BLM cares more about socialism and destroying the family than saving lives

Did you catch them seizing the means of production?

Ooh, are we starting? About time!

Right?!

I don't particularly care that they personally are gay, but they push a gay agenda more than trying to solve racial inequality. If you read their website, you'll find that they mention gay and trans rights more than racial inequality. BLM is an organization designed to further the sexual revolution and advance socialism thinly veiled as an organization pushing for racial equality.

I have questions...

1) What's the gay agenda?
2) What does furthering the sexual revolution involve?
3) In what way are they advancing socialism?

1) In includes many things, so I'll list a few.
a. Advancing the narrative that homosexuality is natural
b. Brainwashing children by means of drag queen story hours, etc.
c. Promoting a widespread moral acceptance of the sin of sodomy
d. Abolishing religious freedom to the degree that it allows gay people to force religious to provide service to gay unions.

2) It involves a lot of things, but in this context, I meant it mostly as advancing the gay agenda, which is part of the sexual revolution. (Other parts include advancing birth control, abortion, etc.)

3) They promote it on their website and in interviews. They also support defunding the police, a terrible anarchist idea. From their website: "We know that police don’t keep us safe..." https://blacklivesmatter.com/
What a ridiculous statement.

1.a) Homosexuality is natural, it exists in nature in both humans and animals and has done for the entirety of history. You have no evidence to the contrary.

b) What do you think children are being brainwashed to believe during the period in which an adult is reading them a children's book.
Do you agree that raising children as Catholic is brainwashing them? If not, why not?

c) Sodomy is only a sin to you, your religion holds no objective moral truth. If you want to take your morals from it, fine. Stop trying to inflict your beliefs on others whilst complaining that others are doing it to you.

d) Where is the evidence that religious freedom is being abolished?

2.) There is no gay agenda. There is arguably a human rights agenda, birth control and abortion are important means of ensuring that people with wombs have the same freedoms and opportunities as people without them.

3.) Capitalism causes economic extremes. Are you arguing in favor of people going without food? without medical care? Without housing?

The point of defunding the police is to enable services that have the skills and training to deal with many of the situations the police find themselves struggling with. Look at the stats, they have killed many people who were experiencing a mental health crisis or were on drugs.
Do you genuinely think it's preferable that the police turn up and attack people that are desperately in need of care?
The police are being tasked with handling people and situations that they have neither the training nor the expertise for. What's your solution?

"1.a) Homosexuality is natural, it exists in nature in both humans and animals and has done for the entirety of history. You have no evidence to the contrary."

We've already gone over this and I have already presented evidence to the contrary. Existence in humans doesn't automatically equal natural.

"b) What do you think children are being brainwashed to believe during the period in which an adult is reading them a children's book."

They are being brainwashed to believe that homosexuality is natural and a good thing. Raising children as Catholic is not brainwashing them because that would be teaching them moral as well as scientific truths. The difference is that the gay agenda teaches kids lies.

"c) Sodomy is only a sin to you, your religion holds no objective moral truth. If you want to take your morals from it, fine. Stop trying to inflict your beliefs on others whilst complaining that others are doing it to you."

Sodomy is a sin to most major religions that have ever existed, including Islam. There is objective moral truth, and that is what my religion teaches. Stop trying to inflict my beliefs? If I stop "inflicting" my beliefs on people, will you also tell the gay pervert drag queens to stop "inflicting" their beliefs on children? My beliefs align with objective moral truth, and I only share them with people because I have found that the truth sets people free and makes them exponentially happier.

"d) Where is the evidence that religious freedom is being abolished?"

I didn't claim that it's already been abolished, just that it's part of the gay agenda that they're working towards.

"2.) There is no gay agenda. There is arguably a human rights agenda, birth control and abortion are important means of ensuring that people with wombs have the same freedoms and opportunities as people without them."

There is, and I just presented plenty of evidence of it. Birth control and abortion are not human rights. It is not the right of one human to kill another innocent human. Why do you care more about people with wombs than people in them?

"3.) Capitalism causes economic extremes. Are you arguing in favor of people going without food? without medical care? Without housing?"

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic idea in history. Of course I'm not arguing in favor of those things. If I was, I'd be arguing for socialism.

" What do you think children are being brainwashed to believe during the period in which an adult is reading them a children's book."

"They are being brainwashed to believe that homosexuality is natural and a good thing. Raising children as Catholic is not brainwashing them because that would be teaching them moral as well as scientific truths. The difference is that the gay agenda teaches kids lies."

What part of a drag queen reading stories to kids involves the kids learning about homosexuality? The books they are reading are not about homosexuality.

"What part of a drag queen reading stories to kids involves the kids learning about homosexuality? The books they are reading are not about homosexuality."

Have you actually seen what they read? Because it's not Dr. Suess. The clips I've seen of them show them reading gay acceptance books and transgender nonsense.

Sources?

The image you shared showed someone reading kids a book about a worm in a doghouse.

"Out of curiosity..have you read the Tao Te Ching?"

No I haven't

I recommend it, the audiobook is on Youtube.

They're not hard to find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YWNMunlx6w In this one, you can see a book about a drag queen around 3:16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brl2qG5GhHc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBkcVtHXiLs

There's just a few

"The image you shared showed someone reading kids a book about a worm in a doghouse."

What image did I share?

"The storytime inspires a love of reading while teaching deeper lessons about diversity, self-love and appreciation of others."

Do you think those are bad things?
The first link is a story about animals.

It's obviously very popular, which is great. It shows there is a need for it.

I only watched the beginning of the second video because the prejudiced attitude of the person doing the voiceover was really offputting.

It's great that acceptance of people who always have and always will exist in society is being taught in schools though.
The alternative is rejection of people who exist in society and that always leads to harm.

"Noooo...I mean Zoroastrianism."

So you're saying that Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism? And if not, what Catholic teachings are you saying came from it?

Are you refusing to spend 10 minutes reading up on it?

"Do you think those are bad things?"

"Diversity" is bad when we both know they're referring to a diversity of sins, not a diversity of cultures, nations, peoples, etc. Same goes for appreciation. Teaching kids to appreciate homosexuality and transgenderism isn't a good thing.

"The first link is a story about animals."

Some of it was, but that's why I pointed you to 3:16 where a book on drag queens is visible.

"It's obviously very popular, which is great. It shows there is a need for it."

There's a very bad conclusion to draw. Hitler's ideas were very popular when he first presented them. Did that show there was a great need for them? Popularity is an awful way to determine the quality of something's character.

"I only watched the beginning of the second video because the prejudiced attitude of the person doing the voiceover was really offputting."

In other words, it supported my claim.

