The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

I ment humanity as whole. Imagine if all people where gay - do I need to say anything more...
Imagine if everyone was called "Gregory". It would be chaos! Therefore, being called "Gregory" is incompatible with human nature.
 
"atheistic hell of Czechia"

Are you being serious? What the (figurative) hell is up with people who insist that atheists will suffer eternal damnation?
 
I ment humanity as whole. Imagine if all people where gay - do I need to say anything more...
Yes! Because I don't see how not allowing homosexuals to marry would help in such a scenario. Nor how it would help prevent such a scenario. Nor how such a scenario could ever come about in the first place, regardless of what we legalize.

Yes, I have limited the meaning of natural to general nature of humanity to point out that gay people nature is not in line with it (in certain and for most people very important aspects). It however does not mean that nature cannot work out anything meaningfull out of this twist. It would rather seem to me that its one of the ways which nature works - trying to find out different possibilities and even deadends of its functionings in the sum off its potentiality.
What a longwinded way to say "in my opinion".

But marriage isnt purely legal institution is it? It is something moral developed out of religious life.
Not as far as secular states are concerned. Religious people can make their own mind about whether they want to accept secular marriages as religiously meaningful.

But you may have a point that if particular gay marriage whould fulfill the purpose of the regular one (by rising adoptive kids) then it shouldnt be denied..
Why do homosexuals have to justify their marriage with a purpose?
 
in broader sense nature is force or/and environment which creates/evolves, sustains, supports and uses all that it encompasses for its own intrinsic purpose.
In the context I used it I am pointing out to the fact that gay persons nature is not in line of what general nature needs from human being: developing of sustainable and healthy humanity. This twist or perversion of nature however does not mean that gay person could be viewed as less respectable or that his life is less fulfilling.
I get it. Nature needs marriage to be about breeding.

Because nature thinks there aren't enough of us already.
I meant humanity as whole. Imagine if all people where gay - do I need to say anything more...
No, you've said quite enough when you said gay marriage/parenting is related to all people being gay. Tells me all I need to know.
 
My father is gay and has two straight offspring. Neither me nor my brother intends to father children. Do I need to say anything more?
Well if you choose not to have kids its a bit different matter. The problem whould be if everybody would follow that way. You see what I am saying?

Imagine if everyone was called "Gregory". It would be chaos! Therefore, being called "Gregory" is incompatible with human nature.
No it wouldnt. Just like everyone is called human being, man or person. How does ones name or change of it changes ones nature - not much I guess...
Are you being serious? What the (figurative) hell is up with people who insist that atheists will suffer eternal damnation?
No I put it there for joke...
 
I get it. Nature needs marriage to be about breeding.
I think its the other way around, buddy. Marriage needs nature to be about breeding...:lol:
But more on topic: nature who evolved breeding can use marriage(morality) to evolve into its higher type in man.
Because nature thinks there aren't enough of us already.
I realy do not know what nature thinks:( But I wouldnt be much suprised if at some future point this planet holds couple tens of billions of people...
No, you've said quite enough when you said gay marriage/parenting is related to all people being gay. Tells me all I need to know.
Dont missunderstand me pls. after all everything is related with everything...

Why do homosexuals have to justify their marriage with a purpose?
No it is mainly the marriage who has to justify its existence by having a purpose...
 
My father is gay and has two straight offspring. Neither me nor my brother intends to father children. Do I need to say anything more?

Are you making the argument that homosexuality results in grandchildlessness? :mischief:
 
No it wouldnt. Just like everyone is called human being, man or person. How does ones name or change of it changes ones nature - not much I guess...

Having unique names is incredibly useful for a functioning society. If every single person on earth was named Gregory, you'd have no way to refer to distinct individuals in conversation.
 
One says 'condemned', another has Jesus say that you can't reach God except through him and the last is from Revelation. It's a little bit desperate when your only source relating to 'eternal damnation' is a millennial allegory.
 
What's the "book of life", exactly? (I was raised Catholic, and they tend to consider Revelations weird and honestly a bit embarrassing, so it didn't come up.) Is there some reason to think that atheists are categorically excluded from its pages?
 
What's the "book of life", exactly? (I was raised Catholic, and they tend to consider Revelations weird and honestly a bit embarrassing, so it didn't come up.) Is there some reason to think that atheists are categorically excluded from its pages?

I'm almost certain the orthodox Catholic position is to consider all of the Bible to be true, although not literally so, but you can check that one with Plotinus:)

The book of life is where those who are saved are recorded by name. But you have to look at the verses in John to understand. If you believe, you aren't condemned, but if you don't believe, you're condemned. It logically follows that a condemned person would not be recorded in the book of life.
 
I'm almost certain the orthodox Catholic position is to consider all of the Bible to be true, although not literally so, but you can check that one with Plotinus:)

yeah, but the kids european catholics usually teach the bible to these days are predominantly from non-religious families, thus being a bit sceptical about god and the devil placing bets on a guy called job, a dragon throwing stars at earth or abraham being scared so shitless of his god that he's ready to kill his son.
 
I'm almost certain the orthodox Catholic position is to consider all of the Bible to be true, although not literally so, but you can check that one with Plotinus:)

The book of life is where those who are saved are recorded by name. But you have to look at the verses in John to understand. If you believe, you aren't condemned, but if you don't believe, you're condemned. It logically follows that a condemned person would not be recorded in the book of life.
What is that you have to believe?
 
Back
Top Bottom