Ihedinobi3:


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?

LordReed:


LMFAO! So now you are pretending you don't know how scientific facts are published on the Internet.

I don't have the patience to go through this with you so have a nice weekend. LoL.

Ihedinobi3:


I think you're wrong to think you're the one whose patience is being tried. If you made an argument here and it was being improperly challenged by me or another Christian, then there would be something to your upset, but it's the other way around. Someone made a Christian argument that you saw fit to challenge, but you have not been bothered to make a proper challenge, yet you expect your challenge to be treated like a proper one. If you have a rebuttal to make to the argument, it is YOUR responsibility to make it, not ours to make it for you.

For what it is worth, your first link did nothing more than make a lot of doubt-filled statements about why serial killers kill. Apparently, that was your way of proving that serial killers are mentally deranged. Not only does the "study" or report not categorically say that serial killing is necessarily a mental problem, it does not in any way prove that homosexuality is not a perverse desire that ought not to be acted upon. The argument had been that the fact that we have a desire is no reason why we should act on it, since some desires are bad. Claiming that some people are deranged when they act on some desires is not helpful in proving that another desire is good to act upon.

Your second link reported that some birds carry out homosexual activity. It does not say that this is a natural or good thing, just that it happens. I get that your reason for posting it is to say that if birds do it, then it must be natural. Assuming that the report is, in fact, true, then we must also consider that such an argument - if, indeed, that is your argument - only means that if we find wild animals acting a certain way then that action is necessarily natural and should not be proscribed. If you hold this view, then there is nothing wrong with invading a home, village, or country and killing off all of the men and children there and then forcing the surviving adult women into child-bearing relationships with the invaders. Lions do it, so it is perfectly natural. There is nothing wrong with it. There are many other similar arguments that can be made.

Again, all of this assumes that an actual study was carried out that provided even the speculations in your first link. And, no, that does not mean that I believe that serial killing does not come from insanity - I do believe that it does, but I didn't need a bunch of speculations to believe it. It also assumes that your BBC report is actually true about the macaques. I wasn't there, nor were you, so we would have to be believing something we cannot verify. Still, that does not mean that I don't believe that homosexual activity occurs in wild animals - I most certainly believe that it does, but I didn't need the reports of unreliable human beings to believe that it does.

Ihedinobi3:


I think you're wrong to think you're the one whose patience is being tried. If you made an argument here and it was being improperly challenged by me or another Christian, then there would be something to your upset, but it's the other way around. Someone made a Christian argument that you saw fit to challenge, but you have not been bothered to make a proper challenge, yet you expect your challenge to be treated like a proper one. If you have a rebuttal to make to the argument, it is YOUR responsibility to make it, not ours to make it for you.

For what it is worth, your first link did nothing more than make a lot of doubt-filled statements about why serial killers kill. Apparently, that was your way of proving that serial killers are mentally deranged. Not only does the "study" or report not categorically say that serial killing is necessarily a mental problem, it does not in any way prove that homosexuality is not a perverse desire that ought not to be acted upon. The argument had been that the fact that we have a desire is no reason why we should act on it, since some desires are bad. Claiming that some people are deranged when they act on some desires is not helpful in proving that another desire is good to act upon.

Your second link reported that some birds carry out homosexual activity. It does not say that this is a natural or good thing, just that it happens. I get that your reason for posting it is to say that if birds do it, then it must be natural. Assuming that the report is, in fact, true, then we must also consider that such an argument - if, indeed, that is your argument - only means that if we find wild animals acting a certain way then that action is necessarily natural and should not be proscribed. If you hold this view, then there is nothing wrong with invading a home, village, or country and killing off all of the men and children there and then forcing the surviving adult women into child-bearing relationships with the invaders. Lions do it, so it is perfectly natural. There is nothing wrong with it. There are many other similar arguments that can be made.

Heathen777:


Religious beliefs aside, what is the bad thing im acting out a natural desire for homosexuality. Why can't consenting adults be allowed to be together because they are the same gender, given they are a harm to no one?

LordReed:


You were the one who brought up serial killers and were comparing them to homosexuals so you are attempting to saddle me with an argument I didn't make.

I pointed out to you that serial killers are not normative so cannot be any kind of comparison.




