In another thread, Dan made the claim that homosexuality was "natural". He also claimed that homosexuality was "normal", but I'll leave that alone for now.
Why would he make the argument that homosexuality is "natural"? Given the context, I think it's safe to conclude that he is (at a minimum) implying that because homosexuality is "natural", that it cannot be a bad or negative thing. I suspect, that he's really saying that homosexuality is good because it's "natural".
Let's start with some data. Apparently 450 species engage in some sort of same sex activity, which might seem like a lot, until you realize that there are over 7,700,000 species on earth. .00006% of all species engage in some form of same sex coupling. But, indisputably, those species don't exclusively engage in same sex coupling, so the .00006% actually overstates the number of species for which this is "natural".
Also, let's consider evolution. Again Indisputably, one major factor of believing in Darwinian theory (or it's offshoots), is that one of the key factors in evolution is reproduction. In other words homosexuals are an evolutionary dead end. But, Scientific American to the rescue. They posit the following.
"In our hypothesis, the ancestral animal species mated indiscriminately with regard to sex, i.e., they mated with individuals of all sexes, if only because it is unlikely that the other traits required to recognize a compatible mate—differences in size, shape, color or odor, for example—evolved at exactly the same time as sexual behaviors."
Leaving aside the obvious conclusion that their hypothesis is impossible have the scientific method applied to it, let's look at the implications for Dan's claim that homosexuality is "natural".
What SA is saying is that it is or was natural for animals to engage in sexual behavior with any and every beast that crossed their path because this promiscuity would mean that at least some of the other beasts would reproduce. While that's a creative way to dodge the challenge to homosexuality on evolutionary grounds, it really doesn't help Dan to suggest that homosexuals should be indiscriminately humping anything that they see.
In many cases, one animal will engage in same sex behavior with another animal as a way to assert dominance, in other words, rape. One hopes that this "natural' behavior isn't what's being advocated for.
I guess I'm having trouble making the lead from non sentient animals who engage in sex indiscriminately or as a way to assert dominance as models for human behavior.
Now, a slightly different tack.
When there were discussions about how scripture treats homosexuality we were given two main arguments for why scripture didn't apply to the homosexuality we have now.
1. The "There are only a few texts that ever somewhat reference something that sounds like it could be homosexuality." argument. Let's call it the Scarcity argument. If we accept the argument that scarcity in scripture is an argument against homosexuality being seen negatively, then why wouldn't we treat scarcity in nature in the same way? Why would we assume that something that happens in .00006 species of animals, was in any way a behavior that is to be encouraged.
2. The "Loving Relationships" argument. This one said that since the scriptural references were really only about prostitutes of some sort or another, that they didn't apply to the loving, monogamous, relationships that predominate today. leaving aside the issue of whether "loving/monogamous/committed" relationships are even the majority of homosexual unions, there is statistically almost zero evidence to demonstrate conclusively that homosexuality is animals is in the context of a "loving/monogamous" relationship.
So, while homosexual sex acts may be "natural" in some broad sense, I'm not sure that actual animal gay sex is a great example to follow.
In conclusion, nature. It's been famously said that "Nature is red in tooth and claw", in nature we see survival of the fittest, parents who eat their young, females who kill or eat their mates, and the like. Nature is literally a "dog eats dog" world, the whole "circle of life" thing.
So, given what we actually see in nature, why do we selectively choose homosexuality is the one single thing to use as an example to follow, and that it being "natural" is a positive argument in favor of homosexuality.
Ultimately I guess it depends of what "homosexuality is natural" is supposed to mean or to prove.
What really makes me wonder is why anyone who insists that all of nature came into existence as a coincidence, that there is no meaning or purpose to anything, that there is absolutely nothing beyond our finite existence, and "selfish genes" are acting purely in their own self interest, would think that we shoudl take our behavioral cues from animals.
Well, if my dog can hump everything, it's natural and it doesn't hurt anyone, I think I'll start humping the legs of everyone I meet.
45 comments:
It also seems problematic if one uses the "natural" argument to justify taking the natural body that one is naturally born with, and mutilating/modifying/chemically altering it.
In nature, we see the elderly and infirm left alone to suffer and die, is that a "natural" behavior we should emulate?
"if one uses the "natural" argument to justify taking the natural body that one is naturally born with, and mutilating/modifying/chemically altering it."
You almost certainly don't believe this. You almost certainly support chemical and surgical interventions to stop a natural cancer or heart attack, am I right?
Dan
In nature, we see the elderly and infirm left alone to suffer and die, is that a "natural" behavior we should emulate?
As I have made clear: If it's natural and causing no harm, then there's no problem. We have a great and wondrous creation and it's all beautiful until some human causes harm.
That's the difference between humans and animals, seems to me. Maybe you disagree, but I think we humans, created in the image of God, just a little lower than God, created to do good works, created with God-given reasoning and moral reasoning... that we are obliged to act on moral values and that begins with doing no harm.
Do you disagree?
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you..." if you need a proof text from the Bible. I don't, but maybe you do. Do you?
given what we actually see in nature, why do we selectively choose homosexuality is the one single thing to use as an example to follow, and that it being "natural" is a positive argument in favor of homosexuality.
It's not the one single thing to use as an example to follow. There is much we can and should learn from nature.
In nature, nothing is wasted, nothing pollutes. A tree dies and it goes to the ground where bird and bugs and critters live off of it, giving it life... until it eventually dissolves, feeding the ground with nutrients and other trees grow and on it goes. That is something vital from nature that we should use as an example to follow.
In nature, there is rarely such a thing as over-consumption and certainly nothing like hyper-consumption. There is the concept of Enough. That is something to use as an example.
Nature teaches us the importance of being resilient.
Nature teaches us that everything happens in its own given time.
Nature teaches us the invaluable concept of seasons and that no one thing lasts forever and that life goes on.
And on I can go.
Natural is good unless and until it involves a human doing something to cause harm.
An alligator eating is good and natural - even if it ate our beloved dog! There's nothing immoral about it. Right?
BUT, a human pushing other humans into an alligator pit to kill them, THEN that's evil.
Same with sexuality of any sort. Sex is a beautiful wonderful fun part of creation... UNTIL you use it to rape or harass someone, then that action by a human can be evil.
This is just reality 101. Do you disagree with any of this? I would find it hard to believe you do, but you tell me.
In another thread, Dan made the claim that homosexuality was "natural".
It demonstrably is.
He also claimed that homosexuality was "normal", but I'll leave that alone for now.
It demonstrably is.
Why would he make the argument that homosexuality is "natural"? Given the context, I think it's safe to conclude that he is (at a minimum) implying that because homosexuality is "natural", that it cannot be a bad or negative thing. I suspect, that he's really saying that homosexuality is good because it's "natural".
Just ask me. I can tell you. Again.
I note that it's natural because people like you (and me, once upon a time) have demonized homosexuality as "unnatural" and "abnormal," trying to indicate that it was evil and immoral.
Am I incorrect that you call it "unnatural" or "not normal" because you believe it to be immoral?
And I'm NOT saying homosexuality is good because it's natural. I'm noting that it's simply a natural sexual orientation, an orientation common to humanity throughout history, demonstrably. Just like heterosexuality is natural and common to humanity.
With me so far?
