It is believed by many that people should be allowed to have and express their sexual orientation, and whoever condemns or is repulsed by these unholy orientation is termed judgemental and intolerant. The truth is that, because you have a feeling does not mean that you must satisfy the feelings. Having a urge does not mean it is right or it is who you are.

People have the feeling and urge to steal. Many fight it, and those who satisfy the urge to steal are criminalised. Yet this is not called intolerance. Your having a strong drive for sex and the idea to rape is coming to your mind does not mean you must rape. What you need to do is to reject the idea and fight it off. So also, because you feel like having sex with a fellow man (gay) or a fellow woman (lesbian), because you feel like being a bisexual or a transexual does not mean it is right nor that you must satisfy.. it. Just like the idea to steal, rape or the idea to cause harm or kill comes to your mind when you are angry and you fight them off, you should also fight off the idea of being a LGBT.

LGBT is not who you are, it is just a bad idea hanging in your head, and with proper treatment, you can overcome it.

How do you treat it.

1) Give your life to Jesus ( if you have not)
2)turn away from every known sin
3) stop bad acts and engagements such as pornography
4) avoid bad company. Evil communication corrupt good manners.
5) give yourself to prayer
6) study the word of God.
7) live a fasted life.
keep good company. If ever you need companion.

Jesus loves you.

If you have any question or idea, you can use the comments section. Thanks.

Spell Christianity right.

jeruzi:
It is believed by many that people should be allowed to have and express their sexual orientation, and whoever condemns or is repulsed by these unholy orientation is termed judgemental and intolerant. The truth is that, because you have a feeling does not mean that you must satisfy the feelings. Having a urge does not mean it is right or it is who you are.

People have the feeling and urge to steal. Many fight it, and those who satisfy the urge to steal are criminalised. Yet this is not called intolerance. Your having a strong drive for sex and the idea to rape is coming to your mind does not mean you must rape. What you need to do is to reject the idea and fight it off. So also, because you feel like having sex with a fellow man (gay) or a fellow woman (lesbian), because you feel like being a bisexual or a transexual does not mean it is right nor that you must satisfy.. it. Just like the idea to steal, rape or the idea to cause harm or kill comes to your mind when you are angry and you fight them off, you should also fight off the idea of being a LGBT.

LGBT is not who you are, it is just a bad idea hanging in your head, and with proper treatment, you can overcome it.

How do you treat it.

1) Give your life to Jesus ( if you have not)
2)turn away from every known sin
3) stop bad acts and engagements such as pornography
4) avoid bad company. Evil communication corrupt good manners.
5) give yourself to prayer
6) study the word of God.
7) live a fasted life.
keep good company. If ever you need companion.

Jesus loves you.

If you have any question or idea, you can use the comments section. Thanks.

No, no no. Homosexuality is not a disease to be cured nor do they need to be saved from it. Do you need to be cured from eating food?

LordReed:


No, no no. Homosexuality is not a disease to be cured nor do they need to be saved from it. Do you need to be cured from eating food?

Obviously, your job here is to show how homosexuality etc is more like eating food than like the other class of comparisons that the OP offered.

LordReed:


No, no no. Homosexuality is not a disease to be cured nor do they need to be saved from it. Do you need to be cured from eating food?

LGBT and every other sexual perversion is like the idea of a scammer who makes a business idea look good and genuine but with the intention to swindle.

You might feel excited, adrenaline but you will end up losing everything if you don't fight it off.

Ihedinobi3:


Obviously, your job here is to show how homosexuality etc is more like eating food than like the other class of comparisons that the OP offered.

Obviously.

jeruzi:
LGBT and every other sexual perversion is like the idea of a scammer who makes a business idea look good and genuine but with the intention to swindle.

You might feel excited, adrenaline but you will end up losing everything if you don't fight it off.

Swindle who? Who are homosexuals swindling or deceiving?

Why comparing it to murder and so
Why not compare it to it's analogue?
Go tell the average man like yourself to forever forget about intimacy,love,family...let's see how easy it will be to accept

LordReed:


Swindle who? Who are homosexuals swindling or deceiving?

now you just misunderstood it deeper.

I said the way a scammer makes the idea look good but it's actually bad is the way the idea of sexual immorality looks good but it's actually bad.
It similitude. So reject instead of embracing the idea or feelings.

LordReed:


Obviously.

But you can't do it, can you?