"It's great that acceptance of people who always have and always will exist in society is being taught in schools though.
The alternative is rejection of people who exist in society and that always leads to harm."

No it's really not. You wouldn't appreciate it if the things I believed in were being taught in public schools. You only like it because it aligns with your agenda. You keep equating types of sins with types of people. You can reject sin without rejecting the sinner. You can be like pope John Paul and be totally against someone shooting you, but still forgive your attempted murdered in prison.

"Diversity" is bad when we both know they're referring to a diversity of sins, not a diversity of cultures, nations, peoples, etc. Same goes for appreciation. Teaching kids to appreciate homosexuality and transgenderism isn't a good thing."

SIN IS AN INVENTED CONCEPT NOT AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH, IT ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN IT.

"It's obviously very popular, which is great. It shows there is a need for it."

"There's a very bad conclusion to draw. Hitler's ideas were very popular when he first presented them. Did that show there was a great need for them? Popularity is an awful way to determine the quality of something's character."

Hitler was popular because like you, he believed in uniformity and exclusion. He was popular for the same reason Catholicism is popular. Some people enjoy both following a prescribed doctrine and having someone to blame for their problems.

"I only watched the beginning of the second video because the prejudiced attitude of the person doing the voiceover was really offputting."

"In other words, it supported my claim."

If your claim is that you think it is acceptable for some people to be excluded from society and...I don't know, imprisoned? Rounded up and killed?
So that society conforms to the worldview you personally subscribe to and that in the meantime they should be hounded, berated and insulted then yeah, it supported your claim.

"No it's really not. You wouldn't appreciate it if the things I believed in were being taught in public schools. You only like it because it aligns with your agenda. You keep equating types of sins with types of people. You can reject sin without rejecting the sinner. You can be like pope John Paul and be totally against someone shooting you, but still forgive your attempted murdered in prison."

Are the things that you want to be taught in schools objectively true? Are they kind?

"Cool, so you agree with it. Earlier you sounded like you were arguing that Catholicism was not influenced by Zoroastrianism."

Yeah most of what you said are things I've already learned in history. If by Zoroastrianism you mean Judaism, then yes certainly the Catholic Church was influenced by it. It's founder was Jewish after all

Noooo...I mean Zoroastrianism.

Research?

"Are you refusing to spend 10 minutes reading up on it?"

No I already did a little. And it appears that it started around the same time as Judaism roughly

"Have you done any reading that isn't biased?"

Yes. Where are you getting this information? I'm well aware that knowledge of Satan was around before the Bible was written.

Out of curiosity..have you read the Tao Te Ching?

"SIN IS AN INVENTED CONCEPT NOT AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH, IT ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN IT."

Substitute the word immorality if you'd like. But using that logic, morals are only an invented concept that only should apply to those who believe in them.

"Hitler was popular because like you, he believed in uniformity and exclusion. He was popular for the same reason Catholicism is popular. Some people enjoy both following a prescribed doctrine and having someone to blame for their problems."

When or where have I promoted exclusion of anyone from anything? Catholicism wasn't founded with the goal of taking over the world. You're making completely baseless and downright ridiculous claims. And the funny thing is, you implied that Catholicism is popular, which it is not. Especially true, correct, non-PC Catholicism. Catholics don't blame their problems on anyone, and since you think we do, who do you suppose we blame our problems on?

"SIN IS AN INVENTED CONCEPT NOT AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH, IT ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN IT."

"Substitute the word immorality if you'd like. But using that logic, morals are only an invented concept that only should apply to those who believe in them.

Of course morals are an invented concept, the vast majority of people practice moral behavior because it benefits both them and others. When living as part of a community, maintaining relationships and avoiding both physical and emotional harm, it is a clear advantage.

"When or where have I promoted exclusion of anyone from anything?"

You have stated that you think gay people should be excluded from sex. You have stated that you think drag queens should be excluded from reading stories to children.

"Catholics don't blame their problems on anyone, and since you think we do, who do you suppose we blame our problems on?"

You blame problems in society on your perceived immorality of atheists, members of the lgbtq+ community etc

"When the Romans ruled, their persecutions of Christians and Jews were attributed to 666, symbol of the Devil, but also the numerical identity of Emperor Nero. Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in the 5th century and made it the state religion. Anyone not adhering to Catholic rules was a heretic, a worshipper of God’s enemy. As Christianity spread under the Roman Empire, the devil took on some of the characteristics of Pan, whom the Romans kept on worshipping- Hence the horns and claws for feet in the newly born imagery of the devil."

I know those things already. No one knows for sure what the devil looks like. How we portray him in pictures doesn't mean we think he has a physical body nor claim to know exactly what it would look like.

"By the Middle Ages, the devil became real – everything physical and material was bad, everything spiritual was good. Islam was then seen as evil personified, hence the Crusades. The Inquisition then went so far as to claim that “heretics” were in league with the devil. The Church used excuses of heresy in order to acquire wealth. Women in particular were considered to be close to the devil. Between 60,000 and 300,000 women were burned as witches."

Catholics don't teach that everything physical and material is bad. The Crusades were initiated because Muslims had pushed Christians out of the Holy Land.

"Luther split the Church and each denomination accused the other of demonisation. When the New World of the Americas was colonised, the devil went along. The town of Salem is synonymous with witch hunts. By the 18th century, science had come into the picture and the idea of the devil became more sophisticated, being well groomed, wealthy and sexually appealing. He promised everything to people in return for their soul."

Luther invented Protestantism, yes. I'm not sure why you're sending me all of this

"I'm not sure why you're sending me all of this"

Cool, so you agree with it. Earlier you sounded like you were arguing that Catholicism was not influenced by Zoroastrianism.

"Of course morals are an invented concept, the vast majority of people practice moral behavior because it benefits both them and others. When living as part of a community, maintaining relationships and avoiding both physical and emotional harm, it is a clear advantage."

But then who are you to tell people to be moral? Who are you to tell someone not to kill you if they feel like it? What if they don't want to be moral? Should you be allowed to "inflict" your morals on them?

"You have stated that you think gay people should be excluded from sex. You have stated that you think drag queens should be excluded from reading stories to children."

Incorrect. I stated that it is immoral to have gay sex. Using that pattern, I can say you, as a person who believes in morals, are excluding murderers from murder. If a person is able to overcome gay feelings, I'm totally fine with them having a heterosexual marriage and sex. I never said anything about drag queens shouldn't be allowed to do something. I said they are indoctrinating children. I said they shouldn't indoctrinate children. If they want to read normal books, fine. Whatever. I don't care. But when they read indoctrinating crap and expose young children to sexual ideas, I have a problem with that.

