You keep using the word "natural". I don't think it means what you think it means.

[eduhum]

I don't even need to go beyond this. If it's so proven, then prove it.

Hem, hem… Is this turned on? TOCTOC oh ok:

http://www.forumlibertas.com/frontend/forumlibertas/noticia.php?id_noticia=6955

In Spanish but you can use google translate

http://www.mscperu.org/homosexual/infohomo/frases.htm

same


Many people think that homosexuals born and don't make because they link gays making themselves with having a disease, which by the OMS is supposedly not true

But gays are made not so much in the way of a disease but by a psychologic characteristic that have modeled them throughout their lives, just the same as:
Intelligence
Musical ability
Education
Physic health
While is it true that some humans can be better than others when they born and that there are exceptions, the childish education, the past experiences and the neuronal connections and all these things act sooo much more to alter the list of characteristics I've just mentioned including homosexuality than the gene pool
All humans born with nearly the same intellectual capabilities. The future of you life only depends of your future education

You're using a computer.

A computer is a natural thing. You must recognize the difference between someone and something
And I'm not existentialist. Prejudices are bad

 

[Traitorfish]

A computer is a natural thing.

Generally speaking, "natural" is understood to denote things which occur in nature, that is, which exist without and prior to human intervention, something which self-evidently cannot be said of computers. What issues do you take with this definition of "nature"?

You must recognize the difference between someone and something

Could you expand on this?

And I'm not existentialist. Prejudices are bad

Um, what?

How did we become a culture in which you can screw a goat and none complains but if you make a good natured comment you are reprimanded?

In most developed countries, if you screw a goat you got to jail. Mebbe it's different where you live, I dunno, can't say I'd be entirely surprised.

 

[Leoreth]

I blame the internet. It gives equal voice to those who are decent and to those who represent the dregs of society.

You know, you can always choose not to post.

 

[Zack]

(It has been proven, if you asked yourselves really so, that homosexuals DON'T BORN homosexuals, they MAKE THEMSLVES so.

So if you just put your mind to it, you could start loving men with the best of them and abandon your lust for women?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So if you just put your mind to it, you could start loving men with the best of them and abandon your lust for women?

I agree with Zack in that I disagree with the assumption that gay men can just "Get over" their lust for men. I'd agree that it is possible, but would be of a similar difficulty to straight men giving up their lust for women (That is to say, not easy.)

I do think that the ease or difficulty of giving up a particular sin shouldn't really determine whether its right or wrong, however. And its unable to be questioned that people (Gay or not) are able to control their sexual passions. Since I believe sex is a special gift from God to be used in a certain way with one special person that you were bound to for life in marriage, I do think we have a duty to control our sexual passions in other contexts. In short, I think that choosing to engage in homosexual behavior is a choice (And a sinful one) but that lust for men is only a choice in a similar manner as is lust for women.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why would a loving God make some people biologically more prone to sin than others?



(Also, women exists, and some of them are gay. But you knew that.)

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

And its unable to be questioned that people (Gay or not) are able to control their sexual passions.

Have you ever been around a teenager?

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

He is one

Then he should really know better than to make a statement like that.

That said, I already knew Ghostwriter's age.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

you have no self control?

I'm not a teenager.

 

[Leonel]

So if you just put your mind to it, you could start loving men with the best of them and abandon your lust for women?

You get a new Black & Decker toaster oven and 10 Gaybux™ Reward Points redeemable at your local Gay Agenda Station for that. That's halfway to an official gay beach towel!

 

[Core Imposter]

Rewriting history is what the left does. Denying reality is what the left does. Redefining words is what the left does. Sowing seeds of confusion and dissension is what the left does. Taking from producers and giving to the freeloaders is what the left does. Stealing credit is what the left does. Tearing down institutions is what the left does. Fostering hate is what the left does. Pointing fingers and scapegoating is what the left does.

The only thing the left willingly shares is misery, indeed, it insists on forcing us all to eat a heaping portion of it.

This is why the left loves big government. Stripping us of the means to defend ourselves and our rights and property by using concentrated power to inflict upon the people indignity, poverty, and hopelessness.

 

[Core Imposter]

Why would a loving God make some people biologically more prone to sin than others?(Also, women exists, and some of them are gay. But you knew that.)

Matthew 5:45
King James Version (KJV)

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

There was a time when people would judge that if a person was born deformed in some way that it was a punishment from God specific to one person or group, but defects are part of the consequence of original sin.

We must therefore hate the sin but not the sinner.

 

[Traitorfish]

Rewriting history is what the left does. Denying reality is what the left does. Redefining words is what the left does. Sowing seeds of confusion and dissension is what the left does. Taking from producers and giving to the freeloaders is what the left does. Stealing credit is what the left does. Tearing down institutions is what the left does. Fostering hate is what the left does. Pointing fingers and scapegoating is what the left does.

The only thing the left willingly shares is misery, indeed, it insists on forcing us all to eat a heaping portion of it.

