Isnt "gay" french word for happiness btw?
You keep using the word "natural". I don't think it means what you think it means.
- Thread starter Askthepizzaguy
- Start date
Isnt "gay" french word for happiness btw?
You are quite right of course but since I am also a bit of religious folk here is my opinion: nature/natural is something dynamic and progressive. It evolves just like the rest of this planet does. You can confine certain type of nature to certain level of development for practical reasons but you must be aware that sooner or later this will be also subject to change.
For instance take plant or animal kingdom. We can see that there is only very little change there so you can say this or that is animal nature(even though there has been quite dramatical change there over the course of bilions of years as well).
But when it comes to human nature it changes and developes in milleniums, centuries or you can even see solid progress in decades (sometimes you can see degression too). Unfortunately most of the world religions had originated two or more milleniums ago and they carry this stamps with them. I can only add that if their truths were practised more sincerely there would be some deeper sense of illumination which could guide as more smoothly through the human evolution. But instead we depend much more on revolutions...
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
To Christians, our beliefs aren't exactly "supernatural". If God created the universe, his works are natural as well.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
The more we know about God and His creation, the less "supernatural" they become. Just a few hundred years ago, flying would have been a "supernatural" thing.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I thought it meant friendly, at least that is the English textbook definition. In any case, in neither the USA or France this meaning seems to be present beyond said textbooks any longer.
What do you want? OTers like to repeat themselves
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Or impossible. Try going a few weeks without checking out a girl (and I don't mean eye-raping, even just a casual glance at her boobs or general shapeliness); you can't do it. The only people who can (probably) do it are monks who isolate themselves from the opposite sex almost entirely.
Which means what? That homosexuals should abstain from sex because it upsets you?
Yeah I used to believe that too when I was your age. You'll grow out of it.
And what about homosexual love? It's not an act, it's a mindset. You can't get super drunk one night and wake up having been "gayed." You don't get "gayed" when you get jumped in the prison shower. It's not an accident, it's not a choice, it's who these people are. Sure, they lust homosexually. So what. They also love homosexually. Think of the love your parents have for each other. It's like that, except they're both dudes or both chicks.
Here's a thought for you. You think sex is something to be reserved for the bonds of marriage. Well as it stands right now, this "escape from sin" is explicitly denied to homosexual couples. They literally aren't allowed to release that sexual tension that you think should wait until matrimony. Ever. So you've faulted them for having sex outside of marriage, and also denied them marriage itself. How is that fair? How are they supposed to "win?" You've created conditions that cannot be met.
Cheesy said:
And once again we're all treated to a wonderful defense of the human condition that will be utterly wasted on a kid who will almost certainly grow out of his juvenile screeds once he's out in the world a bit....
Don't stop, Cheesy - you're far more succinct and eloquent than I. Actually, I show your better posts to my best friends who are a same-sex couple raising 2 boys. Not that they need convincing, or anything, but to show them that there are people actively combating the stupidity, ignorance, and hate that is so apparent on the internet. They live in a very small town in the hills of western Massachusetts, and their cars and home have been vandalized within the last year. Uniquely amongst the people on their street. Main street. Just them... Can any of us really imagine what that must feel like?
GhostWriter likely doesn't know it yet, but chances are very good that some people very dear to him are failing his arbitrary moral test. We can only hope he stays active here long enough for us to see him realize that just about everything he thinks at this age will be looked back up with laughter, embarrassment - and, at least in my case, a good deal of shame - when he's a bit older and wiser.
But for as long as people like him goose-step hatred and marginilization against people who don't fit this narrow view of acceptable behavior, WE ALL MUST RAIL IN BLOCK CAPS AGAINST HIS OPINIONS
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
The definition of supernatural is that it couldn't happen. If something supernatural happens, it's not supernatural.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I understand what you are saying, but I bet the consensus of the majority of people back then believed flying could never happen and it was only the dreamers that kept the dream alive until flying became a success.