First off, if you had bothered to read the article you'd have seen that macaques are monkeys not birds. Secondly yes the point was indeed that homosexuality is natural which is a counter to what I objected to initially. The op said LGBT folk need to be cured, if homosexuality is natural then what are they being cured from? Again apparently you didn't read what I wrote and jumped sideways. LMAO!

Ihedinobi3:


As far as Christians are concerned, it is the wrong way to use the human body. That is what makes it bad. God did not design the body to be used that way.

Ihedinobi3:


Yes, in fact, I did bring it up. I didn't do so so that we would end up arguing about serial killers. If your point was that it was a comparison of apples and oranges, perhaps you could have been clearer. However, the reason I mentioned it is that having a desire along those lines did not make it alright. Your response that those who have such a desire are insane does not help, since from the Christian perspective, it is insanity to use the human body in the way that homosexuals do.

No indeed, I didn't read the whole article. I don't really spend that much energy on these arguments anymore, unless I get good enough reason to. I'm sorry for mixing up the monkeys and the birds. I was thinking of a type of parrot. I often mix the two up. I did read what you wrote, LordReed, but arguing with you can be tiresome because you don't seem to care about those you discuss with. Does it never occur to you that sometimes the problem in communication can be from your own end? Now, my question to you is, "if homosexuality is natural because monkeys do it, is it also natural to invade and kill off all males and children in a community so that the invaders can raise children of their own from the surviving adult women because lions do it?"

1Sharon:


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.

1Sharon:


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:


As far as Christians are concerned, it is the wrong way to use the human body. That is what makes it bad. God did not design the body to be used that way.

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?

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.

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

Heathen777:


Religious beliefs aside, what is the bad thing im acting out a natural desire for homosexuality. Why can't consenting adults be allowed to be together because they are the same gender, given they are a harm to no one?

Heathen777:


What of people that use their foot to write. god did not design them to use their body that way, Does that necessarily make it bad?

LordReed:


Does it ever occur to you that if something is not clear to you that you can ask questions? Did I ever declare myself a communications specialist? In a conversation I expect that people would ask questions of things they need clarified, its that simple.

Homosexuality is not natural because monkeys do it, homosexuality is natural because it is found in nature thus is not unnatural and does not require a cure.

Killing is not anything like sexual desires so the restrictions on killing cannot apply to sexual desires. We restrict killing because we know it will be deleterious to our societies. There are no similar deleterious effects homosexuality has and so requires no such restrictions.

DeusXmachina:

So what if they are not Christian?
They don't have to follow what Christianity thinks is the proper way to use the human body.
Wouldn't that be you imposing your beliefs on a group of people?

jeruzi:
No ms. Legalising what is bad does not make it good neither does it make wrong write.

Because beastiality was permitted in some countries, does it mean it is good? If you every get tempted, fight off that thought because it is wrong, bad and evil. So also is every other sexual perversion.

Heathen777:


What of people that use their foot to write. god did not design them to use their body that way, Does that necessarily make it bad?

LordReed:


Does it ever occur to you that if something is not clear to you that you can ask questions? Did I ever declare myself a communications specialist? In a conversation I expect that people would ask questions of things they need clarified, its that simple.

Homosexuality is not natural because monkeys do it, homosexuality is natural because it is found in nature thus is not unnatural and does not require a cure.

Killing is not anything like sexual desires so the restrictions on killing cannot apply to sexual desires. We restrict killing because we know it will be deleterious to our societies. There are no similar deleterious effects homosexuality has and so requires no such restrictions.

DeusXmachina:

So what if they are not Christian?
They don't have to follow what Christianity thinks is the proper way to use the human body.
Wouldn't that be you imposing your beliefs on a group of people?

Ihedinobi3:


I asked questions several times and in different ways, LordReed, and you accused me of playing dumb.

I don't see the difference between your argument about homosexuality here and how I stated it earlier.

I think that your claim about the effects of homosexuality on the human community is both ignoring the obvious and assuming perfect knowledge of humanity, both of which make me unwilling to accept its validity. Obviously, homosexual relationships limit the perpetuation of the human race since it ties up reproductive resources. That is deleterious in nature. Since, also, you cannot know humanity perfectly, it is entirely possible that there are other deleterious effects that you are failing to reckon. For one thing, if homosexuality is truly evidencing insanity, then it may be tied to other deleterious effects that are not immediately apparent to you. So, it is not a comparison of apples and oranges.

