CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think it is okay. I mean its your personal feeling. People shouldn't be like "OH MY GOD YOU'RE SO RUDE!!" As long as you're not going around like "OMG EWW YOU'RE GAY!!" I think it should be ok.
This is wrong. The correct reaction when a person is known to be a pervert is "Yuck, you are a dirty dog, get away from me you pervert and don't even look at my children". Perverts need to be told the truth.
Good to see you are still with us (assuming you are still with us) and not burning in Hell. I hope you get saved before it's too late....who knows, maybe you are past the point of getting saved.
Do you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell? How long do you think that you will be able to say you have that right, assuming you believe you have that right which I believe what you believe because you always talk like a fool.
If you feel judgement is being passed, it's God's finger pointing at your sins ...you can name them, you know what you did .....and you are indeed being judged as guilty and worthy of death and Hell fire.
JC will not be happy when I tell him of your behavior; he will remember your hateful attitude when the Rapture comes. I am Rapture ready; too bad you're not, Saint Salami Slapper.
JC would not approve of your tone and attitude. You should conduct yourself in a more tolerant and fitting manner if you want to go through the Pearly Gates, baloney bopping Bishop.
I know that it is a difficult concept for you as a believer but I am not trying to defeat something that doesn't exist. That is like me saying that you are fighting against Santa Clause and he doesn't like that. He is not going to give you anything for Christmas until you recognize him and ask for forgiveness, it's nonsensical. This is definitely part of how we know that there is no God, if God is so angry with me then why not do something about it? Is this God impotent to do anything? If I were that angry with someone and had the power that this God supposedly has I would make sure that an infidel like myself weren't one of the happiest people on the planet. Yet I am one of the happiest people on the planet.If there were a God granting eternal life why would there be no evidence of this great accomplishment? It would insure that people would follow and believe. Instead the only evidence there is for God are ancient writings by MEN, which are very contradictory as to the nature of this God (hence the reason for so many different religious belief systems). The inspired by God part of this goes out the window since all have different information which contradicts the others about the same God. This is the reason that I posted this debate how is any believer confident that they are following the correct ancient writings?
Find it for yourself if you are not too mentally challenge to be able to find the passages yourself. There are many passages specifically saying homosexuality is wrong....that is, if you think doing abominable things is wrong. If you don't think it is wrong to do abominable things, then it won't matter to you what the Bible says, there is no point in your looking it up as if you had enough intelligence to do so, and there is no point in me giving you the scripture references.
You do realize that as a sinner, you do not have the right to exist outside of Hell, and time in this world is a gift from God not to be taken for granted, correct?
In other words, you have one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell and you need to be saved from Hell before it's too late....but by the way you talk and act, maybe it's already too late and God only allows you time to be an example of a fool pervert to display His justice in His goodness when He disposes of your evil carcass in the burning garbage heap of Hell where you will fry like an eternal sausage. Enjoy yourself with you can you foul mouth pervert.
You realize, as a sinner, the only right you have is being dead, separated from God by your sin, and everything you think is so stinking great about being a pervert, and everything so stinking great about your puffed up imaginary greatness of being the rootin tootin high flautin fool, all the things you think are your strengths and goodness in God's sight are nothing but filthy rags and you are garbage God wants to redeem from the penalty you have incurred, which is the fire of Hell. But you will just root and toot and high falute until your pride fails to keep you out of Hell, won't you, foul mouth pervert?
You don't know when and when not to use the word "portend". You portray a pretense of superior intellect, and claim exclusive right by artistic license to exalt yourself by misuse of the word "portend" when the proper word in context would be "pretend". Your pretense of intellect portrays your pride, and your pomp is quite portly as you parade yourself in silly nakedness like the emperor in fruit of the looms. Give it up, genius, your only making a fool of yourself by being too proud to admit you misapplied the word "portend".
You claim to already have passage to heaven and chose saint in your avatar, which is itself symbolic. Indeed you chose to foreshadow what is to come. Portend is appropriate. Furthermore it was simply your assumption the first time you read my post that I must have intended to use pretend instead. That is your assumption, because you are simple. And in making your entire response about the word portend you have punted responding to any other arguments I've made.
