lesbian!!!! whoohaaa

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Once again i will repeat my stance seeing that you are having trouble understanding it. I have said that it is unnatural, citing the Bible as a reference point. I have provided empirical evidence to substantiate the Biblical stance, medical and physiological, why you keep harping on about irrelevancies and future hypothetical scenarios is perhaps a ...[text shortened]... ou amount to something like a gossiping housewife, talking a lot but not really saying anything.

if you are so sure im talking rubbish why dont you humor me for a while and answer the questions i ask?


does the bible ever define what it means by 'unnatural'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not argued on the basis of whether its morally acceptable or not, but what is natural and/or unnatural. One can only repeat it so many times.

Yeah right. Please don't suggest that when you said things like "the bible states quite clearly that lesbianism is contrary to nature" you didn't intend to convey something negative toward the moral status of lesbianism. That is simply tantamount to a lie on your part.

But, okay, I'll play along with your game here. So, then, you acknowledge that the question of whether not homosexuality is contrary to nature has really nothing to do with questions like whether or not it is morally wrong; or whether or not one has reasons to promote or discourage it; etc; etc?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah right. Please don't suggest that when you say things like "the bible states quite clearly that lesbianism is contrary to nature" you don't intend to convey something negative toward the moral status of lesbianism. That is simply tantamount to a lie on your part.

But, okay, I'll play along with your game here. So, then, you acknowledge that th ...[text shortened]... is morally wrong; or whether or not one has reasons to promote or discourage it; etc; etc?

no what its tantamount to lunacy is you making straw man arguments and introducing the now obligatory accusation of lying, another irrelevancy.

Once again i have not said anything with regard to whether its moral or immoral or whether that has any bearing on whether it should be considered as natural or unnatural.

Your arguments are full of more straw than the straw man in a house made entirely of straw eating strawberries.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no what its tantamount is you making straw man arguments and introducing the now obligatory accusation of lying, another irrelevancy.

Once again i have not said anything with regard to whether its moral or immoral or whether that has any bearing on whether it should be considered as natural or unnatural.

Your arguments are full of more straw than the straw man in a house made entirely of straw eating strawberries.

Man, you're so disingenuous it makes me rather ill.

If all you wanted to do was discuss, in purely descriptive terms, whether or not homosexuality qualifies as 'natural', then perhaps you should more tightly conceal (or just eliminate completely from the discussion) your homophobic barbs.

Since we continue to play your game, I'll ask again: do you acknowledge that the question of whether or not homosexuality is contrary to nature has really nothing to do with questions like whether or not it is moral; or whether or not one has reasons to encourage or discourage it, etc?

You may also want to get with the program. The OP was clearly in the business of ushering in discussion about how you view the moral status of lesbianism. You may want to now clarify that nothing you have said in this thread actually purports to address that at all. Of course, no one will actually buy that, owing to all the homophobic barbs you drop habitually on this topic.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Man, you're so disingenuous it makes me rather ill.

If all you wanted to do was discuss, in purely descriptive terms, whether or not homosexuality qualifies as 'natural', then perhaps you should more tightly conceal (or just eliminate completely from the discussion) your homophobic barbs.

Since we continue to play your game, I'll ask again: do you a ...[text shortened]... will actually buy that, owing to all the homophobic barbs you drop habitually on this topic.

I said, "Case closed !!!" -- Don't you understand redneck English?

The Instructor

Originally posted by LemonJello
Man, you're so disingenuous it makes me rather ill.

If all you wanted to do was discuss, in purely descriptive terms, whether or not homosexuality qualifies as 'natural', then perhaps you should more tightly conceal (or just eliminate completely from the discussion) your homophobic barbs.

Since we continue to play your game, I'll ask again: do you a ...[text shortened]... will actually buy that, owing to all the homophobic barbs you drop habitually on this topic.

homophobic barbs, sigh, another armchair psychoanalyst diagnosing anyone who opposes their perspective with mysterious mental aliments.

I provided medical and physiological evidence to substantiate the Biblical stance, i did not need to introduce any aspect of morality to substantiate this. But clearly, if one has taken a stance against the divine will, as revealed in scripture then clearly its considered as immoral and is therefore, for the Christian at least, a non issue.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I said, "Case closed !!!" -- Don't you understand redneck English?