NOW, from that, someone can choose to engage in harmful/hateful or beautiful/loving behavior with their natural orientation. A straight guy could choose to rape a woman and that would NOT be moral or good or normal to humanity or advisable for humans. On the other hand, a straight or gay guy (or woman) could choose to love and respect and commit to a loved one in a committed relationship. In the context of that committed, loving relationship, they could choose to have children, to be good neighbors, to love one another (emotionally and physically) and otherwise be good people and benefit from that committed partner relationship and we have NO reason to think that this is anything other than the moral and rational Good that it appears to be on the face of it.
I can point you to two loving grandmotherly lesbians, living and loving together, teaching Sunday School, volunteering in their retirement years to help the homeless, the mentally ill, the poor and being nurtured and supported in doing this beautiful, Christ-like work by virtue of their committed, loving partner, just as many of us straight couples enjoy and are healthier and happier for.
Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario? Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people? What if they dare to disagree with you, are you the determining factor in morality?
Reason, the bible and common sense would refute that.
"You almost certainly don't believe this. You almost certainly support chemical and surgical interventions to stop a natural cancer or heart attack, am I right?"
Yes, I do.
I should have indicated that I was referring to altering perfectly functioning, correctly formed, human body in an attempt to make that natural human body into something it was not naturally.
"As I have made clear: If it's natural and causing no harm, then there's no problem. We have a great and wondrous creation and it's all beautiful until some human causes harm."
Yes, you have made it clear that you personally hold this opinion, based on what you personally believe to be true. You have not demonstrated that your personal opinion applies outside of you.
"That's the difference between humans and animals, seems to me. Maybe you disagree, but I think we humans, created in the image of God, just a little lower than God, created to do good works, created with God-given reasoning and moral reasoning... that we are obliged to act on moral values and that begins with doing no harm."
Yet, this practice of leaving the elderly, inform, an newborns out to die horrible deaths has been and likely still is practiced by humans.
"Do you disagree?"
Not necessarily. The problem is that I am not trying to use the fact that something is "natural" as a way to make that things seem "normal" or "moral" or "good" simply by virtue of that thing being "natural".
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you..." if you need a proof text from the Bible. I don't, but maybe you do. Do you?"
No. I'm not the one trying to use this "natural" argument to act as if homosexuality is "good", that's your claim and you need to prove your claim.
"I should have indicated that I was referring to altering perfectly functioning, correctly formed, human body in an attempt to make that natural human body into something it was not naturally."
The brain in transgender women is naturally female, according to the research I've already provided to you. They're making use of medical knowledge to accommodate their natural gender. That you don't understand or agree with the science behind this does not make your opinion more worthwhile.
Dan
"It's not the one single thing to use as an example to follow. There is much we can and should learn from nature."
Well, you're the one making the argument about homosexuality being "natural" as a way to backdoor it into being "good", "moral", and "blessed" by God. I'm merely trying to see what other natural behaviors you think we should make normative.
"In nature, nothing is wasted, nothing pollutes. A tree dies and it goes to the ground where bird and bugs and critters live off of it, giving it life... until it eventually dissolves, feeding the ground with nutrients and other trees grow and on it goes. That is something vital from nature that we should use as an example to follow."
The maybe we should start leaving the elderly and infirm to die along in the woods so they won't be wasted, and can be turned into compost.
In nature, there is rarely such a thing as over-consumption and certainly nothing like hyper-consumption. There is the concept of Enough. That is something to use as an example.
Nature teaches us the importance of being resilient.
Nature teaches us that everything happens in its own given time.
Nature teaches us the invaluable concept of seasons and that no one thing lasts forever and that life goes on.
And on I can go.
"Natural is good unless and until it involves a human doing something to cause harm."
Interesting. So when animals cause harm, it's natural. When humans cause harm (unless it's harm that Dan finds acceptable) then it's automatically bad.
"An alligator eating is good and natural - even if it ate our beloved dog! There's nothing immoral about it. Right?"
I don't know, you're the one making all these claims about what natural behaviors you cherry pick and which ones you don't.
"BUT, a human pushing other humans into an alligator pit to kill them, THEN that's evil."
But what if someone has hidden innocent Jewish babies at a zoo and the only way to stop the NAZI's from killing them is to push the NAZI's into the alligator pit?
"Same with sexuality of any sort. Sex is a beautiful wonderful fun part of creation... UNTIL you use it to rape or harass someone, then that action by a human can be evil."
Interesting. Despite the fact that experts in Evolution have determined that rape is a positive thing from an evolutionary standpoint.
"This is just reality 101. Do you disagree with any of this? I would find it hard to believe you do, but you tell me."
It's not a matter of disagreeing. I'm trying to find out what "natural" behaviors are "not bad" (too cowardly to actually call them good), and should be incorporated by humans.
"I'm trying to find out what "natural" behaviors are "not bad" (too cowardly to actually call them good), and should be incorporated by humans."
How many more times do I need to answer before you understand that I have answered directly and clearly? No problems, just trying to get a ballpark idea of how many more times I'll need to answer so I can manage my schedule.
Right now, for instance, do you STILL not know my answer? I believe in you and that you can answer this yourself, but you tell me.
PS, it has nothing to do with cowardice, just precision of words, given your tendency to not understand.
Thx,
Dan
you have made it clear that you personally hold this opinion, based on what you personally believe to be true. You have not demonstrated that your personal opinion applies outside of you.
Is it in any serious dispute, anywhere?
Do you disagree with the notion?
As you well know, neither you nor I can objectively prove our moral claims, but the beauty and grandeur and awe of nature is a well-acknowledged and some would say self-evident claim. Since no one - including you - can prove our moral claims, that's an irrelevant point. But some things are so self-evident as to be nearly universally accepted. Do you have any reason to think this viewpoint is not widely shared?
The problem is that I am not trying to use the fact that something is "natural" as a way to make that things seem "normal" or "moral" or "good" simply by virtue of that thing being "natural".
I've clarified this point multiple times. Do you need another clarification? Natural things tend to be good and wondrous and beautiful UNTIL at such point some human uses natural things to inflict harm on innocents.
Do you disagree? Based upon what?
So when animals cause harm, it's natural. When humans cause harm (unless it's harm that Dan finds acceptable) then it's automatically bad.
Yes. Do you disagree? Do you think animals are sinning when they cause harm to a person or another animal? Or are they just eating/fighting/defending territory as animals are wont to do?
Do you think that when humans cause harm to innocent bystanders in an unjust manner that it's NOT bad?
Be clear, boy. Take a stand for morality somewhere.
Despite the fact that experts in Evolution have determined that rape is a positive thing from an evolutionary standpoint.
"Evolutionists" have not determined that humans raping humans is a moral positive. This would be an example of a false claim that contributes to harm. Or, in other words, a wrong. A Sin, if you like.
I'm trying to find out what "natural" behaviors are "not bad" (too cowardly to actually call them good), and should be incorporated by humans.
Whatsoever things are true,
are pure,
are loving,
are wholesome and
helpful, are
healing and just...
Whatsoever things that promote good and decency and wellness...
think on these things.
This is what is self-evidently good and moral, because of course it is.
Do you disagree?
"It demonstrably is."
In a minuscule number of species, and as a way to assert dominance.
"It demonstrably is."
something that occurs in (some subset) .00006% of all species is "normal", that's quite a claim. How abut if you demonstrate that claim?
