How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

It's like the creepy predatory male .. we're programmed to shy away from them. It's a survival instinct, obviously.

 

We're talking about justifications for firing someone from their job.

And, bigotry on the part of the supervisor is not a justifiable reason.

 

NO. There isn't anything predatory about the case before the SC.

You want to sneak in new issues. If you want to discuss employees who behave in a predatory manner, then be up front about it.

 

Like religious ideology? Guess we should be allowed to fire them if we should so choose... and deny their ability to marry?

Right?

 

Ok, so neither straight nor homosexual nor anyone in between should ever act on their attractions?

 

You need to think through your arguments a little better.

 

Ain't like one perversion breeding another is exactly unheard of in human history, pilgrim.

So what?

You can have one: the Creator of that universe.

So what?

Did someone propose any such possibility?

 

Well, I suppose it is possible to imagine that, but how? Why? Where did it come from? That's another problem in general. A being like a god is infinite in it's complexity, so how could we possibly imagine that it is more likely for it to come out of nothing than a few laws of physics?

If you are honest, yes. That's the entire point of this conversation. Either a god, motivated by evil, unfairly made homosexuality immoral for no reason, or the concept of that immorality sprang out of nothing for no reason, and that god is powerless to do anything about that injustice.

 

Not sure what you are ranting about here. Could you expand.on it a bit please?

 

I'm kinda of lost here. Are you treating my post as if I were defending SSM bans, or the post that I responded to?

 

That you do not understand Nature's God, clearly far more complex than the universe He made, does not mean God does not exist, any more than your failure to understand how two masses attract each other means there is no gravity.

Sick.

You judge God and pretend that your opinions of right and wrong, good and evil, are supreme? What hubris. What supreme hubris.

Scientists seek answers. Christians study science, and seek answers from science, and from the Bible.
People such as you, on the other hand, claim to have all of the answers already. Would you like to be genuflected to as well, Oh Master of the Universe?

 

It doesn't mean that a god can't exist. Absolutely anything is 'possible.' It's just that it is many many orders of magnitude more unlikely for something as complex as a super powerful sentient being to arise out of nothing plus a few moral laws about how a theoretical thing like humans should act than it is to imagine a few laws of physics, or a multi-verse, or anything else allowed by all evidence we have ever actually seen.

I have yet to see a christian apologist that both understood and represented science honestly. As for the answers I have, I only have logic. Because evil and suffering exists, then there are only two options (assuming a god did exist). 1) Humans suffer for no other reason than god want's them to suffer. 2) That god is powerless to prevent that suffering.

I could easily design a better universe, just take out anything that could possibly be construed in any way as imperfect. Get rid of suffering, make everyone perfect. Either this is as easy to do as anything else, or something is more powerful than god. If something is more powerful than god, then what do we need a god for? Either god made people homosexual and then declared it immoral out of an evil desire to watch them suffer, or something more powerful than god forced it to happen, and god is powerless to help.

 

No I'm saying the argument Kreo is forwarding to which you are responding is based on an argument forwarded by the Heritage Foundation during the SSM litigation.

It's nothing new and was roundly defeated.

 

I'm a chemical engineer. Teach me some of your scientism.

http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

http://ScienceOfTheBible.blogspot.com

 

No clue what this means, sorry.

 

Try and show me where I said that. And reveal the weakness of your position in so doing.

 

I think you're having a solo conversation, or have me confused with someone else. No idea what this is about.

 

Ideology is not behaviour, it's thoughts.

 

Triggered much? No anthropology needed, apparently.

Meantime, it's good to see that you're one of the tolerant and compassionate ones. Lots of room for diversity in your world, etc.

 

OK, so you believe that LGBTQ people may not be fired for living as LGBTQ people?

I haven't seen anything you've said that is that open to those who are LGBTQ.

 

There are only two kinds of people, decent and indecent. - Elie Wiesel

Decent people do not tolerate evil. Decent people do not respect perversion, which results in greatly reduced life expectancies, militant, hateful parades and demonstrations, litigation to force Christians to do things contrary to our cherished beliefs, and we do not tolerate the brainwashing of our children by homosexuals and transgenders across the nations beginning in elementary school.

 

Oh, you feel intimidated. Whaaaaa.

 

But “ brainwashing” by religion is OK ?

 

You seem very confused. While homosexuals and transgenders present their vile garbage to grade school children, Bibles and any discussion of Christianity are OUTLAWED there. Obviously you didn't even know that. You have your Leftist Talking Points which have been hammered into your head and that's all you can offer.

 

Good for you. Work a little harder then maybe one day you can become a scientist.

No scientist or critical thinker would take any of these arguments seriously. Very first point is basically that we should treat the fringe outlier and shill opinions as seriously as the overwhelming majority of expert analysis. And it continues on like that.

Also nonsense. First argument is that a scientist was a member of the clergy. Meaningless. Of course his discoveries were based in science not religion. From there it goes into the standard numerology type stuff you often see with this sort of thing (retroactively trying desperately to fit some nebulous quote in the bible to make it appear to predict a future scientific discovery. Same thing they do with nostradamus and numerology). Meanwhile ignoring massive scientific problems with the bible. Never mind the problem of theodicy which I continually harp on as the completely unsolvable problem with appeals to religion as a moral basis.

None of this stuff is remotely scientific. It's all denialist and pseudo-scientific talking points none of which is backed by any science.