Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

reply to post by pacifier2012


I bow to your superior intellect. Please forgive me, I am but a sinner.

“If adulterers were organised they would accuse Christianity as hate too. If thieves were organised and campaigned to make theft legal they would define Christianity as hate too. If those who enjoyed bestiality got organised, lobbied government and campaigned for equal rights, they would label Christianity as hate too.”
pacifier2012
Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Even if homosexuality was a crime * , it is a victimless crime so your analogy doesn’t work.

* I do not believe that it is morally, ethically or legally a crime because I believe that the anti-gay crowds fascination with genitalia is the true sin as it puts love in second place. However, I will provisionally accept that homosexuality is a crime. Accepting something provisionally is a technique from logic. One temporarily accepts one's opponent's proposition and then one proves that it implies a position that the opponent rejects. Since this proves that your opponent's position is self-contradictory, you have proven that his/her position is absurd.
For example, suppose my opponent makes the proposition “not A”( Gays are not moral or whatever “ not A” proposition.) I provisionally accept “not A” and from that foundation prove that “not A” is self-contradictory. Therefore, “ Not A” is not true. Two negatives make a positive. - - A = A. If "A" is not not true it is true.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
If adulterers were organised they would accuse Christianity as hate too. If thieves were organised and campaigned to make theft legal they would define Christianity as hate too. If those who enjoyed bestiality got organised, lobbied government and campaigned for equal rights, they would label Christianity as hate too.

Those who take advantage of victims are completely different than consenting adults. There are Christian gays, in case you didn't know. Christians who actually follow the teachings of Christ have no real problem with homosexuality.

If you are not comfortable in what you do, then you eliminate anything that reminds you it's wrong and try to make your environment as friendly to your dysfunction as possible so you feel more comfortable. That’s what insecure people do, even insecure Christians. If you are secure in who and what you are, no one can ever offend you.

What if YOU weren't allowed to get a job that you were perfectly qualified for? What if YOU were bullied/beaten/killed when you hadn't done anything to anyone? What if YOU weren't allowed to get a marriage license, or have all the rights and entitlements associated? What if you were a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen who had never hurt anyone, and yet YOU were treated this way? Wouldn't YOU be offended?

Homosexuality that DEMANDS that no one disagree with it is a psychological issue not a sexual one.

"Homosexuality" is a state of being - a state of being doesn't DEMAND anything. Homosexual people aren't demanding that no one disagree with them - they ARE demanding equal treatment under the law.

Homosexuality is no more a dysfunction than being left-handed is a dysfunction. Here is an interesting article comparing homosexuality and left-handedness, as treated in the Bible. Nobody thinks that being left-handed is evil now, but they used to.

www.gather.com...

Originally posted by wittgenstein

* I do not believe that it is morally, ethically or legally a crime because I believe that the anti-gay crowds fascination with genitalia is the true sin as it puts love in second place.

Common guys, there's no love, it's all sex. Love is a delusion, buy sex is real. How many gay guys would be interested in other men if they didn't have any genitalia?

Originally posted by GreatOwl
Love is a delusion

I relate to no person that believes love is a delusion. They are fundamentally lost.

How many gay guys would be interested in other men if they didn't have any genitalia?

How many heterosexual men would be interested in women if they didn't have genitalia?

There is more to orientation than sex itself. If the removal of genitalia affected the 'straight' and the gay man so much that it removed the drive for sexual intercourse... I imagine other aspects of orientation would still be in place for both the 'straight' man and the gay man.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
[
How many heterosexual men would be interested in women if they didn't have genitalia?

None.

reply to post by GreatOwl

Sorry I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

But it does seem as though you don't know the difference between sexual orientation and sex itself.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by GreatOwl

 

Sorry I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

But it does seem as though you don't know the difference between sexual orientation and sex itself.

There is such a thing as "sexual orientation" without "sex" ?

I'm eager to learn. Please explain.

Originally posted by GreatOwl

Originally posted by wittgenstein

* I do not believe that it is morally, ethically or legally a crime because I believe that the anti-gay crowds fascination with genitalia is the true sin as it puts love in second place.

Common guys, there's no love, it's all sex. Love is a delusion, buy sex is real. How many gay guys would be interested in other men if they didn't have any genitalia?

That's lust you're speaking of. Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

Love is loyalty, honor, compassion, respect, dignity, and a joyous heart.

Originally posted by GreatOwl

I'm eager to learn. Please explain.

Eager to learn is something I can appreciate

wiki:

Sexual orientation describes an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes, and the genders that accompany them.

Attraction.That's orientation. Not sex.

American Psychological Association:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.

www.apa.org/sexual-orientation

Originally posted by netgamer7k

That's lust you're speaking of. Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

Love is loyalty, honor, compassion, respect, dignity, and a joyous heart.

Yes, it's lust, sure. But, I'm not a religious believer. I have no faith in things I can't see, feel, hear, etc..

I can feel the lust, yes, the body responds, parts get hard, the heart races, things happen which can be measured scientifically, it can be shown that testosterone is pumped into the blood, etc..all very verifiable things...

But, how do we measure love?

How can I verify whether she loves me more, or loves me less today?

I can measure the lust, by taking a sample of her blood, and measuring the concentration of hormones, and I can test the firmness of her breasts with a "tension meter". So, I can determine whether she lusts more or less today than yesterday. But love? What is that?

