TinMan
Well-Known Member
But your conclusions about what constitutes this natural order are just declarationsYes, it is an argument. In case you missed it, here it is again. God created the natural order, which can be seen and studied.
and the average human uses them for reproduction twice maybe three times in their lifetime.The purpose of genitalia is the reproduction of the species.
Genitalia have multiple purposes, not just one
Well if this were the case then good Christians would be preventing the infertile from getting married as they cannot facilitate reproduction they violate the created order and are therefore immoral.With respect to human beings, God created male and female and he created genitalia and desire for the opposite sex in order to facilitate reproduction.
LGBTQ are a set of orientations that violate the created order. Therefore they are not innate. Therefore they are immoral.
But Christians don't prevent the infertile from getting married. If fact such marriages are celebrated in Churches with friends and family.
The only conclusion is that this isn't about reproduction (if it were the immoral label would be applied equally to any that can't reproduce) at all.
Its simple enough. Orientation is independent of biological sex. just like both are independent of gender roles.Explain. There is no analogy. Orientation is against nature. Left-handedness is not.
So we have fingers specifically to type on a keyboard and using fingers to feed yourself is therefore immoral.The natural order of things is that each body part has a specific use. Employing a body part for use contrary to nature is sinful and immoral.
Or do body parts have multiple uses after all.
If you want to use your genitals exclusively for reproduction and absolutely nothing else you go right ahead. But please remember that your bladder with rupture if you don't drain it regularly.....and you of course know what humans use to urinate don't you?
and we are back to asking just why do infertile heterosexuals get a pass on this.I want to bring the question back to what it means to be a human being. What can we discern from our physicality and our sexuality, which might shed some light on human existence? God created male and female for a reason. God is never arbitrary. We may use our members to serve our desires in ways that are contrary to that reason, but this does not mean that the creator would approve of those modes of sexuality.
It happens naturally and occurs in nature. pretty much the definition of natural.A man burning for another man is contrary to nature.
No, you went on a little rant because your view wasn't being supported.I did address it. He was helping people feel better as if feeling better was the point.
No need to pretend that I was.No need to judge yourself.
unsupported claim.Try to follow along. Terms like "homosexuality" don't indicate a state of being, they indicate a habitual practice.
It does indicate a state of being as one can be hetero or homo or bi without ever having engaged in any sexual practices.
and you then dismiss science that doesn't support your dogmatic beliefsWas I talking about the dominant paradigm? No. Was I talking about dogma? No. Was I talking about doctrine? No. I said science is the study of nature.
And yet he hid his discoveries so he would not face persecution. He knew revealing them would mark him as a heretic. and his discoveries were rejected as being against the natural order for years and years after his death.No, he did not. He discovered the natural order. You seem confused about the term "natural order", which does not indicate religious dogma. The natural order is the cosmos considered an orderly system subject to natural law. Homosexuality violates the natural order.
The view of what the natural order changes over time, it is not constant and it is subject to political manipulations.
you suppress truth because you don't like it.Am I suppressing God's existence? No. Do I deny that God created everything? No. Do I deny that God is allowed to set conditions and expectations according to his own will and good pleasure? No.
You just said LGBT people are not worthy of being called human "end up with a mind that is not worthy of being called a mind"That does not follow. If a man has a drinking problem I don't hate him. If I can help I do. But if I was complicit in his denial, if I supported his denial if I acted as if nothing is wrong. Is it loving for me to be an enabler? In my view, Love means telling them the truth; hate means encouraging them to remain blind, negative, or self-destructive.
Calling me a hater is simply a way to deflect from the truth.
Denying the humanity of people is the benchmark of hate.