I do not claim to be a vast intellect. My comment about my education and debate experience was in reply to you telling me not to feel bad that you blocked me. I was demonstrating that I am not going to back down to you and in fact I have dealt with far worse one-sided radicals than yourself. And in fact you are already witnessing that to be true.
You misused the word in the context which originated this discussion, and now are trying to bury that evidence. You need to be saved now or you will remain as you are now, unsaved, lost, dying, with one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell.
The correct word in the context was pretend, you used portend there only to pretend to have superior usage of the English language. You made a mistake, used the wrong word, and it's not a big deal. I knew what you meant, so it's ok....just got a kick out of the poor verbiage after you boasted of your intellect and debating skills, and insulted me for not using perfect grammar and punctuation. ....quit trying to be a punk, admit your faults, be honest, don't be so stinking proud. Punks and bullies fall hard when they fall.....take it easy, humble yourself a bit and admit your choice of the word "portend' in the context you used it, the origination of this silly debate was a poor choice.
Dictionary.com: Portend - To indicate in advance; to foreshadow or presage, as an omen does.
You indicate in advance you are going to heaven and will be a saint. You made it your avatar name which is both symbolic and indeed an omen to the many of us both in life and the afterlife who find it laughable.
Oh, and here's one more way to know you're wrong. Pretend is to make believe. But you're not playing make believe. You claim you already know without any doubt you're a saint and you're going to heaven. So it's completely inaccurate to describe you as pretending as such. Portend is the right word. Unless, unless, you're now admitting your claim to sainthood and heaven is make believe. Is that what you're saying now?
You used the wrong word, the wrong way. "Portend is one thing that ominously ( and that is impending danger or bad news) points to something else. When you said I portend myself to be a saint, both portend and saint refer to me, and neither word is implying anything ominous. "You portray yourself to be a saint", or "you pretend to be a saint" would be grammatically correct. Saying "you portend to be a saint is combining two tenses, future and present, in one sentence and it is incorrect choice of word and incorrect grammar.
You don't portend yourself to be anything. It's improper use of the word. You portray yourself, or you pretend, and if YOU feel the implications of my being a saint portend doom for you, then that is for you. You are mixing things up, and with your attitude an obviously overstated English skills, ........I don't know, the way you are acting I could almost say you didn't finish anything more than highschool.
You say a saint is something Catholic, so you say I can't be a saint and my claim to be a saint is pretending to be a saint as I portray myself as a saint. Why do you keep going on and on with the? It's not a big deal. I pointed out a grammatical mistake, and showed by rules of English why it was wrong, and you keep going on and on trying to twist things to excuse your error. Why can't you just say, "yes, I made a mistake, I meant to say ...............................".
Listen, you proud little genius you, did you not say I portend to be a saint? And then after you pulled a quick web dictionary definition, did you not say portend refers to an ominous warning of bad things coming?
Now please rephrase the sentence correctly if you want to use the word portend to describe my claim of being a saint.
The proper word there was "pretend", it fit the context of what you are saying, and did not require long explanations of how it is the correct grammar.
Pop quiz time, genius...some grammar testing. I always hated grammar. I know the rules, but I hate the discipline.....off the top of my head, answer these questions in reference to your first usage of "portend" which you are trying to defend.
1. Is "portend" a verb, noun, adverb, pronoun, adjective, or conjunction?
2) In the way you used it as "you portend to be a saint", is "portend" first person possessive?
3) In the way you used "portend', what is the word "be"? Do you know what an intransitive verb is?
4) In your usage of "portend", which alludes to warning of a future event, how can it "be" equal to an intransitive verb?
Your usage of the word "portend" in "you portend to be a saint" actually is nonsensical as you equate a warning of a future event with a current condition, the intransitive verb, "be".
It would be proper to say, "You seem to portend my doom by claiming to be a saint". Portend is improper used with an intransitive verb describing an object.
I really do hate grammar, but I know how to use if it I must drag myself around in it's mud.
You're a self righteous ball of hate who lives and talks nothing like Christ demonstrated, which is why you becoming a saint would be a bad omen for heaven and for anyone aspiring to heaven. Furthermore as you churn on this one word you've ignored every other argument because it's the only thing you think you've got any shot at.
