"Sodom and Gomorah" Tories /Lib Dems

Dave Ellis said:

Homosexuality is a natural occurrence,

Click to expand...

No one has questioned that homophilia also happens in nature. So does infanticide, murder, incest, and much, much more. Does that make those activities acceptable for humans to engage in?

Marius27 said:

Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group who has never done scientific research and is endorsing Uganda's genocide bill of gay people. The fact that you resort to a group like that to support your views proves you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. Quoting FRC about gays is like quoting Hitler on the value of Jews. Family Research Council is just as evil as Nazis.

Click to expand...

Translation:

"Waaah they don't agree with me, so they're evul".



Also: Please provide documentation, as to where they approve of killing homophiles.

mindlight said:

Absolute rubbish you are merely revealing your ideological presuppositions here. [snip]

Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle.

We have the direct evidence and observation about the physiology of the brain that results in homosexual tendencies. There is no question it is a physical difference in brain makeup, and it's out of their control for a person to decide what their orientation is.

You are rejecting the direct medical evidence we have in favour of your own ideological presuppositions which have no evidence.

Also, sexuality is a spectrum. There are some people who are 100% straight, or 100% gay, however there's a lot that fall in the middle ranges, and the degrees can vary to any percentage. So, the fact someone may have been in a lesbian relationship and dated a man later isn't out of the question at all, she may have an equal attraction to both sexes.

mindlight said:

3 of the early popes were African as was St Augustine. The Ethiopian church was a beacon of light on a dark continent for thousands of years. It was Christians that led the fight against slavery and for justice for black people.

One important difference with the liberation agenda for gays with that of slaves, blacks and women is that Christians are in direct opposition this time whereas they led the fight for these other things. The Christians that support this cannot justify it and have stepped outside the authority of the church. Also the bible verses are not going to change. This will still be wrong in 50 years time however entrenched it becomes in society.

There is nothing natural about homosexuality. It thrives only where it is permitted and affirmed and it is a symptom of deep spiritual degeneration.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it's relevant to bring up three early popes or the Ethiopian church when talking about the interracial marriage debate of the 20th Century.... Were these popes marrying white women in Alabama?

Also, some Christians did indeed fight against slavery. Many others however fought to continue slavery and both based their arguments off the Bible. Christianity was not some grand unified force against slavery, some of the people who fought hardest to maintain it were very religious Christians.

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring thing. Just because you don't want it to be, doesn't change that fact. There is a mountain of medical and biological evidence to back it.

ChristOurCaptain said:

No one has questioned that homophilia also happens in nature. So does infanticide, murder, incest, and much, much more. Does that make those activities acceptable for humans to engage in?

Click to expand...

As does sharing, co-operation and love as well.

Does the fact they occur in nature mean they compare to the things you listed above?

Please present an argument that isn't completely absurd.

ChristOurCaptain said:

No one has questioned that homophilia also happens in nature. So does infanticide, murder, incest, and much, much more. Does that make those activities acceptable for humans to engage in?

Click to expand...

Except Dave never argued that it is morally right because it is natural. Instead he simply pointed out that mindlight's assertion that it is unnatural is wrong.

Archaeopteryx said:

Except Dave never argued that it is morally right because it is natural. Instead he simply pointed out that mindlight's assertion that it is unnatural is wrong.

Click to expand...

That's correct as well.

So in your view the popular mandate is what drives the discussion and implementation is a matter of simply doing it in a measured way. This is not what happened with gay rights of course. The rights were given when the public were opposed to them and then efforts were made over a period of decade to move public opinion in a liberal progressive direction. So this was a matter of moral corruption from the government rather than government listening to the people. So a popular mandate can be achieved by manipulative elites or leaders like Hitler for example. The mob also is fickle and not the basis for moral judgments. The real question is on what moral basis this manipulation was conducted if any.

Click to expand...

You haven't really listened to what I said. Popular mandate is not the only thing, but governments are there to reprisent the people so should pay attention to public opinion. This can be to show why public opinion is wrong, of course. But it should listen.

I only need one example to show the mutability of sexuality but there are in fact many more examples than that. The transformation of a single life is proof of both the possibility and desirability of change:

Click to expand...

It doesn't really demonstrate anything. So many so called ex-gays come out further down the line to say they were simply lying. There's a strong pressure on believers to conform when they're told their mortal soul is on the line. There is also the issue that most humans are likely to have a degree of bisexuality, even if very small so it's not so much a change in orientation but a supression of a part of it.

Even ignoring all that, given that the process is demonstratably harmful and mostly fails, even if it does work for the odd person, should we force people who do not want to change to undergo such a technique?

So I can marry my adult brother but not my son or my dad - OK got it. There is of course no genetic risk from any of these 3 incestuous gay relationships.

Click to expand...

Well, no you can't as neither incest nor incestuous marriage are legal. If they were, and both you and your brother wanted this, then I wouldn't personally have any issue with it. But I don't see any reason to support changing the law at the moment.

Why unrelated - where does that moral judgment come from- there is no hierarchy or genetic risk for me to marry my brother afterall. So why is that wrong in your view?

Click to expand...

As above, it comes down to consent. Relationships that are not fully consensual are not moral in my opinion, so any degree of coersion is wrong. This goes for any sort of relationship.

Sodom and Gomorah are a pretty good example of what happens to a society in which these sins are allowed to grow to their full measure as is Canaan.

Click to expand...