"You blame problems in society on your perceived immorality of atheists, members of the lgbtq+ community etc"

I blame all immorality on Satan, who started it all, and who influenced humans. We have all sinned at some point or another, so there isn't one group to blame for our problems. We're all responsible to a degree. Now yes some groups have promoted certain problems that have expanded and gotten worse, such as birth control and abortion being promoted (not just by atheists. I blame weak and evil religious people for its expansion just as much as anyone else.) What do you suppose we blame gay and trans people for?

"I blame all immorality on Satan, who started it all."

Have you done any reading that isn't biased?

"The notion of the devil does not originate in the Bible, as many may think – In the Old Testament, Satan is just another one of God’s servants. It is in Iran that the religious teacher Zarathustra simplified things, ending up with only two – a God of the Good and a God of Evil. This belief then spread throughout the Middle East. In the Jewish world, Satan, God’s obedient servant, was gradually replaced by Saden, God’s eternal enemy. The Greeks had an underworld called Hades. It didn’t have fire, but the valley outside Jerusalem, called Hell, did. In Hebrew it was known as Gehenna, a smouldering rubbish heap to which fire was regularly set. That is where bodies of executed criminals were burned. Gehenna was the inspiration for the Christian hell."

"When the Romans ruled, their persecutions of Christians and Jews were attributed to 666, symbol of the Devil, but also the numerical identity of Emperor Nero. Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in the 5th century and made it the state religion. Anyone not adhering to Catholic rules was a heretic, a worshipper of God’s enemy. As Christianity spread under the Roman Empire, the devil took on some of the characteristics of Pan, whom the Romans kept on worshipping- Hence the horns and claws for feet in the newly born imagery of the devil.

By the Middle Ages, the devil became real – everything physical and material was bad, everything spiritual was good. Islam was then seen as evil personified, hence the Crusades. The Inquisition then went so far as to claim that “heretics” were in league with the devil. The Church used excuses of heresy in order to acquire wealth. Women in particular were considered to be close to the devil. Between 60,000 and 300,000 women were burned as witches.

Luther split the Church and each denomination accused the other of demonisation. When the New World of the Americas was colonised, the devil went along. The town of Salem is synonymous with witch hunts. By the 18th century, science had come into the picture and the idea of the devil became more sophisticated, being well groomed, wealthy and sexually appealing. He promised everything to people in return for their soul."

"The point of defunding the police is to enable services that have the skills and training to deal with many of the situations the police find themselves struggling with."

And what services would those be?

"Look at the stats, they have killed many people who were experiencing a mental health crisis or were on drugs."

So get rid of drugs then...? Have fathers in the home to improve mental health?

"Do you genuinely think it's preferable that the police turn up and attack people that are desperately in need of care?"

Um no. I have no idea what scenarios you're referring to.

"The police are being tasked with handling people and situations that they have neither the training nor the expertise for. What's your solution?"

Better training is an option. I don't see how annihilating them will help anyone. Crime will only go up

"How do you define brainwashing? I mean in general, not just in this specific context."

No different than anyone else I know of:

brainwashing
/ˈbrānwôSHiNG/
noun
the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.

"That's wrong according to your religion. How do you demonstrate that it's objectively wrong?"

And to every other major religion. It's funny how leftists often defend Islam and condemn Christianity even though Muslims are the ones throwing gay people off of roofs. Since the people I usually debate this with are atheists, I don't use the Bible, and instead I usually demonstrate how it is unnatural. Have I demonstrated how it is unnatural to you yet? Or was that just with JR? I don't remember

You didn't demonstrate it was unnatural to me, you just claimed it was.

You were asked about drag queens, why is your response about gay people?

Read the comment above that I just sent to JR

"Why would people who have no fear of Hell or belief in a soul fear death? Where did you get that idea?"

"Because that's the end. After that they simply don't exist and nothing they ever did will ever matter or mean anything again. That's pretty scary."

I don't find it scary. Also, that isn't true, the actions of Atheists matter and have meaning long after their deaths. None of the Atheists I've discussed it with find the idea of death scary and Atheists that I have listened to online have expressed no fear at the thought of death.

Surely the risk of burning in hellfire/being tortured for all eternity is scary? Surely the thought of being judged and found wanting is scary?

Also, I'm a Taoist. I don't pretend to know anything about what happens after death, I don't think it is either comprehensible or worth worrying about.

"I don't find it scary. Also, that isn't true, the actions of Atheists matter and have meaning long after their deaths. None of the Atheists I've discussed it with find the idea of death scary and Atheists that I have listened to online have expressed no fear at the thought of death."

What I meant was that nothing they ever did will mean anything or do anything for them. It can indeed affect other people for some time, but still not forever. I won't deny that some are not afraid of it, but many who are attached to the things of this world fear losing them most of all.

"Surely the risk of burning in hellfire/being tortured for all eternity is scary? Surely the thought of being judged and found wanting is scary?"

Certainly it is. But the possibility of complete and utter eternal bliss is pretty amazing sounding too, isn't it? Both desire of heaven and fear of hell can help motivate people to live moral lives. Fear of hell isn't the preferred way, but it can contribute.

I find the dismissing the idea of God and then being wrong much more scary than the idea of believing in Him then it turning out that He doesn't exist

"Indeed, especially among those who do not believe in the afterlife"

Why would people who have no fear of Hell or belief in a soul fear death? Where did you get that idea?

"Why would people who have no fear of Hell or belief in a soul fear death? Where did you get that idea?"

Because that's the end. After that they simply don't exist and nothing they ever did will ever matter or mean anything again. That's pretty scary.

"The first few seconds were literally just spewing liberal nonsense. That's all I needed to hear: "the Western world will surely succumb to renewable energy, affordable healthcare, and video games for lesbians." I couldn't think of a better way to instantly expose your agenda. I'll admit it was kind of her to admit it so soon in the video so I didn't have to waste half an hour of my time"

It was a joke, it clearly went over your head.

"It was a joke, it clearly went over your head."

I get that it was sarcasm, but it still gave me a good idea of what I was about to hear.

Another thing she got wrong is everyone is afraid of death.

"Another thing she got wrong is everyone is afraid of death."

It's a common fear.

"It's a common fear."

Indeed, especially among those who do not believe in the afterlife

"What I meant was that nothing they ever did will mean anything or do anything for them. It can indeed affect other people for some time, but still not forever. I won't deny that some are not afraid of it, but many who are attached to the things of this world fear losing them most of all."

Like I said, I'm a Taoist, I'm not attached to things. I accept that life is transient, I appreciate it without trying to grasp it or pin it down.

You say that nothing they ever did will mean anything, but it does, it means something in the moment and that is all that exists.