This is why the left loves big government. Stripping us of the means to defend ourselves and our rights and property by using concentrated power to inflict upon the people indignity, poverty, and hopelessness.

Is this the bit where you claim that Hitler was left-wing?

Matthew 5:45
King James Version (KJV)

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

There was a time when people would judge that if a person was born deformed in some way that it was a punishment from God specific to one person or group, but defects are part of the consequence of original sin.

We must therefore hate the sin but not the sinner.

God is evil, gotcha.

 

[timtofly]

Why would a loving God make some people biologically more prone to sin than others?



(Also, women exists, and some of them are gay. But you knew that.)

I am not sure that the law makes sinners. The law just tells you, "you have sinned". People do what comes naturally, ie either by watching others do it, or their own desires to try it.

God did not give the law to prevent natural occurances, nor to even abolish them. In fact even giving a law to most logical thinkers is a no, no. The law only points out weakness. No one can keep the law. If one thinks that God gave the law to be mean or even restrict people, then one would be a Jew, because they are technically the only people who can handle the full brunt of the law.

Only a Jew is supposed to be put to death for going against "nature". And even judaism did not keep up with all the killing that needed to be applied to broken laws.

The NT says that God allows humans in their own thinking to do what is "against" nature, so that they would be of "one mind". The reason that there is a mental struggle is because other humans have called it a sin, called it not natural, and whatnot. It would be naturally ocurring for them, and the sooner they realize it, the sooner they have peace within themselves.

Secularist just point out that animals in nature do it all the time, thus it is naturally natural. I can only take their word for it, since I have never seen any animals practice such behaviour.

I realize that the Bible says that all have sinned, sin is just doing what comes naturally. The problem is judgment comes into play and God allows humans to be natural without judging them every second of their life. God cannot withold judgment forever though. I am of the opinion though that God did not create humans to be natural born sinners. Here is where it is hard for humans to see God as good, because God cursed one human, and only allowed that one human's cursed offspring to remain on this earth. God did destroy all things that were created perfect and He only allowed the non-perfect to remain.

It is grace that keeps things natural in a non-perfect world.

tl,dr if you did read it all, you had a lot of grace.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Thread is too counter-reactionary when all nature does is 'flip a coin' (or a very large number of them)..

This is very essential.
After seeing how the OP went from "It is not natural for men to be superior because women are artificially oppressed" to "If no one is oppressed, women are superior and hence naturally so", I not only took strong issue with this stance of supposed overall female superiority, I also took issue with how an absence of some sort of oppression is supposed to reflect what natural really means.

To even try to justify the merit of an argument with it being "natural" IMO reveals a lack of understanding what it means.

Natural - taillesskangaru already correctly noted - itself is not sufficient to justify, only to describe.

And what that now actually is, depends on the context. To such great extend, that all natural universally can be said to mean is the notion of some sort of "pureness", that is lack of exterior factors.

So similarly to the word "freedom", natural does in itself not more than describe a certain relation. Depending on what one wants to convey, "natural" quit arbitrarily defines as pure and exterior. And just like freedom, it in practice tends to do so with a set of subtext assumptions which imply a vague sense of justification. Which can be useful, just as it can be terribly misleading. And which in itself is never the actual go at an objective argument.

So Pizza Guy, I am afraid in this instance you fooled yourself.

 

[JohannaK]

I'm not really one for theological discussions or debates. Personally, my opinion in this goes more in the line of ATPG.

I just wanted to point out the issue which arose in the first page, of women having longer life expectancy then men. That is not at all related to culture. not necessarily. There are these things at the end of chromosomes, tellurids or something, that women can regenerate and men cannot. This allows for chromosomes to be duplicated more times, thus allowing women to naturally live longer than men. Although, that also made their health worse. That is, at a given moment, a man and woman of the same age with the same lifestyles will be in different health states.

But... wow, where is this going...This is natura against supernatural, right? Well, what's more natural than the reign of pleasure and happiness? Surely there must be a limit to that, I mean, drugs may give happiness and pleasure, but are also wrong, they shouldn't be allowed, because they have been proven harmful and, for a calculus on the happiness provided by an action, harm and suffering should be subtracted from the happiness it might create.

That said, if a homosexual relationship causes no harm or suffering to the directly involved, it is, I find, naturally acceptable.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Your attempt to attribute a universal trait to drugs which allows for universally valid recommendations on how a society should handle drugs is futile.

You know, you can always choose not to post.

I recently started to experience the glory that is an ignore list.

 

[JohannaK]

Hmmm... now you're going too far, you know? I wrote that in what, 5 minutes? I agree it's not necessarily a good example or anything, but. I just wanted to draw an example. Of course it is ridiculously undeveloped for my purpose, but what do you want? It's nearly 1 am and I'm tired. And you're being a dick here. I must say, I can behave like that related to absurd little things. But well, you just shocked me.

Because, I don't even know what you mean, what you say I was trying to do.