"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

[JesusKnowsYou]

I would really like to see the evidences for the many claims you have made here.

Black people are still far more likely to be arrested, tried and given longer sentences than white people.

Do you also claim that since men make up the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. that our legal system is sexist against men?

Or, could the possibility exist, that men commit a disproportionate amount of the crime?

Why when you see such a disparity do you automatically assume that something unfair is happening and that it has to be racial in nature?

Could it not be cultural? Could it be possible that African Americans are simply committing a disproportionate amount of crime?

Also, unless the reason for arrest is - "You're black" - you can't claim that this is an example of systematic oppression due to race.

If a black person receives a longer sentence than a white person - when all the facts of their respective cases are completely equal (unlikely) - why do you automatically assume it has to do with their race?

You don't consider that they and their lawyer made up a bad defensive strategy? Pushed for the wrong thing? Made the wrong deal?

They are more likely to be denied loans, mortgages and properties

You don't think that this has anything to do with bad credit? Or having no credit?

less likely to be promoted

Wait. I thought this was a Feminist talking point.

Are you sure they are okay with you using their script?

more likely to be victims of police violence

Also more likely to flee or resist arrest - which leads to police officers using force.

and are more likely to be victims of violence in general

Not an example of systematic oppression, but evidence of disproportionate amount of violence in African American communities.

and companies and local governments are less likely to spend money on development in majority black communities.

I blame Democrats for these. It is due to their anti-business policies and mismanagement of government resources.

Afircan Americans really need to stop voting for Democrats. They have never gotten anything from Democrats...well...besides slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK.

It really isn't.

It is, but if you still consider it to be a problem - vote exclusively for minorities.

Base our democratic process solely on race.

That will solve racism. (Sarcasm)

Are you seriously this naive?

What led you to ask this question?

Yes it is. When you have a community that votes against black people because of either ingrained racism, or a governmental system that actively prevents black people from obtaining positions of power, that is systematic oppression.

Wow. You swallowed that whole "boogeyman" narrative whole, didn't you?

Look, you can't force black people to run for office.

You also can't force anyone to vote for a black person that is running for office.

It is the mentality of whiny spoiled losers to accept the rules of a competition - but then blame an unfavorable outcome on unseen or imaginary factors.

You automatically assume - without evidence - that a black person can only lose an election because he/she is black and that the voters are racist.

The People choose who they want to represent them. That is our system of government.

Show me a clear cut example of a black person being denied a position of power in the government due to a racist government system.

Then explain how Obama overcame that racist government system.

Nope. But does that mean that all of the other obvious signs of racial inequality no longer exist?

Kinda blows a hole in your "systematic oppression" argument.

The fact that you instantly blame race (or white people) for any disparity among racial communities is not logical.

You need to consider other factors if you want to fix the issues.

Also, Obama experienced a lot of racial prejudice in getting to where he got.

So?

I never claimed that there are no racist people in the U.S.

I only claimed that there is no systematic oppression. No laws or policies made that are designed to kick black people down.

If you find any actual example of systematic racism - I will protest them with you.

Being less likely to be a victim of violence, police targeting, public derision and abuse, more likely to be promoted, earn more money, be granted loans, mortgages and property.

The only thing you shared that could even be considered an example of systematic oppression is the idea of police targeting and I still dispute it.

Practically all institutions.

Wow. That is so much evidence! I'm convinced! (Sarcasm)

Yes it is.

Whoops. I just realized that I've been saying "systematic" instead of "systemic". My bad.

Either way - nope - an individual being racist is not an example of either "systematic" or "systemic" oppression.

Then you're 100% blind.

And you drank all the Kool-aid.

There are people in positions of power that NEED to keep saying that there is inequality in order to justify their continued existence.

Unless they can complain about inequality - Democrats have nothing to run on.

So you and many others take their bait - hook, line and sinker - and by so doing continue to push false narratives that further divide us as a nation.

You've been brain washed, honey.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Why do you believe that?

I took the challenge recorded in the scriptures. I performed the experiment of faith.

I then experienced the "ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt"

I mean, why should it matter to others what your religious beliefs are, if they don't also believe them?

Well, when someone asks you to share your beliefs- like @Jainarayan did me - I assume that they want to know what I believe.

I don't believe that my beliefs should "matter" to anyone - but if you are going to ask me to share - at least accept my beliefs as they are - without dishonest attempts at misrepresentation.

Most of my comments on this thread have been attempts to clear up willful misrepresentations by you and others.

They have not been attempts to "prove" them or "make them matter" to anyone.

I mean, why should anyone accept your claims without any evidence indicating that they are accurate?

I never attempted to convince anyone of anything. No one needs to accept my claims.

However - I do want you and others to actually know what you are rejecting - rather than a misrepresentation of my beliefs.

I believe that there is evidence that indicates that my claims are accurate - but I don't believe that you and others would accept them.

Besides, why would I share that at all when I never had any intention of trying to convince anyone of anything?

Why do you believe that?

That was one of the first things I tested and received an answer about.

I believe that we all share the same God - who is our father - and I received that "ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt" after study, pondering and prayer.

I followed the steps of the experiment of faith outlined in the scriptures.

I don't worship or believe in any god(s).

Neat.

So your God is still not cool with my cousin's marriage, even though she's gone forth and multiplied, with you've told me is basically the only reason marriage exists in the first place.

That was my question, after all.

No, I did not tell you that "multiplying" was the only reason that marriage existed.

What I claimed in Post #554 was that God had commanded all creatures to multiply, however, He stipulated that human beings (His children) could only "multiply" (i.e. have sex) within the boundaries of marriage.

I believe that marriage to be between only a man and a woman and God designed it to help the husband and wife on their journey to eventual perfection.

God is "not cool" with sin of any kind in the sense that He is perfect and no imperfect or unclean thing can enter into His presence.

If your cousin commits sin - then she cannot abide God's presence - which He is "not cool" with because He loves your cousin and wants her to return to Him.

This is why He gave the gift of His Son - so that we can all overcome our sins and return to live with Him again.

So, I guess a better way to say it is that your cousin - if she willfully commits sin and refuses to repent of it - is the one who is "not cool" with God and decides that she does not want to return to Him.

Because, as I said previously, God will always honor our decisions. He is "cool" with us in that regard. He won't force anyone to be perfect and return to Him.

My question was about my mother getting married after she no longer has the ability to "multiply after her kind." Because according to you, that's what you think God created marriage for.