"I find the dismissing the idea of God and then being wrong much more scary than the idea of believing in Him then it turning out that He doesn't exist"

Think of how many religions there are, think of how many gods. You could very easily be believing in the wrong one and end up with the same result.

"Like I said, I'm a Taoist, I'm not attached to things. I accept that life is transient, I appreciate it without trying to grasp it or pin it down."

That's a big step in the right direction. You're a lot closer than a lot of people.

"You say that nothing they ever did will mean anything, but it does, it means something in the moment and that is all that exists."

But what about after that moment in time or history is over? Then it means nothing, and it never will again. We know that time moves on and that the future will come by our reason alone, so we are able to tell that there is more to existence than just the present moment.

"Think of how many religions there are, think of how many gods. You could very easily be believing in the wrong one and end up with the same result."

It's possible, but I've told you why I believe in this religion instead of the other countless choices.

"You didn't demonstrate it was unnatural to me, you just claimed it was."

You didn't demonstrate it was natural to me, you just claimed it was.

Okay I'll start over then. You claimed that homosexuality was natural because it occurs in people and in animals. I demonstrated how it was ridiculous to use "animals do it" as an argument to prove something is natural. Then I demonstrated how just because some people do something, it doesn't make it natural. I used bestiality as an example to support that. Some people do it, but that doesn't make it natural. Same goes for homosexuality. Since you have claimed that it is natural, what natural purpose do you suppose homosexuality has? The whole point of sex from a natural non-religious standpoint is to produce offspring. So what purpose does homosexuality serve in the natural world do you think?

"You were asked about drag queens, why is your response about gay people?"

Where was I asked about drag queens? I was asked how I defined brainwashing. I defined it. I was then asked to demonstrate how sodomy was objectively wrong.

Bestiality is an act, homosexuality is a sexuality, it is a state.

They are not comparable.

You used the example of drag queens reading stories to kids as an example of kids being exposed to a gay agenda.

"No they aren't. That is demonstrably a steaming pile of horseshit."

All the ones I've seen and heard about are. Whether they are are not, they push the gay and trans agenda.

"Homosexual people have always existed in society at a steady percentage, the periods in history when people in power decided that their existence was unacceptable are some of the most disgusting and shameful periods."

Was the percentage of homosexuals in society tracked way back then? If not, how can you make that claim?

"Is what you want to return to?"

I'm not quite sure when you're referring to. I don't have any time in particular that I want to return to. I would like it better if society condemned unnatural and immoral acts like gay sex though

"Promoting acceptance stops people from being rejected and abused."

Should we promote acceptance for bestiality and pedophilia? That would stop people who rape animals and have sex with children from being rejected and abused. It's a slippery slope. We should not promote acceptance for any kind of immoral actions. We can accept people as people without accepting their filthy choices.

"Look at that, an Atheist having to point out to a Catholic how important love and acceptance is and how hideous rejection and abuse are."

Acceptance of evil actions is not a good thing. Nowhere have I said we shouldn't accept people as people. We all have equal dignity. Rejection of sin is not problematic. You seem to think that you can't reject sin without rejecting the sinner.

"It's like you are unaware of your own religion's history."

That's kind of vague. Are you referring to something in particular that you think I don't know?

"Bestiality is an act, homosexuality is a sexuality, it is a state."

It's not a state. It is a mental illness. And keep in mind that when I say homosexuality, I'm referring to the action of having gay sex. Having uncontrollable feelings is not immoral.

"They are not comparable."

They are both unnatural, but beyond that they are different

"You used the example of drag queens reading stories to kids as an example of kids being exposed to a gay agenda."

I did. Drag queens are either gay or trans, and they discuss it with the children they read to. And they read books about gay acceptance and transgenderism

"You used the example of drag queens reading stories to kids as an example of kids being exposed to a gay agenda."

"I did. Drag queens are either gay or trans, and they discuss it with the children they read to. And they read books about gay acceptance and transgenderism"

No they aren't. That is demonstrably a steaming pile of horseshit.

I am friends with loads of drag queens (and drag kings).

Many drag queens are cis heterosexual men, many drag queens are cis heterosexual women, many drag queens are cis gay women, many drag queens are cis gay men, many drag queens are trans gay men, many drag queens are trans gay women, many drag queens are trans heterosexual women and many drag queens are trans heterosexual men.

Homosexual people have always existed in society at a steady percentage, the periods in history when people in power decided that their existence was unacceptable are some of the most disgusting and shameful periods.

Is what you want to return to?

Promoting acceptance stops people from being rejected and abused.

Look at that, an Atheist having to point out to a Catholic how important love and acceptance is and how hideous rejection and abuse are.

It's like you are unaware of your own religion's history.

"There are other animals that have sex for pleasure, not just procreation"

True some animals do it for both reasons, but I'm unaware of any animals that have sex for pleasure while at the same time actively try to avoid procreation.

"That's not the "whole" point of sex. It can also be for pleasure"

In the natural world it's for producing offspring. Humans can use it purely for pleasure because they realize that they can manipulate it's natural purpose.

"In the natural world" so now you are putting us on the same level as animals whose only goal in life is to reproduce?

How are you intending to find a mate? Are you gonna shake your feathers around or bang heads with whatever male currently has breeding rights?

On that subject...monogamy is not natural!!

Anal sex is comparable to kissing, hugging, massage, protected heterosexual sex and other similar behaviors that do not produce children. It feels good, it releases adrenaline, serotonin and dopamine which promote good mental health. It's cardiovascular exercise which is good for your physical health.

Yeah, I know. I was trying to point out his seemingly contradictory attitudes. It does make more sense to point out that what is natural is actually a whole host of things as evidenced by *points at nature*.

The last time I said anything like that he claimed I was arguing that we should then base our behavior on animals as if , by pointing out that homosexuality exists in animals and therefore has sod all* to do with morality, I was suggesting that we all start hunting and killing each other.

*pun intended.

"People don't tend to watch boring videos, it's really worth trying to ignore the aesthetics and listen to the points being made. Contrapoints videos are great, her style is quite Socratic. She makes a point of considering lots of different perspectives, not solely a liberal pov."

The first few seconds were literally just spewing liberal nonsense. That's all I needed to hear: "the Western world will surely succumb to renewable energy, affordable healthcare, and video games for lesbians." I couldn't think of a better way to instantly expose your agenda. I'll admit it was kind of her to admit it so soon in the video so I didn't have to waste half an hour of my time

Meant to send that to JR, my bad

"It's history."

According to which atheist?

"Where do you even come up with these ideas? Who tells you these things?"

From history. Written from an unbiased perspective. Think about it. Why would Christians spread their religion if it was all made up? Dying for a prank would be quite a waste. And Jesus founding Christianity in the first century isn't even something that's up for debate. Everyone with a basic education knows that's what happened. Even public schools teach that when they briefly gloss over it in history.