I'm not alone. I've only been in here a week or two and I can already tell a large swath are sick of your pomp. No one is buying this tirade from you all around the word portend.
Somewhere in a rural inbred part of the world there must be a translation of the Bible that warns against "HighFalutin ways". But don't feel bad. I'm sure "Whippersnappers" like me are sinners, too.
This guy is nothing but hell fire and brimstone and eternal damnation; how does he expect to sell his ideas with that kind of venom? I don't think he's for real.
I sure do, thank you for asking. Do you know that these words are relative terms and mean different things to different people? What's normal to the spider is chaos to the fly. I'd be happy to discuss the topic further if you were willing to provide the reasons why you feel this way. The more specific the better.
I don't know how your relatives apply meaning to words, but my relatives all speak English and perverted means twisted unnaturally, and abomination means it's very bad. I guess your grasp of the meaning of right and wrong depends on how your relatives were or were not perverts.
Right and wrong are also relative terms. You can't simply say it's wrong because its perverted, it's perverted because it's wrong. That simply meaningless circular logic. Why specifically is it wrong to you? Why specifically is it perverted? From what do you base it on?
perverted means twisted. It does not mean anything else....it's turned away, twisted from what it is supposed to be. Abomination is something that is absolutely detestable, worthy of no tolerance (although some perversions of legislation now say I'll have to tolerate people working with me more than I used to in spite of how much they smell like adult diapers from their butt buddy), terribly stinky, yucky like being butt buddy with the boys.
I don't know why you find it hard to understand "perverted" and "abominable" and feel like those words do not apply to men abusing their bodies in yucky and very very stinky poop play ways.......and I don't know why you think those words would apply to women abusing their bodies with women.......were you molested as a child and taught that it was only learning and not perverted?
Maybe you're a closet homo? You know the old saying: "me thinks thou dost protest to much" You are trying to cast aspersions elsewhere to deflect attention from your own latent, or most likely, blatant homosexual tendencies?
Hi Saintnow, sorry I could not reply sooner I had family obligations, no time til now. I know that I'm the correct God for me because there is no other option. Like you my God is all in my head but I don't give it a different name or personality. It's always just me. When I ask my God to get something done unlike yours I don't have to hope for my prayers to be answered I just have to go do it. My God is a good God who cares for those who need caring for. My God is kind, generous, and thoughtful. There are actual results of this that can be seen every day. My God doesn't condemn people for not knowing him or believing in him. My God has never been cruel or oppressive demanding tithes or fear based love. My God never requires me to sacrifice anything. My God does not condemn me for the sins of my ancestors since I had no control over their behavior. My God is not created by others, ancient men with ancient rituals promising that this God had the power to make them eternal. Yet unlike your God mine is not silent. I know my God I don't have to rely on other's perception of my God. My God is real and I can tell you everything about my God. There is no interpretation difference. Everyone knows my God in the same way. No one worships my God differently. It is clear that my God is a much better God than the one made up for you.
Btw thought I'd let you all know this was an experiment to see how people reacted to slight homophobia and frankly I was surprised that the it's ok votes outnumbered the die in a fire ones. I was expecting the opposite based on what the news is telling us, thanks for unknowingly participating, have a nice day :D
They are not posting on the "die in a fire" side because they don't want to admit their hatred against people who flatly say that the way they are abusing their sexuality is wrong. All of these perverts are murderers at heart against anybody who will not cower to their insistence of being accepted as normal.
He is not saying that they are abusing their sexuality. You on the other hand should die in a fire.
anybody who will not cower to their insistence of being accepted as normal.
This debate proves you wrong. He insists that it is ok to be uncomfortable around gays which we all think is ridiculous. And, we said it was ok for him to feel that way.
All of these perverts
You are the biggest pervert on here. You think a picture of people on the beach is porn.
The news frequently misrepresents reality, because reality sells less than sensational exaggeration. Not particularly surprising that it would be wrong about this as well. It really makes no sense that any significant number of people actually care what others think about them, especially if those thoughts are kept private. Why should they? It does not affect them, and policing attitudes is just a waste of effort and energy.
