(October 14, 2014 at 2:57 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: One word - bible- wait it is now exactly ten words.

Sorry, but I think we've adequately demonstrated above that you do not take the bible seriously as a source for morality and law. Don't kid yourself, it's just your prejudice.

No I do take the bible seriously and no where. in the bible does it day I can't say how many words are in my sentence.

(October 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: No I do take the bible seriously and no where. in the bible does it day I can't say how many words are in my sentence.

Remind me to get you something for your 9th birthday

(October 14, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm)CristW Wrote: Genetics or social environment determines "sexual orientation".

That's not what the evidence says.

The evidence is indicating that there may likely be a genetic predisposition, but that the determining factor is the pre-natal environment.
It appears that the balance of hormones at various stages influences the wiring of the brain.

Sexual orientation is not a product of genetic determinism, it is not socially induced, and it is most certainly not a choice.

Thanks for the info. Again, this part of the argument I yield to. I was concentrating on legislation.

---

(October 14, 2014 at 1:55 pm)MusicLovingAtheist Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 3:33 pm)CristW Wrote: I am NOT gay !!! I am NOT a homosexual!

that's what they all say

What's wrong, disappointed that I love women ??? are you jealous ???

(October 14, 2014 at 12:39 pm)CristW Wrote:

(October 14, 2014 at 3:05 am)One Above All Wrote: CristW, if sexuality is a choice, when did you choose to (presumably) be heterosexual? Better yet, why don't you "choose" to be homosexual? Seriously; choose to be sexually attracted people of the same gender. Change what you like by sheer force of will. I dare you.

Fucking idiot.

Yes, I was referring to Kant's argument. No, if you were born with a biological mechanism to be a particular category, concerning sexual orientation, I doubt that genetics plays a role. This is why I say, you "decide" to be gay. Nevertheless, if you skip the previous argument and determine sexuality by an "act". The "act" would be the only way someone could determine if they are gay or not.

It really does not bother me if scientists find out if someone is born gay or not. I was by-passing the argument, even though, I mentioned it by mentioning last the final "act".

There are two arguments to the conclusion - (Gay).
One argument - genetics or social environment.
One argument - flaws in religion through social legislation.

I by-passed the first argument and concentrated on the second one.

So bisexuals like myself need to have an orgy to actually be bisexuals? That's news to me. Oh well. Better get started!

---

(October 14, 2014 at 5:20 pm)CristW Wrote: What's wrong, disappointed that I love women ??? are you jealous ???

Pfft. I love women and men. Top that.

(October 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: No I do take the bible seriously and no where. in the bible does it day I can't say how many words are in my sentence.

If the bible is your justification for not supporting gay marriage, would you mind showing us the passage where is says anything about gay marriage at all?

Because you might have trouble finding that. What you will find is something much worse, however. So go on, Carm: if you're using the bible as justification, what does the bible say about gay marriage, and more broadly, gays themselves?

(October 15, 2014 at 12:51 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: No I do take the bible seriously and no where. in the bible does it day I can't say how many words are in my sentence.

If the bible is your justification for not supporting gay marriage, would you mind showing us the passage where is says anything about gay marriage at all?

Because you might have trouble finding that. What you will find is something much worse, however. So go on, Carm: if you're using the bible as justification, what does the bible say about gay marriage, and more broadly, gays themselves?

It is not that hard so here you are Matthew 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." My point is God clearly says marriage is between man and woman not man and man or woman and woman.

---

(October 14, 2014 at 4:43 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(October 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: No I do take the bible seriously and no where. in the bible does it day I can't say how many words are in my sentence.

Remind me to get you something for your 9th birthday

My birthday was a while ago I am afraid to say and there is nothing with wrong with someone who is capable of having fun.

(October 15, 2014 at 11:48 am)C4RM5 Wrote: It is not that hard so here you are Matthew 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." My point is God clearly says marriage is between man and woman not man and man or woman and woman.

No. Not even a little bit. First of all, this is not a ban on gay marriage any more than saying a sentence that merely mentions blue indicates a hatred of red.

Secondly, by that same logic, I suppose you're absolutely against being single, too? I mean, he says "united with his wife," which doesn't say anything about single people; if not mentioning gay people is sufficient to you to indicate that god forbids it, then being single is equally as reviled.

Thirdly, and most importantly of all, even within the context you're talking about, this is not god saying anything at all. Matthew never met Jesus, in fact his writings, as the other books of the bible, weren't even written until Jesus was dead. So what you've got here is a third hand account at least, from a writer who simply had no way to authenticate the quote, and the quote itself was decades old before he even came across it.

So your justification doesn't say what you think it does, shows that you're being inconsistent by using it, and isn't reliable at all. Good job!

Incidentally, that quote doesn't mention gay people, but they are mentioned in the bible. What does it actually say to do with them, Carm?

(October 15, 2014 at 11:59 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 15, 2014 at 11:48 am)C4RM5 Wrote: It is not that hard so here you are Matthew 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." My point is God clearly says marriage is between man and woman not man and man or woman and woman.

No. Not even a little bit. First of all, this is not a ban on gay marriage any more than saying a sentence that merely mentions blue indicates a hatred of red.

Secondly, by that same logic, I suppose you're absolutely against being single, too? I mean, he says "united with his wife," which doesn't say anything about single people; if not mentioning gay people is sufficient to you to indicate that god forbids it, then being single is equally as reviled.

Thirdly, and most importantly of all, even within the context you're talking about, this is not god saying anything at all. Matthew never met Jesus, in fact his writings, as the other books of the bible, weren't even written until Jesus was dead. So what you've got here is a third hand account at least, from a writer who simply had no way to authenticate the quote, and the quote itself was decades old before he even came across it.

So your justification doesn't say what you think it does, shows that you're being inconsistent by using it, and isn't reliable at all. Good job!

Incidentally, that quote doesn't mention gay people, but they are mentioned in the bible. What does it actually say to do with them, Carm?

First of all Matthew did meet Jesus he was one of his apostles.
What I was saying about my quote was that there are pretty clear standards of what a marriage is, between man and woman, if you don't see this you haven't read my quote.

Finally the quote Jesus said was actually a quote from the old testament Genesis 22-24" For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Ah, so we're back to using Old Testament laws again, Carm? Because earlier you tried to worm your way out of an Old Testament law regarding the punishment for homosexual acts. You said that Jesus forgave them so that law doesn't have to be followed anymore. Now you're using Jesus to say that you should follow Old Testament Law. Which is it?