Ihedinobi3:


But you can't do it, can you?

Sexual appetites are natural just like hunger, unless you have neither of these I don't know how much more obvious you need it to be.

jeruzi:
now you just misunderstood it deeper.

I said the way a scammer makes the idea look good but it's actually bad is the way the idea of sexual immorality looks good but it's actually bad.
It similitude. So reject instead of embracing the idea or feelings.

Homosexuality is not sexual immorality if that is what you mean.

LordReed:


Sexual appetites are natural just like hunger, unless you have neither of these I don't know how much more obvious you need it to be.

Well, if that is your argument, then the serial killer's hunger to maim, torture, and kill are also natural too, so what is wrong with that? The desire for revenge that drives some of us to murder too is natural, so that too is nothing bad. And so on.

Ihedinobi3:


Well, if that is your argument, then the serial killer's hunger to main, torture, and kill are also natural too, so what is wrong with that? The desire for revenge that drives some of us to murder too is natural, so that too is nothing bad. And so on.

To be specific, a serial killer has mental issues, we cannot compare those drives to what we experience as the norm. On a general note, yes killing is natural but we as a social species have structured our societies to limit killing because it will do our societies a world of good to do so. There is no such need in the case of sexual drives.

LordReed:


To be specific, a serial killer has mental issues, we cannot compare those drives to what we experience as the norm. On a general note, yes killing is natural but we as a social species have structured our societies to limit killing because it will do our societies a world of good to do so. There is no such need in the case of sexual drives.

I think that you are still missing the point. His argument is that the fact that we might want very much to do some things does not make those things right. You are only insisting that he is wrong, not showing how he in fact is wrong. An assertion does not an argument make.

Ihedinobi3:


I think that you are still missing the point. His argument is that the fact that we might want very much to do some things does not make those things right. You are only insisting that he is wrong, not showing how he in fact is wrong. An assertion does not an argument make.

Maybe you need to look at it again. His assertion is that being any of the LGBT is some sort of condition that requires a cure, to which my reply was no they do not require a cure since they are as natural as eating food. Unless you are denying that sexual attractions are natural then I don't see what you are objecting to.

LordReed:


Maybe you need to look at it again. His assertion is that being any of the LGBT is some sort of condition that requires a cure, to which my reply was no they do not require a cure since they are as natural as eating food. Unless you are denying that sexual attractions are natural then I don't see what you are objecting to.

Yes, he said that the homosexual behavior needs a cure, because it is perverse to have unnatural sexual relations. You claimed that the activity is not perverse at all, but you have not shown why it isn't.

What is natural about having sex with people of the same gender as you? What is good or right or even sane about that? You're the one who also claimed that a serial killer has mental issues, but you don't show how that is the case there and how it isn't also the case with homosexuals. That is what your job is.

The point is not that sexual attractions are unnatural. Rather, it is that yielding to a perverse desire is not a good thing. There are all kinds of perverse desires. Claiming that we are just that way and therefore have a right to indulge ourselves however we want is an insane thing to do. That is the argument that you have to deal with, LordReed.

Ihedinobi3:


Yes, he said that the homosexual behavior needs a cure, because it is perverse to have unnatural sexual relations. You claimed that the activity is not perverse at all, but you have not shown why it isn't.

What is natural about having sex with people of the same gender as you? What is good or right or even sane about that? You're the one who also claimed that a serial killer has mental issues, but you don't show how that is the case there and how it isn't also the case with homosexuals. That is what your job is.

Abstract
Multiple and serial murders are rare events that have a very profound societal impact. We have conducted a systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, of both the peer reviewed literature and of journalistic and legal sources regarding mass and serial killings. Our findings tentatively indicate that these extreme forms of violence may be a result of a highly complex interaction of biological, psychological and sociological factors and that, potentially, a significant proportion of mass or serial killers may have had neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or head injury.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178914000305

During the winter mating season, competition is fierce for access to female Japanese macaques. But it's not for the reason you might think. Males don't just have to compete with other males for access to females: they have to compete with females too.

That's because in some populations, homosexual behaviour among females is not only common, it's the norm. One female will mount another, then stimulate her genitals by rubbing them against the other female. Some hold onto each other with their limbs using a "double foot clasp mount", while others sit on top of their mates in a sort of jockey-style position, says Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, who has been studying these macaques for over 20 years.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

The point is merely not that sexual attractions are unnatural. Rather, it is that yielding to a perverse desire is not a good thing. There are all kinds of perverse desires. Claiming that we are just that way and therefore have a right to indulge ourselves however we want is an insane thing to do. That is the argument that you have to deal with, LordReed.