"Look, as sentient meat, however illusory our identities are, we craft those identities by making value judgments: everybody judges, all the time. Now, you got a problem with that... You're livin' wrong." - Rust Cohle, True Detectives
P.S. Your front was more transparent than you may have anticipated.
It's ok, but sometimes you don't even know some people are gay, such as ASAPScience on Youtube! It'll only make you uncomfortable if they interact with each other way too much, making it awkward for some people.
What a bunch of perverts here. I guess sexual deviants need some kind of social outlet, so they come to sites like this. Why is it that the number of perverts, especially sodomites and women who abuse themselves with women, is so much higher in percentage than in the general population? It's because perverts are social deviants, sickos who don't have enough people in real world life to interact with...or the ones they are interacting with are so messed up, like they are, that they can never be satisfied because they can't make themselves or their perverted friends feel normal.
I guess sexual deviants need some kind of social outlet, so they come to sites like this.
What are you even talking about? Gays need to be allowed to travel in public.
Why is it that the number of perverts, especially sodomites and women who abuse themselves with women, is so much higher in percentage than in the general population?
What? This sentence doesn't even make sense. If you are saying that this website has more perverts it is because you are here bumping up the percentage.
I say it is okay because i know that they wont touch me because i'm a girl they will mess with boys and i know that if i do i might get teased but if i don't care what people say then i'm okay
If you have no issue with being unnecessarily uncomfortable, which I admit seems silly to me, then by all means be uncomfortable. I could care less, and I would would suggest that no one else need do so either.
What I mean is that If a gay couple sat next to be on a bus or something I might be able to tolerate it for a half hour before I get anxious and uncomfortable
It's normal to feel uncomfortable around perverts who are sizing you up as their next meal. Heterosexual perverts make me uncomfortable, but sodomites are worse. When they realize that you do not in any way approve of or condone their perversion, and you will never accept, endorse, or encourage their advances toward exploring your body, they become vicious in spirit if not in deed. They want to silence anybody who says what they are doing is wrong. They hate the truth, and they will hate you for holding up the standard of truth.
I did not fully realize how crazy Saintnow is until now. Why is he even on this website? How does he know how to use the internet? It seems he just got out of a cave and got over his fear of fire.
As others have said, there is nothing inherently wrong with feeling uncomfortable. The problems arise when that discomfort leads to things like discrimination and hate. But a majority of society has an implicit bias against gay people, and that's not an inherently bad thing. Hopefully, in a more accepting world, people would be consciously aware of this discomfort and work to ensure that they don't cause a negative impact because of it.
That is your right. It is also the right of a "gay" to feel uncomfortable around you. Hopefully, we will all become more tolerant as we get more intelligent.
Sodomites and women who abuse their bodies with other women should feel uncomfortable around people who keep their bodies for marriage and refuse to redefine the male/female base of the word to pervert the language so perverts can twist themselves into dirtballs and demand that you and I say they are clean and good. All fornication is wrong, and to do it with a person of your own gender is double wrong.
If all fornication is wrong then why are you so disproportionately focused upon one type of fornication? You just implicitly conceded that you are prejudiced; well done.
Oh, and get over yourself. Most everyone else has. Most people are not going to demand that you say anyone else is "clean" or "good", because they honestly do not care what you think about them. Most people just want you to keep your beliefs out of their lives. An important difference, but I am not surprised that you have to make this about you somehow.
I do not believe in your purity harms. There is no such thing as "being clean"; that is just a myth people made up to justify their self-righteous judgement of others. The notion that humans can be anything but natural is also asinine since we are fundamentally of nature.
Oh man Blizzardbird you give so much to work with that honestly I don't know where to start.
Cytoplasms can't be gay
DNA doesn't mix during intercourse
You can't "cause" a genetic disorder in a grown man
There's nothing wrong with LGBT folk
Your opinion on whether Jace has ever picked up a book on the subject of "genetic mess up's" is utterly meaningless, if only due to your use of the phrase "genetic mess up's"
"How can gay be clean!?" well mostly by taking showers, I guess
Easier, but less fun. Reasoning isn't getting anywhere, so I'm hoping if I just repeat the obviously nonsense crap back at them enough they'll eventually realise how foolish it sounds.
