There you go being dishonest again. I specifically wrote:

Nature/God (whichever you believe)

My answer stands with or without God.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 6:32 PM

The answer has a different justification whether you start from Nature (which does not have a will) or “god” (which allegedly has a will). The two arguments are quite different, And you can’t equate nature with “god”. For instance, homosexuality obviously occurs in nature, but I don’t think you would then agree that homosexuality also occurs in God.

But, I must admit, I’m looking forward to you attempting to justify “one man, one woman” using the Bible. If you think you’re on a sandy foundation now, just wait till you go mano-a-mano with me in a scripture fight. I love talking about the Bible with Christians, love it!

No, that’s not what I’m saying and you know it. I stated that the human body was designed specifically to pair a man with a woman, based on reproductive systems. The fact that one person’s body might fail to function properly does not change it’s intended design.

So if the body’s reproductive systems fail, then they are not working according to design, correct?

You’ve said that the pairing of man and women is based on reproductive systems. If the reproductive systems fail, then what’s the purpose of the pairing?

Man was intended to drink water, correct? The fact that a pool of water should become poisonous due to contamination does not change the fact that man was intended to consume water.

If you wanted to make that analogy more correct, then you would have to say that his ability to drink water would fail. But then he would die and the discussion would be moot, so your “argument by analogy” is a red herring.

“Why not many women?”

That’s an entirely different argument that has nothing to do with the physical design of the human body OR homosexuality.

But it’s entirely germane to the notion that vaginal intercourse implies a one-man, one-woman pairing by nature. Why does it NOT imply many women? The reproductive systems still work according to design in that instance.
Why does nature not intend that, either?

Heh. What if brutally murdering a child makes a man happy and gives his life meaning?

It’s invalid because murdering a child deprives the child of life, whereas a loving partnership between two men deprives no one of life, liberty, or property.

Your answer does not qualify as “evidence” that homosexuality is “normal” or “right.”

That wasn’t what I was arguing against. Your claim was that homosexual relationships provide no benefit or purpose, not if it was “normal” or “right”. Would you agree that a loving partnership between two men can provide those two men with happiness and meaning, and that those two things qualify as either benefit or purpose?

The fact that something makes a person happy does not make it okay, or normal.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 6:36 PM

I agree! But happiness is a benefit, right?

“Is homosexuality just as bad as pedophilia? (Yes/No)”

No. Of course it’s not “just as bad.” But it’s immoral, deviant, and perverted just the same. The only thing that separates it is it’s legality, and the fact that one is assumed to be a willing participant. But this doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a sexual perverted deviancy, just as if you were with a willing goat.

It sounds like you’re arguing, “It’s obviously different, but of course it’s the same”. Which is it?

“Is there no moral difference between an unrepentant homosexual and an unrepentant pedophile? (Yes/No)”

Of course there’s a difference. Is there a difference between a person who smokes a couple of joints a month and a person who does meth twice a day for five years? They are both drug users.

“Of course there’s a difference, but they’re the same”. You’re talking out of the both sides of your mouth.

You’re unable to comprehend the difference between romantic or physical love and Godly love. You’re not being sincere in your phony confusion.

I am sincere, I’ve just treated your fake and cheap “godly love” with all the respect that it deserves, and that is to be immensely sarcastic toward it. It’s crap, and that’s that.

I’m quite confident that you wouldn’t feel love (as you’re defining it) toward a man who murders your child, or for that matter

You’re right: I’d hate that bastard. The difference between you and me is that I’m not the one who claims to “love everybody” and have “god’s love” and then betray it. I love whom I love and hate whom I hate and I don’t play games about it like you do, such as saying “I love the sinner but hate the sin (and will support sodomy laws as a consequence, lovingly)”.

Much the same as when a peace activist claims there’s never a reason for violence, and then in the same breath shouts out HANG BUSH

I agree: leftists are worse than Christians in every measurable category. They commit all of the same sins and do so more egregiously.

While Christians dig deep to pray for enlightenment for their enemies and yes … even gays, people such as yourself are more likely to lay in bed at night snarling about how you HATE THOSE DAMN BIGOTS!

