to do it anymore.

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, 1Robin, as you pointed out, you haven't used the Bible to justify your anti-gay stance, so I won't use it either. Let's consider that part of our discussion over, shall we?

No even in secular terms the purpose of marriage has always been procreation. That is it's lawful basis. Now moral truth gets very ambiguous without God but there is vast precedent against homosexual marriage in secularism as well. Since I have been speaking about sexual behavior not marriage I will leave that here.

This is wrong. People can have children without being married. I am not aware of any country in the world that says that only married couples are permitted to have children. If you know of one, please let me know.

Also, do you really think that people get married just because they want to have children? Please. What about the people who get married because they feel this emotion called "love" towards another? Does that play no part in it?

Let me ask you, which is a worse crime? For me to get married to a woman I do not love just for the purpose of churning out babies, or for me to get married to a woman I adore completely, even though we have no desire to ever have children? Which of those do you find to be worse?

Oh, and what about couples who are either unwilling or unable to get pregnant? Should they also be denied the right to get married, since, as you said, the primary purpose of marriage is to produce children?

This must be the 12th time I have posted this stat and there must be a hundred other just like it I have posted less often. The 4% of America that is gay produces over 60% of aids cases. If that is not more then we have a math problem.

And there are things that are far more prevalent in heterosexual relationships than in homosexual relationships. Your argument is that, "Activity X causes harmful result Y, therefore Activity X should be banned." By this same logic, we should ban smoking and alcohol. What percentage of lung cancer sufferers are smokers? What percentage of road fatalities are from drink driving? How many liver disorders come from alcoholism? If you want to argue that a thing should be banned because it is harmful, then we must ban EVERYTHING that is harmful.

Then allow me to post it for the 20th time or so.

1. Homosexuality massively increases suffering, death, and costs of even those that do not practice it.
2. It has no justification or compensation to justify the negative results.

I could make the same argument about left-handedness. You'd be surprised at how many left handed people die because they find it difficult to use things designed to be used with the right hand. And left handedness was also once considered to be evil and people were forced to change.

Now I know the principle is right because it is the exact same principle used in law for thousands of years. The data is right because I have provided secular statistics till I sick of looking at them.

But you are applying your logic against one thing yet refusing to apply it to other things, as I have pointed out.

Yes it does and I have presented statistics proving it from the CDC in many categories ever and over and over. This reminds me of the black night in the Holy Grail. "but you arm's off", "No it isn't". "Well what is that on the ground then", I have had worse".

And yet, for some reason, you fail to apply your logic to ban heterosexuality, even though straight sex spreads many diseases.

No. Why don't we ask all convicted murderers if they are happy. If they say yes we declare their acts morally justifiable. However lets visit fantasy land a minute and pretend I person happiness justifies another persons misery and death. Even in that morally insane fantasy 4% of the populations happiness is not compensation for 63% of the aids cases in the US alone.

Are you actually suggesting that you don't care if people are happy or not?

BTW, I say let's ban straight sex. Almost 100% of the cases of unwanted pregnancies happen to straight people. This causes financial hardships to couples and poor quality of life for the children. Given that straight people make up about 90% of the population and that nearly 100% of the cases of unwanted pregnancies happen to them, there can not be any justification for it.

When you figure out why this argument is wrong, you'll have the reason why your argument is wrong.

Your right, your response was full of mistakes.

Oh hahahahaha. You deliberately misinterpret what I said so you can insult me. Oh, you comic genius! Did you stay up all night thinking of that retort or did you have help? brilliant debate form there. Makes me respect you so much more.

I have not been debating homosexual marriage at all. You brought it up once, and I responded but that is not the issue under discussion nor even if it was would it make a single thing I said wrong. I am binding secular people under secular moral foundations that have been the foundation for law for thousands of years. You are mixing everything up. I did not object to gay sex based on Leviticus but on secular moral principles. You brought in what God has done and I answered questions about God in a theological context. You can't use the theological context that I used for God and apply it to my secular arguments then blame me for binding secular people by the Bible's law. That is intellectually dishonest and a tactic of last resort. Why does every defense of homosexuality claim to begin in secularism and reason and devolve into sarcasm, false burdens, condemning something else as a misdirection, claims to false moral high grounds for those defending death, why not just start off calling others homophobes or bigots and not pretend there is an actual defense at all. It is just a waste of time if that is where your side always winds up anyway.

BTW Jesus said hate the sin, but love the sinner. That is what I do. You defend the sin, even if it destroys the one who did not commit it and costs us all billions. Love the sinner, not love nor accept the sin. But now YOU are injecting theology again into a secular debate and what's worse you will blame that on me. I have never seen any issue ever defended so ineffectively of any type by anyone at any time. I used to post the laws of argumentative logic that people violated, but this post alone would violate about 20 of them and I am too lazy to do it anymore.

I'm sorry, but did I miss the part here where you explained why your opinions should be used to control other peoples' lives? Could you highlight it for me?

Oh, and I must point out that there were 56,300 cases of HIV (which is different to AIDS, it must be noted!) reported in 2006, and only half of these were from homosexual men, so about 25,000. Let's call it 30,000 to be generous. However, there were about 80,000 alcohol-related deaths each year in the US (one and a half times as many), poor diet and inactivity results in about 365,000 deaths (twelve times as many deaths as homosexuality) and smoking kills about 435,000 people a year (almost fifteen times as many deaths!). I hope you fight against these things just as passionately as you do against homosexuality. In fact, you should be fighting these things even MORE than you fight homosexuality, considering that they result in a HUGE number of deaths per year more than homosexuality does! SOURCE

Also, please note that gay women are much less likely to contract aids, as they do not generally have anal sex as much as gay men. Do you also have a problem with lesbianism? In fact, there has not been any case of a lesbian contracting aids or HIV through sex with another woman. This makes it safer than even heterosexual sex! Will you now push for lesbianism? SOURCE