More fun, but less productive. Generally speaking, belittling another person's beliefs, even if their beliefs really are misguided, generally will make someone defensive and less responsive to explanations regarding their beliefs shortfalls. On the other hand, if you challenge someone to prove their beliefs, it can, at least sometimes, lead to them recognizing that there isn't proof to substantiate it. When someone recognizes that, they tend to be more receptive to new ideas.
Doesn't work often, but it seems to work more often a more front-on approach.
I've gone through that with BlizzardBird (and FromWithin) on a couple of these already, always end up either banned if it's their debate or ignored if it's someone elses. I'm not a particularly patient man though, and you are certainly right, but it's just too frustrating when their responses to my "what are your sources?" are usually "You're a terrorist babykiller!"
Oh don't even bother with FromWithin. I have tried all sorts of different methods with him across three different accounts (This is actually the third one which I decided to just use as my main)) and nothing works. He really is a hopeless cause.
I haven't tried talking to BlizzardBird enough to make such judgement, however.
That said, I definitely know what you mean regarding patience. I tend to just take a hiatus from this website when I start feeling impatient like that.
You can cause a genetic disorder in a grown man and a baby.
The thing is, when the DNA mixes up, that DNA affects both helpful and harmful bacteria, as well as messing up the genetical chemical properties that someones body gives off through body moisture, dust, etc.
And what could happen if that DNA is passed on throughout generations?
More genetic disaster!
When the DNA of the same sex mixes, the DNA mixture is harmful, damaging and irritant.
DNA always mixes during intercourse, obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be born.
The DNA of certain bodily fluids are open to mixing, as opposed to almost all bodily solids.
You are mistaken, Blizzardbird. I'm not sure where you grasp on genetics, biology, and chemistry comes from, but I promise you that you have been misinformed.
Unfortunately, while I'm usually happy to try debating topics like this and educating people on subjects I generally know a bit about, I simply do not believe I'm qualified to teach you three major, complex branches of scientific thought.
I did not want to tell you to die in a fire, but I find you to be homophobic. Why do you care about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms? Many gays are just normal people who want to live and love just like you. I am bisexual, do I make you uncomfortable?
You're a pervert, perverting your sexuality and perverting those you use to support you as you try to make yourself feel normal. Does it make you feel uncomfortable for me to tell you the truth about your perversion?
You are an intellectual pervert and pervert the intellect of those you attempt to convert as you try to make yourself feel normal and righteous. Does it make you feel uncomfortable for me to tell you the truth about your perversion?
It ought not to, for the same reason that no one need care about your opinion of them.
Well, you started off saying "Show some respect to the people of CreateDebate", even though nobody had shown the debate creator any disrespect whatsoever.
Then you followed it up with "Now just diss some gays!", which was just... Really odd, overall. It's weird because you literally just said "Show some respect to the people of CreateDebate", but you also don't intent on showing the creator of this debate that same respect (because you're encouraging people to "diss some gays", rather than "debate this interesting topic").
The topic here is to discuss whether or not it is okay to feel uncomfortable around gay people. It is not to discuss the nature and validity of homosexuality. Further, "dissing gays" and "debating homosexuality" are fundamentally different things. That being said, I would welcome the opportunity to debate the values of different sexuality with you - in fact, I'll make a thread for it right now.
Anyway, debates are split up into different sections.
The section within this debate is whether or not homosexuality is naturally. We must simply discuss this particular aspect of the debate before moving onto another phase.
it is mere debate ethics, to fall in line with the correct phase.
The section within this debate is whether or not homosexuality is naturally. We must simply discuss this particular aspect of the debate before moving onto another phase.
it is mere debate ethics, to fall in line with the correct phase.
No it isn't. One does not come into a debate, change subjects, then demand that everyone respond to their change based on "ethical" grounds, at least not if they want to be respected.
Why does it not need to be categories in every situation?
Because there is no reason or need for it to be categorized in a non-formal setting. You haven't provided a single argument as to why it would, after all.