Can anybody tell me?

It's a word with no meaning. Each person dreams of a different thing, and fantasizes about it differently, each according to his or her delusions.

It has no objective reality.

But, heterosexual sex, that is real, homosexual sex, that is real, we can probe and measure, lengths and tensions, concentrations and temperature, heart beats and rate of breath, all very real things to determine the lust between two people.

But love? What is that?

Can anybody tell me?

In the movie Contact Jodie Foster is an atheist and a scientist. She regularily argues with Matthew Mcconaughey whos a Christian, there is no empirical evidence for God. No proof. Later in the movie Matthew asks her if she loved her father, and she replies 'of course'. And he says 'prove it'. She didn't have an answer.

It's a word with no meaning. Each person dreams of a different thing, and fantasizes about it differently, each according to his or her delusions.

Delusions? That's one way to view it I suppose

The reductionist can reduce love down to biological processes but that meets the same pitfalls behaviorism had in the field of psychology... it's just not genuine to dismiss the mind.

It has meaning, even if that meaning can be rather esoteric.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The reductionist can reduce love down to biological processes but that meets the same pitfalls behaviorism had in the field of psychology... it's just not genuine to dismiss the mind.

It has meaning, even if that meaning can be rather esoteric.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Society is better off when we replace the delusional unprovable things with concepts and ideas that are amenable to measurement. All conflicts occur because people have "different" delusions concerning things for which there are no objective evidence. Once we can measure and record, all disputes come to an end. That's the advantage of facts. Lets get rid of all the "fictions" that keep people at each others throats. When we stick to the facts there's never any claims of oppression and repression.

All facts can be argued and reinterpreted.

Sad to say.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
All facts can be argued and reinterpreted.

Sad to say.

To a certain extent this is true. For example, many heterosexuals are denied marriage license based on various interpretations of fact.

A brother is not allowed to marry his sister. He might love her more that anybody else, but the state doesn't care.

A father can't marry his own daughter. But, I'll bet they love each other more than any outsider could.

A mother is not allowed to marry her son. But, again, the love there is surely more true that someone just met.

Again, first cousins marrying each other are often frowned upon, yet it's a privilege that the Royal and Noble families have always had.

Who makes up these crazy rules?

The state has it's own interpretation of the fact of "genetic closeness", and bases it's policy on that.

There's even a push to have couples undergo "genetic testing" or "genetic screening", as it's otherwise called, to limit the possibility of genetically transmitted diseases, so heterosexuals are exposed to all sorts of restrictions on their partnerships, like it or not. So, even couples unrelated to each other are at risk of being denied the right to marry.

These are all ways the "facts" are being used to oppress lovers.

The interpretation of those facts are just some one's opinion.

Who says the lovers want to have children? Maybe they only want to have sex, and plan to use contraceptives and abortion to ensure they live child free.

It's their decision. Why should the state get involved with their sex life?

This is why it's a good thing homosexuals are fighting for the right to marry. If they win, then all the oppressed heterosexuals will obviously automatically have to have that same right to marry, and everybody becomes free of all the delusional ideas that oppress mankind.

There's nothing wrong with two brothers marrying each other is there? They can't even produce children. Two sisters marrying each other, same thing. Father divorcing mother, and marrying daughter, because she reminds him of mom when she was younger. All sorts of things become possible.

Freedom to the soul, to express life as the soul sees fit.

Originally posted by GreatOwl

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The reductionist can reduce love down to biological processes but that meets the same pitfalls behaviorism had in the field of psychology... it's just not genuine to dismiss the mind.

It has meaning, even if that meaning can be rather esoteric.

edit on 23-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Society is better off when we replace the delusional unprovable things with concepts and ideas that are amenable to measurement. All conflicts occur because people have "different" delusions concerning things for which there are no objective evidence. Once we can measure and record, all disputes come to an end. That's the advantage of facts. Lets get rid of all the "fictions" that keep people at each others throats. When we stick to the facts there's never any claims of oppression and repression.

edit on 24-8-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)

Ahaha, sounds like you're just as delusional as the rest of us.

That's an idealistic view of the world which is not intirely consistent with 'reality'.

Originally posted by Arles Morningside

Ahaha, sounds like you're just as delusional as the rest of us.

That's an idealistic view of the world which is not intirely consistent with 'reality'.

edit on 24-8-2012 by Arles Morningside because: (no reason given)

Oh, sure. I probably have many delusions of my own. But, the point I'm tying to make is that we should be free to have our own delusions, while limiting all laws to the facts. In other words, don't introduce or support a law that is simply constructed from delusions, and unprovable and un-measurable things.

Let people be free to engage their delusions, whatever they might be. But not impose their delusions on others.

That's the essential point.

reply to post by GreatOwl


So in a nutshell.

Society would be better off if it viewed love as delusion.

?

reply to post by GreatOwl


I'm going to have to agree with you on that. It is very concerning when belief and emotion take precedence over reason and facts, especially when it comes to the people we put into office and how this society is runned. What people believe and what not should be private matters so long as it dosn't break the law and infringe upon the rights of others.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


The thing is, emotions do have a physical effect and can be measured with devices. So emotions are real and can be proven.

That would have been the right answer to that "prove it".