How you can be on the internet and still be claiming homosexuality is unnatural is beyond me. There is a wealth of resources to show that homosexuality is as natural as eating a banana (pun intended). I am guessing that your grouse with it (apart from your god command belief of course) is you simply cannot conceptualise how a person can be attracted to someone of the same sex. That is something we all experience, empathy is hard sometimes because we may never have had such experiences. It doesn't give you the right to condemn though, peoples preferences for things that harm no one should not be your look out.

LordReed:


No, no no. Homosexuality is not a disease to be cured nor do they need to be saved from it. Do you need to be cured from eating food?

lies.

CodeTemplar:
lies.

You have no point.

LordReed:


Abstract
Multiple and serial murders are rare events that have a very profound societal impact. We have conducted a systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, of both the peer reviewed literature and of journalistic and legal sources regarding mass and serial killings. Our findings tentatively indicate that these extreme forms of violence may be a result of a highly complex interaction of biological, psychological and sociological factors and that, potentially, a significant proportion of mass or serial killers may have had neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or head injury.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178914000305

During the winter mating season, competition is fierce for access to female Japanese macaques. But it's not for the reason you might think. Males don't just have to compete with other males for access to females: they have to compete with females too.

That's because in some populations, homosexual behaviour among females is not only common, it's the norm. One female will mount another, then stimulate her genitals by rubbing them against the other female. Some hold onto each other with their limbs using a "double foot clasp mount", while others sit on top of their mates in a sort of jockey-style position, says Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, who has been studying these macaques for over 20 years.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals



How you can be on the internet and still be claiming homosexuality is unnatural is beyond me. There is a wealth of resources to show that homosexuality is as natural as eating a banana (pun intended). I am guessing that your grouse with it (apart from your god command belief of course) is you simply cannot conceptualise how a person can be attracted to someone of the same sex. That is something we all experience, empathy is hard sometimes because we may never have had such experiences. It doesn't give you the right to condemn though, peoples preferences for things that harm no one should not be your look out.

Okay, serial killings are bad because the Internet says they are bad and homosexuality is natural because the Internet says that they are natural. Is that your argument in a nutshell then?

As for empathy, that is a red herring. I condemn all forms of sexual activity outside marriage, but that is not because I have no sexual desires outside the confines of marriage.

Ihedinobi3:


Okay, serial killings are bad because the Internet says they are bad and homosexuality is natural because the Internet says that they are natural. Is that your argument in a nutshell then?

C'mon man, I expected better from you.

As for empathy, that is a red herring. I condemn all forms of sexual activity outside marriage, but that is not because I have no sexual desires outside the confines of marriage.

So if homosexuals marry you'll have no problems with their sexual activities?

LordReed:


C'mon man, I expected better from you.



So if homosexuals marry you'll have no problems with their sexual activities?

I'm not sure what "better" here means. I'm just wondering what your argument really is. What makes homosexual activity right, good, or natural? That is the question. You presented Internet links and excerpts apparently to show what does and also told me that my use of the Internet should predispose me to accepting that it is natural, so it seems to me that you are saying that if the Internet says that homosexual activity is natural, then it is. Am I wrong about that?

As for getting married, you are mixing that up. You said that I lack empathy for homosexuals and that is the reason I stand against homosexuality. I was only showing you that it wasn't because of any lack of empathy. I'm a Christian, as you know. What I call bad, wrong, or unnatural is whatever the Bible calls bad, wrong, or unnatural. I don't care if I have any natural proclivity for the thing in question or not. If I commit homosexual activity, then I have done something wrong, bad, and unnatural, because that is what the Bible says.

Ihedinobi3:


I'm not sure what "better" here means. I'm just wondering what your argument really is. What makes homosexual activity right, good, or natural? That is the question. You presented Internet links and excerpts apparently to show what does and also told me that my use of the Internet should predispose me to accepting that it is natural, so it seems to me that you are saying that if the Internet says that homosexual activity is natural, then it is. Am I wrong about that?

LoL SMH. I present facts to support my argument and all you want to do is say its the internet and dismiss it. I don't expect such from you.