Again, no - that is not what I said. Let me try to simplify this.

If you have the desire to "multiply" (i.e. have sex), then you should marry.

If you have a desire to marry, then you should be prepared to "multiply" (i.e. have sex).

I have said somewhere in this thread that God does not expect every act of sexual congress to lead to pregnancy.

What He has asked of us, however, is to control our desires and express them only with your husband or wife.

And, I want to reiterate, that I believe that He designed marriage to be between a man and a woman only.

So, the fact that your mother can no longer have children is irrelevant. God asks her that if she has sex, to do it only with her husband.

I find your worldview to be troubling.

Right back at you buddy.

Your belief that it is permissible to misrepresent someone's beliefs if you disagree with them is very troubling to me.

Also, your belief that someone sharing their belief is "similar" to raping a child (if you don't like or agree with it) is very very troubling.

If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you believe that arresting, assaulting or killing someone who shares an opinion that you don't like or agree with can be justified.

We should be making our own weaknesses into strengths.

I agree with this mentality. FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

However, there are many weaknesses and sins that we just cannot overcome on our own - like same-sex attraction and homosexuality - that the Lord Jesus Christ offers to help us with.

And we shouldn't be telling ourselves and our children that they are all born sick and weak and sinful and that the only way to "fix" ourselves is to give ourselves completely up to some higher authority that we must unquestioningly follow, rather than thinking for ourselves.

Hmmmm......you are bringing up things I never claimed - again.

Look at it this way

Aren't we all born weak? Aren't we all born imperfect (i.e. sick/sinful)? Don't we begin by needing help from literally everyone and everything?

You believe that everyone is not thinking for themselves because they relied on their parents and others while we gain our strength/knowledge/experience?

No one can gain any of that alone.

You believe that students who rely on their teacher for knowledge are not thinking for themselves?

You believe that soldiers who receive orders from their general are not thinking for themselves?

You believe that citizens who elect a man to lead them are not thinking for themselves?

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, when someone asks you to share your beliefs- like @Jainarayan did me - I assume that they want to know what I believe.

Stop saying that. I did no such thing. I know what you believe, I asked you to justify them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you also claim that since men make up the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. that our legal system is sexist against men?

No. I would say our society is structured in such a way that men are often more encouraged to or more able to commit illegal acts. In any case, this is false equivalence, because women often still received stricter sentences than men do for the same crime, and are less likely to be believed as witnesses.

Or, could the possibility exist, that men commit a disproportionate amount of the crime?

The question is: why do you think that is?

For example, do you believe that black people are somehow just GENETICALLY predisposed to commit more crime?

If not, then you have two possibilities:
1) The environments in which a large amount of criminality germinates (for example, poverty) tends to be more commonly found in black communities.
Or:
2) Black people are disproportionately targeted as the perpetrators of crimes, regardless of the rate at which they actually commit them (i.e: even if we assume a black person and a white white person are equally likely to commit a criminal act, even if BOTH DO, the black person is more likely to be tried and found guilty).

Or, of course, some combination of the above factors.

Once you've established that, you then have to go further and ask WHY are the above things true. It is, for example, simply true that black people tend to received harsher sentences than white people do for the same crimes, so there must be at least a degree of systemic injustice. (SOURCE: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...surveys/miscellaneous/15-year-study/chap4.pdf). But even if we ignore this and assume that there is no systemic injustice in punishing black people and all black convictions are as equally valid as white convictions, you still have to deal with the question of why a disproportionate number of black people commit crimes, and - unless you are a massive racist - the only reasonable conclusion to come to is that American society functions in such a way that makes it simply more likely on average for black people to commit crimes, which means that there must still be some form of systemic injustice.

Note that all of the above ignores white-collar crime, which is far more rarely convicted and far more likely to be committed by white people (SOURCE: A Case Control Study: White‐Collar Defendants Compared With Defendants Charged With Other Nonviolent Theft).

Why when you see such a disparity do you automatically assume that something unfair is happening and that it has to be racial in nature?

Because, if the system were completely fair, the only explanation would be that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals, which is blatantly racist (and not supported by any evidence whatsoever).

Could it not be cultural? Could it be possible that African Americans are simply committing a disproportionate amount of crime?

The question is WHY. See above. Do you believe that being black just somehow magically makes a person more likely to commit crime?

Also, unless the reason for arrest is - "You're black" - you can't claim that this is an example of systematic oppression due to race.

This is a perfect example of why you're not equipped to judge whether or not systemic oppression exists. You honestly believe that you cannot be systemically oppressed because of the colour of your skin unless the people oppressing you specifically state that it's the colour of your skin that is the reason for it. Think about that for a few minutes, and you should see the flaw in it.

If a black person receives a longer sentence than a white person - when all the facts of their respective cases are completely equal (unlikely) - why do you automatically assume it has to do with their race?

Because that's literally the only difference.

You don't consider that they and their lawyer made up a bad defensive strategy? Pushed for the wrong thing? Made the wrong deal?

That would be possible to explain individual cases, but it would not explain the consistancy of the pattern - unless you believe all black defendants used the same lawyer and legal tactics. Which would obviously be absurd.

One or two people of a differing race receiving harsher sentences can be down to a number of factors. But when a particular race regularly receives harsher sentences in tens of thousands of cases, you cannot possibly make such an argument.

You don't think that this has anything to do with bad credit? Or having no credit?

Then you must ask the question "why do black people regularly have worse credit?"

You're essentially laying out the ways in which systems exist that oppress black people.

Wait. I thought this was a Feminist talking point.

Are you sure they are okay with you using their script?

I'm certain you're completely unfamiliar with any feminist "script".

Also more likely to flee or resist arrest - which leads to police officers using force.

Again - WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Do you think black people just have a genetic predisposition to "run from police"? Or do you possibly think that black people are more likely to flee because they are more likely to be beaten and killed by the police than white people are?

This argument also ignores the fact that black people are far more likely to be assaulted by police officers than white people are - even when they do not flee or resist arrest. They are also more likely to target black people for arrest in general, regardless of actual crime rates. For example, even when rates of drug use between black and white people are roughly the same, black people are still more than twice as likely to be arrested for drug-related crimes (SOURCES: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/2/12316922/police-legitimacy-cartoon, https://www.vox.com/identities/2016...-shootings-killings-racism-racial-disparities)

You're getting all of these things completely the wrong way around.

CONTINUED...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not an example of systematic oppression, but evidence of disproportionate amount of violence in African American communities.

