Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
If it doesn't infringe on anyone's free will (informed consent, etc), sure, why not.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If it doesn't infringe on anyone's free will (informed consent, etc), sure, why not.People are born with disabilities and change those.
I'm trying to understand here- are you attempting to justify homosexuality? On the basis that since someone is born with an attraction, it is okay to act on it?
People are born with disabilities and change those.
I'm trying to understand here- are you attempting to justify homosexuality? On the basis that since someone is born with an attraction, it is okay to act on it?
I'm referring to a person's attractions, not disablilities.
And I personally don't think homosexuality is a sin -- I just don't see it as a big deal if men are attracted to men, or women are attracted to women.
Could you explain why you think disabilities should be changed? Do you believe in normalising individual people, or the human race as a whole?I don't think it is either- but I assume the topic of discussion is what they do with those attractions.
As for attractions versus disabilities- I was pointing out the fact that being 'born' with someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.
Could you explain why you think disabilities should be changed? Do you believe in normalising individual people, or the human race as a whole?
Um, no I would not like to put that in because it defeats the whole purpose. Natural is something that has not been made as a result of man being in the picture, as in no direct involvement.Then the entire planet is unnatural: once humans existed on Earth, the entire planet was different. This is most obviously apparent today.
Or perhaps you would like to place an abritrary line so that human influence only constitutes unnaturality up to a point?
So how is nearsightedness (an obvious handicap; I should know), akin to homosexuality? Beyond their vaguely similar cause, of course.I didn't say should, but individuals with them to get them repaired.
People are born with nearsightedness and get correction-surgery. It's about avoiding the hassle of glasses or contacts.
How direct are we talking here? Physical contact? Man does not touch the building he bulldozes, so does 'direct involvement' extend to his tools?Um, no I would not like to put that in because it defeats the whole purpose. Natural is something that has not been made as a result of man being in the picture, as in no direct involvement.
Being born with something doesn't mean it should be changed either.I don't think it is either- but I assume the topic of discussion is what they do with those attractions.
As for attractions versus disabilities- I was pointing out the fact that being 'born' with someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.
You can only decide that you think something is wrong. I don't think that God has set a "moral code." I think people create moral codes. Moral codes are a human construction, and they are good human construction. Sometimes, however, what one generation thinks is moral turns out to be not moral to another generation, and so moral codes change. They don't change quickly, nor should they, but they do change.Based on how this thread was started....could anyone proove anything is wrong without there being a set moral code by a God....
Why? Our crap is there because of our direct involvement. Why is it different to a gun?If it was created or caused to happen because of man's direct involvment it is not natural- as in a footprint would be natural but a building would not. Our crap on the ground would be natural but a gun would not.
You said homosexuality was unnatural. I asked you what 'natural' was. To then whine is a tad childish: if you do not define your terms, then how can anyone understand what you are saying?Okay, if you're going to ask for me to define it even more than that then I'm not interested in debating with you.
Well why didn't you just say that? 'Something is natural if it doesn't have to be learned'.Crap is a natural process of the body and did not have to be learned in some way. Relationships, as long as we're not using the Bible, are something that must be learned. How to build a gun and a building must be learned.
Um, is there a way to prove that? Because I don't think you can be homosexual and heterosexual and feel both unless you went directly against the Bible's admonition for marital sex.the way you interpret the Bible, maybe.
Doesn't change the fact that the love homosexual couples feel for each other is exactly the same as the love heterosexual couples feel for each other
well if you want to follow THAT to its logical conclusion, how do we know that ANYONE'S relationships are based on love?Um, is there a way to prove that? Because I don't think you can be homosexual and heterosexual and feel both unless you went directly against the Bible's admonition for marital sex.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?