It is a privacy issue. Having a period or ejaculating releases eggs and sperm, respectively, which eventually die if they aren't fertilized. Isn't that killing viable unborn babies?
Gay marriage is covered by the 14th Amendment, while nativity scenes are in violation of the 1st Amendment. Basic principles of the constitution.
I'm now agnostic, but was raised in a very Christian and conservative family. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was Christianity that taught me life was easy, as we'd all go to heaven.
So again, it's impossible for God to create free will without evil existing?
What do you believe the principles of Darwinism are?...........
So.. this being said.. why doesn't he stop it?
The people in the video claim that God permits evil to make way for a greater good. But why?
If he's God, he's very well able to create that greater good without the need for evil, so then why does he use evil to create that greater good?
Unless of course, God needs to allow evil things to happen for the greater good, in which case he's limited in his power.
No?
Choosing something unnatural does not equal a mental disorder.
Contacts are unnatural. People choose to wear them. That's not a mental disorder however.
Furthermore, what makes you think it's unnatural? Milo did claim that it was, but he doesn't back it up.
We've seen many examples of homosexuality in other species. ref
"The truth does not require a logical argument."
....what? I don't understand. Of course truth requires a logical argument.
"All sex outside of marriage (the lifetime legal bond of a man and woman as one flesh) is wrong. If you want a logical argument and conclusion supporting this fact, just play around until you get AIDS.
Homosexuality is wrong. If you think there is nothing wrong with it, you deserve the STD's that go along with it and everybody who hears you say there is nothing wrong with it and agrees with you also deserves those diseases including everybody you know and love.
How do you feel now? Do you feel like arguing against the truth?"
Saint, I'm honestly not understanding. I get that homosexuality is wrong, and adultery is wrong, and so on, but I don't understand why.
Also, I have a question while we're at logic. What do you think about logical fallacies?
Here's a website I like to use often, which references the fallacies. Do you agree with the website?
Thank you for clarifying- I was not able to find a link in the articles for the verses in the Quran. Could you please specify which ones in response?
Thank you in advance.
Please explain how that statement implies that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
"So quit shoving your religion down my throat, seeing you are not an authority"
You're misrepresenting the argument.
The argument is that being an atheist is not sufficient enough criteria for being an authority.
The argument is not that being and atheist is automatic disqualification for being an authority.
Sylynn said the former, you said the latter.
Just because he is an atheist does not mean he is an authority. However, just because he is an atheist does not mean he is NOT an authority.
See the difference?
If Milo believes that being gay is bad, and also believes that he could choose to not be gay, then why does he chose to be gay?
Where in the video does he argue that being gay is a choice? He says that it's mostly nurture, not nature, which implies that it's not a choice, as it's decided by your environment.
Both of your claims are completely unfounded.
Not only does he fail to provide evidence for this, he also says that it's some mix of nature and nurture, which implies that there is some aspect to being gay that you are born with.
"The same science says alcoholics pedophiles, murderers, and rapists' brains are wired differently. Thus, by your logic, everyone you challenge on any issue can say "hey, my brain is wired different, thus you can't challenge me." I'm a conservative because? My brain is wired differently."
Saying a brain is wired differently does not mean it's okay to do something. While it is correct that you can't challenge a person on the basis that their brain is wired differently, you CAN challenge them if their actions are doing harm- as in the case of a pedophile and a rapist.
For a gay person, we're simply saying that it's not really a choice to be gay. In this case, there's not much to challenge in terms of the act, as it does no harm- gay consensual private sex doesn't harm anyone.
"Is it any coincidence that this is the 'gayest generation' in history? Nope. Liberals are encouraging it and giving it attention, thus it keeps growing as a means to get pity and attention, and acceptance when you can't get it elsewhere."
It's not a coincidence at all. I don't doubt that some people will claim to be gay to get attention, but that's just a natural side effect of over-glorifying homosexuality, which does unfortunately happen. However, you can't attribute the growing gay population to just this. It's important to keep in mind that as being gay becomes more accepted, less gay people are staying in the closet, as they no longer have to fear being rejected by society, or in extreme cases, being harmed.