"There are countless religions with countless gods, what makes you think yours is right?"

As to why I'm Christian, among other things, thousands of witnessed miracles and the fact that Jesus came to earth. As to why I'm Catholic, Jesus only founded One Church, and He gave it authority on earth, and Catholics are the only Christian religion that can track the succession of their clergy back to the apostles.

"thousands of witnessed miracles" What makes you think you've witnessed miracles? Do you agree that if you were an atheist or any other kind of theist you would have a different perspective of the same events?

"the fact that Jesus came to earth" There's no evidence for that, you are taking other people's word for something that may or may not have happened thousands of years before your birth.

""In the natural world" so now you are putting us on the same level as animals whose only goal in life is to reproduce?"

No. I'm saying that in addition to reproducing, human sex also has a special intimacy and pleasure. Both are important aspects of it. Animals do it just to reproduce, but humans have that special extra aspect.

"How are you intending to find a mate? Are you gonna shake your feathers around or bang heads with whatever male currently has breeding rights?"

Lol no

"On that subject...monogamy is not natural!!"

Correct, for some species, such as deer. But for others, such as eagles, it is. And for humans, with our far more complex emotions than animals, become emotionally attached to a mate as well a physically, it is fitting and natural that we have only one mate.

The pleasure is just the result of brain chemistry, so it's really also a physical aspect.

No, if, like you said, the only goal of sex is to reproduce then we should have as many partners as possible. That's the best way to create as much new life as possible and is natural.
The concept of monogamy was created much later and is a relatively new unnatural idea.

"You've misunderstood me, it's subjective because every person has a different experience of it and it has no objective truth."

Experience isn't what defines Catholic teaching. It doesn't change from person to person. That's what makes something subjective.

"I don't think it's irrelevant in that context. I think in the case of assisted suicide you are vilifying someone for committing an act of kindness and compassion."

Killing someone who is no threat to you isn't an act of kindness and compassion. There's more to life than just physical pain, and ending it prematurely like that isn't moral. There's a reason most people don't just kill themselves whenever they have some physical pain.

"No it isn't. Hugging/anal sex= consensual, produces health promoting brain activity, promotes human bonding, a social norm, involves adults, a mutually enjoyable activity..

Raping an animal= non-consensual, a social taboo, does not promote human bonding, causes potential physical and psychological harm to an animal."

Gay sex=sexual
Bestiality=sexual
Hugging=not sexual

What is acceptable socially does not determine what it moral and immoral. Slavery was once socially acceptable, but it was never moral.

So if you came home from work and your wife was laying in another man's arms you'd be fine with that because it's not sexual?

Anal sex= consensual
Hugging= consensual

Bestiality= not consensual
Slavery= not consensual

"Why is experiencing mutual pleasure with someone selfish? You sound very much like you either have no experience of sex and don't really know what you're talking about or you mistakenly believe that you are not supposed to enjoy it."

I never said you're not supposed to enjoy it. On quite the contrary, it's a very enjoyable experience, and that's how God made it. However, being against having children while at the same time using the natural child-making process but intentionally stopping it from having it's designed effect is what I'm saying is selfish. If you use birth control, but then get pregnant, how do you explain to your kid that you never wanted them but just wanted pleasure more than them. That would be horrible to hear from a parent. That's what is selfish.

"Sex involves intimacy, vulnerability and both psychological and physical mutual pleasure.
Like you've pointed out, we are not exactly like animals, we are more advanced. We don't need to leave a trail of offspring every time we f**k."

Indeed sex is probably the most intimate thing we as humans can do. I'm not saying that you have to have a kid every time you have sex otherwise it's sinful. That's not what I mean. Did you read about natural family planning at all?

"I never said you're not supposed to enjoy it. On quite the contrary, it's a very enjoyable experience, and that's how God made it."

That is your personal belief, it is not objectively true.

There are countless religions with countless gods, what makes you think yours is right?

"No, you don't need a womb to have an opinion about things, you need one to have a valid opinion about issues relating to pregnancy and childbirth though."

So women can't have valid opinions on anything man-related? Do you have a womb? If not, by your own standard, your opinion on this issue is worthless.

"I did not make a mistake when I said men can have wombs, facts don't care about your feelings."

You said you've had kids, so I'm assuming that means you've been through high school and basic biology class. Men cannot have wombs. That is biologically impossible. Scientific facts don't care about your feelings.

Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, this is an established fact.

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbINLWtMKI"

What sort of satanic crap is this? I've seen enough leftist propaganda that was much less creepy.

Don't confuse 'theatrical' with 'satanic'.

"Why doesn't the child have consent? Do you understand that the parents consent on behalf of the child and only in a context where it is for the wellbeing of the child?"

The child doesn't have consent because they don't get to choose whether or not they are vaccinated. I understand that parents must make certain decisions for children, but that doesn't mean there is consent involved with the child. The adult is the only one giving the consent to the doctor.

"Do you believe that someone is consenting on behalf of an animal they are raping for the wellbeing of the animal?"

Of course not. Cenk might though

"Consent is the priority. If there is a situation in which consent cannot be directly given, like vaccinating a child, the intent of the act is the next important consideration."

Intent is only part of the equation. You can do good things with bad intentions, or good things with bad intentions. How do you determine whether an act is, at its core, good or bad when you think morality is subjective? For example, many say that Lincoln didn't really want to free the slaves, but that doesn't really matter since he made the right choice anyway.

"Your bestiality example does not compare to vaccinating a child."

I'm not comparing bestiality to vaccinating a child. I'm only pointing out that consent isn't the only thing that determines right and wrong

"I'm not comparing bestiality to vaccinating a child. I'm only pointing out that consent isn't the only thing that determines right and wrong"

I agree, but it's at least the first thing to consider.

"Vaccination isn't strictly non-consensual, I've already explained this. Parents have to consent on behalf of the child."

The child has no say. The animal has no say. And I've already explained that lack of consent isn't what makes bestiality evil.

The child having no say is an argument for anti-natalism.

You are comparing parents protecting a child with a person raping an animal, does that honestly seem reasonable to you?

"But being *is* the physical."

There is more to being than the physical. If there isn't, how do you explain all the deepest and most complex parts of our minds? Where does reason come from? Surely not a random arrangement of atoms

"What is your opinion on what they look like?"

I couldn't really say, and I won't know for sure unless I ever see one. The descriptions in the Bible offer some idea

"What gender are they?"

They have no gender, or sex, or whatever you want to call it. They can't have one because they have no bodies, just spirit.

So you don't believe the Biblical descriptions?