"Just ask me. I can tell you. Again."
then please do.
"I note that it's natural because people like you (and me, once upon a time) have demonized homosexuality as "unnatural" and "abnormal," trying to indicate that it was evil and immoral."
I note that you making assumptions about me is not you "telling me again", it's you projecting.
"Am I incorrect that you call it "unnatural" or "not normal" because you believe it to be immoral?"
No. Still not "telling me again".
"And I'm NOT saying homosexuality is good because it's natural. I'm noting that it's simply a natural sexual orientation, an orientation common to humanity throughout history, demonstrably. Just like heterosexuality is natural and common to humanity."
Interesting, yet you've previously claimed that it is "good" and "blessed" by god. But it's not either of those things because it's natural.
"With me so far?"
No, because you haven't actually told me anything.
"NOW, from that, someone can choose to engage in harmful/hateful or beautiful/loving behavior with their natural orientation. A straight guy could choose to rape a woman and that would NOT be moral or good or normal to humanity or advisable for humans. On the other hand, a straight or gay guy (or woman) could choose to love and respect and commit to a loved one in a committed relationship. In the context of that committed, loving relationship, they could choose to have children, to be good neighbors, to love one another (emotionally and physically) and otherwise be good people and benefit from that committed partner relationship and we have NO reason to think that this is anything other than the moral and rational Good that it appears to be on the face of it."
So, even though homosexuality in nature is "natural" even when it's out of the context of a "loving relationship", and used to assert dominance over others, it's somehow magically good when it's humans in a "loving relationship". So, homosexuality is only "good" in that one specific human context, correct?
"Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?"
I can't answer this question with the minimal amount of information you've provided.
"Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people?"
No.
"What if they dare to disagree with you, are you the determining factor in morality?"
No.
"Reason, the bible and common sense would refute that."
That's great. I've never claimed that I am the "determining factor in morality", I've never come close to even hinting at that.
Dan:
"I note that it's natural because people like you (and me, once upon a time) have demonized homosexuality as "unnatural" and "abnormal," trying to indicate that it was evil and immoral."
I note that you making assumptions about me is not you "telling me again", it's you projecting.
So, you DON'T think homosexuality is unnatural, abnormal and immoral? Then say so. For once in your life, be clear!
DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITYIS ABNORMAL?
DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITYIS IMMORAL?
I'd love to hear you've joined the right side of morality and decency. Welcome to the fight for justice!
You might begin by being more clear about what you believe, because it SURE sounds like you're attacking me for calling homosexuality normal and good.
I'll wait for you to clarify your train wreck of reasoning.
Dan
Help me out here, Marshal and Glenn... given all that Craig has said over the years and in this very conversation, is it also your opinion that Craig views homosexuality as abnormal and immoral? Because I think he's been quite clear and I think you all consider him an ally on that topic.
Dan
I can't answer this question with the minimal amount of information you've provided.
The information I provided:
I can point you to two loving grandmotherly lesbians, living and loving together, teaching Sunday School, volunteering in their retirement years to help the homeless, the mentally ill, the poor and being nurtured and supported in doing this beautiful, Christ-like work by virtue of their committed, loving partner, just as many of us straight couples enjoy and are healthier and happier for.
Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?
Now, I think your answer is an instructive object lesson in the difference between what is referred to in the Bible as deadly legalism vs life-affirming Grace.
I GAVE you information about these two sweet grandmothers. Lesbians, living together, volunteering to help others, pouring out their lives in service to the least of these. For YOU, you think, "Well, that's not enough information..." But WHY is that your drop back position? Is it because you consider humanity to be depraved and evil at our roots and even in the face of reports of two wonderfully loving, giving women, YOU think, "BUT, maybe! Maybe they're secretly eating children at night, baking them into pies! Or maybe, their only SAYING that they're working on behalf of the poor because they believe in helping/allying with the poor, but it's all about their egos..."
IS that why you think you don't have enough information? Because secretly you're thinking there may be some secret evil in their lives?
While folks like me who believe in grace can see lovely women pouring out their lives in love to the least of these and thank God for it, because I have NO reason to think there's some secret evil in their lives.
What more information do you need to say, "Yes, these are lovely, Christ-like women..."?
"The brain in transgender women is naturally female, according to the research I've already provided to you. They're making use of medical knowledge to accommodate their natural gender. That you don't understand or agree with the science behind this does not make your opinion more worthwhile."
That is a fascinating claim, if wholly unsupported. The physical brain in some men is "naturally female", what in interesting concept.
"How many more times do I need to answer before you understand that I have answered directly and clearly? No problems, just trying to get a ballpark idea of how many more times I'll need to answer so I can manage my schedule."
I guess that depends on how well you provide clear, unambiguous, direct, specific, unequivocal answers.
"Right now, for instance, do you STILL not know my answer? I believe in you and that you can answer this yourself, but you tell me."
If there is an answer already, I don't recall seeing it. At least I'm asking you for clarification and not just making shit up and pretending you said it.
"PS, it has nothing to do with cowardice, just precision of words, given your tendency to not understand."
It must be nice to see oneself is capable of infallibly answering questions and stating one's positions when it's always the reader's fault. That's what I appreciate about you, your humility and grace.
"Is it in any serious dispute, anywhere?"
Given that the single most expert proponent of evolution, the man who literally wrote the book on evolutionary theory that been used in classrooms around the world for decades, would dispute you, I'd have to say yes.
"Do you disagree with the notion?"
As a general rule, I will most likely disagree with your hunches about most things because I have zero trust in you. So, yes, I disagree with your unproven hunch.
"But some things are so self-evident as to be nearly universally accepted. Do you have any reason to think this viewpoint is not widely shared?"
You keep saying this as if you deciding that something is "self evident" means that you don't have to prove your claims. "Because I say so." is not proof.
"The problem is that I am not trying to use the fact that something is "natural" as a way to make that things seem "normal" or "moral" or "good" simply by virtue of that thing being "natural"."
Then what's your point? If "natural" doesn't mean "good", "moral", or the like, why is being "natural" notable in this context? I've pointed out all sorts of things that are "natural" that you claim are evil. Why would we as sentient humans be looking to beasts for our cues as to what is "natural"?
"I've clarified this point multiple times. Do you need another clarification? Natural things tend to be good and wondrous and beautiful UNTIL at such point some human uses natural things to inflict harm on innocents."
And yet I've pointed out multiple "natural" things that are not "human", are you really suggesting that eating one's young is "good and wondrous and beautiful"?
"Do you disagree? Based upon what?"
Yes, based on my lack of trust in you and your hunches as being applicable to anyone except you.
"Yes. Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"Do you think animals are sinning when they cause harm to a person or another animal?"
No, although the standard YOU keep insisting on is "harm", are you really suggesting that one animal killing and eating another isn't causing "harm"?
"Or are they just eating/fighting/defending territory as animals are wont to do?"
See above. If "harm" is the standard, then how is that not "harm"? If we are supposed to take cues for our behavior from the animal kingdom is the case of same sex sexual activity, why should we not take cues in other areas as well? Experts in evolutionary biology argue that we are just one more animal, and that all animals are equal on some level, do you disagree with these experts on Science?
"Do you think that when humans cause harm to innocent bystanders in an unjust manner that it's NOT bad?"
I think it probably depends on the circumstances and the level of harm,
"Be clear, boy. Take a stand for morality somewhere."
