forbidding people to love each other

[polymath257]

Boinking the neighbors wife may be wrong, but that’s natural by your definition as well, kloro.

Well, we already agreed that natural doesn't mean right. I was just responding to polymath's flawed criterion : as long as we fall in love with X, it's fine to copulate with X. 

And since, dear @polymath257 males can theoretically fall in love with any female of any age, pedophiles also seem to have a free ticket according to your criterion.

---

How exactly does one "encourage" certain sexual orientations?

He's doing it. He's arguing in favor of homosexuality. More homosexuals means less heterosexuals, it's a zero sum game. 

That's why it's not right to defend homosexuality : Evolutionarily, you are depriving society of males who would allocate themselves to females and serve procreation.

Well, I think it would be *better* if everyone was bisexual.

But that isn't the way that people are in reality. I would prefer that they love who they love. So what if it is between two men or two women? Or, for that matter, between two men *and* two women?

[vulcanlogician]

The thing about this essay is that it shows just how slimy WLC is.

I've listened to entire lectures from this guy... philosophy lectures, not apologetics or debate. In these, he well demonstrates that he can do critical thinking.

He knows better than to cite Leviticus as reasoning for adopting a particular attitude toward homosexual acts. And he knows that the vast majority of Christians don't even care about what the Bible says... they just want their bigotry excused.

He knows that the conditions faced by gays have no direct causal relation to homosexual behavior itself. Most of it is causally related to society. He knows this. And he knows how to separate things like promiscuity from homosexuality... ie. he knows how to consider non promiscuous homosexuals... but he doesn't.

It's worse that he knows all this stuff. Because I believe that the ignorance of most Christians stems from a soft prohibition on introspection buried in fundamentalist culture. But WLC has no such excuse.

That's why I'm calling him slimy, and that's why I'm not letting him off the hook for this.

[tackattack]

I had to skip pages 6-10 this is a hot mess. Let’s use your definition then Klor- “ by natural = any action that serves our instincts of survival+procreation” could finding love serve our instincts for survival within a society? If u answer yes and sexual orientation is currently estimated @25% genetic according to your article; fulfilling the need to be loved by whatever you deem fit serves individuals. Whether you get it, or whether u have oughts that get in the way is irrelevant. It’s good for people to find love and harmony. Have you been helping that end or are u too worried about your tail end being violated?

Homosexuality is as condemned in my religion as it is in yours. There exist some biblical passages mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah, if I recall that correctly. It's really hilarious that a christian is seriously apologising for homosexuality. 

Words like love and harmony aren't exactly very precise labels one can use to articulate an apology for men-on-men sex. Tell me, if you find love and harmony with your neighbor's wife, should we encourage you to express you love to the lady, or, rather, tell you there are more serious considerations like minimizing harm, seeking procreation, providing a stable environment for our offspring, etc. than your vague emotions of love/harmony , or your interest for my tail end ?

Tell me, @tackattack? Did you read this passage before in your bible ? 

"But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD." (Genesis 13:13 KJV)

Love and harmony are prescriptive and precise enough for my intentions and yes I've read that and every other passage in my Bible and the apocrypha many times.
I am not doing apologetics for any behaviors except trying to show you yours. The OP was about desire not act, you are all about the act. You are passing judgement on "people" and comparing them to the sodmites by inferring they are exceedingly sinful. Id' like to point out something to you, All have sinned. We are all sodomites (pursuing unnatural desires) and wicked and rebel against God. We don't do what is good for us, even if we know better.

For instance you are a very loud clanging cymbal right now causing all this discord against believers and God by not practicing any aspect of love. You specifically dishonor others (women), you are self-seeking (not proving your point or expressing your opinions/arguments well), you are easily angered (by all the flaming going on), you keep record of wrongs (referencing other threads), you are delight in talking about that which you deem as evil. You are not using your views to protect anyone but to condemn. You are not trusting that someone's perspective outside your might have something to teach you.
To be clear here is where I sit:
1. Homosexual sex is condemned by Southern Baptists, this is one of the tenants I disagree with.
2. I do not find homosexual sex to be "unnatural, as there is evidence in the natural world and some genetic indications it can be "built in" at least partially.
3. I do not condemn others for their private sins/lives. Your sexual preferences, orientation or identity are all very subjective and are frankly none of my damn business.
4. I personally interpret the sum of the OT writing to indicate an abhorrence for cult prostitution (male or female), and general debauchery and giving over to natural desires. I personally interpret the sum of the NT writing to be prescriptive on congregational behavior and sound doctrine with controlled passions, while emphasizing Love in every aspect of outreach and life.
5. Due to the above I don't care where people stick (or want to stick) their peepee, as long as it's in a mutual, mature and loving relationship that doesn't harm others. The exception to that is that I don't care if it harms someone else's delicate sensibilities or ego.


