Mississippi passes religious 'Freedom' bill:

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's none of those things.

But as I have said many times before, this rubbish about being 'natural' or not is irrelevant.

Being 'natural' or 'unnatural' is not any indication of being good or bad [particularly since those
terms have no clear or well defined meanings]. Many plants and animals contain perfectly
'natural' poisons or toxins [like c ...[text shortened]... ot [your favourite, and indeed only argument out side of 'god said so']
is totally irrelevant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually the Bible itself states that its unnatural.😵

Originally posted by checkbaiter
In a perfect world, yes. But then again you wouldn't be there.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
My, my, what have I done?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I thought you might mention those Angles who ....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more codswallop! I also resent these appeals to personal considerations so beloved by those desperadoes devoid of objective reasoning. As an existentialist philosopher I reject a genetic argument. Why? because a predisposition is not the same thing as a causation otherwise if I was a kleptomaniac I should evade prosecution for my crimes blaming it ...[text shortened]... fe and became homosexuals nor those who abandoned homosexual practices and became heterosexuals.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's none of those things.

But as I have said many times before, this rubbish about being 'natural' or not is irrelevant.

Being 'natural' or 'unnatural' is not any indication of being good or bad [particularly since those
terms have no clear or well defined meanings]. Many plants and animals contain perfectly
'natural' poisons or toxins [like c ...[text shortened]... ot [your favourite, and indeed only argument out side of 'god said so']
is totally irrelevant.

One problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in the Bible that is condemned should be condemned. Yet they condemn homosexuality purely on that basis. They pick and choose to support their prejudice whether they want to admit it or not.

For that matter, in general they pick and choose what teachings to believe and not to believe. As an example I cited the belief that "women should be silent in the church." This comes from Paul. Paul said a number of things about women that, from what I can tell, the vast majority of Christians do not believe are true. They typically dismiss Paul's beliefs about women as being a product of the prejudices of his time and culture. But aren't Paul's beliefs about homosexuality also a product of the prejudices of his time and culture? Once again they pick and choose to support their prejudices whether they want to admit it or not.

Fortunately there are many Christians who have come to understand the bigotry that underlies such a position and are fighting against it - just as many Christians have come to understand the immorality of slavery even though the Bible has God explicitly condoning it in the Bible. That Mississippi remains a backward state should come as no surprise to anyone given their ongoing history.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
One problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn,...

Those who seek to fight against the bigotry exhibited by some Christians on this forum should look at the following website. By and large it is well thought out and points out how bigotry underlies their position.

Bible Abuse Directed at Homosexuals

Goals

To make it clear, it is not the goal here either to debate the relevance or infallibility of biblical scripture or to proselytize; the two goals are as embodied in the two major sections. The first goal is to look at exactly who it is that commits abuse of the Bible and directs it at homosexuals – and why. This is not, as some would have you believe, everybody except the homosexual fringe.

Second, the site tries to determine what the original biblical texts actually say (as opposed to what people with political – not Christian – agendas would have them say). Unfortunately, this is not at all a simple process. The languages in which the Bible was first written down have all changed beyond recognition by modern native speakers of those languages. In addition, the cultures for and about which the Bible was written – both before the Exile and once the remnants of Judah had returned from captivity in Babylon – were strikingly different from modern society (in particular, it must be hoped, in the regard for individual human life). No longer do we prescribe death for an entire city, tribe, or nation for the sins of a few people; no longer are slavery or racial superiority just taken for granted; no longer are women treated as property – women are even able and allowed to read the Bible! Times and languages have changed, and unless a person is seriously deranged enough to advocate the extermination of entire populations simply because models for it occur in the Bible, we must use judgment in applying the lessons of this scripture.

http://stopbibleabuse.org/

As you may have observed by now, attempts to distort the Bible into a message of hate are badly misguided. The passages in Leviticus and Paul’s three letters specifically apply to people engaging in ritual activity in pagan temples, a feature absent from modern society except in such places as Wall Street. The references to ‘sodomites’ in Deuteronomy, etc., are a clear error in translation that refer to the same thing. The Sodom and Gomorrah references clearly refer to inhospitality and not to homosexuality at all. In addition, there are sections in the Bible that – if adequately translated – confirm God’s love for all of his children, gay included...In the Real World, rabid fundamentalists are doing nothing more than citing Biblical passages to support their pre-existing anti-gay prejudice – precisely doing what Southerners once did to justify slavery (which the Bible condones with considerably more clarity).

Originally posted by twhitehead
And as I pointed out, paedophilia is not condemned in the Bible, but checkbaiter clearly has reasons to think it is immoral or sinful (not quite clear). Oddly enough he was extremely reluctant to explain why he believes it is immoral - even though he brought it up as an immoral act closely tied to homosexuality.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Appeals to personal considerations sir are only necessary when you demonstrate a difficulty in empathizing with the considerations of others. A predisposition is a causation when we are dealing with something as humanly fundamental as a sex drive or sexual orientation. Comparing this impulse with a compulsion to shoplift is a nonsense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
now you are just falling into fiction and making it up as you go along.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Not at all sir. I have merely read books you haven't.

You have differentiated between a predisposition and a causation and i have demonstrated that they are not mutually exclusive. Why is your opinion factual and mine fictional and made up?

Please answer in 38 words.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You have demonstrated nothing of the sort except an enviable propensity for talking unadulterated balderdash! all you have done is make a claim, a ludicrous claim that predisposition is a causation which I have ably and admirably demonstrated is nonsense. If it were the case then any rapist could make the claim that 'it woz is genes wot made him do ...[text shortened]... Is that what you are saying? Is it? Go on I dare you to say it!

I reject all such quackery!