You won't take a stand for a universal, objective, consistent, moral code that applies throughout all cultures, in all times, why should I do what you won't?
""Evolutionists" have not determined that humans raping humans is a moral positive. This would be an example of a false claim that contributes to harm. Or, in other words, a wrong. A Sin, if you like."
No, this is an example of you moving the goal posts. I said that experts in evolution have been clear that rape is beneficial to the evolutionary development of the species. Evolution as a worldview has no basis to draw conclusions about the morality of actions, only about the utility of the actions. You are the one arguing for a subjective morality that applies in an objective manner.
"This is what is self-evidently good and moral, because of course it is."
"Because I say so." isn't proof. Simply announcing that something is "self evident", doesn't make that claim True.
BUT.... This is interesting, because if there are things that YHWH has said are all of the list you just mentioned, then wouldn't the value on those things have some connection with YHWH identifying them? This also raises a problem. If we are supposed to look to what's "natural" in the case of same sex sexual activity, then which one of those things applies to homosexual sexual activity?
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
Before I answer these questions again, I'll note that my opinions on these questions are not particularly meaningful. I would never suggest that what I think about something should be the standard for anyone except me.
"DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITYIS ABNORMAL?"
From a biological standpoint, as well as from an evolutionary standpoint yes. From a statistical standpoint, I'd also suggest that anything that only occurs in 3% of humans and .0006% of animal species could reasonably be considered abnormal. So, based on statistics and biology, I would say that I consider it abnormal. However, abnormal does not IMO automatically equate to negative.
"DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITYIS IMMORAL?"
I guess it depends on how you define homosexuality. If you define homosexuality is a physical/emotional attraction to people of the same sex, then not necessarily. If you define homosexuality as sexual activity exclusively with people of the same sex, then in my opinion, the answer would be yes.
"I'd love to hear you've joined the right side of morality and decency. Welcome to the fight for justice!"
Since you can't provide me with an objective, universal, definition of any of those terms, I think I'll pass on joining your team.
"You might begin by being more clear about what you believe, because it SURE sounds like you're attacking me for calling homosexuality normal and good."
Well played Glenn. The notion that disagreeing with is "attacking" you is quite the attempt to play the victim. The problem is, I'm trying to determine why homosexuality being "natural" automatically means that it is a behavior that is "moral and good". Alas, I fear that I'll never get an answer to that one.
"I'll wait for you to clarify your train wreck of reasoning."
Ok, as soon as you clarify and prove that your Reason is correct, I'll do the same.
I haven't read any comments above just yet. I simply wish to point out two things:
1. You know what else is "natural"?? Cancerous tumors, viruses and bacterial infections, birth defects, aggressive behavior, gluttony...I could go on. The "natural" argument is as weak and non-compelling as any offered by the LGBT activists and their enablers.
2. In animals, where imposing dominance is not likely (assuming it's even a thing), same-sex behavior in animals is clearly a dysfunction...a malfunction...of the procreative instinct. That is, do the animals even realize the other animal is of the same sex?
This malfunction is natural, too, if by natural we're to accept no immoral response because it happens in nature. That's absurd. As suggested, what animals do is in no way a basis for accepting unnatural attractions and the manifest immoral behaviors provoked by it in people. It's about as cheap a rationalization as one could invent...and given how cheap rationalizations are essential for most leftist positions, that's saying something.
"You almost certainly don't believe this. You almost certainly support chemical and surgical interventions to stop a natural cancer or heart attack, am I right?"
Wow. Craig's talking about mutilating/modifying/chemically altering healthy bodies and Dan responds with cancers and heart attacks. Yeah. That's what passes in Dan's world as "adult conversation", "arguing in good faith", "using one's God-given reasoning".
"As I have made clear: If it's natural and causing no harm, then there's no problem."
As you've made clear, you're more than willing to corrupt the word "natural" to mean "normal", which same-sex attraction/behavior is not. It's without question abnormal and morally abominable.
As you've made clear, you're more than willing to ignore the documented harms caused by engaging in homosexual sexual behavior. Given the perverse abuse of the human body to placate the abnormal desires of homosexuals, harm comes with the territory and cannot be eliminated, even if mitigated.
So it would be good for those like Dan to stop lying about what is so obvious, thereby avoiding the harm such enabling and promoting cannot help but cause.
"We have a great and wondrous creation and it's all beautiful until some human causes harm."
Like LGBT people and their enablers, like Dan.
"Maybe you disagree, but I think we humans, created in the image of God, just a little lower than God, created to do good works, created with God-given reasoning and moral reasoning... that we are obliged to act on moral values and that begins with doing no harm."
"...just a little lower than God..."
Even if the verse from which this comes is a reference to God and not angels, as some suggest, it is not an accurate reflection of reality, as God Himself describes in the Book of Job. And certainly, Dan is vastly lower than God, being vastly lower than moral people.
"...created with God-given reasoning and moral reasoning..."
...which Dan routinely perverts to consciously and willfully promote, defend, celebrate and support many immoral behaviors.
"... that we are obliged to act on moral values and that begins with doing no harm."
...unless one is still in the womb...then all bets are off and the Dans of the world will harm with extreme prejudice.
The truth is that acting on moral values begins with following the clearly revealed Will of God. Often times this means people will be harmed, people will perceive they've been harmed and those of Dan's ilk will insist they've been harmed when they haven't been...except by their own choices and actions.
"I note that it's natural because people like you (and me, once upon a time) have demonized homosexuality as "unnatural" and "abnormal," trying to indicate that it was evil and immoral."
What an incredibly stupid statement. "It's natural because you say it's unnatural." OHHHH!! So it's that easy, is it? How's this: Dan's an God-hating fake Christian because he says he's a Christian who follows the Way of Christ. Wow. And all this time I was listing the many evidences of Dan's heresy and blasphemy!!! I could have saved so much time!!!
"Am I incorrect that you call it "unnatural" or "not normal" because you believe it to be immoral?"
It's not mere "belief". It's a conscious acknowledgement of Truth/truth. It's immoral because God has said so clearly and without any hint of any context or scenario in which it might take place where it isn't an abomination worthy of death. Dan's never been able to prove otherwise. He rejects God's Will where it is inconvenient or difficult for him to comprehend.
I'm seeing that I've been covering what Craig's already covered, so I'll leave it there.
Sorry...can't help myself.
"Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people..."
Yeah. They're lesbians. Other good works do nothing to mitigate this fact, nor will it result in their salvation when homosexual practice is spoken of in Scripture as one of many practices which will leave one outside looking in. But hey...you keep applauding them as good little grandmotherly lesbians, because you support lesbianism more than you do the Will of God. You're such a friend.
"Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people? What if they dare to disagree with you, are you the determining factor in morality?"
No. They must abide the Will of God. Our obedience to and promotion of God's Will is not "bigotry" in any way. Your saying so is more immoral corruption. If they are living an immoral life together...and they clearly are by your own admission...they are not moral people, regardless of whatever "good works" they also perform. Indeed, if they are hiding behind those good works to promote themselves as moral, then they are worse than merely being practicing lesbians makes them.
They can disagree with me all they like, but if my position is no more or less reciting what Scripture clearly teaches is God's Will on the subject, then they are indeed disagreeing and rejecting God. That is to say, liars like you can't say what I say is what matters as if it's not an accurate reflection of God's Will, but only my own uninformed opinion.