Christians also support sodomy laws. Do you? Be honest. If the sodomy laws were reinstated and you saw a gay man who was being punished for the crime of sodomy, would you defend him?

You most assuredly do. You insinuate that Christians have absolutely no right to complain about anyone’s actions or suggest that ANY actions are wrong and any attempt to do so immediately labels them a bigot.

You’re putting an awful lot of words in my mouth! I know that’s what you *want* to think about me because I oppose your abuse of gay people, but one does not follow the other. For instance, I think that murderers should be executed in the way that their victims died. Do you agree with that?

We are bigots in your opinion for suggesting that homosexuality is wrong.

I understand our difference. I think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (it’s amoral) because it does not harm anyone. You think homosexuality is wrong because it’s impure. Am I correct?

Never mind that there’s overwhelming evidence suggesting that it’s not natures intended design,

You’re assuming a point in dispute, but that’s a separate post.

while there’s absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that it’s normal, except of course … that people have DONE it since the beginning of time. To you, this somehow indicates that it’s normal.

That’s called evidence, and that blows a hole right through the heart of your “ZERO” claim. More evidence is that homosexuality has existed in every culture and exists in many manifestations in the animal kingdom. Do you remember when your team used to say, “You don’t see animals doing it”? How did that work out for you?

But even if it was normal, would that make it pure?

As I’ve pointed out before, that this sort of thinking pretty much means EVERYTHING is normal and therefore nobody has a right to suggest that anything be stopped.

Incorrect. I think that any action which deprives any other individual of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud is immoral and should be illegal. Can we agree on that point?

My point exactly. Hypocrisy. Why do you have a seizure and implode from within if someone calls you a disgusting perverted homo-deviant, yet you have no problem at all calling all Christians bigots and other various names?

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 6:29 PM

But why is that bad if you do it? You can’t call me to task for “calling you names” after you have called me names. Please remove the plank from your own eye and I will be happy to remove the splinter from mine.

I withdraw my earlier benefit-of-the-doubt, Gregor. You and BKennedy are two sides of the same contemptible coin.

Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 7:09 PM

I withdraw my earlier benefit-of-the-doubt, Centerfire. You and Loundry are two sides of the same deviant perversion.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:56 PM

I withdraw my earlier benefit-of-the-doubt, Gregor. You and BKennedy are two sides of the same contemptible coin.

That seems to be what you’re saying: a partnership depends solely on the ability to produce a child.

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 6:05 PM

No, that’s not what I’m saying and you know it. I stated that the human body was designed specifically to pair a man with a woman, based on reproductive systems. The fact that one person’s body might fail to function properly does not change it’s intended design.

Man was intended to drink water, correct? The fact that a pool of water should become poisonous due to contamination does not change the fact that man was intended to consume water.

6. Therefore, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Why not many women?

That’s an entirely different argument that has nothing to do with the physical design of the human body OR homosexuality.

What if two men being together makes two men happy and gives their lives meaning?

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Heh. What if brutally murdering a child makes a man happy and gives his life meaning?

Your answer does not qualify as “evidence” that homosexuality is “normal” or “right.”

The fact that something makes a person happy does not make it okay, or normal. Again, I’m sure you understand this, but it interferes with where you want to go with your sex organ, so you choose to ignore it.

Don’t bring god into this yet. You were making the natural argument, and let’s handle that one first.

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 6:05 PM

There you go being dishonest again. I specifically wrote:

Nature/God (whichever you believe)

My answer stands with or without God.

I disagree with you, and I do so because I think you’re playing a word game. Let’s find out if I’m right by asking you a few more questions.

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM

No problem, but it won’t make a difference. It wouldn’t matter if I had an official rule book produced by God or whatever form of nature’s official you would believe in. If it didn’t fit your desired outcome you would simply toss it aside.

Is homosexuality just as bad as pedophilia? (Yes/No)

No. Of course it’s not “just as bad.” But it’s immoral, deviant, and perverted just the same. The only thing that separates it is it’s legality, and the fact that one is assumed to be a willing participant. But this doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a sexual perverted deviancy, just as if you were with a willing goat.