What are you suggesting spirit is?

"Don't confuse 'theatrical' with 'satanic'."

I've been to theaters. I've seen theatrical. That was not it. Demonic. Maybe that's more accurate than satanic.

People don't tend to watch boring videos, it's really worth trying to ignore the aesthetics and listen to the points being made. Contrapoints videos are great, her style is quite Socratic. She makes a point of considering lots of different perspectives, not solely a liberal pov.

""thousands of witnessed miracles" What makes you think you've witnessed miracles? Do you agree that if you were an atheist or any other kind of theist you would have a different perspective of the same events?"

I didn't say I've personally witnessed miracles, but that I've heard testimonies. Although I have actually heard people speaking in tongues, and one of my friends was able to hear it in English when no one else in our group could. I might have a different perspective. It's certainly possible. But I'd encourage you to read about Fatima, where 70,000 believers and non-believers alike witnessed the exact same thing.

""the fact that Jesus came to earth" There's no evidence for that, you are taking other people's word for something that may or may not have happened thousands of years before your birth."

It is historically true that Jesus came to earth, by the testimony of His followers and even those who hated Him. Do you deny all of history simply because you weren't there to witness it, or do you just deny inconvenient parts?

"I agree, but it's at least the first thing to consider."

In some cases yes, but I don't think it should be the first thing to consider in all cases. If someone commits assisted suicide, the person they killed consented, but that's irrelevant since killing (except in cases of self defense, etc.) is immoral

I don't think it's irrelevant in that context. I think in the case of assisted suicide you are vilifying someone for committing an act of kindness and compassion.

"Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, this is an established fact."

Gender and biological sex are the same thing, this is an established fact.

What even are facts if you're a subjective relativist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbINLWtMKI

"You are comparing parents protecting a child with a person raping an animal, does that honestly seem reasonable to you?"

I'm only using it as a comparison because both are non-consensual. The exact point of what I'm saying is that they're so different. One is evil and one is good. But they both lack consent

They don't both lack consent, the result of having a child means taking on 'parental responsibility'.

You are comparing an ethical act with an unethical one.

"So you don't believe the Biblical descriptions?"

I didn't say that. I just said that they have no gender. I wasn't commenting on what they look like.

"What are you suggesting spirit is?"

Spirit is being or a being that exists or is capable of existing apart from the physical.

But being *is* the physical.

What is your opinion on what they look like?

"Parents vaccinate children to protect them from the future harm of disease, are you implying that people rape animals to protect them from something?"

Of course not. You keep equating non-consent to harm, which isn't always the case. Consent isn't what determines if something is good or bad. Vaccination is good but non-consensual. Bestiality is bad and non-consensual. Bestiality is evil because it is objectively evil. It has nothing to do with consent

Vaccination isn't strictly non-consensual, I've already explained this. Parents have to consent on behalf of the child.

"I would argue that abstaining from sex to some extent, as you have advocated, is unnatural. We are sexual creatures, sex is the most natural thing there is. It isn't practical to have a child every 9 months, thankfully, unlike animals we have advanced sufficiently to manage this."

I would agree that if we are nothing more than just another type of animal, then abstaining from sex is unnatural. But I don't believe we're just another type of animal. For animals, sex is just instinctual reproduction. Sex is so much more than that for humans.

"Attaching morality to sex is an age-old means of controlling women, you clearly have every right to live your life according to the ancient ideas of strangers but you do not (thankfully) have the right to impose those ideas on others."

It's not a means to control anyone. It's a means to help people live a fruitful spiritual life. And I hear people go on and on about controlling women, but it's just as controlling to men. What makes you think we want to control women? How do you suppose we would benefit from that? I advocate for men to abstain until marriage as well as women. Why are you trying to make this only about women?

"Morality is subjective."

Do you have evidence to support that?

"Contraception is a wonderful thing, it frees women from the labor of pregnancy, literal labor and childcare. These things should be a choice, not a forced experience."

Contraception is an awful invention that takes away most of the beauty of sex. You seem to keep forgetting that women can be free from pregnancy, labor, and childare by simply making responsible sexual desicions and not having sex until they are actually ready for it's natural and intended outcome.

"The only difference between rejecting things like cars, the internet and other modern creations that allow us to experience life beyond our natural limitations is that PREGNANCY DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT MEN.*"

Women getting pregnant does affect men. Responsible men anyway. And one of the biggest problems today is men abandoning their families. Birth control gives men limitless sex without responsibility. By advocting for people to not use birth control, I'm encouraging men to take more responsibility for their actions, not less.

"Sex is about mutual pleasure."

That's part of it, but not all. You're leaving out the aspect of children.

"Raping an animal that cannot consent is not comparable to having consensual sex with an adult."

It's more comparable to that than to hugging. That was my only point.

"Like I've already said, your concept of morality is specific, limited and not objective."

It is indeed specific. Limited is what makes makes something objective. Limited as in it stays the same no matter who is looking at it at least. Are you claiming my concept of morality is subjective then?

Of course your concept of morality is subjective, the fact that you share it with other people doesn't change that, like you've said some other Catholics think differently to you. Your views are extreme and exclusionary, you make judgements about the behavior of others under the false assumption that your beliefs are superior and objectively true.

Your religion began as an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, it was usual before that for religions to have multiple deities. Judaism, Islam and Christianity all originated there. Your beliefs are nothing more than the dogma of one of many subscription services.

"Raping an animal that cannot consent is not comparable to having consensual sex with an adult."

"It's more comparable to that than to hugging. That was my only point."

No it isn't. Hugging/anal sex= consensual, produces health promoting brain activity, promotes human bonding, a social norm, involves adults, a mutually enjoyable activity..

Raping an animal= non-consensual, a social taboo, does not promote human bonding, causes potential physical and psychological harm to an animal.

"Of course your concept of morality is subjective, the fact that you share it with other people doesn't change that, like you've said some other Catholics think differently to you. Your views are extreme and exclusionary, you make judgements about the behavior of others under the false assumption that your beliefs are superior and objectively true."

Just because some Catholics don't believe in all Catholic truth doesn't make the Catholic view of morality subjective. It just makes them wrong. My views are the views of the Catholic Church, and just because fake Catholics approve of homosexuality etc. does not mean Catholic moral teaching is subjective. It means some people refuse to accept the truth. Is the belief that murder is evil superior to the belief that murder is okay? Of course it is. Some views are superior morally or otherwise to others. To say that all beliefs are equal in truth, morality, or anything else is a ridiculous claim to make.

"Your religion began as an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, it was usual before that for religions to have multiple deities. Judaism, Islam and Christianity all originated there. Your beliefs are nothing more than the dogma of one of many subscription services."

