What?!
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
Protect Our Children PLEASE Read
- Thread starter cbcanada
- Start date
awyala
Guest
Does one need a cure for being attracted to fat chicks?
You may laugh at the concept of God, but the early defences / arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality, especially in the 80s and 90s were:
1) God made a mistake
2) God loves all his creations no matter what
3) God made me this way
These 3 arguments were superficial and specifically targeted at religious conservatives, all be it with extremely ignorant levels of understandings of their theology. This argument was extremely effective but recently abandoned. It is quite counter productive as atheism is more pronounced and popular in society.
The other "scientific" arguments are:
1) It is not a choice
2) It is genetic
3) Animals do it too ("gay" panguines in a zoo, chimpanzee mating social bonding, and I suppose dog leg humping as well)
None of these are substantiated by any real science. Male lions also eat the babies of other male lions and bunnies eat their own feces...is that a rationale behind a possible poo-fetish among humans, or acceptance of psychotic behavior? That's absurd. And if it isn't a choice, how is it that bi-sexuals can exist and make the "choice" on a encounter by encounter basis?
The real argument should be an analysis of the relationship between action and effect. Does an action create harm in the short or long term? If an action creates short or long term harm can it be remedied, mitigated or reversed? If not, what pre-emtive steps can be taken if remedial steps are not possible. This is the crux of the argument, not the smoke screens above!
awyala
Guest
Explain. How is evidence of societal understanding of the concept of God, not considered evidence when refering to society's understanding of the concept of God?
I'll give you another example...
Batman has a cape. Evidence Batman has a cape comes from the first comic book released where he is depecticed as having a cape. Therefore when depicting or refering to Batman, one should consistently depict him in a cape. Evidence here is strictly societal...i.e. evidence of perception.
How am I a hypocrite. Do I need a snazzy graphic or picture book to help you with this concept?
Last edited:
cbcanada
Banned
lol thats what i was thinking too!
cbcanada
Banned
well said !
cbcanada
Banned
i didnt get this explanation... can you be more clear?
OpenGambit
Banned
Classic logic. If science can't explain it, that means its god!
awyala
Guest
Ok. 2 arguments.
Comic fan 1: Batman doesn't have a cape!
Comic fan 2: Yes he does!
Comic fan 1: What, when did he ever have a cape?
Comic fan 2: Here, on the damn cover of the first Batman comic!
Explaination: Does Batman exist? No! But that is not what is being debated. What is being debated is the common cultural (comic culture) understanding of what constitutes the concept of Batman. And within that common understanding, the first comic issue depicting Batman with a cape is evidence Batman (the comic character) HAS A CAPE!
Now let's apply it to the "God loves everyone" defence:
Gay dude: It is not wrong because God is love, He loves me and made me this way
Christian dude: God doesn't love you, you first have to accepted Jesus, and as Jesus says "follow the law before me", before you have eternal salvation, otherwise God will punish you in hell, or like those in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah"
The gay advocate attempted to use the Christian's poor understanding of his own theology against him. The gay advocate here doesn't believe in God at all, or possibly has a very poor understanding of the concept of God, or at least the "god" he is attempting to reference. He specifically is attempting to reference the Christian / Judaic God, and in doing so, all cultural historic common understanding of that God is evidence of His character. Whether God actually exists, is not the point here. The point is that one person is trying to use another person's cultural understanding to force them to accept something. In referencing that cultural understanding they are deliberately or ignorantly misrepresenting the character of God.
Sabex
Well-known member
I'm staying clear the **** away from any mention of god. I do not believe in him, nor any religion. But I can understand a religious person's point of view. I let people live their own life however they want to; as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's life.
As a side, post 70 and up made me giggle.
As a side, post 70 and up made me giggle.
What a dumba**.... as if a teenager has to be taught this...
I distinctly remember hearing Sue Johanson talking on the sunday night sex show (on open radio btw) about using vegetables as a "safe way" to experiment vs metal/glass ojects.... etc...
Big f'in deal...
When my kids ask me about sex, I will tell them, I don't see the need to make up stories about birds, bees, storks or other horse ****... They are not dumb, and why not just tell them the truth, my 4 year old furrowed his eyebrows when we talked about death, but I think he got it, if he asks again, I will explain it again... It's not that complicated people...
I remember a discussion with a neighbor who has a son the same age after a massive thunder and lightening storm... I told my guy about electricity (even pointed to the household outlets trying to make him grasp it) and said that was what was happening in the sky, he didn't quite get it, but seemed satisfied none the less (and had ZERO concerns about the thunder) Our neighbor told her kid that it was "god moving the furniture around".... and said he didn't seem to calm down, well no **** sherlock, you just told him some super being was rearranging his living room somehere he can't see, understand but only hear, wtf did you expect???
Anyway, I for one am not distrubed by this at all, if that is the worst they read on the internet, I think you should be thankfull.
But, to each their own I guess.