As for getting married, you are mixing that up. You said that I lack empathy for homosexuals and that is the reason I stand against homosexuality. I was only showing you that it wasn't because of any lack of empathy. I'm a Christian, as you know. What I call bad, wrong, or unnatural is whatever the Bible calls bad, wrong, or unnatural. I don't care if I have any natural proclivity for the thing in question or not. If I commit homosexual activity, then I have done something wrong, bad, and unnatural, because that is what the Bible says.

Your beliefs are yours, the facts don't care about your beliefs.

LordReed:


LoL SMH. I present facts to support my argument and all you want to do is say its the internet and dismiss it. I don't expect such from you.



Your beliefs are yours, the facts don't care about your beliefs.

This is rather tiresome.

I did not dismiss anything. I asked you to clarify your argument. If your argument is that whatever the Internet says is true, then say so. If not, then say it is not and explain what your argument is.

As for beliefs, sure, my beliefs are mine. I certainly did not say that they are yours, but they are not therefore "non-facts." They are facts that I accept to be true too.

In conclusion, you have yet to explain what is wrong with the OP's argument and you were wrong about what my aversion to homosexuality is.

jeruzi:
It is believed by many that people should be allowed to have and express their sexual orientation, and whoever condemns or is repulsed by these unholy orientation is termed judgemental and intolerant. The truth is that, because you have a feeling does not mean that you must satisfy the feelings. Having a urge does not mean it is right or it is who you are.

People have the feeling and urge to steal. Many fight it, and those who satisfy the urge to steal are criminalised. Yet this is not called intolerance. Your having a strong drive for sex and the idea to rape is coming to your mind does not mean you must rape. What you need to do is to reject the idea and fight it off. So also, because you feel like having sex with a fellow man (gay) or a fellow woman (lesbian), because you feel like being a bisexual or a transexual does not mean it is right nor that you must satisfy.. it. Just like the idea to steal, rape or the idea to cause harm or kill comes to your mind when you are angry and you fight them off, you should also fight off the idea of being a LGBT.

LGBT is not who you are, it is just a bad idea hanging in your head, and with proper treatment, you can overcome it.

How do you treat it.

1) Give your life to Jesus ( if you have not)
2)turn away from every known sin
3) stop bad acts and engagements such as pornography
4) avoid bad company. Evil communication corrupt good manners.
5) give yourself to prayer
6) study the word of God.
7) live a fasted life.
keep good company. If ever you need companion.

Jesus loves you.

If you have any question or idea, you can use the comments section. Thanks.

Yeye finish you there.

You compare a sexual urge to stealing and rape?

Is stealing and rape legal?

Homosexuality has been legalised in Britain and America and look at how many Nigerians are tripping over themselves to get to those places.

Stupid Christian. Gay ppl aren't your problem.

Ihedinobi3:


This is rather tiresome.

I did not dismiss anything. I asked you to clarify your argument. If your argument is that whatever the Internet says is true, then say so. If not, then say it is not and explain what your argument is.

As for beliefs, sure, my beliefs are mine. I certainly did not say that they are yours, but they are not therefore "non-facts." They are facts that I accept to be true too.

In conclusion, you have yet to explain what is wrong with the OP's argument and you were wrong about what my aversion to homosexuality is.

What is tiresome is you pretending and arguing in bad faith. You requested for support for what I wrote, when I present the supporting facts you pretend you don't understand or that the argument is whatever the internet says is true.

LordReed:


What is tiresome is you pretending and arguing in bad faith. You requested for support for what I wrote, when I present the supporting facts you pretend you don't understand or that the argument is whatever the internet says is true.

Just stop man. It's a lost cause. I also wanted to comment but when I saw that headline, I was like a fish swimming in a water with low salinity. It's no use when religion now has an abstract definition for science and facts according to them. You've done your all

LordReed:


What is tiresome is you pretending and arguing in bad faith. You requested for support for what I wrote, when I present the supporting facts you pretend you don't understand or that the argument is whatever the internet says is true.

What am I pretending about or arguing in bad faith about?

Where did I request support for what you wrote? I asked you what your argument was, not for any kind of support. You only made a claim and then produced Internet links that pretty much said the same thing that you did. If you call that an argument, what then could you possibly have against someone who makes a claim and produces Bible verses that say the same thing that they say too? What makes the Internet a more reliable authority than the Bible? What makes something that some human beings wrote on the Internet "facts" when you reject the factual accuracy of the Bible on the basis of the fact that it was written by human beings too?

