To call murder a mental problem is to say it is beyond the control of the individual. This would make them innocent of teh crime they committed. That is why I disagree that people are born to make certain choices, if that were the case then anyone could say it is not really their fault for their actions. This would(if it does not come to this eventually) destroy the world. Also if we as a people go to that level I think the annihilation of the race would be for the best.
You know we do have ways of telling which people are insane and we put them in diffirent places than the rest of the criminals? Are we anhillating the human race by puting them in mental institutions intead of gas chambers? I don't think so. Anyhow, what does that have to do with the choice of adult and consenting sexual partner?
Such gloom and doom how horrible of me to say. But I weep for those that do not understand that we all have choices and we should all have to deal with the consequences. Life is not fair and God weeps for us all in our struggles. May the Lord have mercy on our souls.
I can't say I weep for you, but I am not at all pleased that you've thus far compared me to a pedophile, an animal rapist, and now an insane murderer, all on the basis that I have the predisposition to homosexual love with another adult male.
Then please enlighten me as to what the purpose of sex is if it is not two reproductive organs atempting to take an egg and a seed and fertalize that seed to bring forth a new life. What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
Didn't I already address that in my former post? Ok, just for you-
1.Sex as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bonding, trust and love in the relationship.
2.For zee orgasm(there are so many actual health benefits for this one, some disadvantages too to be fair).
3.For children
I would say number 2 should be the top one but since we are talking about 'relationship'...
How is tehre true trust and love if you are nto willing to give yourself 100% to the other person, this means to welcome the chance of having a child. I see sex as a very serious matter as something only two people should ever do with eachotehr when they decide to spend the rest of their lives together to have children and raise them under the proper teachings of God. Sex outside of this serves no purpose in the grand scheme of life.
You don't need orgasms to stay healthy. Any exercise will do so sex for that purpose is invalid. Though I don't deny the pleasure in the action, it is not the purpose of the action.
Did I say you NEED orgasms to stay healthy? Please point it out to me. You are grasping at straws bud.
You don't get to decide when sex is valid or invalid when it doesn't concern you and is fully consensual.
How do you equate 'giving yourself 100% to the other person' with 'welcoming the chance of having a child'? This is deeply illogical.
What happens after menopause? Will you stop having sex with your wife because you could not possibly be giving yourself a 100% when there is no chance of having a child.
Nothign is impossible, and if she becomes pregnant at 102 then we will welcome the child.
You stated a purpose of sex as orgasm which you related to health benefits.
I am an atheist and an agnostic. I will refer to myself as an atheist for the rest of the reply for practical reasons. I used to be Catholic, but I renounced my faith.
I chose to be atheist because religion is ultimately a question of faith. Specifically, it is ultimately a question of faith from an epistemological view that uses scientific tools to obtain knowledge. Other points of view regard personal experience, such as feeling a gods presence, as evidence of a god´s existence.
My opinion is that you need an agreed-upon method of obtaining knowledge, that can be tested in regard to how good it is at obtaining knowledge. The testable methods we are currently using (experiments, correlational studies et cetera) can not be used to test the existence of any god what so ever. No evidence, no reason to believe. In addition, science requires a paradigm in which the world is looked upon as a deterministic sequence of cause and effect, both on a large scale, and on a small scale.
I was unable to fit the concept of God into this world-view. Notice that I am speaking about the concept of God, and not God himself. These are completely different matters. Initially, I tried to resolve this issue by choosing dualism. The problem about dualism, is that it creates more problems than it solves. Interaction is just one among many. So I ended up choosing simplicity. No God, no incompatibility problems.
TLDR; I chose an atheist point of view because it is ultimately a question of belief according to my ways of obtaining knowledge, and because I got less problems with how I view the world:)
To call murder a mental problem is to say it is beyond the control of the individual. This would make them innocent of teh crime they committed. That is why I disagree that people are born to make certain choices, if that were the case then anyone could say it is not really their fault for their actions. This would(if it does not come to this eventually) destroy the world. Also if we as a people go to that level I think the annihilation of the race would be for the best.
You know we do have ways of telling which people are insane and we put them in diffirent places than the rest of the criminals? Are we anhillating the human race by puting them in mental institutions intead of gas chambers? I don't think so. Anyhow, what does that have to do with the choice of adult and consenting sexual partner?