Is there no moral difference between an unrepentant homosexual and an unrepentant pedophile? (Yes/No)

Of course there’s a difference. Is there a difference between a person who smokes a couple of joints a month and a person who does meth twice a day for five years? They are both drug users.

Clearly you love them as much as you love Jesus.

You’re unable to comprehend the difference between romantic or physical love and Godly love. You’re not being sincere in your phony confusion. I’m quite confident that you wouldn’t feel love (as you’re defining it) toward a man who murders your child, or for that matter … even your most despised political candidate (whoever that might be). Much the same as when a peace activist claims there’s never a reason for violence, and then in the same breath shouts out HANG BUSH … you’re arguing a lie and you’re well aware of it.

While Christians dig deep to pray for enlightenment for their enemies and yes … even gays, people such as yourself are more likely to lay in bed at night snarling about how you HATE THOSE DAMN BIGOTS!

In your world, there is no right to suggest ANYONE is EVER wrong

Where did you get that idea? Please quote something I wrote which led you to believe that I espouse such a retarded thing.

You most assuredly do. You insinuate that Christians have absolutely no right to complain about anyone’s actions or suggest that ANY actions are wrong and any attempt to do so immediately labels them a bigot. We are bigots in your opinion for suggesting that homosexuality is wrong. Never mind that there’s overwhelming evidence suggesting that it’s not natures intended design, while there’s absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that it’s normal, except of course … that people have DONE it since the beginning of time. To you, this somehow indicates that it’s normal.

As I’ve pointed out before, that this sort of thinking pretty much means EVERYTHING is normal and therefore nobody has a right to suggest that anything be stopped. Unless it’s Christianity of course. Then you’re all perfectly okay with bashing it.

What’s wrong with calling someone names?

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM

My point exactly. Hypocrisy. Why do you have a seizure and implode from within if someone calls you a disgusting perverted homo-deviant, yet you have no problem at all calling all Christians bigots and other various names?

Loundry: love of a person != acceptance and condonation of actions. Your repeated attempts to conflate the two are little more than straw men for your crap-flinging. Go away.

and are just deviants

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Christian love! Catch the spirit! I’m on the cusp of becoming a Christian, I’m just so moved by your loving attitude.

1. A man can impregnate a woman by means of vaginal sex.
2. A man is unable to be impregnated by another man.
3. A woman is unable to be impregnated by another woman.

Agree, agree, agree.

4. Nature/God (whichever you believe) designed all creatures for reproduction which requires the a specific sexual pairing.

Don’t bring god into this yet. You were making the natural argument, and let’s handle that one first. (I can dispense with your god later.)

What do you mean that all creatures were “designed” for reproduction? Does that imply that those creatures which cannot or don’t reproduce are not working according to design?

5. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that there’s even a single benefit or purpose for relations between same sex partners.

1. What if two men being together makes two men happy and gives their lives meaning? Are neither of those things (happiness and a sense of meaning) a benefit or a purpose? (I think male-male love is awesome. How is that appreciation contrary to “nature”?)

2. If a male-female pairing fails to spawn, then does their partnership lack benefit or purpose? That seems to be what you’re saying: a partnership depends solely on the ability to produce a child.

6. Therefore, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Why not many women?

I think this “I hate the sin but love the sinner” line is all too frequently trotted out by people who manifestly don’t love the sinner in any real sense, and are just bigots attempting to use religion to excuse their bigotry.

Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM

I think this “bigot” accusation is all too frequently trotted out by people who manifestly don’t want to stop doing whatever immoral act they’re doing and are just deviants attempting to use the race card to excuse their behavior.

1. A man can impregnate a woman by means of vaginal sex.
2. ???
3. Therefore, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Your job: fill in #2. It should be *easy* since it is obviously so obvious to you.

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 5:17 PM

It’s not difficult to understand.

1. A man can impregnate a woman by means of vaginal sex.
2. A man is unable to be impregnated by another man.
3. A woman is unable to be impregnated by another woman.
4. Nature/God (whichever you believe) designed all creatures for reproduction which requires the a specific sexual pairing.
5. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that there’s even a single benefit or purpose for relations between same sex partners.
6. Therefore, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Of course, I could go on all day, but nothing will be good enough for you. You simply don’t care. Your entire argument is based on the fact that there’s been homosexual acts around forever, so it must be perfectly okay and normal. But it’s obvious that you’re not about to allow that same argument to effect your life in other areas that would effect you in negative ways.

