This whole post is pretty much fail.
First, anything that occurs in nature is natural.
Second, whether something is natural or not doesn't mean shite anymore, since we're all on computer right now.
Third, being natural has nothing to do with morality, and the morality follows that two consenting adults in a relationship or having sex isn't immoral
Fourth, even if the Bible said X, that doesn't mean that it should effect any state or government laws. For example, I think the Jewish torah says not to eat bacon, but banning something just because it's in a religious text is foolish.
The Torah is essentially the Old Testament.
In a free state, religion stating what is and is not morally right should not effect public policy. However, people should not be criticized for believing that something is or is not right because their religion dictates it.
The post said nothing about public policy, though. It was referring to the opinions of Christians and its inconsistency with the Bible. Those inconsistencies are solved, however, when you find out that that is not what the Bible actually says.
Yeah, pretty much. Although I do disagree with the last bit - people have a right to their opinion, but they do not have the right to their opinion being without criticism, and I don't reckon "my church/religion/religious text says X" without critical thinking is a sufficient argument for anything
No we're getting into why one would be religious. I agree that the decision to be so should involve deep philosophical (and possibly scientific) thought before thrusting yourself at it and following it's creeds. But for those people that have thought about it and chose to follow that path, I won't make fun of their opinions. I would only question how they arrived at their religion.
Nah, I'm not saying to make fun of people for holding opinion, religious or not, nor do I reckon we're talking about why someone is religion. I just reckon that if a person can't back up their case without religion, it's not much of a case.
And that is where I would disagree. Religion is a perfectly fine thing to inspire an opinion. That's what it is, faith inspiring opinions. A big part of religion is opinions, and religion itself should not be bashed just because it does so, and doesn't back itself up. If someone can back up why they believe in the religion as a whole, then they can use the religion to back up why the believe in these things.
If that makes sense.
Yeah, it does make sense, but I reckon that if you state your opinion, particularly online, you should be prepared to back it up, and using religion in an argument turns the entire argument into one about that religion, and the various interpretations of said religion. It doesn't matter if your viewpoint on a certain issue was inspired by religion, or politics, or a certain part of history, etc., you gotta be prepared to back it up in a relevant and logical way.
For example, if I said the Polynesian Sun God says X, and if anyone says differently, they're questioning my entire religion, that would be just foolish. But if I said the Polynesian Sun God says X, and also these are my other reason for believing X viewpoint, then those other reasons would be sufficient.
Yes, but I don't think that my ability to convince someone else of X should effect how I believe in it. Yes, it's not good enough for the internet, especially this site, but if that's all that I have to support my opinion I and others should be OK with that, with the understanding that my pushing said opinion on others would be pushing my religion, and a tangled debate would ensue.
Yes, I agree with you on that - that people should be free to hold whatever opinions they please. But, like I said, everyone should have the right to their opinion, but if they put it out in public, they do not have the right to not have it criticised.
Also, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever (like the existence of God perhaps), I don't think that you need anything else to back yourself up with.
Yeah. Like you said - if someone said they believed in fairies, and their only reasoning was a religious text, then you would know that wasn't a sufficient argument, and move on.
But if someone said to me "I believe in fairies because they are in my bible," I don't think I would argue with them. I'd be like good for you and move on. If I question anything, it would be that religion and its bible, not the fairies.
Yeah, like I said - they can believe in that, good for them.
But if they use the fairies for a justification of certain viewpoint, then they're gonna get called out for it.
The bible also says that wife beating is a common and natural practice along with slavery and forced labor. I don't get why people find homosexuality to be odd or unnatural. Love is love no matter what the gender. it's not like they chose to be gay or lesbian.
That wife beating is "a common and natural practice"? Where does it say that?
my dad is always going on about how that... he just hates seafood though.
Doesn't it also say something about cutting your hair? I don't know, I read somewhere online that it does.
There's something in the Old Testament about haircuts.