Reason, the bible and common sense are completely and beyond honest arguing reflected in my position. Reason, the bible and common sense absolutely and without question refutes you and your desperate attempts to pervert it.
"Well, you're the one making the argument about homosexuality being "natural" as a way to backdoor it into being "good", "moral", and "blessed" by God."
"Backdoor it". That's funny.
"Since no one - including you - can prove our moral claims, that's an irrelevant point."
I've proven every moral claim I've made where Scripture identifies a behavior as moral or immoral. Given I don't just say I believe in God and Jesus, this stands as absolute proof for a Christian. Not being a Christian yourself, but only someone who exploits the word to posture as a "good person", you reject the evidence of Scripture, pretending it's not clear.
"Natural things tend to be good and wondrous and beautiful UNTIL at such point some human uses natural things to inflict harm on innocents.
Do you disagree? Based upon what?"
There is no moral aspect of the natural. That which is a part of nature is simply a part of nature. It's natural for some animals to eat their young, and to attack other animals. I'd wager most find this to be a horror even if they acknowledge it's how the natural world works. But only a leftist would argue how the harm caused by animals is wondrous and beautiful, when in fact it's savage and a cause of great suffering.
As to basis, on what basis do you regard natural things "good"? That to you it is "self-evident"? "Self-evident" is not a claim of fact, but a subjective opinion that something is a fact.
"Do you think animals are sinning when they cause harm to a person or another animal?"
Another typical bullshit attempt to argue a point by Dan, given Craig hasn't so much as hinted that animals sin. Instead, Craig's trying to get your sorry ass to justify using what animals do as justification for accepting the same behavior in humans who supposedly are equipped with reason and self-control. There's not one behavior man might practice which doesn't have a parallel among animals. Honorable people don't pretend those practices are acceptable because animals do it, too. They base their behavioral choices on moral law...which does not allow for sex outside of a marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
"Be clear, boy. Take a stand for morality somewhere."
Says one of the most immoral people I've ever come across. Shameful as always, aren't you Dan?
""Evolutionists" have not determined that humans raping humans is a moral positive. This would be an example of a false claim that contributes to harm."
But that wasn't Craig's argument, now, was it? No. Clearly not. You even quoted his words and yet you chose to pretend he was implying morality. But if you want to draw from the animal kingdom reasons to promote sexual perversions, as you're clearly doing here, then what Craig relates evolutionists saying is relevant and equally valid as a behavior which cannot be rejected as immoral. And keep in mind, harm doesn't equate to immoral if the result of the harm is something positive or beneficial. From the standpoint of the evolutionists Craig references, that would be a parallel argument with actual benefits for the species. One sees no such benefits from same-sex pairings.
"Whatsoever things are true,
are pure,
are loving,
are wholesome and
helpful, are
healing and just...
Whatsoever things that promote good and decency and wellness...
think on these things.
This is what is self-evidently good and moral, because of course it is.
Do you disagree?"
This is among the most vile corruptions of Scripture we see Dan routinely use to promote his perversions. Indeed, it requires regarding those perversions as "true, pure, loving, etc." But on what basis can a perv like Dan insist this is in any way what is intended by the passage? In other words, if one does regard, say, rape as true, pure loving, etc., and regards it as a promotion of good, decency and wellness, how is that different than promoting what God calls an abomination in the same way as you are here? Honorable people would immediately read this passage and assume it means "true, pure, loving, etc." according what the author believes are those things. Not what Dan wants us to believe about abominable behaviors he favors.
Ah...finally...dinner is ready!!! Later!!
Marshal vulgarly and diabolically attacks LGBTQ people and their allies by saying...
Indeed, it requires regarding those perversions as "true, pure, loving, etc." But on what basis can a perv like Dan insist this is in any way what is intended by the passage? In other words, if one does regard, say, rape as true, pure loving, etc., and regards it as a promotion of good, decency and wellness, how is that different than promoting what God calls an abomination in the same way as you are here?
We can SEE that a gay couple, lovingly living together, taking care of one another, strengthening one another to reach out to do sincere kindnesses to people in their community, doing justice for poor and oppressed people, etc and we can SEE that their lives are pure and loving. It would take a vile and bigoted bastard committed to perversion and saying "good is bad" to say that their lives are NOT pure and loving, respectful and kind, decent and just. Their lives are NOTHING like anything as vile as rape and it is, indeed, a perversion to make the suggestion. It is a pathetic, impotent rape-attempt by an actual deviant who would make that sort of claim.
You see, we can SEE that couples (gay or lesbian or straight or otherwise) who pour out their lives in love to the oppressed or poor or sick or disabled or otherwise marginalized ARE living lives of purity and love. We can SEE that Marshal and his allies are devoted to actual perversion by attacking that which he is ignorant of.
Marshal...
But only a leftist would argue how the harm caused by animals is wondrous and beautiful, when in fact it's savage and a cause of great suffering.
What an unhealthy and sick view of God's good creation you have.
Speaking of sick and perverted, Marshal...
Yeah. They're lesbians.
Do you not understand, Craig? When people like you and Marshal and Glenn, etc, etc, etc, make these sort of diabolical, deviant and perverted accusations about people because of their natural, God-given orientation, you cause harm. You cut, you rip, you tear, you tear down, you destroy, you oppress, you join the demons in demonizing. You are being a tool of the Enemy, a child of the Pharisees. You are engaging in evil legalism, that which is deadly, according to the Bible.
Take a stand for decency and justice and morality, Craig. Call Marshal out. CONDEMN his vile and perverted attack, his oppression and hate for what it is.
Or remain silent and show which side you're on.
"DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITYIS ABNORMAL?"
No.
"DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITYIS IMMORAL?"
No.
"I'd love to hear you've joined the right side of morality and decency. Welcome to the fight for justice!"
News Flash!!! I've always been on the right (as in "proper") side of morality and decency...at least insofar as I don't bullshit about what it looks like, even if I can't claim to have been a perfect practitioner in my own life.
The "fight for justice" does not include appeasing personal desires and demanding everyone else respect those desires as moral, normal and beneficial to anyone...including those you defend in your false fight for justice. My how you lefties pervert words and terms!!
"You might begin by being more clear about what you believe, because it SURE sounds like you're attacking me for calling homosexuality normal and good."
In the event there's any confusion about MY position, I'm absolutely attacking you for calling homosexuality normal and good. It is neither. That's a fact. You ignore facts to appease the immoral among your community and the result is their salvation (and health) is greatly compromised, if still possible at all. (It IS possible, just not likely given their rejection of God's Will)
"I'll wait for you to clarify your train wreck of reasoning."
That's funny... Dan questioning Craig's reasoning!! 🤣
"Help me out here, Marshal and Glenn... given all that Craig has said over the years and in this very conversation, is it also your opinion that Craig views homosexuality as abnormal and immoral? Because I think he's been quite clear and I think you all consider him an ally on that topic."
He HAS been quite clear! Why do you continue to insist he hasn't been?
Craig...
That is a fascinating claim, if wholly unsupported.
I cited multiple articles citing multiple studies from multiple experts. YOUR claim that the claim is unsupported, on the other hand, IS wholly unsupported. That you can't understand the science or just ignore it doesn't mean it's unsupported.