The Instructor

apparently not, I have lost count of how many times i needed to state that my stance was based upon what was natural and/or unnatural, but i suspect, having no recourse to anything other than animal behavior, they now must introduce elements of morality, despite the physiological and medical evidence.

It might be interesting to count up how many times the term homophobic is utilised.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
apparently not, I have lost count of how many times i needed to state that my stance was based upon what was natural and/or unnatural, but i suspect, having no recourse to anything other than animal behavior, they now must introduce elements of morality, despite the physiological and medical evidence.

It might be interesting to count up how many times the term homophobic is utilised.

how do you decide what is unnatural? does the bible explain what it deems as unnatural?

is something that causes physical damage automatically deemed unnatural?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
apparently not, I have lost count of how many times i needed to state that my stance was based upon what was natural and/or unnatural, but i suspect, having no recourse to anything other than animal behavior, they now must introduce elements of morality, despite the physiological and medical evidence.

It might be interesting to count up how many times the term homophobic is utilised.

The OP asked whether or not you are "fine" with lesbianism. So, you base whether or not you are fine with some thing merely on considerations of whether or not that thing is, descriptively speaking, 'natural'? That's a rather bizarre metric (not to mention that it fails, again, to some variant of appeal to nature). Are you thereby not "fine" with God since he is super- or extra-natural?

All I can say about your continued blatant disengenuity is "Damn."

Originally posted by stellspalfie
how do you decide what is unnatural? does the bible explain what it deems as unnatural?

is something that causes physical damage automatically deemed unnatural?

yes it explains what it considers unnatural, males having sex with males and females having sex with females.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The OP asked whether or not you are "fine" with lesbianism. So, you base whether or not you are fine with some thing merely on considerations of whether or not that thing is, descriptively speaking, 'natural'? That's a rather bizarre metric (not to mention that it fails, again, to some variant of appeal to nature). Are you thereby not "fine" with God s ...[text shortened]... or extra-natural?

All I can say about your continued blatant disengenuity is "Damn."

The op asked what do Jehovahs Witnesses profess, he was told and given the Biblical reference. What you think of that or the reasons why its considered unnatural is your affair.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it explains what it considers unnatural, males having sex with males and females having sex with females.

that is not an explanation of unnatural. it is an example. i thought you were supposed to be clever?


what is the biblical explanation of unnatural?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The op asked what do Jehovahs Witnesses profess, he was told and given the Biblical reference. What you think of that or the reasons why its considered unnatural is your affair.

Actually the OP asked if JWs are fine with lesbianism. And you responded with some joke about how they ought to have a "gay and lesbo forum". Then you stated that the bible clearly states that lesbianism is contrary to nature.

So, did you mean to imply that JWs are not fine with lesbianism because the bible states that lesbianism is contrary to nature? If so, as I have already told you, that's a really daft reason to not be fine with it, since even if it is true that it is contrary to nature that fact would have actually nothing to do with the questions of whether or not lesbianism is morally right/wrong; or whether or not one should have reason to approve/disapprove of it; etc (again, at pain of committing some very basic fallacy such as appeal to nature).

So, basically, what happened was that you mocked the OP in your typical fashion that includes dropping homophobic barbs and jokes; and then you gave the opening poster a head-scratcher of a non-answer. Maybe you could just answer the OP directly and say that JWs are not fine with it but have basically no sound reasons whatsoever to back up that stance. That's pretty close to the fact of the matter.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Actually the OP asked if JWs are fine with lesbianism. And you responded with some joke about how they ought to have a "gay and lesbo forum". Then you stated that the bible clearly states that lesbianism is contrary to nature.

So, did you mean to imply that JWs are not fine with lesbianism because the bible states that lesbianism is contrary to nat d reasons whatsoever to back up that stance. That's pretty close to the fact of the matter.

he asked a question, he got the answer, him and you should be happy instead of whinging on like a crazed bagpipe.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
that is not an explanation of unnatural. it is an example. i thought you were supposed to be clever?


what is the biblical explanation of unnatural?

something that is considered contrary to nature. I am no more clever than the next man, i dont know why you have the impression that I am particularly clever.