Such gloom and doom how horrible of me to say. But I weep for those that do not understand that we all have choices and we should all have to deal with the consequences. Life is not fair and God weeps for us all in our struggles. May the Lord have mercy on our souls.
I can't say I weep for you, but I am not at all pleased that you've thus far compared me to a pedophile, an animal rapist, and now an insane murderer, all on the basis that I have the predisposition to homosexual love with another adult male.
Nothign I say is directly aimed at you and it you take it as such, stop thinking so highly of yourself. I speak in general terms of homosexuality, pedophiles, animal lovers, and murderers.
I do not know you personally on a level that I could speak directly to you about you so there is no reason you should take personal offense to what I say.
I am giving you my views which are backed by what I believe is right.
And I asked you why you believed this view to be right. You said it wasn't religious, but I can't help but wonder where you are getting all these stupulations from.
My wife and I chose eachother and you have the right to choose another man. It is the right given to all people. It does nto mean that everyone will agree with you but what does it matter what they think? You should do what you want and what you think it good or right or true or scientifically proven to you. As for me I will serve God to the best of my very limited ability.
Well, it matters what they think because I am subject to denegration and abuse (showcased by your comparisons) on a regular basis by people who hold such beliefs. I already can't marry or form any kind of legal union with my significant other, but they also won't let me visit him in the hospitol, etc. If you're wondering why I care what they think, I have to wonder if you don't know how we're being treated or you just support it and are being sarcastic.
Nothign I say is directly aimed at you and it you take it as such, stop thinking so highly of yourself. I speak in general terms of homosexuality, pedophiles, animal lovers, and murderers.
I do not know you personally on a level that I could speak directly to you about you so there is no reason you should take personal offense to what I say.
I think i'd rather have an apology than a "stop thinking so highly of yourself."
Nothign is impossible, and if she becomes pregnant at 102 then we will welcome the child.
You stated a purpose of sex as orgasm which you related to health benefits.
Yes I stated the reason and associated it with health benefits. Nowhere did I mention the reason was motivated by the benefits. Something you've failed to grasp.
In any case, you've managed to create an interesting (and implausible) scenario that will guarantee you will have sex all your life.
Just goes to show how much you like it.
Now if you could be as tolerant and non-judgmental towards others, that would be tits.
And how exactly do you examine the context when the text is literal? It's not a parable where a gay man is killed. It's a line of text that says "if a man lies with another man... kill him," that simple. You're right not to like literalist interpretations, but you still ahvent explained to me how you escape literalism when you have text that is EXPLICIT in its instructions.
Then you're talking about VD's that could have been passed by hetero sex. I see no moratorium on heterosexual activity, so I don't see the point. Gay is not a slang word for promiscuity. We're just as monogamous as anyone else.
Actually, it does condemn promiscuity, and there is a moratorium on heterosexual activity, mainly during a woman's monthly. (I had to look up moratorium, but i suspect we have different definitions from your context) I never said that Gay is a slang word for promiscuity, I was condemning promiscuity, and yes I know that you're monogamous. I may have miscommunicated... I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
I escape that literalist interpretation by an acute understanding of the characteristics God has shown to value. It requires a deeper study than just reading something like " And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." and the next time you jerk off, after you finish, lose a hand. Blind obedience is nice, but understanding the spirit of the law is much more important. If you read all the laws that Israel had, you realize there's no way you could follow them, much less follow the spirit of them. And you begin to understand the need for the sacrifices, because no one could follow the law - all who tried were equally failures at it (except one).
Also, to people arguing about sex and it's purpose - it's a symbol and celebration of the union of two people, 2 bodies, 1 flesh. The fact that we do it to reproduce is an added bonus. If you read the Song of Solomon, also known as Song of Songs, it's like a porno for it's time period. Not a lot in there about makin' babies. But there's a whole lot in there about makin' babies, if you know what i mean.
I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
Are STDs transmitted in new ways I am unaware of? Or did you just make that up?
I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
Are STDs transmitted in new ways I am unaware of? Or did you just make that up?
By homosexual activity, I mean anal sex. By heterosexual activity, I mean vaginal sex. I didn't want to have to clarify, but apparently I do.
well, I have to go to class, I might come back to this thread later. I really really hope necro doesn't try to dispute this point, as it's supported by science. Source on request.