And I am incapable of avoiding the topic.
No, you seem to be incapable of staying on the topic.
Maybe you would be more comfortable if you hugged or kissed one? Or maybe simply you need to wear comfy shoes more often - maybe get those Dr Scholls gel inserts.
So I wrote a reply that got WAY too long, here's the tl;dr version:
You aren't a bad person for feeling uncomfortable, but you would be a bad person if you allowed this discomfort to guide your actions. It's likely that the lack of comfort you feel is due to not having spent much time in the LGBT community (through no fault of your own; there just wasn't any reason for you to).
Personally, I'd strongly advise you to work on the discomfort. Get involved in the LGBT community, or just meet a few queer people and become friends with them. That discomfort you feel will fade quite quickly when your subconscious (kinda primal "my-tribe-is-better-than-your-tribe") mind grows to accept them.
Here's a much, much longer way of explaining that same point:
Well I'm not gonna say that you should die in a fire, but it also isn't okay to just let yourself continue feeling that discomfort.
Please don't get aggressive here, just let me explain my stance on this, and allow me a brief anecdote.
So, I'm figuring that, if you feel uncomfortable around gay people, you probably haven't spent much time around them. Not through any fault of your own - it's just statistically more likely for a random person to be straight, so the chances of you having spent a lot of time in the LGBT community are slim.
In much the same way, I didn't spend a lot of time around black people growing up. I was born in, like, a blazingly white country town. I'd certainly never have described myself as racist, and my close family/friends were all very open minded people, but I simply did not know many black people. When I was about 15 and (as most fifteen year old boys do) was thinking about women I found attractive, I realised that they were all white.
At first this didn't concern me - so I was more attracted to white women? So what? Everyone can have a preference, surely. But then I realised that it was more than that; I simply wasn't attracted to black women at all, purely because of their skin colour. That kind of struck me as a bit odd. I was quite confident I wasn't a racist man, but this niggling discomfort I felt about black people (the reason I didn't find them attractive) couldn't be ignored.
I didn't exactly have a black community to start socialising with, so I opted to simply go through stock image sites of various black people, and look up black models. Watch films with more black people in it, spend more time with the few black people I knew. Eventually, over time, I found the discomfort faded.
So, in summary, you're not a bad person for feeling uncomfortable around gay people as long as the reason is "I haven't known many personally", and not "They are satan-spawn".
Sorry about such a long post; it's a pretty complicated message.
In other words if you can't phsyically block it then you'll mentally block it.
In other words you're so certain of the inviolability of our beliefs you'll sit with your hands over both ears and your eyes shut and keep yelling blah blah blah blah I can't HEAR you...
That's very persuasive arguing on a debate website.
I was talking to admiral bacon there, He has been quite extremely foul mouthed with perverted vulgarities, showing his mental weakness and emotional insecurity, using profanities which are a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully, a bully tactic. If people can't speak civilly, I'm not going to tire of reading their garbage and not respond to them in any conversational way...I'll just preach Hell fire and brimstone they need to be saved from, so maybe they will pause long enough to hear the truth and get saved from Hell....and maybe you will too.
There is no uglier cuss or insult than asserting that someone else is destined to hell while you yourself is somehow guaranteed heaven. Being a wise@ss is different from just being a mean@ss.
If I can see by your own words that you are defying God, and the Savior it not in you and you are not in Him, I know you are on your way to Hell and I'm doing you a kindness trying to get you to see the danger you are in.
Oh boy, now you are starting to cuss like all the other haters. Ok, punk, cuss away. I don't think I need to repeat myself with you anyways.
This stuff from you is why I call you a little punk. In the first place, I was not talking to you, and in the second place you have a chip on your shoulder and all you want to do is insult me because you see I am strong in faith and you are a jealous little punk trying to knock me down so you feel like you are better than me.
Nope, you call me a little punk because you think you are better than everyone else. After all, you're the only on in here already guaranteed to go to heaven. No, actually you're a farce. You crown yourself, you denigrate everyone else, and then you block anyone who calls you out for it.