And why do you think that is?

I blame Democrats for these.

Of course you do.

Afircan Americans really need to stop voting for Democrats. They have never gotten anything from Democrats...well...besides slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK.

I'm just going to ignore this incredibly annoying recurring nonsense.

It is, but if you still consider it to be a problem - vote exclusively for minorities.

Problem is, neither party is representing minorities proportionately. Even if we're not talking about electable individuals and just the workers and speakers within government.

Base our democratic process solely on race.

That will solve racism. (Sarcasm)

Not the point, and you know it.

What led you to ask this question?

Your naivety.

Wow. You swallowed that whole "boogeyman" narrative whole, didn't you?

Look, you can't force black people to run for office.

You also can't force anyone to vote for a black person that is running for office.

It is the mentality of whiny spoiled losers to accept the rules of a competition - but then blame an unfavorable outcome on unseen or imaginary factors.

If you're unwilling to understand or accept how race can play a significant role in electoral processes, I can't help you.

You automatically assume - without evidence - that a black person can only lose an election because he/she is black and that the voters are racist.

That's not something I said. I said people are actively discouraged from voting for black candidates - not that it is the ONLY reason they lose an election.

The People choose who they want to represent them. That is our system of government.

A system that is regularly set up to discourage minority groups from being represented.

Show me a clear cut example of a black person being denied a position of power in the government due to a racist government system.

I don't have to - you've already said it all yourself. Black people are poorer, more likely to be punished disproportionately and come from communities with less opportunities.

Then explain how Obama overcame that racist government system.

By being a great speaker and politician, and arriving at a time when the electorate desired a politician with his policies.

Also, having one white parent might have helped.

Kinda blows a hole in your "systematic oppression" argument.

It really doesn't. Having one positive example of success within a group does not mean that the system isn't set up unfairly against that particular group.

The fact that you instantly blame race (or white people) for any disparity among racial communities is not logical.

I don't. But when you look at all of the available data and ASK where the disparity comes from, your only real options are systemic injustice or just "black people are inferior".

You need to consider other factors if you want to fix the issues.

Such as...?

So?

I never claimed that there are no racist people in the U.S.

I only claimed that there is no systematic oppression. No laws or policies made that are designed to kick black people down.

You've already acknowledged those very things in this post. The fact that they don't write "because they're black" on these policies and systems doesn't mean they're fair.

If you find any actual example of systematic racism - I will protest them with you.

The problem is that your version of systemic racism is childishly simplistic. You seem to believe a system can only be racist if it EXPLICITLY SAYS it is racist. It cannot be that a system can be USED in such a way that is racist without somehow specifically stating that it is, which is incredibly wrong headed and naive.

The only thing you shared that could even be considered an example of systematic oppression is the idea of police targeting and I still dispute it.

I've given numerous examples.

Wow. That is so much evidence! I'm convinced! (Sarcasm)

Again, you yourself have acknowledged in this very post numerous systems which disproportionately negatively affect black people and communities - you just won't admit that race can (and clearly is) a factor in how those systems are used.

Whoops. I just realized that I've been saying "systematic" instead of "systemic". My bad.

Either way - nope - an individual being racist is not an example of either "systematic" or "systemic" oppression.

No. Wide-spread oppression through multiple institutions and organizations designed to disproportionately negatively impact a particular group is systemic oppression.

And you drank all the Kool-aid.

I hate to say it, but - who here believes a magic man nailed to some wood came back to life, again?

There are people in positions of power that NEED to keep saying that there is inequality in order to justify their continued existence.

Unless they can complain about inequality - Democrats have nothing to run on.

So you and many others take their bait - hook, line and sinker - and by so doing continue to push false narratives that further divide us as a nation.

You've been brain washed, honey.

It's hilarious that you say this after this post that lays out all the ways in which systemic oppression exists.

You're not brainwashed, you're in flat-out denial.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Pedophlia is a sexual attraction to children. So yes, you were talking about pedophilia.

If you read my initial post (#326) to @Jainarayan , you'd know that I do not agree with this definition and I would go so far as to claim that God does not either.

It is my heartfelt belief that a person is not defined by what they think, say or even feel - but rather by what they do.

Considering that the scriptures often claim that God will judge us "according to our works" - ("works" means "actions" or "what we do") - I believe that God would agree with this sentiment.

In my initial post I said,

"I would not label someone a "pedophile" simply because they suffer from an attraction to children.

If they resist their urges, refuse to entertain inappropriate thoughts and desires and never once engage in sexual behavior with children - then I would not consider them pedophiles or claim that they committed the sin of pedophilia."

This distinction is very important to me because it correlates so perfectly with the teachings of Christ and our hope for salvation.

You may believe that a person can never change their nature. That a person who is attracted to children may never - due to either moral conflict or fear of retribution - find satisfaction or affection.

You may even claim that a person who suffers from such an attraction is doomed to commit atrocious acts - regardless of their free will.

But I, and I believe God, would claim that one of our purposes in coming into this world is to change our very nature.

I believe that this is possible with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, you may define pedophilia as "an attraction to children", but I do not and you should consider how I view these things before you claim that I was "talking about" pedophilia - when in reality I was talking about the weakness of an attraction to children - not the sin of pedophilia.

I only used the words "pedophiles" and "pedophilia" to explain my views on the difference between weakness and sin as I mentioned above.

There never was a comparison between the sins of pedophilia and homosexuality.

What backpedal?

I pointed out that two things don't have to be "exactly the same" in order to compare them.

Yes, you made this distinction after I pointed out to you what I had said in my initial post.

"Before you flip your lid, I'm not trying to say that all of these attractions are exactly the same, but depending on who you ask people will draw a line somewhere as to what is or is not appropriate sexual behavior."

However, before I pointed this out to you, you were voting "Like" and "Winner" to every comment made by others who argued that I was claiming that pedophilia and homosexuality were "exactly the same".

You even agreed with comments that claimed that I did not consider respect and consent in my determination of what is appropriate or inappropriate expressions of sexuality.

You were arguing that I had claimed that pedophilia and homosexuality were "exactly the same" and that I was trying to "demonize" homosexuals.

That is until I pointed out that I had initially claimed that I was not doing that at all.

That was when you "backpedaled" or "moved the goal post" by claiming a "comparison" does not necessarily mean that the two things were "exactly the same" - even though you and others had been arguing up to that point that my "comparing" meant I was doing exactly that.