Where do you even come up with these ideas? Who tells you these things? Catholicism was founded by Jesus in the first century AD. True, it does share many commonalities with Judaism because Christianity is almost like a continuation of Judaism (in that Jesus was the savior of the Jews, but since they rejected Him, He had to found a new religion.) Islam has hardly anything to do with either of those. Islam was founded by Muhammad, an evil, murderous, thieving, greedy, downright creepy, child-raping polygamist. He founded a "religion" so he could make money and gain followers in his quest to take over the world.

"Your religion began as an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, it was usual before that for religions to have multiple deities. Judaism, Islam and Christianity all originated there. Your beliefs are nothing more than the dogma of one of many subscription services."

"Where do you even come up with these ideas? "

It's history.

"Catholicism was founded by Jesus in the first century AD."

Where do you even come up with these ideas? Who tells you these things?

"Just because some Catholics don't believe in all Catholic truth doesn't make the Catholic view of morality subjective."

You've misunderstood me, it's subjective because every person has a different experience of it and it has no objective truth.

"They don't both lack consent, the result of having a child means taking on 'parental responsibility'."

The child has no consent in one, and the animal has no consent in the other.

"You are comparing an ethical act with an unethical one."

I am. Because both involve one being who is unable to consent.

How do you even figure out what is ethical or not when you think morality is subjective? Wouldn't that mean ethics are subjective too?

"How do you even figure out what is ethical or not when you think morality is subjective? Wouldn't that mean ethics are subjective too?"

Why doesn't the child have consent? Do you understand that the parents consent on behalf of the child and only in a context where it is for the wellbeing of the child?

Do you believe that someone is consenting on behalf of an animal they are raping for the wellbeing of the animal?

Consent is the priority. If there is a situation in which consent cannot be directly given, like vaccinating a child, the intent of the act is the next important consideration.

Your bestiality example does not compare to vaccinating a child.

2

"You can wax lyrical about your opinions of it without ever being at risk of being on the receiving end of them."

That's ad hominem. You're discounting my opinion because of who I am, not because of what my opinion is. Does that mean you would listen to the words of pro-life, anti-birth control women who have be the exact same opinions as me then?

"*For the sake of clarity and impact I am not including men with wombs in that statement."

You realize I'm not a lib, right? I'm not going to be offended if you don't make a disclaimer to people who are confused about their gender.

Men don't have wombs. Period. That's simple, basic science.

"You can wax lyrical about your opinions of it without ever being at risk of being on the receiving end of them."

"That's ad hominem. You're discounting my opinion because of who I am, not because of what my opinion is. Does that mean you would listen to the words of pro-life, anti-birth control women who have be the exact same opinions as me then?"

Oh yeah, I was discounting your opinion. Did I make a mistake? Are you saying you have a womb?

"People don't tend to watch boring videos, it's really worth trying to ignore the aesthetics and listen to the points being made. Contrapoints videos are great, her style is quite Socratic. She makes a point of considering lots of different perspectives, not solely a liberal pov."

The first few seconds were literally just spewing liberal nonsense. That's all I needed to hear: "the Western world will surely succumb to renewable energy, affordable healthcare, and video games for lesbians." I couldn't think of a better way to instantly expose your agenda. I'll admit it was kind of her to admit it so soon in the video so I didn't have to waste half an hour of my time

Do you believe in angels?

"Do you believe in angels?"

I do

What gender are they?

"Oh yeah, I was discounting your opinion. Did I make a mistake? Are you saying you have a womb?"

Your mistake was saying that men can have wombs. I don't have a womb, but I don't need one to have an opinion about things.

No, you don't need a womb to have an opinion about things, you need one to have a valid opinion about issues relating to pregnancy and childbirth though.

You are not directly affected by those issues, only indirectly.

I did not make a mistake when I said men can have wombs, facts don't care about your feelings.

"So if you came home from work and your wife was laying in another man's arms you'd be fine with that because it's not sexual?"

Of course not. What is okay for people in certain relationships to do is different than what category of things they fall into.

"Anal sex= consensual
Hugging= consensual

Bestiality= not consensual
Slavery= not consensual"

What if the person committing bestiality is just pleasuring the animal and the animal likes it? Would you be okay with it then?

"Pleasuring the animal" What on earth would make you think that? I hope you're not speaking from experience. How would you determine whether or not a defenceless animal enjoyed being raped?

I understand that it is claimed in the Bible that animals were created for man, I'm fairly confident that it wasn't so he could f**k them though.

It is not consensual and is almost certain to cause both physical and psychological damage.

"The pleasure is just the result of brain chemistry, so it's really also a physical aspect."

Yes the pleasure is chemical, but I'm also referring to the emotions that we have that animals don't.

"No, if, like you said, the only goal of sex is to reproduce then we should have as many partners as possible. That's the best way to create as much new life as possible and is natural."

I didn't say the only goal is to reproduce. I keep saying it's one of the two.

"The concept of monogamy was created much later and is a relatively new unnatural idea."

Animals and humans alike have done it for thousands of years

""Pleasuring the animal" What on earth would make you think that? I hope you're not speaking from experience. How would you determine whether or not a defenceless animal enjoyed being raped?"

It was actually Cenk Uygur who I heard talking about his approval of it and he's a leftist too, so I though maybe more than one person thought it was okay. I'm not sure how you would determine that. You'd have to ask Cenk.

"I understand that it is claimed in the Bible that animals were created for man, I'm fairly confident that it wasn't so he could f**k them though."

I totally agree with you.

"It is not consensual and is almost certain to cause both physical and psychological damage."

I've pointed out before that young children don't consent to vaccines either. You base all of this on damage, so does that mean if someone could prove bestiality didn't cause psychological or physical harm to an animal, you'd be okay with it?

Parents vaccinate children to protect them from the future harm of disease, are you implying that people rape animals to protect them from something?

If bestiality isn't comparable to gay sex, then neither is kissing, hugging, etc. Bestiality is way closer to gay sex than any of the other things you mentioned (besides hetero sex) because they are both sexual pleasures.

Since sexual pleasure is unique to other pleasures, let's isolate it. "Protected" heterosexual sex is also unnatural and immoral. Both gay and "protected" sex are ways for people to mutually use each other for carnal pleasure without having to take responsibility for the natural outcome of sex, children. They are ways to selfishly enjoy carnal pleasure free from consequence.

Sex is about mutual pleasure.

Raping an animal that cannot consent is not comparable to having consensual sex with an adult.

Like I've already said, your concept of morality is specific, limited and not objective.

Why is experiencing mutual pleasure with someone selfish? You sound very much like you either have no experience of sex and don't really know what you're talking about or you mistakenly believe that you are not supposed to enjoy it.