And again:
"I note that it's natural because people like you (and me, once upon a time) have demonized homosexuality as "unnatural" and "abnormal," trying to indicate that it was evil and immoral."
And you responded:
I note that you making assumptions about me is not you "telling me again", it's you projecting.
And yet, I was NOT wrong. You DO consider homosexuality abnormal and immoral. Why do you do this vague dodging when I was actually correct? Why not just affirm, "Yes, you're correct that I don't consider homosexuality normal, natural or moral..."? ...instead of attacking me with the suggestion that I'm making an assumption.
My assumption was CORRECT.
Can you admit that and apologize for the stupidly false claim that I was making an assumption?
This is just childish, boys, beneath even modern conservatives. It would be laughable if your attacks were not so deadly and oppressive.
Do you know that LGBTQ people are reporting that because of new conservative attacks against them that they're living their lives in fear? Because of YOU? If you don't know that, then now you know.
Why be an oppressor? Why embrace your immoral ignorance?
Craig...
You won't take a stand for a universal, objective, consistent, moral code that applies throughout all cultures, in all times, why should I do what you won't?
YOU DO NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE CONSISTENT MORAL CODE.
YOU don't have one.
No one does. As I've made clear 10,000 times by now and as YOU have made clear by your silence, even while pretending like you vaguely think you secretly maybe do, perhaps, but you won't admit it or when you do, you do so vaguely, as if you don't really believe it.
But the fact is, NO ONE has an objectively provable moral code. NO ONE. Especially not you.
DO YOU AGREE?
In case you don't understand - after all this time - WHY this is important: Just because we don't have an objectively moral source doesn't mean we shouldn't take moral stands.
Do you agree? Or are you secretly nurturing this delusion that, YOU, CRAIG, have a secret objective moral code that no one knows about because you won't demonstrate it BECAUSE you don't have one?
Marshal, do YOU think you have an objectively provable moral code? Do you think that Craig thinks he does?
Somewhere in this or another recent post, Dan dared suggest there's science to prove the brain of a dude who thinks he's a chick is a female brain, or like one in some way. This is not scientifically proven. He's referring to a joke of a study done by an LGBT apologist who asserts his findings back the premise, when they don't.
But here's an easy way to figure it, and it's the same thing we've put forth already in a similar context:
Three recently deceased people have donated their bodies for research. One is a lesbian, the next is a homosexual and the third a dude who had surgeries to match his self-perception of being a woman. Three students are allowed to snip some tissue from the brains of each of the deceased, all from different areas of the brain. They document for themselves which sample comes from which person and then label them with numbers 1, 2 and 3 and submit the samples to an non-affiliated lab to determine the sex of the people from whom the samples were taken. What are the chances the lab would return anything other than all samples from the homosexual man came back as having come from a male, all from the lesbian as having come from a female and all from the "transgendered" coming back as having come from a male? There's no way the results would not come back as described. None. That's because there's no such thing as a "female" brain being in a male, regardless of how the male identifies gender-wise. It's absurd, and nothing more than LGBT bullshit people are expected to accept without any honest consideration because "EXPERTS"!!!!!
"And yet, I was NOT wrong. You DO consider homosexuality abnormal and immoral. Why do you do this vague dodging when I was actually correct? Why not just affirm, "Yes, you're correct that I don't consider homosexuality normal, natural or moral..."? ...instead of attacking me with the suggestion that I'm making an assumption."
As they say, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once and a while.". The problem is that while you might have been right about that one aspect, your hunches about my motives were wrong.
"My assumption was CORRECT."
Not entirely. But congratulations, you were partially right with one assumption.
"Can you admit that and apologize for the stupidly false claim that I was making an assumption?"
1. You just admitted that you were making an assumption, so no.
2. Your assumption was only partially correct, so no.
"This is just childish, boys, beneath even modern conservatives. It would be laughable if your attacks were not so deadly and oppressive."
Except, I haven't made a single attack, killed, or oppressed anyone. But you feel free to wildly exaggerate.
"Do you know that LGBTQ people are reporting that because of new conservative attacks against them that they're living their lives in fear? Because of YOU?"
I'm sure there are a few that do, that doesn't make their fear rational. Which specific people are living in fear because of me?
"Why be an oppressor? Why embrace your immoral ignorance?"
I'm not.
"YOU DO NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE CONSISTENT MORAL CODE. YOU don't have one."
Then it's fortunate for me that I'm not the one who keeps referring to other people as "immoral".
"No one does. As I've made clear 10,000 times by now and as YOU have made clear by your silence, even while pretending like you vaguely think you secretly maybe do, perhaps, but you won't admit it or when you do, you do so vaguely, as if you don't really believe it."
"Because I say so.", still isn't proof.
"But the fact is, NO ONE has an objectively provable moral code. NO ONE. Especially not you."
"Because I say so." still isn't proof.
'DO YOU AGREE?"
I agree that you act as if your moral code is universal, despite you insisting that you don't have a universal moral code. I agree that your continuing to do so, makes you look foolish. I do not agree that you making a pronouncement about something renders that pronouncement to be True.
"In case you don't understand - after all this time - WHY this is important: Just because we don't have an objectively moral source doesn't mean we shouldn't take moral stands."
I do understand. I have no problem with you taking a moral stand based on your personal, individual, subjective moral code. The problem is when you try to project your personal, subjective, individual, moral code onto others who hold to a different moral code.
"Do you agree?"
No, I do not agree with your hunches.
" Or are you secretly nurturing this delusion that, YOU, CRAIG, have a secret objective moral code that no one knows about because you won't demonstrate it BECAUSE you don't have one?"
No.
"WHAT bias?"
If this is to suggest that you have no bias, then I see no reason to waste any more time with your idiocy. The reality is that you specifically chose these two women as your idealized "
"WHERE is the bias?"
See above.
"Prove it you lying son of a bitch or admit you're making up a stupidly false attack claim because of YOUR bigotry and bias, which has nothing to do with me."
Prove what? That you've painted an incomplete, idealized, portrait of these two women in an attempt to extrapolate some point about every gay couple in the world from this one couple. That there is no possible way that you have painted a 100% accurate picture of these women is 2-3 sentences. The fact that you have to concoct this false "attack/bigotry" bullshit tells me all I need to know.
"Prove it, you lying son of a bitch. WHERE is the evidence for your damned stupid lie that I am biased on this front or that it's idealized? It's a stupidly false claim that is evident for anyone."
1. Since when do you demand proof for opinions.
2. If you weren't biased towards these people, you wouldn't have used them as an example.
3. Your bias leads you to conclude that "God blesses gay marriage".
4. This exaggerated outrage is pretty damn hilarious.
"Can you just admit that you have not one single shred of real world data to support your damned attack lie?"
1. No "attack lie" from me.
2. I guess calling me a lying sons of a bitch could never be considered an "attack lie"?
3. Please prove the Truth of your vile attack on my deceased mother.
4. You are correct that you have provided not one shred of real world evidence in your idealized unproven claims.
5. "Becasue I say so." isn't proof.
"But WHY? THIS is that deadly, vile legalism that I'm telling you about. That Saint Paul and Jesus Christ our LORD told you about. YOUR graceless, hateful, damned diabolical distrust and bigotry exposes your pharisaism as the hateful anti-Christ, anti-Grace reality that it is.