Actually, it does condemn promiscuity, and there is a moratorium on heterosexual activity, mainly during a woman's monthly. (I had to look up moratorium, but i suspect we have different definitions from your context) I never said that Gay is a slang word for promiscuity, I was condemning promiscuity, and yes I know that you're monogamous. I may have miscommunicated... I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
Right, i'm just saying that has nothing to do with homosexuality, which was the original pracice in question. You said it might have been banned for medical reasons, well, if those medical reasons were due to promiscuity: that has no bearing on homosexuality.
I escape that literalist interpretation by an acute understanding of the characteristics God has shown to value. It requires a deeper study than just reading something like " And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." and the next time you jerk off, after you finish, lose a hand. Blind obedience is nice, but understanding the spirit of the law is much more important. If you read all the laws that Israel had, you realize there's no way you could follow them, much less follow the spirit of them. And you begin to understand the need for the sacrifices, because no one could follow the law - all who tried were equally failures at it (except one).
Interesting. So by what understanding to you infer that god doesn't like blind obedience? I have read extensively from the torah, the mishna, and the talmud, the new testament scriptures, the qur'an, and I can't see where you are inferring characteristics of this god that encourage you to look for the "spirit," of the law. There are spiritual leaders, rabbinic and priestly men, who took it upon themselves to point out these spirit messages within literal texts, but I can't tell what kind of judgment they were using except what was practical or what they needed politically. That doesn't seem like a godly interpretatino of the script, but a man-made interpretation.
I also agree that nobody could possible follow all those laws, they're a good number of rediculous ones, and frankly it just re-iterates to me how man-made they are. Any proposed god who came up with that list of 600 commandments was either ignorant of the humans he had made or simply evil enough to command them to do things he knew they couldn't. Of course, as I say, I have no evidence of god or not in the entire universe, much less a specific kind that writes and talks to jews in the desert. So i'm not familiar with how a beleiver would look at it.
I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
Are STDs transmitted in new ways I am unaware of? Or did you just make that up?
By homosexual activity, I mean anal sex. By heterosexual activity, I mean vaginal sex. I didn't want to have to clarify, but apparently I do.
News flash: Anal sex is by no means exclusive to homosexual activity. Also you do realize lesbians are homosexuals too(not that they don't engage in anal sex)?
For an STD to be passed on, there needs to be exchange of body fluids from infected persons.
So my question is- where did the 'increased risk' come from unless you are associating STDs with homosexuals.
Edit- noticed your edit. Yes I do know the science and biology behind. But there is no reason whatsoever to think the practice is more risky if the persons do not even have any STDs. Plus, you kind of forgot the girls.
I am giving you my views which are backed by what I believe is right.
And I asked you why you believed this view to be right. You said it wasn't religious, but I can't help but wonder where you are getting all these stupulations from.
My wife and I chose eachother and you have the right to choose another man. It is the right given to all people. It does nto mean that everyone will agree with you but what does it matter what they think? You should do what you want and what you think it good or right or true or scientifically proven to you. As for me I will serve God to the best of my very limited ability.
Well, it matters what they think because I am subject to denegration and abuse (showcased by your comparisons) on a regular basis by people who hold such beliefs. I already can't marry or form any kind of legal union with my significant other, but they also won't let me visit him in the hospitol, etc. If you're wondering why I care what they think, I have to wonder if you don't know how we're being treated or you just support it and are being sarcastic.
Nothign I say is directly aimed at you and it you take it as such, stop thinking so highly of yourself. I speak in general terms of homosexuality, pedophiles, animal lovers, and murderers.
I do not know you personally on a level that I could speak directly to you about you so there is no reason you should take personal offense to what I say.
I think i'd rather have an apology than a "stop thinking so highly of yourself."
If you dont understand what I say then why would it be my fault that you take insults that are not directed at you. Nor was it even an insult to begin with. So there is no need for me to apologize for your misinterpretation. I don't know you so nothign I say is personally about you.
Noone is treated fairly. Your lifestyle is outside of the norm of society and therfore you are shunned. Do i think you are treated in the correct manner? No, but legal issues are legal issues. I could hold dearly the life of a close friend that is not related to me and I would not be able to visit them in the hospital either if they were in a family only area. Am I now discriminated against due to my lower level of relation with them? I don't think so. That is jsut the way the rules are there.
You should read the OP. I'm not claiming your god doesn't exist. I'm simply offering you the chance to prove to me that he/she/it does exist.