As for pretending that your argument is that whatever the Internet says is true, I'll ask you again: why did you post the excerpts and links and make the comment you made? If the issue is not that you regard the Internet as a reliable authority, then why do you present links and excerpts from the Internet as proof that your claim is correct? If I was wrong in why you did, why don't you explain your position? I can't see what is in your mind unless you actually say it.

Ihedinobi3:


What am I pretending about or arguing in bad faith about?

Where did I request support for what you wrote? I asked you what your argument was, not for any kind of support. You only made a claim and then produced Internet links that pretty much said the same thing that you did. If you call that an argument, what then could you possibly have against someone who makes a claim and produces Bible verses that say the same thing that they say too? What makes the Internet a more reliable authority than the Bible? What makes something that some human beings wrote on the Internet "facts" when you reject the factual accuracy of the Bible on the basis of the fact that it was written by human beings too?

As for pretending that your argument is that whatever the Internet says is true, I'll ask you again: why did you post the excerpts and links and make the comment you made? If the issue is not that you regard the Internet as a reliable authority, then why do you present links and excerpts from the Internet as proof that your claim is correct? If I was wrong in why you did, why don't you explain your position? I can't see what is in your mind unless you actually say it.

Now ain't this some funny shìt. I guess your ghost posted

Ihedinobi3:


Yes, he said that the homosexual behavior needs a cure, because it is perverse to have unnatural sexual relations. You claimed that the activity is not perverse at all, but you have not shown why it isn't.

What is natural about having sex with people of the same gender as you? What is good or right or even sane about that? You're the one who also claimed that a serial killer has mental issues, but you don't show how that is the case there and how it isn't also the case with homosexuals. That is what your job is.

I then proceed to do as you wished then you turn around to claim you didn't ask me to support my arguments.

LMFAO! Nah men this is clear you are just floundering.

Palehair:

Just stop man. It's a lost cause. I also wanted to comment but when I saw that headline, I was like a fish swimming in a water with low salinity. It's no use when religion now has an abstract definition for science and facts according to them. You've done your all

You are right on the money. I just keep hoping for better discussions and always end up getting disappointed.

LordReed:


Now ain't this some funny shìt. I guess your ghost posted



I then proceed to do as you wished then you turn around to claim you didn't ask me to support my arguments.

LMFAO! Nah men this is clear you are just floundering.

We're both speaking English, yet somehow we mean different things by the same words.

I distinctly told you that a claim is not an argument and went on to say that you hadn't shown "why" or "how" your claims were true in the very post you're quoting here, and yet you consider that to be a request for "support" that is defined by you to include excerpts from websites? How could I possibly explain this situation better than I already have?

For what it is worth, I'll explain again where we are:

1. The OP made an argument showing that wanting something is not a good reason to have it. His argument is just that sometimes our desires are bad and should not be acted upon. So, he goes on, homosexuality is not justifiable simply on the basis of the fact that someone finds members of the same sex sexually attractive.

2. You responded that homosexual desire is good and natural, therefore homosexuality is justifiable.

3. I pointed out to you that you had not made an argument, only an assertion, therefore there is no reason to think that you are right.

4. You posted excerpts from websites simply repeating the same thing you said with more words and claims.

5. I asked you if you were making an argument then that if the Internet makes a claim, it must be true.

6. You responded that I was dismissing facts.

7. I told you that I wasn't, rather that I wanted to understand exactly what argument you were making, since if you present Internet articles as facts, it would be the same as a Christian presenting Bible verses as facts.

8. Then you complained that I was pretending not to understand you.

The issue is not whether I understand you. It is whether you understand what I demanded. You are rejecting an argument as false but you have offered no reason for doing so beyond the excerpts that you have posted as "facts." We don't know why you posted the articles. You called them facts, so we can assume that you believe what they say to be true. But we don't know why you believe them.

Therefore, if we decide that the OP is wrong, we would be acting in blind faith in you, simply accepting what you and your Internet articles say to be true for no reason.

Interestingly, that is the same thing that you accuse Christians of doing with the Bible. So, I'm not sure you have stated what your true position is.

We can't just agree that homosexuality is natural because you or some Internet articles say that it is. That's the problem here. Do you think that we should?