What you were comparing though, were different kinds of sexual attraction.

Exactly.

When you consider how I view the differences between a weakness and a sin - you clearly see that I was not making any comparison between the sins of pedophilia and homosexuality.

We do not get to choose our weaknesses. We can, however, choose to submit to them or not.

You may believe that the person who has a same-sex attraction and the person who has an attraction to children are predestined to act on their attractions - I do not believe so.

You may believe that same-sex attraction is not a weakness or affliction, while an attraction to children is and should be resisted.

You may believe that someone who has a same-sex attraction has no need to resist their attraction while condemning the one who has the attraction to children - but that is you simply drawing your line in the sand a little further down than I would.

I believe that the natures of both can be changed through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

If I say, "I am not comparing white supremacists to Hitler" and then go on to do just that, it doesn't matter what I stated at the beginning if, in fact, I went on to make the comparison.

And I thought you finally understood the difference between weakness and sin.

Let's face the facts - You just don't like that an attraction to children was mentioned in a discussion about same-sex attraction.

I mean, you honestly cannot claim that I was trying to "demonize" homosexuals by mentioning an attraction to children because I didn't even "demonize" those who were attracted to children.

I believe the only reason you protest an attraction to children being mentioned is because it can be used so effectively to dismantle the common argument that if someone is "born that way" then their behavior should be considered morally acceptable.

I understand that you don't like it - for whatever reason - but that's just too bad.

It's also not justification for you and others to falsely claim that I had compared pedophilia to homosexuality.

You're just trying to distract from the fact that the "born that way" argument is weak.

If you seriously believe that we are all just victims of some mass delusion because we've all walked away from your posts with the same thoughts; and if you're really not going to even take a moment to reflect on the fact that so many people took your post a certain way; then there isn't much more to say to you other then, you are obviously fooling yourself because facing up to what we are telling you would be too uncomfortable for you. I don't know what else to say.

No, none of you are victims. You are willful perpetrators. Willfully delusional.

You don't want to admit the fact that being born a certain way does not justify anyone's actions.

That being said - I am aware that the whole "born that way" argument being dismantled does not prove that my beliefs regarding same-sex attraction and homosexuality are accurate - I understand that.

I am not trying to convince anyone that what I believe is true.

And then you go and invoke Godwin's Law again. Oopie.

You know, that wikipedia site you shared regarding this law also claimed that,

"Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

Meaning - there's nothing wrong with "invoking" Godwin's Law if the comparison is accurate.

Someone claiming that I should be arrested, assaulted or killed for sharing my opinion - that's something Hitler would do.

You can't deny it. And you can't deny that that is an argument you have supported on this thread a number of times.

The whole "fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument" seems to be your "bread and butter".

You did it with the whole "comparing pedophilia to homosexuality" play and now you are here doing it again by abusing Godwin's Law.

How about we just be honest?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I took the challenge recorded in the scriptures. I performed the experiment of faith.

I then experienced the "ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt"

I’m not quite sure what that means. What is the “ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt?”

Well, when someone asks you to share your beliefs- like @Jainarayan did me - I assume that they want to know what I believe.

I don't believe that my beliefs should "matter" to anyone - but if you are going to ask me to share - at least accept my beliefs as they are - without dishonest attempts at misrepresentation.

Fair enough.

At the same time though, you should expect your beliefs to be challenged, on a debate forum.

Most of my comments on this thread have been attempts to clear up willful misrepresentations by you and others.

There was no “willful misrepresentation” by me and others.

I explained more than once why I took issue with your comments about pedophilia in a discussion about homosexuality, as did the other posters you mention. I discussed how such a thing is a common tactic, used time and time again by people who are against homosexuality as they attempt to demonize and marginalize gay people as some kind of criminal elements. I’ve seen it over and over again.

They have not been attempts to "prove" them or "make them matter" to anyone.

I never attempted to convince anyone of anything. No one needs to accept my claims.

However - I do want you and others to actually know what you are rejecting - rather than a misrepresentation of my beliefs.

I believe that there is evidence that indicates that my claims are accurate - but I don't believe that you and others would accept them.

Which claims and which evidence? I’m all about evidence. If you’ve got convincing evidence/arguments, I’m all ears.

Also, I’m in the camp that says a person can entertain an argument without actually having to accept it.

Besides, why would I share that at all when I never had any intention of trying to convince anyone of anything?

Because sharing them may help illuminate your position on the subject.

That was one of the first things I tested and received an answer about.

I believe that we all share the same God - who is our father - and I received that "ineffable witness that is so powerful that it can cast out all fear and doubt" after study, pondering and prayer.

I followed the steps of the experiment of faith outlined in the scriptures.

Neat.

No, I did not tell you that "multiplying" was the only reason that marriage existed.

What I claimed in Post #554 was that God had commanded all creatures to multiply, however, He stipulated that human beings (His children) could only "multiply" (i.e. have sex) within the boundaries of marriage.

What I think you told me was that gay marriage is wrong and sinful because God wants us to multiply, and gay people can’t do that. Then when I pointed out that gay people can and have “multiplied” you started going on about all this other stuff.

I believe that marriage to be between only a man and a woman and God designed it to help the husband and wife on their journey to eventual perfection.

Two questions then …

Why did God create homosexuality if this is what you say he wants?
Why can’t God help a man and his husband “on their journey to eventual perfection?”

God is "not cool" with sin of any kind in the sense that He is perfect and no imperfect or unclean thing can enter into His presence.

If your cousin commits sin - then she cannot abide God's presence - which He is "not cool" with because He loves your cousin and wants her to return to Him.

If he loves my cousin then he should want her to be happy, which she finally is since she’s come out of the closet and decided to just be who she is.

This is why He gave the gift of His Son - so that we can all overcome our sins and return to live with Him again.

And why exactly, couldn’t we overcome our sins before a human sacrifice was supposedly provided for us?

So, I guess a better way to say it is that your cousin - if she willfully commits sin and refuses to repent of it - is the one who is "not cool" with God and decides that she does not want to return to Him.

Because, as I said previously, God will always honor our decisions. He is "cool" with us in that regard. He won't force anyone to be perfect and return to Him.

My cousin is just trying to get through life as the person she is, like everybody else.

Why should she have to pretend to be something she’s not? That’s what a God wants from us? Why?

Also, why would my cousin want to “return to Him” when “He” doesn’t accept who she is, even though “He” obviously must have created homosexuality.