Image123:


Abi you don't understand the big vocabulary you use ni? Homosexuality is the exact example of deleterious, being harmful in a subtle way. Apparently, it deleted Sodom and Gomorrah BTW . If everyone was homo for instance, the human race would be extinct soon enough, right or right? Not to mention it's odious effect on family life, danger to existence of children, stress and anxiety on the psyche of loved ones and the society , increase in crime and depression caused by hearing someone is a homo. It's traumatic to the society.

Image123:


You have continued to repeat this rubbish. You are not an animal, are you? A human being created in the image of God does not just behave based on natural feelings. Do you just poop all over your body on the road because you feel like pooping like a goat or chicken? Have you no self control over animalistic behavior? So once you feel hungry, you eat because it's natural for you to be hungry? Or what's your point about LGBT being natural? Do you think married people don't have natural feelings towards people they are not married to? So, they should just behave like dogs because they have natural feelings? Or you think pedophiles are not on your same argument, and thieves and liars?

DeusXmachina:

Another issue is, even if we hypothetically say homosexuality is a disease, it's not something that can be cured.
Different attempts have been made by different parties to "cure" homosexuality, but no success has ever been made, it usually just results in poorer mental health and quality of life of the victims of this attempted "cure".
And the experiment has already been ran, homosexuality has been decriminalized, and same sex marriages have been legal for a while now in western Europe, and nothing bad has come from it, and it hasn't affected the day to day life of the average person in any negative way.

Another misconception held is that homosexuality is somehow a choice.
Which it's not. Just imagine someone trying to cure you from being attracted to women.

MrPresident1:
Donald Trump is king of America in the order of Anointed god-kings like Cyrus of Persia, both named by name in the Bible. Only an anointed god-king could have built the temple of God in Jerusalem.

Solomon did it. Cyrus did it. The Donald did it too! Jesus will do it!

This conspiracy against The Donald will unravel; the Donald will have a great victory, he will trump his enemies, he will triumph over all of them. The voice of victory will be loud and total and complete, without any equivocation. It will be clear to everyone that the Donald has triumphed over all his enemies.

President Joe Biden's tenure is not found in the Bible. Sleepy Joe will not be president.

1 Corinthians 15:52
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

When President Trump triumphs and blows his trump and it becomes clear as daylight there is now no longer any opposition whatsoever to his kingship, rulership and and dominion, and that of America over the world too, then we will hear from heaven.

We will hear the trump of God.

2 Samuel 22:14-16
The LORD thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice.
15 And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them.
16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

Psalms 18:13
The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.

Everything before the end of this generation [of the sun].

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

LordReed:


Homosexuals are not barren and are capable of bearing and raising children so that is not a point at all.

Until you can find a truly deleterious effect you are merely shadow boxing.

Image123:


Abi you don't understand the big vocabulary you use ni? Homosexuality is the exact example of deleterious, being harmful in a subtle way. Apparently, it deleted Sodom and Gomorrah BTW . If everyone was homo for instance, the human race would be extinct soon enough, right or right? Not to mention it's odious effect on family life, danger to existence of children, stress and anxiety on the psyche of loved ones and the society , increase in crime and depression caused by hearing someone is a homo. It's traumatic to the society.

Ihedinobi3:


That was not my argument. Obviously, capability, assuming that it does exist, does not necessarily translate to actuality.

I think it was you who challenged the argument in the OP. My question to you has been how homosexuality is not bad, unnatural, or a sickness. So, it is your job to show how it is not deleterious in order to demonstrate that the thread is wrong.

LordReed:


LoL. Apparently it is you assuming homosexuals are incapable of having children, on the contrary we have numerous examples of homosexuals having their own biological children. We also know of homosexual couples adopting children. In every study conducted so far, no children of homosexual couples have suffered any increased disadvantage nor are they more likely to become homosexual themselves. There simply are no deleterious effects exclusive to homosexuality.

Ihedinobi3:


I think that you just made my argument for me. Obviously, homosexual relationships do not produce offspring without help from heterosexual activity. So, the very thing is an argument against its own self.

This is, of course, not even bothering with any arguments about the effect that being raised in an unnatural family setting has on any child. Of course, the individuality of human beings can also cancel such effects in the children, but that does not mean that it is by any means ideal for them.

I'm afraid I might not continue this debate going forward, LordReed. I really don't see what good doing so would do.