The question is open to be answered, one side claims to have those answers (my side says there hasn't been an evident answer). I'm simply asking for them to be presented.
ive been away from this thread for a while so im not gonna catch up but this did peek my interest but frankly i have to say that you will never find proof of God's existence in a forum thread. Even if i gave you undeniable proof of God's existance thru the events i have seen not only happen to me but also over 20,000 pple, about 5,000 within the U.S. you could still just shove it aside as coincidence.
Do i think you are treated in the correct manner? No, but legal issues are legal issues.
Actually, they are not legal issues. They are religious issues that are polluting our legally secular system and they will be over-turned eventually. I just don't see why more people aren't fighting against them, it would be the christian thing to do as far as you've described it.
I could hold dearly the life of a close friend that is not related to me and I would not be able to visit them in the hospital either if they were in a family only area.
Yes, but you could visit your wife. I cannot visit my husband. That is discrimination for no reason except religious bigotry. You can make all the obnoxious excuses you want, but the relationship I have with another man is the same as the one you share with your wife. We just don't have bilogical children.
Nothign is impossible, and if she becomes pregnant at 102 then we will welcome the child.
You stated a purpose of sex as orgasm which you related to health benefits.
Yes I stated the reason and associated it with health benefits. Nowhere did I mention the reason was motivated by the benefits. Something you've failed to grasp.
In any case, you've managed to create an interesting (and implausible) scenario that will guarantee you will have sex all your life.
Just goes to show how much you like it.
Now if you could be as tolerant and non-judgmental towards others, that would be tits.
I do nothing to keep gay people apart. I do not stop them and I do not intend to do so. What you or anyone else does with their lives is of no concern to me. This was a thread to ask for beliefs and why we believe. My morals can not be separated from my religious belief so take my answers as you will. More than one thing created how I think and your lack of faith will not change me.
Also when you do not allow yourself to accept the chance of having a child from sex you are holding something from your partner. Therefore you are nto giving 100% of yourself.
Nekro I would ask that you take more time to read and go over these posts rather than to mearly state that everything people says is wrong.
Why are some people unable to believe that there is something that can not be explained? Everything can not be proven and it is a waste to attempt to do so.
Even if i gave you undeniable proof of God's existance thru the events i have seen not only happen to me but also over 20,000 pple, about 5,000 within the U.S. you could still just shove it aside as coincidence.
It the proof was undeniable, then there would be no way to shove it aside. You're not making sense. Assuming you have that proof, i'd love to hear about it.
Why are some people unable to believe that there is something that can not be explained? Everything can not be proven and it is a waste to attempt to do so.
Prove to me that gravity exists.
We don't need to explain everything, some of us are comfortable not knowing everything or needing to justify everything we don't know with beliefs. If you want proof of gravity, well, you're stuck to the earth and you aren't flying off into outer-space. There are also a host of empirical tests and observations you can make to proof the theory of gravity yourself.
The idea that gravity is in every way as unknowable as the assertion of an almighty god is rediculous and a slap in the face to all physicists since newton who helped us form our understanding of gravity and further explain our universe.
Do i think you are treated in the correct manner? No, but legal issues are legal issues.
Actually, they are not legal issues. They are religious issues that are polluting our legally secular system and they will be over-turned eventually. I just don't see why more people aren't fighting against them, it would be the christian thing to do as far as you've described it.
I could hold dearly the life of a close friend that is not related to me and I would not be able to visit them in the hospital either if they were in a family only area.
Yes, but you could visit your wife. I cannot visit my husband. That is discrimination for no reason except religious bigotry. You can make all the obnoxious excuses you want, but the relationship I have with another man is the same as the one you share with your wife. We just don't have bilogical children.
To treat everyone fairly is impossible.
Tall people outside of the norm are shunned as are short people.
Only family can visit the patient in the ICU ward, are you legally family? No? Then you can't visit. Who cares if you're gay.
If you were married and listed legally as husband then yes you could visit them. If I attempted to visit my wife in ICU prior to us getting married then I would not be allowed to visit her. This is the legal issue. Emotionally we would be on a similar level and feel we have the right to see our partner, but the legal matter keeps us from it.
Why are some people unable to believe that there is something that can not be explained? Everything can not be proven and it is a waste to attempt to do so.
Prove to me that gravity exists.