Again, no - that is not what I said. Let me try to simplify this.

If you have the desire to "multiply" (i.e. have sex), then you should marry.
If you have a desire to marry, then you should be prepared to "multiply" (i.e. have sex).
I have said somewhere in this thread that God does not expect every act of sexual congress to lead to pregnancy.

What He has asked of us, however, is to control our desires and express them only with your husband or wife.

And, I want to reiterate, that I believe that He designed marriage to be between a man and a woman only.

So, the fact that your mother can no longer have children is irrelevant. God asks her that if she has sex, to do it only with her husband.

Um, okay. You have just changed your tune here.

Right back at you buddy.

Your belief that it is permissible to misrepresent someone's beliefs if you disagree with them is very troubling to me.

That’s not a belief I hold.

Also, your belief that someone sharing their belief is "similar" to raping a child (if you don't like or agree with it) is very very troubling.

That’s not a belief I hold.

If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you believe that arresting, assaulting or killing someone who shares an opinion that you don't like or agree with can be justified.

That’s not a belief I hold, nor is this the “logical conclusion.”

I agree with this mentality. FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

However, there are many weaknesses and sins that we just cannot overcome on our own - like same-sex attraction and homosexuality - that the Lord Jesus Christ offers to help us with.

And just how does the Lord Jesus Christ do that?

Can I have a conversation with him? Nope.

Can I ask for his advice? Nope.

You know what I think is a better idea? Not to demonize homosexuality in the first place, and then there is no need to have to “overcome” anything. The problem I was pointing out with your view is that you are telling people they are born with something wrong with them and must pretend they are not the person that they are, in order to be accepted by some God that may or may not even exist in the first place. You’re telling people straight up that there is something wrong with them, when there really isn’t.

Hmmmm......you are bringing up things I never claimed - again.

That is what you are saying, and have said in this very post. And that is what (many version) of Christianity want us to believe.

Look at it this way

Aren't we all born weak? Aren't we all born imperfect (i.e. sick/sinful)? Don't we begin by needing help from literally everyone and everything?

Are we born weak and imperfect in the ways you’re talking about? Nope. I don’t agree. Nor do I recognize “sin” as anything particularly meaningful.

You believe that everyone is not thinking for themselves because they relied on their parents and others while we gain our strength/knowledge/experience?

That’s not what I believe.

We’re talking about unquestioningly following the orders of an invisible deity that has not, as of yet, been shown to exist.

My parents taught me that I should think for myself, and that I should carefully consider my choices before I make them. And never did they tell me I was born weak and sinful and needed fixing by submitting myself to them or to an invisible deity.

No one can gain any of that alone.

You believe that students who rely on their teacher for knowledge are not thinking for themselves?

No, I do not believe that. Good teachers will teach critical thinking skills to their students.

You believe that soldiers who receive orders from their general are not thinking for themselves?

In some cases, perhaps they are. In others, probably not.

If a soldier follows an unlawful order or an order that they thought was immoral, then I guess I would say they are not thinking for themselves.

You believe that citizens who elect a man to lead them are not thinking for themselves?

No, I do not believe that, in general. Though some individuals might be doing so. It depends on the reasons they give. Perhaps you'll notice that I've been asking for the reasons that you believe what you do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you read my initial post (#326) to @Jainarayan , you'd know that I do not agree with this definition and I would go so far as to claim that God does not either.

It is my heartfelt belief that a person is not defined by what they think, say or even feel - but rather by what they do.

Considering that the scriptures often claim that God will judge us "according to our works" - ("works" means "actions" or "what we do") - I believe that God would agree with this sentiment.

In my initial post I said,

"I would not label someone a "pedophile" simply because they suffer from an attraction to children.

If they resist their urges, refuse to entertain inappropriate thoughts and desires and never once engage in sexual behavior with children - then I would not consider them pedophiles or claim that they committed the sin of pedophilia."

This distinction is very important to me because it correlates so perfectly with the teachings of Christ and our hope for salvation.

You may believe that a person can never change their nature. That a person who is attracted to children may never - due to either moral conflict or fear of retribution - find satisfaction or affection.

You may even claim that a person who suffers from such an attraction is doomed to commit atrocious acts - regardless of their free will.

But I, and I believe God, would claim that one of our purposes in coming into this world is to change our very nature.

I believe that this is possible with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, you may define pedophilia as "an attraction to children", but I do not and you should consider how I view these things before you claim that I was "talking about" pedophilia - when in reality I was talking about the weakness of an attraction to children - not the sin of pedophilia.

I only used the words "pedophiles" and "pedophilia" to explain my views on the difference between weakness and sin as I mentioned above.

There never was a comparison between the sins of pedophilia and homosexuality.

You want to re-define words so you can fit them into your religious worldview. You said it yourself, in the above. Which, I guess you're free to do, but now we're not talking about the same thing anymore.

Yes, you made this distinction after I pointed out to you what I had said in my initial post.

"Before you flip your lid, I'm not trying to say that all of these attractions are exactly the same, but depending on who you ask people will draw a line somewhere as to what is or is not appropriate sexual behavior."

However, before I pointed this out to you, you were voting "Like" and "Winner" to every comment made by others who argued that I was claiming that pedophilia and homosexuality were "exactly the same".

You even agreed with comments that claimed that I did not consider respect and consent in my determination of what is appropriate or inappropriate expressions of sexuality.

You were arguing that I had claimed that pedophilia and homosexuality were "exactly the same" and that I was trying to "demonize" homosexuals.

That is until I pointed out that I had initially claimed that I was not doing that at all.

That was when you "backpedaled" or "moved the goal post" by claiming a "comparison" does not necessarily mean that the two things were "exactly the same" - even though you and others had been arguing up to that point that my "comparing" meant I was doing exactly that.

No. You claimed that you couldn't be making a comparison because they aren't exactly the same. I pointed out that they don't have to be "exactly the same" for you to have made a comparsion.

Exactly.

When you consider how I view the differences between a weakness and a sin - you clearly see that I was not making any comparison between the sins of pedophilia and homosexuality.

You view both pedophilia and homosexuality as a weakness and a sin.

We do not get to choose our weaknesses. We can, however, choose to submit to them or not.

The major difference here is that I don't view homosexuality as some kind of weakness.

You may believe that the person who has a same-sex attraction and the person who has an attraction to children are predestined to act on their attractions - I do not believe so.

You may believe that same-sex attraction is not a weakness or affliction, while an attraction to children is and should be resisted.