Sex involves intimacy, vulnerability and both psychological and physical mutual pleasure.
Like you've pointed out, we are not exactly like animals, we are more advanced. We don't need to leave a trail of offspring every time we f**k.

I would argue that abstaining from sex to some extent, as you have advocated, is unnatural. We are sexual creatures, sex is the most natural thing there is. It isn't practical to have a child every 9 months, thankfully, unlike animals we have advanced sufficiently to manage this.
Attaching morality to sex is an age-old means of controlling women, you clearly have every right to live your life according to the ancient ideas of strangers but you do not (thankfully) have the right to impose those ideas on others.

Morality is subjective.

Contraception is a wonderful thing, it frees women from the labor of pregnancy, literal labor and childcare. These things should be a choice, not a forced experience.

The only difference between rejecting things like cars, the internet and other modern creations that allow us to experience life beyond our natural limitations is that PREGNANCY DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT MEN.*

You can wax lyrical about your opinions of it without ever being at risk of being on the receiving end of them.

*For the sake of clarity and impact I am not including men with wombs in that statement.

"Ahhh, then by that definition, Christians and other religious people brainwash children, too"

How so?

"And letting drag queens read to kids isn't using any systematic or forcible means"

It is systematic, but not forcible

"Even if every single religion objected to homosexuality, that still doesn't make it objectively wrong."

I get that, but that's not what makes it wrong. I just pointed out that most religions object to it, and that leftists love to support Islam even though it's the most violently anti-gay. Homosexuality isn't objectively wrong because most religions say it is. Rather, because homosexuality is objectively wrong, most religions teach that truth.

"I defend peaceful Muslims, I don't defend Islam. Any Muslim who throws gay people off of roofs clearly isn't being peaceful, so I don't support or defend them. And just because Christians in the United States aren't usually murdering gay people, that doesn't mean they aren't oppressing or mistreating them."

Peaceful Muslims aren't true Muslims. The Qu'ran commands many things that peaceful Muslims ignore. I agree that peaceful Muslims are better people that violent ones, but they aren't better Muslims. I appreciate that you don't defend such a violent ideology. Many on the left blindly do. How do you suppose Christians oppress gay people as you have said? Now I won't deny that some homosexuals are mistreated, and I, with you, will condemn their mistreatment, especially by my fellow Christians. Homosexuals deserve to be treated with compassion just like everyone else, but we can still help them overcome the desires of their flesh at the same time.

"I think in the past you may have mentioned to me that you believe it's unnatural. I don't believe there's a single objection you have raised to homosexuality which I find convincing or compelling, the claim that it's supposedly unnatural included."

Read that message I sent to JR a few minutes ago, and maybe we can discuss something in there

"Gay sex serves no natural purpose."

"Neither does football, or video games, but I don't see people saying those should be condemned or prohibited."

Good point!

"Gay sex serves no natural purpose."

"Neither does football, or video games, but I don't see people saying those should be condemned or prohibited."

I would add that if all those things serve any natural purpose it is to produce endorphins and dopamine which are important for maintaining mental health.

"It's not a convincing argument because homosexuality isn't unnatural"

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? I presented my evidence

"Do you follow everything in the New Testament?"

Is there something you think I should object to in it?

"Until just last month, LGBT people could be fired in over 20 states just for being LGBT. That's the kind of discrimination I'm referring to. Public and private sector employment, and housing. Thanks to the Bostock decision last month, LGBT people are closer to having full equality in all 50 states."

I agree that in public, it shouldn't really need to be a factor, but in private areas such as religious organizations, it is a factor because if people don't uphold and practice the religion, then they should be able to be fired.

"I'm sure you already know this, but there's a huge difference between something bringing you happiness and security, and that thing actually being true."

I absolutely agree with that. What I mean when I say that is that because I have found it to be true, it brings me happiness and security. I get that a lot of people find happiness in less than perfect ways and find security in things like the government.

"I would agree with JR. And while it's true that something isn't natural for humans just because it's natural for some other animals, homosexuality is something that occurs naturally for many humans as well as for many other animals, also. In other words, not al X are Y. But this particular X is Y."

What evidence is there that homosexuality occurs naturally in humans and isn't put there by outside factors?

"Heterosexual sex is the only type of sex capable of producing offspring, but as JR and I have pointed out, there's nothing that requires sexual activity to be limited to only procreative acts. Sex can be purely for pleasure."

But that's the reason sexual activity exists. Just because humans invented a way to avoid that responsibility doesn't mean that it's natural or was ever intended to be used in that way. No other animal has manipulated sexual activity to suit their personal purpose to the degree humans have.

"Neither does football, or video games, but I don't see people saying those should be condemned or prohibited."

Those are in a completely different category. I could rephrase my sentence to be gay sex serves no natural sexual purpose. It doesn't accomplish the intended natural result of sexual activity.

"By pressuring kids to accept beliefs, sometimes using force or coercion"

You can teach people things without pressuring them into believing them. I agree that using force is the wrong way to go about it.

"And I've still never seen a convincing argument or evidence that it is objectively wrong."

What do you think about my argument for it being unnatural?

"So someone isn't a true Muslim unless they follow everything in the Quran? So by that logic, someone isn't a true Christian unless they follow everything in the Bible. Do you follow everything in the Bible?"

I figured you might say something like that. The difference between the Bible and Quran is that the Quran has no Old Testament equivalent. The entire Quran functions more like the New Testament of the Bible. So no I don't follow all the Old Jewish laws of the Old Testament, but for Muslims, there is no part of their book with that equivalent.

"By opposing laws that would protect them from discrimination and afford them equal treatment and protection under the law."

What discrimination? Do you mean religious organizations that wouldn't hire them? They already have equal treatment and protection under the law.

"Just because that's what your religion says, why should anyone listen to you or do what your religion says?"

I follow my religion because I seek the truth, and I have found truth here, and I want to share it. Everyone deserves to know the truth. True, I can't just expect people to just listen to what I say because I'm religious, but I try to practice my faith as best I can and show others how it has brought me happiness and security and can bring it to them too.

"The conversation between you and him is way too long for me to go back and read through. As it stands now I'm trying to keep this discussion productive but without it getting too big to follow."

Fair enough. I'll explain the basic thing I wanted you to read here:

So JR argued that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature in animals and in humans. So I pointed out that just because something occurs in animal behavior doesn't make it natural for humans, such as killing each other when there's competition for food. I also pointed out that just because some humans do something, that doesn't make it natural, such as bestiality. For all species that reproduce sexually, heterosexual sex is the only way they are capable of producing offspring, and in nature, that's what sex is for. Gay sex serves no natural purpose.