I have not seen yet a be-all end-all definition for mental disorder, so it's hard to define it. However, there are some things we can establish.
1. Homosexuality does not cause subjective discomfort, as discomfort caused by it is a result of social impositions (ie, feeling broken)
2. It does not prevent day-to-day functioning
3. It does not cause a person to be dangerous to themselves or to others.
Based on these criteria, I find it hard to see why it should be defined as a mental disorder.
I can't find the part where Milo says that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
Milo does bring up a good point about the "gay gene" in response to claims of it being a sinful lifestyle, but I don't wholly agree with his refutation.
He argues against the "born this way" belief, which I do party agree with, but then says that he also believes that it's a combination of nature and nurture.
This means that nature, genetics in this case, does actually play a part in homosexuality, so a gay gene could very much exist.
Furthermore, even if it is mostly nurture, this only enforces the idea that it's not something that's chosen, so the point still stands- those who believe it is a sinful lifestyle have nothing to go upon: assuming sin is chosen willingly, then the homosexual lifestyle cannot be sinful, as it was imposed, through nature or nurture, and not chosen willfully.
Overall, Milo makes a good point for a while but doesn't really properly follow through with the final point.
Nope, not that environment. In phenotypes, "environment" could include trees and vegitation to some extent I suppose, but it's more specifically referencing the conditions you grew up around. Your 'environment,' or the 'nurture' aspect of expression, are qualities like race, birth country, parents, education, socioeconomic status, and so on, that can influence who you are.
Even things like temperature can affect expression, see the coats of arctic foxes.
"So you want God to kill you now to show He can stop a person from doing evil things in the world? The baby is innocent and will be in Heaven, you are evil and will be in Hell if God ends your time now."
If God could kill me and show me proof that he exists, I would like to have a long talk with him and present him many questions.
Furthermore, if the baby is innocent and will be in heaven, then why do we consider killing babies morally wrong? Aren't we doing them a favor by sending them to heaven?
"A day will come when God forever purges creation of evil, and as you stand now, you are part of the evil which will be purged and left in Hell. Is that what you want God to do now, to end all evil? When you talk that way, you are asking to be left in Hell forever."
Why do you insist that I am evil? I am on a search to see if a Christian God really exists, and I have found no such adequate proof. I have also found no proof of a Muslim, Jewish, or multiple other religions' gods existing, as I have also not seen enough proof.
"Do you know what you will say when you are burning in Hell? "God is evil or He would get me out of here". God made the way for you to be saved from Hell, He took on human form and died in your place, paid your price, rose from the dead offering forgiveness but you are saying He is not good enough for you. What else can He do but die for you? Are you going to try to kill Him forever? He already died for you, isn't that enough? Will you never stop trying to kill Him?"
I understand that you think that I am evil and trying to deny God, but you must look at it from my perspectives. I have multiple religions coming at me, telling me that every other religion is a false religion, and I will be punished unless I adhere to their religion. I'm only looking for answers- telling me I am evil for simply disagreeing with you does not convince me that your religion is the one true religion. From my perspective, you just blend in with all the other religions.
What is it about your religion specifically that should make me want to join it?
Hasn't this been going on for a while now? Looks like the criteria is just being expanded from things like pornography and gore to include hate speech.
Sure. Some might call you a hypocrite, other may say "do as I say, not as I do."
Either way, you still can.
The act of sodomy may be, but being gay and having gay desires isnt.
Certain aspects of sodomy, such as bestiality, may be wrong, but homosexuality isnt. If you're going to claim that all aspects of sodomy are wrong, add a logical argument and conclusion to support your claim.
The same place infertile people come from.
Not every trait that you're born with is genetic. Even if it was genetic, recessive genes could easily explain homosexuality, but it doesn't. Like many things, being gay is likely a combination of your genes and the environment.
True, but I think the difference is between belief of a subjective versus an objective morality.
Of course. The main point of civil disobedience (seen commonly during the civil rights movement), was to nonviolently disobey just laws as a form of protest.
Actually, that's more of a reductionist view, which ignores emergent properties and has been highly refuted. Furthermore, "beautiful" is a construct and relative to the person.