This topic is title forbidding people to Love, not forbidding people to procreate. The OP was about desires not actions. You brought in the act, the naturalness of it, the misogyny and all the condemnation with you. Kindly take it with you out the door, or clarify your stance to further the discussion for forbidding homosexuals from loving each other.

[Ranjr]

"Evolutionary?"  Now there's a strange bed partner.  Any port in a storm.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Homosexuality is as condemned in my religion as it is in yours. There exist some biblical passages mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah, if I recall that correctly. It's really hilarious that a christian is seriously apologising for homosexuality. 

Words like love and harmony aren't exactly very precise labels one can use to articulate an apology for men-on-men sex. Tell me, if you find love and harmony with your neighbor's wife, should we encourage you to express you love to the lady, or, rather, tell you there are more serious considerations like minimizing harm, seeking procreation, providing a stable environment for our offspring, etc. than your vague emotions of love/harmony , or your interest for my tail end ?

Tell me, @tackattack? Did you read this passage before in your bible ? 

"But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD." (Genesis 13:13 KJV)

Love and harmony are prescriptive and precise enough for my intentions and yes I've read that and every other passage in my Bible and the apocrypha many times.
I am not doing apologetics for any behaviors except trying to show you yours. The OP was about desire not act, you are all about the act. You are passing judgement on "people" and comparing them to the sodmites by inferring they are exceedingly sinful. Id' like to point out something to you, All have sinned. We are all sodomites (pursuing unnatural desires) and wicked and rebel against God. We don't do what is good for us, even if we know better.

For instance you are a very loud clanging cymbal right now causing all this discord against believers and God by not practicing any aspect of love. You specifically dishonor others (women), you are self-seeking (not proving your point or expressing your opinions/arguments well), you are easily angered (by all the flaming going on), you keep  record of wrongs (referencing other threads), you are delight in talking about that which you deem as evil. You are not using your views to protect anyone but to condemn. You are not trusting that someone's perspective outside your might have something to teach you.
To be clear here is where I sit:
1. Homosexual sex is condemned by Southern Baptists, this is one of the tenants I disagree with.
2. I do not find homosexual sex to be "unnatural, as there is evidence in the natural world and some genetic indications it can be "built in" at least partially.
3. I do not condemn others for their private sins/lives. Your sexual preferences, orientation or identity are all very subjective and are frankly none of my damn business.
4. I personally interpret the sum of the OT writing to indicate an abhorrence for cult prostitution (male or female), and general debauchery and giving over to natural desires. I personally interpret the sum of the NT writing to be prescriptive on congregational behavior and sound doctrine with controlled passions, while emphasizing Love in every aspect of outreach and life.
5. Due to the above I don't care where people stick (or want to stick) their peepee, as long as it's in a mutual, mature and loving relationship that doesn't harm others. The exception to that is that I don't care if it harms someone else's delicate sensibilities or ego.


This topic is title forbidding people to Love, not forbidding people to procreate. The OP was about desires not actions. You brought in the act, the naturalness of it, the misogyny and all the condemnation with you. Kindly take it with you out the door, or clarify your stance to further the discussion for forbidding homosexuals from loving each other.

Brilliant 

[no one]

Kpop is just upset that Wilbur isn't interested in the slightest in porking him.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This thread seems a little self-unaware the more its the contributors obsess about someone elses sexual obsessions.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This thread seems a little self-unaware the more its the contributors obsess about someone elses sexual obsessions.