But there's no evidence to suggest the events decribed in the bible happened, or that homosexuality caused the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Some suggest that Nazi Germany was a kind of judgment on a society in which the incidence of homosexuality and false religion had been tolerated for too long, in which the depth of true religious feeling had been eroded and the love of most had grown cold as a result and in which the same ammoral practices of our current political elite had been applied for a period to the governance of the nation. Modern Germany woke up from that judgment a devastated nation but one without gay people for a time.

Click to expand...

How supportive was Germany of homosexuality before the rise of the Nazis? It certainly wasn't very supported during their time.

What will be unleashed by immoral laws such as this on SSM is a contempt for the current government of the land and a realisation that authority does not come from them or the people who affirm them but rather is independent of both.

Click to expand...

Why? Most people in the country support SSM. Of those that don't most are happy as long it doesn't affect them (ie no marriage of same sex couples in their church.) The only people unhappy are the ones who wanted to dictate their morality on others and are annoyed this is another area they can no longer do so.

Clearly you are happy about a process that is emptying the ranks of government and the higher management positions of many multinationals of Christians

Click to expand...

Only Christians who insist on enforcing their morality on others.

ChristOurCaptain said:

No one has questioned that homophilia also happens in nature. So does infanticide, murder, incest, and much, much more. Does that make those activities acceptable for humans to engage in?

Click to expand...

Still comparing love between 2 consenting adults to murder I see.

ChristOurCaptain said:

Translation:

"Waaah they don't agree with me, so they're evul".



Also: Please provide documentation, as to where they approve of killing homophiles.

Click to expand...

Uganda Has Tony Perkins Support | Advocate.com

The head of the antigay Family Research Council tweeted his support of Uganda, which is weighing an extremely harsh antigay bill that could put gays behind bars and possibly sentences some to death.

"American liberals are upset that Ugandan Pres is leading his nation in repentance — afraid of a modern example of a nation prospered by God," the FRC's Tony Perkins tweeted on Monday.

The Human Rights Campaign condemned Perkins's tweet, with spokesman Fred Sainz saying in a statement, "Tony Perkins can't claim that FRC isn't a hate group, while at the same time support a bill that many believe would bring the death penalty to gay Ugandans."


You don't know much about FRC apparently. Everything they publish is factually incorrect, and they are a designated hate group. They are the anti-gay version of the KKK or Neo-Nazis.

Marius27 said:

Still comparing love between 2 consenting adults to murder I see.

Click to expand...

Still not understanding that it's the "It happens in nature, therefore it's ok"-nonsense I'm going up against, I see.

ChristOurCaptain said:

Still not understanding that it's the "It happens in nature, therefore it's ok"-nonsense I'm going up against, I see.

Click to expand...

The point is that someone made the point that homosexuality is unnatural. We have demonstrated it is not.

If homosexual "marriage" were to be allowed, then by using the same arguments, allowing public sex acts can and should be legal as well!

If homosexual "marriage" were to be allowed, then by using the same arguments, allowing public sex acts can and should be legal as well!

Click to expand...

Why? I see no reason to connect the two. I'm not aware of any country that has legalised same sex marriage and public sex acts, so it seems most people don't connect them either.

Still not understanding that it's the "It happens in nature, therefore it's ok"-nonsense I'm going up against, I see.

Click to expand...

Nobody is making that claim.

Creech said:

If homosexual "marriage" were to be allowed, then by using the same arguments, allowing public sex acts can and should be legal as well!

Click to expand...

How do you figure? We don't allow public sex acts for Heterosexual marriage, why would we do so for homosexual ones?

Dave Ellis said:

How do you figure? We don't allow public sex acts for Heterosexual marriage, why would we do so for homosexual ones?

Click to expand...

Because not doing so is COMPLETE bigotry, and only shows how narrow minded people are! It doesn't hurt anyone - who are you to say what people can and cannot do?

ChristOurCaptain said:

Because not doing so is COMPLETE bigotry, and only shows how narrow minded people are! It doesn't hurt anyone - who are you to say what people can and cannot do?

Click to expand...

Care to put forward an argument that isn't a red herring?

Dave Ellis said:

Care to put forward an argument that isn't a red herring?

Click to expand...

No one gets punched down (harmed) if you allow sex in public --> not approving of allowing sex in public is bigotry.
At least if we're to stay with the "logic" that advocates for SSM have used so far.

ChristOurCaptain said:

No one gets punched down (harmed) if you allow sex in public --> not approving of allowing sex in public is bigotry.
At least if we're to stay with the "logic" that advocates for SSM have used so far.

Click to expand...

Would you want to take your 5 year old kid to the public park where people are having sex out in the open?

If your answer is no, then you would be harmed if public sex is allowed. You would not be able to spend the day with your kid at the park, and the kid would not have as enjoyable a day.

However, I wouldn't necessarily call this a moral issue. Society as a whole is in general agreement that we don't want to see people having sex in public, especially in spaces deemed to be for general public use.

And it's not bigotry in any sense anyway, because the vast majority of society has sex. I'm sexually active, as I'm sure you are as well. I would also imagine both our votes if the issue of public sex came up would be no. Limiting where certain actions are appropriate, and where certain actions are not is not bigotry. There's far, far more examples of similar situations in law.

The bigotry issue here isn't based around the fact you oppose gay marriage. The bigotry issue is based on the fact you called them as immoral as necrophiliacs.

If you're opposed to public sex, that's your right. If you want to go and say that someone that has sex in public is as immoral as your average drunk driver or necrophiliac, then you are a bigot.

So the line of arguing you're going down is not relevant. It's a red herring.