You may believe that someone who has a same-sex attraction has no need to resist their attraction while condemning the one who has the attraction to children - but that is you simply drawing your line in the sand a little further down than I would.

I believe that the natures of both can be changed through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And I thought you finally understood the difference between weakness and sin.

Let's face the facts - You just don't like that an attraction to children was mentioned in a discussion about same-sex attraction.

No, I don't like that attraction to children was mentioned in a discussion about same-sex attraction and I stated my reasons for that numerous times.

I mean, you honestly cannot claim that I was trying to "demonize" homosexuals by mentioning an attraction to children because I didn't even "demonize" those who were attracted to children.

I can, and I did.

I believe the only reason you protest an attraction to children being mentioned is because it can be used so effectively to dismantle the common argument that if someone is "born that way" then their behavior should be considered morally acceptable.

I don't know who has submitted that as an argument. It wasn't me.

I already told you number times why I protested what I viewed to be a comparison you had made.

I understand that you don't like it - for whatever reason - but that's just too bad.

Then I guess it's too bad that you don't like the pushback you've gotten from myself and several other posters.

It's also not justification for you and others to falsely claim that I had compared pedophilia to homosexuality.

You're just trying to distract from the fact that the "born that way" argument is weak.

I never made such an argument. So no, I'm not defending an argument I didn't make.

I don't see homosexuality as a problem because being gay doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't negatively effect society. And I don't believe there is any god in existence that doesn't like it either.

No, none of you are victims. You are willful perpetrators. Willfully delusional.

Now we're wilfully delusional. That's funny.

You don't want to admit the fact that being born a certain way does not justify anyone's actions.

That being said - I am aware that the whole "born that way" argument being dismantled does not prove that my beliefs regarding same-sex attraction and homosexuality are accurate - I understand that.

You haven't dismantled any argument that anybody here has made. I've never claimed that being "born this way" automatically makes something moral. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if you've even been reading through my posts at all, if that's what you're claiming.

I am not trying to convince anyone that what I believe is true.

You know, that wikipedia site you shared regarding this law also claimed that,

"Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

Meaning - there's nothing wrong with "invoking" Godwin's Law if the comparison is accurate.

Someone claiming that I should be arrested, assaulted or killed for sharing my opinion - that's something Hitler would do.

You can't deny it. And you can't deny that that is an argument you have supported on this thread a number of times.

The whole "fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument" seems to be your "bread and butter".

You did it with the whole "comparing pedophilia to homosexuality" play and now you are here doing it again by abusing Godwin's Law.

How about we just be honest?

Nobody said you should be arrested, assaulted or killed for sharing your opinion. Well, you said it. But nobody else did.

You invoked Godwin's Law, more than once. That's fine if you want to do that, but you better be prepared to be called on it. Welcome to a debate forum.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

They don't. Like there, people will knock on your door to preach, approach you in the street, place literature on your car, and get very involved with your business, especially if they percieve you to be found something that think wrong, like not believing in a personal and anthropomorphic diety. People in Indiana tend to pester you alot if they find that out, and try to insert it into your life wherever they can. Here in California no one gives a crap of you believe or not.

Yeah, Indiana sounds annoying.

However, I believe that the same could be said of people in California. If they find out that you disagree - its game on.

That's why I don't wear my MAGA hat anywhere.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Feel free to refer to the post where I said that.

Challenge accepted!

In response to one of my comments you said in Post #365,

"And furthermore, preaching this sort of thing causes a great deal of damage. Particularly when preached to young people, before they even know they're gay. So I put your preaching in a category similar to pedophilia." (Bold and italics added)

This led me to ask you in Post #373,

"So let me get this straight - to you - me voicing my opinion in disagreement with you about homosexuality - is equivalent to me raping children?"

To which you replied in Post #375,

"No.
Nor did I say that.
I used the word "similar". Because you do a lot of damage to people who are too young and inexperienced to recognize the damage you're doing." (Bold and italics added)

Now, let's make this clear. Someone having an attraction to children does zero damage to anyone (save themselves).

It is only when the person acts on their attraction (i.e. rapes children) that any damage is done to children.

You claimed that me sharing my opinion "causes a great deal of damage" to children and you consider that type of damage to be "in a category similar to pedophilia."

Pedophiles do damage to children when they rape them.

You claimed that me sharing my opinion was "similar" to raping children.

If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion - you believe that I should be arrested if I share my opinion, because it is "similar" to raping children.

You believe that someone using violence against me - even unto my death - could be justified if it is applied to prevent me from sharing my opinion which does "similar" damage to children as raping them.

It could be justified because it was done in the defense of children from actual harm.

Anyways, after your attempt to weasel out of the horrible thing you said, I asked you in Post #389,

"Would you please explain what you imagine I am doing when I "preach"?

Because when you say that my "preaching" is "similar" to raping children you make it sound like I'm not answering questions about my beliefs on a religious forum website, but rather I am sneaking into a child's bedroom at night, taking their clothes off and then forcing my...opinion upon them.

Please explain how sharing an opinion is as damaging to a child as raping them."

You never replied to this post.

I'll save everybody some time.
It didn't happen.

But it did Tom. It did.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Challenge accepted!

In response to one of my comments you said in Post #365,

"And furthermore, preaching this sort of thing causes a great deal of damage. Particularly when preached to young people, before they even know they're gay. So I put your preaching in a category similar to pedophilia." (Bold and italics added)

This led me to ask you in Post #373,

"So let me get this straight - to you - me voicing my opinion in disagreement with you about homosexuality - is equivalent to me raping children?"

To which you replied in Post #375,

"No.
Nor did I say that.
I used the word "similar". Because you do a lot of damage to people who are too young and inexperienced to recognize the damage you're doing." (Bold and italics added)

Now, let's make this clear. Someone having an attraction to children does zero damage to anyone (save themselves).

It is only when the person acts on their attraction (i.e. rapes children) that any damage is done to children.

You claimed that me sharing my opinion "causes a great deal of damage" to children and you consider that type of damage to be "in a category similar to pedophilia."

Pedophiles do damage to children when they rape them.

You claimed that me sharing my opinion was "similar" to raping children.

If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion - you believe that I should be arrested if I share my opinion, because it is "similar" to raping children.

You believe that someone using violence against me - even unto my death - could be justified if it is applied to prevent me from sharing my opinion which does "similar" damage to children as raping them.

It could be justified because it was done in the defense of children from actual harm.