That an odd take

[WinterHold]

You don't have the right to harm homosexuals, just like you don't have the right to harm any person doing what they want.
Banning homosexuality should be "self inflicted"; I mean there is no "consequences" on the society from the same sex relationship.

As a Muslim, there is not a single verse saying that "gays" should be punished; unlike "adultery" that has a clear verse stating that a man or a woman engaging in sex without being married should be "lashed both 100 times":

Sura 24, The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 2 ) The woman or man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

Mainly the reason is pregnancy: the Muslim society can't tolerate bastard children raised without a proper family.

But homsexuality doesnt produce children. Across the whole Quran; not even a single verse puts a penalty on homosexuals !

The act though is not just a sin; but was a major contribution to the damnation of "Sodom":

Sura 29, The Quran:
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#...rans=en_sh

( 28 ) And [mention] Lot, when he said to his people, "Indeed, you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds.
( 29 ) Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit in your meetings [every] evil." And the answer of his people was not but they said, "Bring us the punishment of Allah, if you should be of the truthful."
( 30 ) He said, "My Lord, support me against the corrupting people."

But search the whole Quran; flip its pages; read it once and twice then thrice: there is no penalty that should be implemented from a "government" towards gay people.

God told people that homosexuality is a wrong; terrible deed. But so as impregnating women and leave poor bastard kids to battle the world without a family, so as the filthy religious institutions that control the masses like sheep to rob their money, just like countries like the U.S and Russia stacking atomic weapons, just like bankers who rape humanity out of its naturally owned fortunes given to them by God.

Don't you feel that you're..a little bit hypocritical kloro ? or are you flaming ? the world has tons of problems, believe me homosexuality isn't one of them.

[Drich]

I was just looking at WLC’s essay on how gay people should not be in relationships, how AIDS is a punishment from God, how gay people should seek a cure to become "normal". Source

This makes me think how sad and pathetic do you have to be to be agitated by the existence of homosexuals?
And after all these centuries of novels and plays of forbidden love you would think people would get the OBVIOUS lesson that you can not forbid some couple to love each other. He is literally the most pathetic, saddest, and generic villain in the repertoire of villains who wants to prevent people to be happy.

Some of the stuff he writes:

Sexual “orientation” is no longer thought to be fixed and is not rigidly determined by our genetic makeup. There is no “gay gene.” Homosexual persons can develop heterosexual desires, just as heterosexuals, who have had a wife and children, can develop homosexual desires. [...]
Finally, if you are troubled by unwanted sexual desires, seek professional Christian counselling. Sexual desires are by nature very addictive. Whether those desires are adulterous, pornographic, or homosexual, in a country which respects freedom of speech, you should be free to pursue “talking-therapies” to help you. With time and effort, it may well be possible for you to come to enjoy normal, heterosexual relationships with your spouse.

Again, even if he is right about the genes (although he doesn’t seem to, and genes do seem to play the role) how mental do you have to be bothered if someone is happier in life if he/ she chooses a homosexual way of life?

if genes play a role please identify the gene sequencing (in common terms or cut and pate if you don't understand it doesn't matter)

(hint: you will not find anything) 

It kills me you guys are all about the science when it comes to go. "we must follow the science" but on everything else like gender, sexual orientation ect, even with covid, it's not about the science or even if someone like you has a need to follow it you will contradict/lie/create a narritive that says even though science has not identified a gay gene genetics is the reason...

how bout this little bit of hyprocrisy: science has identified something like 26 "fat genes" that predisposes you to be fat. yet there are no social protections for fat people. the same "group" who march and will die for gay rights will smash bash and fat shame some guy for being 100lbs over weight.. the excuse there is 'genes only provide conditions for it to be easier to become fat. "the genes don't put the hamburgers and twinkies in your mouth" yet the gene argument used against christianity is that this invisible gene or 'genetics (which goes against darwinism as all gay people would eventually have been bred out not increase) that puts 'bless do not curse' in their mouths.

again. you guys create a narrative and fill in the blanks with anything that supports you. you have no disposition to logic or truth. just facts you can us even just once if need be with no care or consideration to the source. this is literally what stupid people do.. comon guys i know at least 1/2 of you are smarter than that... Just like i know the other half will argue my point here.