People have been stealing cars since they were invented, so it’s perfectly okay to steal cars.

People have been raping women since the beginning of time, so it’s perfectly okay.

People have been murdering gays since the beginning of time, so it’s perfectly okay.

People have been worshiping God since the beginning of time, so it must be perfectly okay.

Oh wait. I don’t believe you’re in agreement on that last one.

And here we have evidence that you are nothing more than a liar. I said nothing of the sort.

I disagree with you, and I do so because I think you’re playing a word game. Let’s find out if I’m right by asking you a few more questions.

Is homosexuality just as bad as pedophilia? (Yes/No)

Is there no moral difference between an unrepentant homosexual and an unrepentant pedophile? (Yes/No)

I stated that a hatred for an action or lifestyle that we feel to be immoral or wrong does not translate into a hatred for those people.

And that’s why you stand up for gays and defend them. Clearly you love them as much as you love Jesus. I feel soooooo loved by you! I’m going to accept Jesus right here and now because I’m so convinced of your truthfulness!

In your world, there is no right to suggest ANYONE is EVER wrong

Where did you get that idea? Please quote something I wrote which led you to believe that I espouse such a retarded thing.

they are Christians or simply don’t agree with you and then you can call them names all day long.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:23 PM

What’s wrong with calling someone names? You did it to me. Lovingly, of course. You called me “STUPID” out of pure love for me.

Which means that you’re really STUPID to have NOT figured it out.

What would I do without beautiful, pure “Christian love”?

“Now tell me: how, specifically, does that imply a one man, one woman marriage? Better yet, tell me how it DISqualifies a one-man, many-women marriage?”

I didn’t say it did.

The foundations of the “monogamous marriage is implied by nature” trope begin to crumble. How many more damaging admissions will you be forced to concede? I love arguing this with you: you’re so easy.

I said that it’s clear that nature intended man and women to be together based on basic physical characteristics and the nature of reproduction.

1. How do you get from “be together” to “marriage is the union of one man and one woman”? Explain.

2. Why does nature not intend men to father children through rape based on the exact same justification for “being together” that you gave? Vaginal intercourse during rape works in exactly the same way that vaginal intercourse works in between a man and his wife (consensual or non-consensual).

It simply works that way and it doesn’t your way.

Not always! Once women go through menopause, then their usefulness expires, correct? Women don’t “work” any more after that, right?

Of course, you choose to ignore the obvious functional make-up of your body and instead prefer to follow whatever path that most easily brings you physical pleasure.

Unlike you, for whom sex is a joyless and mundane chore, correct?

You know? Sort of like Elmer’s Glue is designed to be used to bond two objects together, but certain mentally disturbed deviants will sometimes use it for physical pleasure by squeezing the fumes up their noses.

Before, all gays were pedophiles. Now they’ve been upgraded to glue-huffers. Catch the Spirit of Christ’s love in action!

Whatever makes you feel good is okay by you, right? What gives us the right to “disqualify” glue sniffing from the legitimate uses of Elmer’s Glue?

I agree! Let’s throw them all in jail. Or execute them. Or exile them to an island. Or wish a humiliating and degenerative disease on them. All of those would be shining examples of “Christian love”.

Did you know that humans have raped, pillaged, and murdered since the beginning of time? Guess it’s okay then, right?

Why not? It’s “natural”! That’s exactly how deep the rabbit hole goes if your appeal against homosexuality is based in that which is “natural”. Rape is natural, just like vaginal intercourse in general, just like homosexuality, just like murder. But not like gods or angels, which are unnatural.

I know, maybe you could try justifying your gay-bashing by using the Bible!

And now comes a certain commenter sure to chime in with the sarcastic response …

“Christians really really really love rapists, pillagers, and murderers!”

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Oh great, now gays have been downgraded to rapists, pillagers, and murderers all at the same time. God works in mysterious ways!

God bless America and her Gays!