Anyways, after your attempt to weasel out of the horrible thing you said, I asked you in Post #389,

"Would you please explain what you imagine I am doing when I "preach"?

Because when you say that my "preaching" is "similar" to raping children you make it sound like I'm not answering questions about my beliefs on a religious forum website, but rather I am sneaking into a child's bedroom at night, taking their clothes off and then forcing my...opinion upon them.

Please explain how sharing an opinion is as damaging to a child as raping them."

You never replied to this post.

But it did Tom. It did.

This is where it becomes a problem that your definition of pedophilia is different from the generally accepted definition that everyone else uses.
Do you see that?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Aww shucks. Flattery will get you no where.

Shoot. You can't blame a guy for trying!

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Sums it up, I think.

I'm going to share with you what I shared with Jainarayan,

"You have a very juvenile understanding of omnipotence.

God has all power and authority to do what He wants to do.

God does not want to force anyone to return to Him if they don't want to.

God does not want to force anyone to be something they don't want to be.

What God wants is for His children to love and choose Him as their father.

What God wants is for us to prove that we want to become like Him.

God - because He is omnipotent - has given us everything we need to become like Him - if that is what we want.

He will not force us to do anything because He promised that He would honor our freedom of choice and because He loves us."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm going to share with you what I shared with Jainarayan,

"You have a very juvenile understanding of omnipotence.

God has all power and authority to do what He wants to do.

God does not want to force anyone to return to Him if they don't want to.

God does not want to force anyone to be something they don't want to be.

What God wants is for His children to love and choose Him as their father.

What God wants is for us to prove that we want to become like Him.

God - because He is omnipotent - has given us everything we need to become like Him - if that is what we want.

He will not force us to do anything because He promised that He would honor our freedom of choice and because He loves us."

Oh, yes, he loves us so much and because he doesn't want anyone feeling forced to make a choice that he lets us "chose" to worship him or be sentenced to hell. I guess if you're being robed at gunpoint you can choose to hand over your money and jewelry, but it's not really a choice when the outcome of resitance is getting shot. And in safety training for places like gas stations, indeed people are taught to be cooperative for their own safety and the safety of others. That's this "loving choice" your god presents us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, Indiana sounds annoying.

However, I believe that the same could be said of people in California. If they find out that you disagree - its game on.

That's why I don't wear my MAGA hat anywhere.

You could wear it proudly in Indiana.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Far from it.

No, in terms of me sharing my beliefs - I think we are done.

This has become a "casting pearls before swine" scenario.

I'm going to stop answering your questions about my beliefs after this post.

Then he’s not omnipotent is he?

You have a very juvenile understanding of omnipotence.

I believe that God has all power and authority to do what He wants to do.

God does not want to force anyone to return to Him if they don't want to.

God does not want to force anyone to be something they don't want to be.

What God wants is for His children to love and choose Him as their father.

What God wants is for us to prove that we want to become like Him.

God - because He is omnipotent - has given us everything we need to become like Him - if that is what we want.

He will not force us to do anything because He promised that He would honor our freedom of choice and because He loves us.

What parent requires his or her children to be perfect?

I don't think I said that He "requires" it. I said that He desires it.

Also, to answer your question, a perfect parent wants their children to be perfect too.

It is similar to how parents here on Earth want their children to become even better than they themselves are.

The good ones want that, at least.

What is perfect anyway?

I believe that if you study Christ's teachings - you can come to know that for yourself.

I'd start with the Sermon on the Mount - which ended with Him commissioning us to be perfect - like His Father.

What parent gives commands to his children expecting them to follow them to the letter then rejecting those children? Is that the God you worship?

Have you not been reading my posts?

It is my belief that God does not reject anyone. We choose whether or not we want to be like Him.

It is by our choices that we separate ourselves from Him and the faithful.

Also, God does not expect any of us to follow His commands "to the letter" - if He did expect that then He never would have sent His Son down as a sacrifice for our sins.

The Lord Jesus Christ was born into our world, suffered and died on the cross because God knew that we couldn't perfectly keep His commandments.

And He has promised us that as long as we are doing our very best - we can eventually become perfect through His Son.

Now, your best might not be the same as my best, but that doesn't matter.

As long as both you and I are doing our best - then through the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ - we can overcome anything and be made perfect one day.

That is "the gospel" taught in the scriptures.

What would those things be? Besides “do this/don’t do this or else”.

I believe that everything we need to become perfect was given to us through the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If we develop faith in Him - this will motivate us to repent of our sins and to avoid future sins.

Without the sacrifice of the Son of God - we could never change anything about ourselves. We could never learn and grow. We could never become stronger or wiser.

Honestly, the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished everything we need to become perfect.

Consider his words:

“Even if the vilest sinners worship Me with exclusive devotion, they are to be considered righteous, for they have made the proper resolve.

Quickly they become virtuous, and attain lasting peace. O [My friend] declare it boldly that no devotee of Mine is ever lost.

All those who take refuge in Me, whatever their birth, race, sex, or caste, even those whom society scorns, will attain the supreme destination.”

Aw - just like those "born again" Christians.

Needless to say - I disagree with this doctrine - because I believe that God wants us to give it our all - not only the "bare minimum".

You don't gain much knowledge and experience by doing the bare minimum.

You’ll need to read the Mahābhārata, Rāmāyana and Puranas to get the idea. But it’s really quite simple. Read the life story of Siddhartha Gautama, aka the Buddha, to understand the changes. Then read, really read, the Sermon on the Mount and all of Jesus’s teachings to understand where he drew his inspiration from, and what he was teaching.

He expects "changes"? What "changes"? What do you mean by this?

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ "drew his inspiration" from the same source that the Buddha did - God the Father.

All inspiration comes from the Father through His Holy Spirit.

I’m not talking about literal violence. It’s metaphorical. To start off by making criticisms of people’s beliefs and lives based on your criteria is “throwing the first punch”.

So, in your opinion, if I'm walking down the street and a homosexual couple stops me and asks me my opinion about homosexuality - I would be guilty of "throwing the first (metaphorical) punch" if I answer them truthfully?

I'd be guilty of committing (metaphorical) violence?

You keep forgetting that this whole discussion started when you came to me and asked me to share my beliefs about this.

I'd also like to argue that you threw the first (metaphorical) punch at me in your initial comment to me - at least, based on your criteria on what constitutes "throwing the first punch".

