[QUOTE="Silenthps"]Well, while i would prefer to not sit wit, eat with, be friends with and interact with gay people... I do have many gay and bi friends. And while I do not respect their decision... As a Christian, it is my duty to show them the proper love and respect and be a light unto them. (Luke 15:2) And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receives sinners and eats with them. Luke Skywalker wrote the Bible?
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Of course you didn't get it otherwise you would have understood why I use it. Xeilia brought up the argument of homosexuality defying nature (I don't believe that it does or that defying nature is so baaaaaad like F_L said but anyway). Then she presented pedophilia, more or less implying that people who support homosexuality should also support pedophilia. And then I told her that even in the case of defying nature, you can't compare pedophilia with homosexuality because of certain reasons.Teenaged
I think I actually did. Saying that something is bad because it "defies nature" is a bad argument in any case. Saying that, *ahem*, ANOTHER sexual preference that is taboo is bad because it defies nature in a 'different way' or to a 'higher degree' doesn't make any sense, since you can't measure "defying nature" or say why simply "defying nature" is bad in the first place.Well I didn't use it in the first place although I do think there is a huge difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. And by the examples I have given to Xeilia, I think it is apparent that some actions that defy nature are acceptable while other's aren't, but not measuring "how much" they defy nature but by other outcomes that stem from them. But then whether an action defies nature or not shouldn't matter; it only comes down to the consequences. People can be killed through natural causes, but that doesn't make it right. Many bad things can come from nature too.
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"] No, but you shouldn't use "defying nature" as an argument against homosexuality then.Teenaged
Of course you didn't get it otherwise you would have understood why I use it. Xeilia brought up the argument of homosexuality defying nature (I don't believe that it does or that defying nature is so baaaaaad like F_L said but anyway). Then she presented pedophilia, more or less implying that people who support homosexuality should also support pedophilia. And then I told her that even in the case of defying nature, you can't compare pedophilia with homosexuality because of certain reasons. I think I actually did. Saying that something is bad because it "defies nature" is a bad argument in any case. Saying that, *ahem*, ANOTHER sexual preference that is taboo is bad because it defies nature in a 'different way' or to a 'higher degree' doesn't make any sense, since you can't measure "defying nature" or say why simply "defying nature" is bad in the first place.
I can't make it more simple than this: you were arguing all that time trying to prove that there isn't anything wrong with defying nature so, I gave you a relevant example about a man who is attracted to children (Instead of women *normal case* or men *in your case*) which is wrong, immoral and defies nature.
Quit beating around bush with those enigmatic examples of yours. you said there isn't anything wrong in defying nature yet you give an example of a double sided action such as stabbing. Don't you find that pretty contradictive?
Read this, might help you understand:
[QUOTE="Xeilia"]isn't pedophilia considered defying nature? Are you implying that there are 2 types of defying nature? One is good and the other isn't? I find your post full of contradiction.Teenaged
@BumFluff122: Read my previous posts. you'll know what kind of "nature" I'm talking about. The topic title might help too.
Of course there are differences between practices of defying nature. The hair dresser defies nature, plastic surgery defies nature, make-up defies nature, technology defies nature, art defies nature. But you can't be equally against every one of them or even try to present them as equal. Got it? No, but you shouldn't use "defying nature" as an argument against homosexuality then.
[QUOTE="TheFlush"][QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"] It's in the Bible.Hungry_Jello
so you never eat shrimp? And you never wear clothes of different fabrics together? and your mother never wears pants? Because that's also in that same book.
It's nice to see you can read the Old Testament now try reading the New Testament so you can understand that some of those things don't apply anymore. k?
It doesn't sound too well if that ever had to apply.
Log in to comment