Again with the "attack lie"s. Do you really not understand why I would want something other than "Because I say so."? The fact that absolutely nothing in your preceding rant is true, should make you ashamed. I suspect you'll just double down on your false, bullshit, hate filled, "attack lie"s.
"I'm speaking beyond just my own experience, boy. MANY people can testify about their two beloved lesbian aunts who pour out their lives in grace and love. MANY people can and do testify about their wonderful Godly gay uncles who adopted children and saved lives and volunteered to help the homeless, the mentally ill, the children in need of support."
Anecdotes based on "Because I say so." aren't proof of anything.
"Do you REALLY have such limited exposure to reality that you aren't aware of the countless number of good, loving, decent LGBTQ people out there pouring out their lives in love to the least of these?"
My experience, is irrelevant. I'm not the one trying to offer an unsupported anecdote based on "Because I say so." as a way to try to prove some bullshit claim about all homosexuals.
"IF that's the case, then maybe you should be asking why your graceless, pharisaical life is so empty and hateful and devoid of decency and grace."
It's not. This is just some bullshit you made up.
"Good Lord, have mercy on your soul."
As someone who frequently acknowledges my many sins, and would never make claims about how good I am, I absolutely rely on YHWH and His limitless grace.
"Admit your bigotry and bias and lies and apologize or be exposed as the true bigot acting out of actual partisan hate and ignorance."
Beyond the reality that everyone on earth is bigoted to some degree, why would I "admit" to a bunch of bullshit "attack lie"s, that you made up?
You see, the difference between us is that you offered a tentative "What of the rich man who gave money to the poor and went into the ministry..." and I said, "Okay," and took you at your word. WHY would I think you're making such a story up.
YOU and Marshal, on the other hand, don't accept as likely or reliable my illustration of the two lesbian grandmothers. Marshal went on and denounced them as evil and you suggested as much.
That is the difference between the Good News of Grace and the death-dealing news of legalism. You all can't even allow that possibility without questioning or rejecting it out of hand.
But fine, you don't want to trust me and my examples, because your bigotry precludes that sort of grace. Then look at any two lesbian grandmothers you know pouring out their lives in service to others. Then return to my questions:
Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario? Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people? What if they dare to disagree with you, are you the determining factor in morality?
Now, are you going to drop back to something like, "I know of no such scenario... I don't know of any such lesbian grandmothers living lovely graceful lives..." Is that what you'll say?
IF so, why is that? They exist, of course, I could no doubt point to many I know personal or dozens in my extended circles and no doubt thousands with some research. Are you saying that you're doubtful that two such sweet loving lesbians exist?
If so, why is that? Because you personally don't know of them? (And again, WHY is that?)
And just as a control group: Do you know of any sweet loving grandmothers who are NOT lesbians who pour out their lives in service to others?
Or are you suspicious of all humans? If so, why is that?
My experience, is irrelevant.
IF you know of no loving, giving, devoted lesbian grandmothers or gay uncles or other LGBTQ people of good will and intent, then INDEED, your experience is irrelevant. You, yourself, are irrelevant as regarding giving ANY opinions about LGBTQ people.
BUT,
IF you are going to criticize people like me talking about the reality of loving, giving LGBTQ people,
IF you are going to say that homosexuality is a sin (ie, it's a sin for two people in love to have a life together which might include sexuality)
IF you're going to give a platform to people like Marshal and Glenn who abuse and molest and attack directly our dear LGBTQ siblings...
THEN you have already chosen a side and it's time to take a dump or get off the pot.
YOU have no objectively proven reason to consider LGBTQ immoral, is that fair?
IF you don't have ANY proven reason to consider them sinful (and you don't, as a point of fact), and
IF the continued oppression of an historically oppressed group like LGBTQ people is still continuing,
THEN it's time for you at the very least to step aside and do nothing (like Germans living in Nazi Germany when Hitler was in power)
But as a better option, you should call out the Glenns and Marshals for their perverse attacks against good, innocent people. It's causing harm and you're on the wrong side of morality and history.
The harm is demonstrable. The assault on human rights is provable.
Your religious bigotry that can't even allow the POSSIBILITY of two wonderful loving lesbian grandmothers is just that, religious bigotry leading to oppression and harm based NOT on data, but just personal unproven religious biases and bigotry.
Be a better human than this Craig.
I'm not the one trying to offer an unsupported anecdote based on "Because I say so." as a way to try to prove some bullshit claim about all homosexuals.
Of course, in the real world, I made NO claims about "all homosexuals." That is a lie or at the very least, a stupidly obtuse misunderstanding of what I did and didn't say.
I offered a VERY SPECIFIC scenario about TWO very specific people (to be fair, I'm doing an amalgamation of many LGBTQ folks I know who generally fit this description - in some cases, it may be that they adopted and raised two (or four) lovely children, in other cases, they were social workers and other cases they were teachers or nurses or mental health workers... but ALL of them generally fit this general description: Lovely, loving, pouring out their lives in service to others). The point was NOT to make a general point about all LGBTQ people, but to just start with two very real examples of two very real people in the real world. I'm just wondering if you can acknowledge the reality of two such loving, giving people who happen to be lesbians (or gay or trans...).
You balk at dealing with the scenario because, you say (I think), you don't trust me. But it's not about me at all. Unless you're depraved enough to suggest there are NO such loving, giving couples in the world who happen to be LGBTQ, it's about the specifics of some of those many loving, giving people. Hopefully, you can acknowledge you know such people yourself. You tell me. But given the reality of such people (and again, NOTHING to do with me at all):
Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?
Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people?
1. Since when do you demand proof for opinions.
ANY time you make stupidly false claims about real people, then I WILL push people like you to support it. The reason this is vital is that stupidly false claims of this sort are a deadly cancer. They are wrong, abusive, harmful. And when they're done to attack LGBTQ folks, they're also oppressive.
2. If you weren't biased towards these people, you wouldn't have used them as an example.
Bullshit. That's a dumbass claim that you can't support. I could point to my very conservative parents or other conservative family members and just as easily said, "What of these people who are pouring out their lives in service to others..." It has nothing to do with bias but the reality of good people pouring out their lives in love and service, which happens across the political spectrum and whether gay or straight.
Do you disagree?
3. Your bias leads you to conclude that "God blesses gay marriage".
No, reason leads me to conclude that a good and loving God would bless ANY activity that is good and loving, which would include healthy marriages of gay or straight people. You have no data to suggest otherwise and once again, it has nothing to do with bias.
Or are you saying that ANY opinion we have about marriage is a product of bias? And then, YOUR opposition to gay folk marrying is a result of YOUR bias? Well, it may be true of you, but it has nothing to do with me. As I've pointed out: When I DID have a bias, it was AGAINST gay folks marrying. It was the removal of the bias and bigotry that opened up the world to grace and love for me, and turned me away from deadly legalism.
4. This exaggerated outrage is pretty damn hilarious.
What's exaggerated? Your continued vague non-answers and dodging of questions and false claims and attacks ARE outrageous and tiresome. There is a time for everything. A time to make reasoned points and a time to call the other guy on bullshit and corruption and perversion.
God has stated that homosexual behavior is an abomination, which means it has to be immoral. It goes against biology so it is totally abnormal.
Those are facts, and for Trabue to continue to argue FOR this deviant and perverted behavior only proves he hates God.