Basically, once the Jews were freed from Egypt, they were free, but they were in the desert, so certain part of the Old Testament were relevant - for example, no haircuts since the Egyptians forced to the shave their heads, no homosexuality or masturbation or sex that wasn't for reproduction, since they didn't have large numbers, and needed any sexual activity for reproduction, no shrimp or pork because seafood and pigs were unclean and you could catch diseases from them, etc.
I'm not sure if I interpreted that right, but what I got out of it is that basically, all of that is irrelevant now, so any arguments against homosexuality and whatnot involving the bible are invalid. Or everybody who says that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is but eat seafood and/or cut their hair are hypocrites.
Ok, I'm not getting into another religious argument with people, I'm just saying that the stuff about haircuts and shrimp was written for a bunch of Jews to survive in the desert. IDK if people that follow Judeo-Christianity consider it all relevant now, but even if the religion text did say X, it should have nothing to do with state and government.
It just seemed like you said the reasons for everything; reasons that aren't relevant today. I was just wondering if that was what you meant to do. I'm not trying to debate everything, and I agree that there should be a big, fat, bold line between religion and politics.
The comments will be really fun to read if this is POTD.
It was written by people from prejudiced times and a less-than-perfect society (which means the Bible could be as accurate about religion as the US Constitution was as perfect with government when it was first written). I'm not saying society is perfect now, but it doesn't have all of the same mistakes as earlier eras did.
Homosexuality is completely natural, since it's not like a man-made change. It's technically a high-functioning (function like a normal human) genetic mental disorder (any genetic/birth defect that makes you drastically mentally different from human biological standards). So if we can accept autistic people getting married (which would change one's judgement), we can accept homosexuals getting married.
And by drastically mentally different, I mean by one aspect. I don't mean homosexuals are retarded.
I think scientific evidence on what homosexuality actually is is a little more inconclusive than that, and there is always the doubt that scientists have towards any theory. It is natural, though. However, that alone is not enough to say that it is OK. We need to question if there is any ham associated with homosexuality (not saying that there is).
Make sure you understand my point before you bash me on this, but saying homosexuality is not okay is like saying autism is not okay.
But then again, homosexuality makes you make choices, comparable with pedophilia, but pedophilia is more taking advantage of a child not knowing better. With homosexuals, the both parties know what they're doing and they're okay with it. In conclusion, homosexuality is okay and the actions that take place because of it are okay.
I didn't say it wasn't OK. I said that we need to find out if it is OK. Being born with something doesn't make it OK, but it doesn't make it bad either. Your autism example would probably be said to be OK. Psychopaths would probably be said to be not OK. I'm offering no opinion as to where homosexuality stands.
I wasn't arguing against you, I was just moving the conversation along with my reasoning (not that my reasoning is any better than anybody's).
Yeah, I think I kinda misread you. But I think we're kinda on the same page now.
I would however add that your reading behind homosexuality being OK isn't conclusive. This really belongs to the area of science. I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that it is bad, but there are many things to consider. Therefore, I offer no opinion. Yet my religious doctrines do influence me in the lack of heavy science, but again, interpretation is open.
I'm happy to see that the average amiriter's theological knowledge is still around that of a comb jelly.
Jesus also hates figs.
It doesn't say it was unnatural, it was a symbol of that covenant. Plus, it's no longer pertinent in such a literal way anymore. Your forgetting Acts 11: 5-9
Does it say spelling words incorrectly is unnatural?
Was there anything else?
I have nothing against homosexuals. Those who are decent homosexuals still can make it to heaven. It is according to the bible. What makes those self-righteous 'christians' believe that God hates homosexuals is their lack of knowledge in the bible. The Bible also says this...
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
Please read this article: http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2...-it-to-heaven/
That explains it all why even homosexuals can still make it to heaven.
Why do we need to do this again?
So what you're trying to say is homosexuality is natural because people eat shrimp?
No, OP is saying that the Bible has things that people ignore like the shrimp thing and then as soon as it mentions homosexuality or anything of the sort people go crazy.
watch there be haters for shrimp-eating after this. "those darn shrimp-eaters. leaving their shrimpy-ness everywhere they go!"
great i'm going to hell i fucking love shrimp
Not trolling, I just thought this was ridiculous.