We don't need to explain everything, some of us are comfortable not knowing everything or needing to justify everything we don't know with beliefs. If you want proof of gravity, well, you're stuck to the earth and you aren't flying off into outer-space. There are also a host of empirical tests and observations you can make to proof the theory of gravity yourself.
What you call gravity is mearly the power of God's will to keep us from flying away under a set amount of physical restraint.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you don't like it, then don't do it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You know we do have ways of telling which people are insane and we put them in diffirent places than the rest of the criminals? Are we anhillating the human race by puting them in mental institutions intead of gas chambers? I don't think so. Anyhow, what does that have to do with the choice of adult and consenting sexual partner?
I can't say I weep for you, but I am not at all pleased that you've thus far compared me to a pedophile, an animal rapist, and now an insane murderer, all on the basis that I have the predisposition to homosexual love with another adult male.
Nothign is impossible, and if she becomes pregnant at 102 then we will welcome the child.
You stated a purpose of sex as orgasm which you related to health benefits.
I chose to be atheist because religion is ultimately a question of faith. Specifically, it is ultimately a question of faith from an epistemological view that uses scientific tools to obtain knowledge. Other points of view regard personal experience, such as feeling a gods presence, as evidence of a god´s existence.
My opinion is that you need an agreed-upon method of obtaining knowledge, that can be tested in regard to how good it is at obtaining knowledge. The testable methods we are currently using (experiments, correlational studies et cetera) can not be used to test the existence of any god what so ever. No evidence, no reason to believe. In addition, science requires a paradigm in which the world is looked upon as a deterministic sequence of cause and effect, both on a large scale, and on a small scale.
I was unable to fit the concept of God into this world-view. Notice that I am speaking about the concept of God, and not God himself. These are completely different matters. Initially, I tried to resolve this issue by choosing dualism. The problem about dualism, is that it creates more problems than it solves. Interaction is just one among many. So I ended up choosing simplicity. No God, no incompatibility problems.
TLDR; I chose an atheist point of view because it is ultimately a question of belief according to my ways of obtaining knowledge, and because I got less problems with how I view the world:)
Nothign I say is directly aimed at you and it you take it as such, stop thinking so highly of yourself. I speak in general terms of homosexuality, pedophiles, animal lovers, and murderers.
I do not know you personally on a level that I could speak directly to you about you so there is no reason you should take personal offense to what I say.
Did you not choose your wife?
And I asked you why you believed this view to be right. You said it wasn't religious, but I can't help but wonder where you are getting all these stupulations from.
Well, it matters what they think because I am subject to denegration and abuse (showcased by your comparisons) on a regular basis by people who hold such beliefs. I already can't marry or form any kind of legal union with my significant other, but they also won't let me visit him in the hospitol, etc. If you're wondering why I care what they think, I have to wonder if you don't know how we're being treated or you just support it and are being sarcastic.
I think i'd rather have an apology than a "stop thinking so highly of yourself."
In any case, you've managed to create an interesting (and implausible) scenario that will guarantee you will have sex all your life.
Just goes to show how much you like it.
Now if you could be as tolerant and non-judgmental towards others, that would be tits.
Actually, it does condemn promiscuity, and there is a moratorium on heterosexual activity, mainly during a woman's monthly. (I had to look up moratorium, but i suspect we have different definitions from your context) I never said that Gay is a slang word for promiscuity, I was condemning promiscuity, and yes I know that you're monogamous. I may have miscommunicated... I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
I escape that literalist interpretation by an acute understanding of the characteristics God has shown to value. It requires a deeper study than just reading something like " And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." and the next time you jerk off, after you finish, lose a hand. Blind obedience is nice, but understanding the spirit of the law is much more important. If you read all the laws that Israel had, you realize there's no way you could follow them, much less follow the spirit of them. And you begin to understand the need for the sacrifices, because no one could follow the law - all who tried were equally failures at it (except one).
well, I have to go to class, I might come back to this thread later. I really really hope necro doesn't try to dispute this point, as it's supported by science. Source on request.
Right, i'm just saying that has nothing to do with homosexuality, which was the original pracice in question. You said it might have been banned for medical reasons, well, if those medical reasons were due to promiscuity: that has no bearing on homosexuality.