I call you little punk because all you do is try to insult me while I'm only telling you the truth......and you act like you are triumphing by refusing to admit fault......punky stuff.
There are at least three others here who will testify that they know the Savior personally, they know their sins are forgiven and Heaven is there home and they will be in Heaven with Jesus forever the moment their time in this world is finalized.
"Call me out on it"? That's punk talk.........you're just trying to pick a fight. You can't win with rationale and logic, so you resort to insults and acting like you called me out and you were too strong so I cowered........that's bully punk stuff and it's trashy, and it's why I call you a little punk. You're just a kid to me, an inexperienced kid with a puffed up ego, portraying yourself as a punk implying that you portend my embarrassment when up against your pride. Punks fall, pride goes before a fall....your're just being a punk with me
Sin denigrates you, son. Your own pride denigrates you by deceiving you into thinking you are more than what you are, and then you get knocked down to Earth and have to swallow your pride and/or eat crow. Don't blame me when I tell you the truth and you feel "denigrated". If you weren't so stinking proud you would admit to the truth.
Mankind interacting with a dog is natural if done in an ordinary way, like a friend.
If it is influenced with external technical knowledge that has been developed by man and didn't exist at the start, then it is unnatural.
Unnatural means that something didn't occur already from nature at the start and that it was developed artificially much later.
Homosexuality is artificial. Which is merely the opposite of natural.
Got it?
And please point out which biologists there are that exist who happen to believe they have absolute evidence to prove homosexuality occurs naturally in nature?
Homosexuality is artificial. Which is merely the opposite of natural.
Artificial: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
The thing is, life-long monogamous same-sex pairings have been observed in nature. That means that, by definition, homosexuality is not inherently artificial and does, objectively, exist in nature.'
And please point out which biologists there are that exist who happen to believe they have absolute evidence to prove homosexuality occurs naturally in nature?
None at all.
You have this incredibly bad habbit of declaring there to be a lack of evidence for things you clearly have no researched. Your assumption of omniscience is quite the foible, and you should work on it.
Instead of going with a comprehensive list, I'll give you two examples and, if you recognize them, we can work from there.
Where do those two articles say anything to do with animals being gay?
All those articles seem to say is supposed "facts" about albatrosses or domestic sheep.
They say nothing about sheep or albatrosses being gay, which is the most fallible fact ever and despite those articles fallibility, they say nothing at all to do with albatrosses being gay.
Where do those two articles say anything to do with animals being gay?
All those articles seem to say is supposed "facts" about albatrosses or domestic sheep.
Indeed, and homosexuality is a fact about those species. You clearly didn't actually read them, or do so much as a ctrl+f.
"Occasionally the birds form homosexual pairs consisting of two females."
"A minority of rams display a preference for homosexuality (8% on average)["
I do enjoy how you declared it fallible without seeing the evidence in question. You have clearly decided that the truth is what you want it to be, and have shut your mind to evidence that contradicts it.
It is good of you to quote the articles, as I struggled to find those bits within those articles, however, you have been helpful as I now have managed to find those quotes within those articles.
However, was that site written by a biologist?
What right does that site have to say that it is credible? I don't believe it has any.
Did it prove that occasionally birds pair to form pairs of two girl birds?
Did it offer any evidence to suggest that some rams are homosexuals?
The article within itself needs some good solid evidence!
And yet again you make claims without doing even the most cursory of research.
The sheep quote is attributed to biologist Dr. Charles Roselli, with a citation in the sentence itself.
The albatross quote is attributed to biologists Lindsy C Young, Brenda J Zaun and Eric A VanderWerf, all of the U.K.'s Royal Society, again with a citation included.
Which means it is credible, and it does offer evidence.
Why do you insist on regretting all evidence that contradicts your preconceptions, and why do you refuse to do research before making claims?
You could, if you followed any of the citations I provided. I am done walking you through each step. If you actually want to see his evidence, you have the links provided for you already.
It is due to the fact that everything is known on the subconscious level, as previously stated.
And I have indeed already done my research.
Look, the only way we can prove that my "subconscious level theory" is correct is by merely allowing me to prove to you that indeed animals aren't gay and when you look at the evidence, you indeed will know what I mean by the subconscious theory!