In your first comment to me, not only did you ask me to share my beliefs, but you also made criticism's about me and my beliefs.

So - why did you (metaphorically) throw the first punch at me?

Freedom of speech is not a right or guaranteed on the Internet.

Yes, it is, as long as you do not violate the rules of the platform.

Nor do you have a right to tell someone they shouldn’t be on a particular site, something you’ve done a couple of times

No, I never said anything like this.

What I told you was that you should not come to a public forum if you don't want to hear other people's opinions.

That would be like saying, "Don't go swimming in the ocean if you don't want to get wet."

That is not me saying that you should not go into the ocean - just don't complain when you get wet.

You complaining that I should not share my opinion on a public forum would be the same as you complaining about being wet after swimming in the ocean.

Basically, it's a dumb thing to complain about.

That goes without saying.

So, you don't believe that i should be censored?

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

That's fine, but if you ever get the time to go over all my discussions here - all my sharing of beliefs were done in answer to someone's question.

I mean, look at this very post here. When did I share my beliefs about God? Only when you asked me questions about Him.

I don’t think there’s a person who doesn’t understand or know your beliefs. Many of us are currently or formerly Christian.

Christians may all believe that Jesus is the Son of God - but they tend to disagree on just about anything else.

There are Christians who believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality while there are others who believe that homosexuals are going to Hell.

I say, "Yikes!" to both of those groups of Christians.

You knowing the beliefs of other Christians does not mean you understand or know my beliefs.

I think you do, because of the frequency with which you cite others’ “weakness” and inability or unwillingness to accept your God’s way.

I only talk about these things when asked.

The "frequency" depends solely on how often I am asked to explain my beliefs.

Just because I like answering people's questions about my beliefs does not mean I care if they accept them or not.

Do you believe that your beliefs and way of worship and belief in your God are the only ways to achieve salvation and reach God? Do you believe that my beliefs and way of worship can bring me to God? If I don’t believe as you do what will happen to me?

Yeah...how about you answer the question I posed to you instead of trying to distract us with the questions that have driven men insane for millennia?

The two points you keep missing are that you have no right to expect to be allowed to preach and tell anyone if they don’t want to hear it, there’s the door.

I have every right to talk about whatever I want to talk about - as long as I don't violate any forum rules - which I haven't.

If you don't want me to share any more of my beliefs with you - stop asking me to share my beliefs with you.

Like seriously look at this post. Any time I talked about God or my beliefs has been in answer to one of your questions.

That’s a glaring example of “my way or no way”.

L-O-L

Actually 3 points... forum rules prohibit preaching, sermonizing and proselytizing.

I already went over this with you.

The forum rule considers "preaching" to be attempts to "convert" or "recruit" others.

It also claims that there should be no declarative statements of fact. Basically, saying what you believe without actually saying "I believe..."

So, considering that I have repeatedly claimed that I have not been trying to convince anyone of anything and that everything I have been sharing have been my personal beliefs - you got nothing on me.

Feel free to report me though if you believe that I am in violation.

Did you really think that logic through?

That's a question you should really be asking yourself.

Cause, from where I'm sitting, you seem to be saying that you are free to say whatever you want whenever you want - but that I do not share those same freedoms.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Perhaps you might, if the enslavement of your ancestors resulted in long-lasting negative prejudicial, societal, psychological, institutional and/or systemic attitudes towards a whole group of people, based solely on their skin colour.

Well - at least you're attempting to be consistent here - even if I do not believe it is sincere.

I would draw your attention to the fact that "long-lasting" does not necessarily include "current", which is the focus of this discussion.

Can you point to any current examples of systemic oppression faced by African Americans based on their skin color?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Stop saying that. I did no such thing. I know what you believe, I asked you to justify them.

You asked me several questions in your initial post to me. (Post #309)

After claiming that you being attracted to other men is as natural as a man being attracted to a woman, you asked me "What makes you think I chose it?"

Then, after commenting on your pathetic sex life, you asked me, "Now, if this were not a natural or inborn state for me, why in gay hell would I "choose" this?"

Then you immediately asked three questions in a row, "Why is it so difficult to accept the idea that we are what we are just the way you are what you are? Does it rock the foundations of your belief system? Does it raise questions you're not prepared or equipped to handle?"

I believe that I answered all of these questions in my first post to you.

As you may or may not have noticed, none of your questions asked for any justification.

We both understood at the time that you were asking me to explain my beliefs and why I believed them.

You did not like my answers, but rather than simply agree to disagree, you became irritated and began to use dishonest tactics in an attempt to shame me.

The most relevant tactic to this post that you have used has been claiming that I have somehow been trying to force my beliefs upon you.

That is a difficult position for you to take because everyone can plainly see that you solicited the sharing of my beliefs.

Also, if anyone were to follow the entirety of our discussion they would see that I only continued to share my beliefs when you'd ask me further questions.

Speaking of justification, however, are you able to justify the practice of homosexuality?

 

[Jainarayan]

[

You asked me several questions in your initial post to me. (Post #309)

After claiming that you being attracted to other men is as natural as a man being attracted to a woman, you asked me "What makes you think I chose it?"

Then, after commenting on your pathetic sex life, you asked me, "Now, if this were not a natural or inborn state for me, why in gay hell would I "choose" this?"

Then you immediately asked three questions in a row, "Why is it so difficult to accept the idea that we are what we are just the way you are what you are? Does it rock the foundations of your belief system? Does it raise questions you're not prepared or equipped to handle?"

I believe that I answered all of these questions in my first post to you.

As you may or may not have noticed, none of your questions asked for any justification.

We both understood at the time that you were asking me to explain my beliefs and why I believed them.

You did not like my answers, but rather than simply agree to disagree, you became irritated and began to use dishonest tactics in an attempt to shame me.

The most relevant tactic to this post that you have used has been claiming that I have somehow been trying to force my beliefs upon you.

That is a difficult position for you to take because everyone can plainly see that you solicited the sharing of my beliefs.

Also, if anyone were to follow the entirety of our discussion they would see that I only continued to share my beliefs when you'd ask me further questions.

Speaking of justification, however, are you able to justify the practice of homosexuality?

Sarcasm, facetiousness and rhetoric are not your strong suits are they? And btw, homosexuality is not a practice. Homosexuality does not have to be “justified”.

 

[Milton Platt]

If only.

When it's on a family-friendly channel and appears out of nowhere, then, yes.

So who's family? It is still family friendly for my family. Why does YOUR family get to decide?