"Do you know that LGBTQ people are reporting that because of new conservative attacks against them that they're living their lives in fear? Because of YOU?"
Meh...what's one more lie from that community so reliant on lies as they are?
"YOU DO NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE CONSISTENT MORAL CODE. YOU don't have one."
I do. It's the same one God has.
"But the fact is, NO ONE has an objectively provable moral code. NO ONE. Especially not you."
I do. It's the same one God has. So clearly it's not a fact.
" Or are you secretly nurturing this delusion that, YOU, CRAIG, have a secret objective moral code that no one knows about because you won't demonstrate it BECAUSE you don't have one?"
I'm betting Craig has the same one I do...which is the same one God has.
"Prove it you lying son of a bitch or admit you're making up a stupidly false attack claim because of YOUR bigotry and bias, which has nothing to do with me."
This direct personal attack would easily get both Craig and me deleted were it by us directed at the real lying son of a bitch among us...Dan Trabue.
"THIS is that deadly, vile legalism that I'm telling you about."
Which exists only in your head, Dan, and not here among those of us you so impotently oppose.
"YOUR graceless, hateful, damned diabolical distrust and bigotry exposes your pharisaism as the hateful anti-Christ, anti-Grace reality that it is."
Only in your empty, pointy head. Expressing truths, facts and evidence from both science and Scripture doesn't indicate any of that crap you project upon us because you find truths, facts and evidence from both science and Scripture to be so inconvenient to your support, celebration, enabling and defense of sinful perversions.
"MANY people can testify about their two beloved lesbian aunts who pour out their lives in grace and love. MANY people can and do testify about their wonderful Godly gay uncles who adopted children and saved lives and volunteered to help the homeless, the mentally ill, the children in need of support."
But none of those people can make an argument which suggests that doing good works legitimizes living an otherwise clearly and unequivocally sinful life. Indeed, if you want us to judge these people at all, it's clear you wish to pretend the most heinous aspect of their lives must be regarded as not being sinful, and abomination and strictly prohibited by God as that which will deny them salvation. You're such a good friend to these people.
More later...
"Do you REALLY have such limited exposure to reality that you aren't aware of the countless number of good, loving, decent LGBTQ people out there pouring out their lives in love to the least of these?"
Once again, Danny girl...no amount of good works erases the ongoing willful indulgence in sinful behaviors. Trump's done a great deal for "the least of these" and you continue to smear him as some kind of pervert for doing what is not only common among men in general (too common for actual Christians like me), but is wholly normal and natural given nature's design. In the meantime, your LGBT people are neither good nor decent while willfully engaging in perversions, which is their indulging in sexual behaviors with those of the same sex...TOTALLY against their nature and TOTALLY abnormal and unnatural. No amount of wood works erases that.
"Good Lord, have mercy on your soul."
I don't think God hears the prayers of non-believers like you. If He does, He likely ignores them.
"Admit your bigotry and bias and lies and apologize or be exposed as the true bigot acting out of actual partisan hate and ignorance."
The only hateful bigot here is Dan Trabue. In spades!!!
"YOU and Marshal, on the other hand, don't accept as likely or reliable my illustration of the two lesbian grandmothers. Marshal went on and denounced them as evil and you suggested as much."
First of all, I question ANYTHING you say because you're an abject liar. As such, one can't rely on your illustration of anyone we can't know personally, or can't be verified by someone who knows you for the liar we do.
Second of all, it's not a matter (for me) of accepting your description of these women, but that your description doesn't mitigate their sinfulness in willfully living life as open lesbians, which makes them evil. To consciously reject God's Will can be described no better. They do this as you do. You're as evil as they are. Worse, since you insist you've "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture and still pretend their sexual behavior is just dandy.
Thirdly, I didn't "denounce" them. I simply stated what is true based on your description of them as lesbians. If they're open lesbians and unashamedly and proudly so, "denouncing" is unnecessary. It's obvious in its truth.
"That is the difference between the Good News of Grace and the death-dealing news of legalism."
No. It's the difference between a liar (you) and those who aspire to remain devoted to Truth/truth (us). If anyone dies because they heard from us what is true, factual and from God, so be it. But it doesn't make us "death-dealing legalists". It makes them given over to God to their corruptions. You who know them do nothing to guide them to God. You enable them and as such are complicit in their eventual demise without salvation. You're such a good friend.
"Then look at any two lesbian grandmothers you know pouring out their lives in service to others. Then return to my questions:"
OK
"Do you have ANY rational reason to say that these grandmothers are anything but beautiful moral people, given that scenario?"
They're lesbians. That's forbidden by God in the most unequivocal, straightforward way. They reject His Will to serve their own passions. Not a good look for those one would otherwise regard as nice old broads.
But let's get real here: of the homosexuals/lesbians I've known in my life, I would not regard any of them as assholes in the sense of their day-to-day interactions with the rest of their circle of influence. But that only means that we who live among them don't regard them as a danger or a threat (so long as they don't preach their perversions to kids as good things). I can associate with them, work with them, be neighbors or family members to them. But that is true of so many other types of sinners. It doesn't legitimize their sin or in any way mitigate the serious nature of it, nor their likely judgement when their time is up. They are rejecting God for an invented god they prefer, just like you do. Idol worshipers all the way. Very dangerous spiritually. And you enable it. But then, you're one of them.
"Or MUST they agree with your religious bigotry first in order to be moral people?"
It's blatant bigotry to regard those who strive to adhere to God's Truth as bigots. You must be so proud.
"What if they dare to disagree with you, are you the determining factor in morality?"
They're disagreeing with God. If they think they are right with God while living a life God clearly and unequivocally prohibits, they'll need to provide some Scriptural evidence that what they do is in any way OK with God. One can't pretend to be sorry for their sins while making no effort to abstain from committing them again. But they pretend they're not living a sinful life and you like to pretend they're angelic for their good works. It doesn't work that way. The determining factor in morality is always God's Will. They, like you, ignore it to appease their own preferences.
"Are you saying that you're doubtful that two such sweet loving lesbians exist?"
What I've been saying could not be more crystal clear: they're good works do not provide them liberty to engage in whatever absolute abomination floats their personal boats. There are a number of homosexual/lesbians among the conservative population. They suffer from the same affliction despite the fact they aren't lefty morons. Many of them are brilliant people. But their willful indulgence in perversions God prohibits puts them in the same predicament as your lesbos. And the worst part of it is that these people, including your old lesbos, are not "struggling" with temptation like so many of us are when we backslide and do what we know is wrong. They're insist what they do that is so very wrong is not wrong at all, calling evil good. VERY dangerous. You enable that shit.
"Or are you suspicious of all humans?"
What "suspicion"? You're the one describing them as lesbians, but they're just fine because they're nice chicks. Bullshit. Anyone who openly declares their sin and insistence their sin is not sin at all is not one about whom "suspicious" is an appropriate word to use. It's like someone saying "I'm a hit man". I don't have a "suspicion" he's likely to murder someone. He just told me. For anyone to admit they're homosexual or lesbian also precludes any suspicion as their sinfulness is out in the open.
I will admit to being incredibly suspicious of anyone who calls himself a "progressive". Those are stupidly dangerous people.
"It makes them given over BY God to their corruptions." To whom they'll be given over is another thing altogether.
Post a Comment