"It isn't natural in nature" oh blizzardbird you crack me up, what a great joke.
Seriously though, TrumpsHair answered perfectly, the LGBT lifestyle is perfectly natural. It's been around for centuries, it's observed in nature, and it's Safe, Sane and Consensual.
Besides, I'd have thought that if you were going to use the "it's unnatural" defense then you'd also be rather hedonistic (seeing as sex is about as natural as it gets, so presumably you'd be out giving in to your sexual urges at every opportunity).
One quick exception: The Transgender lifestyle, to my knowledge, isn't natural.
That said, I see absolutely no reason whats so ever why that should matter in any way. Never understood the whole "unnatural" argument, especially when it is argued while someone sits in a house, on a chair, over the internet via their computer, all of which are unnatural. Clearly the people who argue it don't think that something is bad just because it is unnatural (why would it be?) so this argument has always seemed...frivolous, to say the least.
Good point TrumpsHair, but I'm a bit hesitant to call the trans lifestyle "unnatural", purely for semantic reasons. I mean, like you said, building houses/using the internet/cooking meat, these are all "unnatural" things because we've made intelligent decisions and designed/created them. Being trans though, that isn't created or produced by humanity; it's just a uniquely human natural trait. Kinda like how, for some weird reason, cows everywhere tend to face North or South when eating. That's a uniquely cow thing to do, but isn't "unnatural".
Of course, this is all semantical, and the line between natural and unnatural can be arbitrarily drawn anywhere, but I personally figure that if the point itself is arbitrary then it makes more sense to just leave it at "Trans is natural", because that sounds far nicer.
Good point TrumpsHair, but I'm a bit hesitant to call the trans lifestyle "unnatural", purely for semantic reasons. I mean, like you said, building houses/using the internet/cooking meat, these are all "unnatural" things because we've made intelligent decisions and designed/created them. Being trans though, that isn't created or produced by humanity; it's just a uniquely human natural trait. Kinda like how, for some weird reason, cows everywhere tend to face North or South when eating. That's a uniquely cow thing to do, but isn't "unnatural".
True, we are using different concepts of "natural". I was more thinking "existing within the natural world", rather than "artificially created", though I think that both are completely acceptable (albeit philosophically distinct) concepts of "natural".
But as you said, none of it truly matters at all, because they aren't doing a god damn thing that should make it anyone's business but their own. I can appreciate you leaning towards the side of being "nicer" but I tend to lend towards some foolish idealistic stance more often than not, and to me, I find our concept of "natural" sounding nicer to be indicative of a greater problem that I, for reasons that serve no productive purpose, shall not stand for.
Again, no. The debate is "I'm straight and I feel uncomfortable around gays".
You changed the subject and went off topic. You have no authority to determine what is or is not a "stage" of the debate when it is, in fact, off topic.
No, we aren't. You are going off topic, and others are trying to put you back on topic, and offering you a different debate that is along the topic you are trying to debate.
Well then blizzardbird how about we discuss it on the other forum you're already posting on, and use whatever conclusion we reach there as supporting evidence on this forum.
The first stage of this argument HAS to be whether homosexuality is natural, otherwise nothing else in this debate will ever make sense.
No, not at all. Whether it is natural or not has absolutely no bearing on the actual debate topic (whether it is okay or not to feel uncomfortable around homosexuals).
Anyway, yes, I think we both agree that this stage has been completed.
I have looked into the Hawaii observations of albatrosses on Oahu and the domestic sheep gene thing and I have come to the conclusion that this evidence can't be proven or disproven directly.
We have completed the first stage:
Now we are onto the next stage:
Stage 2: What are the differences between the minds of animals and them minds of humans from your point of view?
I have been given no reason to trust you. You have not demonstrated any credibility, just crazy claims and a refusal to accept evidence that disproves your preconceptions.
Instead of repeating this every time, I will just respond to this one because it seems the most obviously ridiculous post of the recent batch you've sent to me:
I am done responding to you, for now at least. It is legitimately impossible to hold an actual conversation with you, for reasons that should be abundantly clear to anyone reading even just this post of yours, let alone full conversations.