I stated that a hatred for an action or lifestyle that we feel to be immoral or wrong does not translate into a hatred for those people.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with this per se. But as a practical matter — and I’m not accusing you of anything Gregor, just making an observation — I think this “I hate the sin but love the sinner” line is all too frequently trotted out by people who manifestly don’t love the sinner in any real sense, and are just bigots attempting to use religion to excuse their bigotry.

See, for instance, BKennedy, above.

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Say it to me: “I love and support the precious murderers!”

Or how about this one: “God bless America and her rapists!”

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Yes, it’s fascinating and novel how you turn all gays into pedophiles.

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM

And here we have evidence that you are nothing more than a liar. I said nothing of the sort. I stated that a hatred for an action or lifestyle that we feel to be immoral or wrong does not translate into a hatred for those people. In your world, there is no right to suggest ANYONE is EVER wrong, unless of course, they are Christians or simply don’t agree with you and then you can call them names all day long.

You’re babbling. There’s absolutely no connection to what you just wrote to homosexuality. The fact that humans “cheat” relates to homosexuality HOW exactly?

It doesn’t. It’s related to the fact that the one man, one woman union is a farce, an imposition on human behavior in spite of what is obviously going on underneath your nose. And that natural reality is that humans go from person to person in serial marriages and they cheat along the way. *That*, my naive Christian friend, is natural, even among Christians.

Because humans cheat, then homosexuality is perfectly natural? LOL!

Homosexuality is natural because, unlike gods or angels, it occurs in nature. I never made the argument you’re laughing at.

You’re really stretching it, but whatever makes you feel better while you’re fulfilling your sick perverted desires.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Wow, you love me! You really do! I feel Christ’s love when you talk to me. It drips off of every syllable!

But when you’re not dishing out the “Christian love”, what you’re failing to do is show me how “one man, one woman” is implied by vaginal sex. I did ask you to do that, remember? And I did predict that you’d fail to explain it, right?

Let me make it crystal clear for you:

1. A man can impregnate a woman by means of vaginal sex.
2. ???
3. Therefore, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Your job: fill in #2. It should be *easy* since it is obviously so obvious to you.

Sure, men and women have to screw (vaginally) for him to impregnate her. You are really smart to have figured *that* puzzle out!

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Which means that you’re really STUPID to have NOT figured it out.

Now tell me: how, specifically, does that imply a one man, one woman marriage? Better yet, tell me how it DISqualifies a one-man, many-women marriage?

I didn’t say it did. I said that it’s clear that nature intended man and women to be together based on basic physical characteristics and the nature of reproduction. It simply works that way and it doesn’t your way. Of course, you choose to ignore the obvious functional make-up of your body and instead prefer to follow whatever path that most easily brings you physical pleasure. You know? Sort of like Elmer’s Glue is designed to be used to bond two objects together, but certain mentally disturbed deviants will sometimes use it for physical pleasure by squeezing the fumes up their noses.

Whatever makes you feel good is okay by you, right? What gives us the right to “disqualify” glue sniffing from the legitimate uses of Elmer’s Glue?

Did you know that humans have raped, pillaged, and murdered since the beginning of time? Guess it’s okay then, right?

And now comes a certain commenter sure to chime in with the sarcastic response …

“Christians really really really love rapists, pillagers, and murderers!”

Interesting how that works.

Yes, it’s fascinating and novel how you turn all gays into pedophiles. Christians have never done that before, and it proves your intense love.

You don’t have much of an understanding of Jesus if you believe that suggesting that something is immoral and wrong means we do not have Godly love for them. The fact that we hate their actions does not mean that we hate THEM.

Precisely! Likewise, BDS-infected-Liberals can simultaneously support the troops and yet hate the war! It works in precisely the same way.

That reminds me of when I was listening to NPR (ew) and there was a long segment, the subject of which was: “How exactly do you go about supporting the troops if you don’t support the war?” Lots of consternation and gnashing of teeth followed. Something tells me that Christians don’t have any analogous discussions about how, precisely, Christians go about loving gays when they hate what gays do. (Sodomy laws, perhaps?)

But you know that, don’t you?

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Say it to me: “I love and support the precious gays!”

Or how about this one: “God bless America and her gays!”