Interesting. So by what understanding to you infer that god doesn't like blind obedience? I have read extensively from the torah, the mishna, and the talmud, the new testament scriptures, the qur'an, and I can't see where you are inferring characteristics of this god that encourage you to look for the "spirit," of the law. There are spiritual leaders, rabbinic and priestly men, who took it upon themselves to point out these spirit messages within literal texts, but I can't tell what kind of judgment they were using except what was practical or what they needed politically. That doesn't seem like a godly interpretatino of the script, but a man-made interpretation.
I also agree that nobody could possible follow all those laws, they're a good number of rediculous ones, and frankly it just re-iterates to me how man-made they are. Any proposed god who came up with that list of 600 commandments was either ignorant of the humans he had made or simply evil enough to command them to do things he knew they couldn't. Of course, as I say, I have no evidence of god or not in the entire universe, much less a specific kind that writes and talks to jews in the desert. So i'm not familiar with how a beleiver would look at it.
News flash: Anal sex is by no means exclusive to homosexual activity. Also you do realize lesbians are homosexuals too(not that they don't engage in anal sex)?
For an STD to be passed on, there needs to be exchange of body fluids from infected persons.
So my question is- where did the 'increased risk' come from unless you are associating STDs with homosexuals.
Edit- noticed your edit. Yes I do know the science and biology behind. But there is no reason whatsoever to think the practice is more risky if the persons do not even have any STDs. Plus, you kind of forgot the girls.
If you dont understand what I say then why would it be my fault that you take insults that are not directed at you. Nor was it even an insult to begin with. So there is no need for me to apologize for your misinterpretation. I don't know you so nothign I say is personally about you.
Noone is treated fairly. Your lifestyle is outside of the norm of society and therfore you are shunned. Do i think you are treated in the correct manner? No, but legal issues are legal issues. I could hold dearly the life of a close friend that is not related to me and I would not be able to visit them in the hospital either if they were in a family only area. Am I now discriminated against due to my lower level of relation with them? I don't think so. That is jsut the way the rules are there.
ive been away from this thread for a while so im not gonna catch up but this did peek my interest but frankly i have to say that you will never find proof of God's existence in a forum thread. Even if i gave you undeniable proof of God's existance thru the events i have seen not only happen to me but also over 20,000 pple, about 5,000 within the U.S. you could still just shove it aside as coincidence.
But I assume that should be our goal, yes?
Being seven feet tall puts you outside societal norms too, but the tall arent' shunned. Why should anyone predispoed to being gay be shunned?
Actually, they are not legal issues. They are religious issues that are polluting our legally secular system and they will be over-turned eventually. I just don't see why more people aren't fighting against them, it would be the christian thing to do as far as you've described it.
Yes, but you could visit your wife. I cannot visit my husband. That is discrimination for no reason except religious bigotry. You can make all the obnoxious excuses you want, but the relationship I have with another man is the same as the one you share with your wife. We just don't have bilogical children.
I do nothing to keep gay people apart. I do not stop them and I do not intend to do so. What you or anyone else does with their lives is of no concern to me. This was a thread to ask for beliefs and why we believe. My morals can not be separated from my religious belief so take my answers as you will. More than one thing created how I think and your lack of faith will not change me.
Also when you do not allow yourself to accept the chance of having a child from sex you are holding something from your partner. Therefore you are nto giving 100% of yourself.
Nekro I would ask that you take more time to read and go over these posts rather than to mearly state that everything people says is wrong.
Prove to me that gravity exists.
It the proof was undeniable, then there would be no way to shove it aside. You're not making sense. Assuming you have that proof, i'd love to hear about it.
We don't need to explain everything, some of us are comfortable not knowing everything or needing to justify everything we don't know with beliefs. If you want proof of gravity, well, you're stuck to the earth and you aren't flying off into outer-space. There are also a host of empirical tests and observations you can make to proof the theory of gravity yourself.
The idea that gravity is in every way as unknowable as the assertion of an almighty god is rediculous and a slap in the face to all physicists since newton who helped us form our understanding of gravity and further explain our universe.
To treat everyone fairly is impossible.
Tall people outside of the norm are shunned as are short people.
Only family can visit the patient in the ICU ward, are you legally family? No? Then you can't visit. Who cares if you're gay.
If you were married and listed legally as husband then yes you could visit them. If I attempted to visit my wife in ICU prior to us getting married then I would not be allowed to visit her. This is the legal issue. Emotionally we would be on a similar level and feel we have the right to see our partner, but the legal matter keeps us from it.
What you call gravity is mearly the power of God's will to keep us from flying away under a set amount of physical restraint.