Even you saying that something supernatural like walking though a wall could never happen, it did happen, and it very well could be a human experience that could happen in the future. I still say that the supernatural is what we cannot experience in the moment, but may be able to experience when the knowledge is revealed.
Supernatural just means that the current laws of nature prevent it from happening. Who is to say there will be new laws yet to be discovered that would allow current one's to be nullified? The law of gravity kept us from a lot of things, but there are other laws that overcame it.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I believe that supernaturally, God could take someone's desires for such things away, but I'd agree that the vast majority of the time, you can't ever go without even "Just a causal glance." But then again, that's the whole reason Jesus died for our sins. The problem becomes when we become complacent regarding sin and don't even try to overcome it.
No, because its offensive to God. Heterosexuals should too, outside marriage.
I don't think so.
I'm well aware of what I'm arguing against, including the misconceptions. I'm well aware that these people think they love each other. It is, however, a disordered love.
Chastity.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I'm pretty sure God can take care of himself; I don't think he needs you or anyone else looking out for him and his sensibilities. If something offends him, he'll deal with it in his own way. Why get in the way? I'd find that offensive to God, if I believed that he exists.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Completely. Who are we to say that there is a "disordered love"? To say that it offends God? Who are you, ¿God?, to decide it?
vktj
Warlord
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 241
Gay rights is a fundamental civil rights and human rights issue.
In terms of gay behavior being against God's will: I can't think of any Civ in Europe or the Americas currently using the "Theocracy" civic. Indeed, we're all pretty much practicing "Free religion".
In terms of the poster who linked to a Spanish-language article, that article links to a 2006 Dutch study: Frisch, M., & Hviid A. (2006). Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior. [1]
- Sam
[1] The Wikipedia "Environment and sexual orientation" article and discussion appears to say that this study considers prenatal hormones "environment"
In terms of gay behavior being against God's will: I can't think of any Civ in Europe or the Americas currently using the "Theocracy" civic. Indeed, we're all pretty much practicing "Free religion".
In terms of the poster who linked to a Spanish-language article, that article links to a 2006 Dutch study: Frisch, M., & Hviid A. (2006). Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior. [1]
- Sam
[1] The Wikipedia "Environment and sexual orientation" article and discussion appears to say that this study considers prenatal hormones "environment"
Really? Maybe God created lots of "children" so when he gets old(he is apparently in late geriatric age judging by his incapacity to make this world into the Kingdom of heaven) they take care of him and this world. After all its quite "natural"...
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Since you seem to put so much of this on God: it angers God, it's an offense to God, people should remain chaste for God...so where does any of that involve YOU? Why don't you let God deal with it, lest you become a judge?
Son, have you ever been in love? Not that adolescent can't-be-two-seconds-without-hanging-off-you adulation, I mean true, deep love, the kind that lasts, that feels like you could just merge with them and become one. If not, then you have no authority on what is and is not love.
Apparently everybody can have opinion and be an authority on anything according to his own standard. The kind of love you describe seems to me to be human love at its pinacle and not so common experience unfortunately. But then still some smart ass like me can come around and point out to you that even in spite of strong devotion and presence of some form of surrender to the other person involved your love is bound to end in frustration. That is unless that feeling has potential for enlargment within itself and can ultimately become something universal. For othewise you are probably (inspite the presence of considerable purity in your feelings) binding yourself to some other limited reality.
GhostWriter16
Deity
No I haven't. But my argument is fundamentally a religion one, so it doesn't necessarily matter.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What does "religious" mean, in this context, and why is this a "religious" question?
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
Jesus would not be please of such notions of your method of argument! Bigotry from a significant number of Christians is seriously damaging the Christian image. Such is to the annoyance of many Christians that do not linked to extremism and have made peace with their religions and the values of liberty. Religion is not a card to use to be as fel as possible.
Similar threads