God did not intend for males to be with males, females with females, which is why he created Adam and Eve first, because he intended love to be that way. With man and woman. Back in the time when Jesus lived, I don't think the bible let's say "reported" anything about gay couples. Sorry to offend, but God influences every aspect if my life, as for politics mixing with religion.
I'm going to be hated for this, but you can clearly see homosexuality isn't natural.
But of course I don't really care if people hate me or not.
Can you PLEASE tell me why homosexuality is unnatural? So many animal species have homosexuals and animals are natural... and we're animals.
I know why people voted you down, but it doesn't make sense why they would. That's true.
If you think homosexuality is natural, do you also believe a man being in love with cheese is natural and beneficial to society (reproduction-wise)?
I'm not saying anything against homosexuality, nor am I saying it's a choice or stating any opinion of the sort. Just pointing that out.
There's a difference between "natural" and "beneficial to society." I wouldn't say diseases are beneficial to society, but I doubt many people would say they're unnatural.
Well there's two types of "natural"s.
1) It occurs in nature by itself, like a tree being grown.
2) It happens how it was designed to happen, like a tree having apples.
Wow, this is turning into a bad metaphor between homosexuality and trees , but its natural in the 1st way (like a disease), but not in the 2nd way, because, you know, if a tree was sprouting cows, it wouldn't be able to reproduce.
Nah, I don't reckon you should be voted down, because what you're saying is thoughtful.
By definition, anything that occurs in nature is natural.
And, I reckon one of the most socially constructed things is enforced heterosexuality - that is, the belief that heterosexuality is the only right way is extremely socially constructed, and unnatural.
Also, the nuclear family is completely unnatural - every culture has had kinship systems in place to prevent incest, but the idea of a monogamous man, woman and their biological children that is considered the norm in Western society is unnatural.
Some other things that were invented by society, and are therefore unnatural - laws, nations, religion, etc.
Natural has nothing to do with right and wrong.
I'm sorry, but you can't clearly see that homosexuality isn't natural, in fact you can see the opposite, that it is just a natural variation of sexuality.
Maybe it's the fact that Penises are made to reproduce with vaginas that makes it unnatural. I'm not saying it's inherently wrong to be Homosexual, just that it's not natural.
Not to start a flame war but homosexuality is common in bats and other animals, which are nature. Doesn't that make it natural?
Something to think about: If a man gathers some rocks and builds a dam it's considered "Not naturally made", or "man-made"; however, if a beaver builds a dam it's naturally made. Kind of makes me question the meaning of "natural".
Yes but when we build a damn it's made with cement and stone. Beavers use sticks and logs. Cement isn't natural, but logs are. And anyway, homosexuality is universal, no matter the species. I'd say that makes it pretty natural.
I just wanna challenge you on that mate - in that reproduction isn't the only purpose of sex. Yes, it is one purpose on the species, but not the only one - sex for pleasure, sex to connect to other people (and, in non-human, for dominance and to sure assertiveness, but we won't get into that) are also purposes for sex.
Also, I would even argue that sex for reproduction isn't even the primary purpose with the rest secondary, as human beings, and most species, aren't designed for all members of the species to reproduce.
There are almost no other species that have sex for pleasure. :/
Ok, then we'll ignore the other species. Human beings have sex for pleasure. Human beings have sex for reproduction. Human beings have sex to connect with others.
And all of these reasons are natural. If you took away reproduction, then the human race would end. But if you took away the others, then it's reduced us to beasts.
And, not all human beings need to reproduce. In fact, it is benefical to the human race if not all humans reproduce.
Just going to butt my head in here but, Dolphins, elephants, and Bonobos, are commonly known to engage in sexual relationships for pleasure and not reproduction.
(I also just noticed, those animals are very intelligent animals as well, maybe a correlation?)
Like other people have said, it occurs naturally then it is natural, and thousands of species of animals have been observed to have instances of same sex. Behavior differs between members of a species and sexuality is no different.
god made adam and eve, not adam and steve
I'm tired of reading or hearing this reasoning.