Homosexuality a non religious issue?

[DanieltheDragon]

I think this is all smoke screen. Forget religion Z, I do a lot more than you think. Disagreeing with homosexual marriage is not about religion but reality.

Homosexuality is a non religious issue. Nobody has any benefit in a great range of activities from homosexuality to head butting a brick wall. No one wants to be a homosexual, just like no one wants to be blind. So why enshrine homosexuality?

Since that is true then really what is the motive behind gay marriage?

Mostly it's about sacrificing one group of people to our own needs. I want to live a certain way and so I will fight that they can live how they want as well.

The fact that God in the Bible is for traditional marriage is a bonus.

Is there a secular reason to be against homosexuality?

Do homosexuals hate their homosexuality?

Is the reason for gay marriage sacrificing one group for our own needs?


From:http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91&start=0

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 49 by Wootah]

Pattern matching: The ability to identify patterns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_r ... sychology)

Yes you are using this terminology wrong. Pattern recognition merely describes ones ability to find patterns. This is generally not considered in terms of good and bad success or failure. A pattern matching failure would be the inability to find patterns not finding the correct or wrong patterns.

one either is capable of finding patterns or not.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 51 by DanieltheDragon]

What term would you use?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 51 by DanieltheDragon]

What term would you use?

Start with a definition what are you trying to say it is? How exactly would you define it?

I am not so sure you are talking about something that is clinical.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 46 by Bust Nak]

I actually read this and thought of this verse in the bible

Matthew 8:20New International Version (NIV)

Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.�

Either Jesus was unique or had a massive pattern matching failure.

It's an odd passage:
Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.� And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.� Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.� And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.�

Out of context the first could be seen as Jesus complaining.
But it is also strange, perhaps even stranger that he seems to discourage the scribe. Maybe he is just warning him that following him comes at a cost. But the to the next one he is emphatic that he SHOULD be followed.

However, the passage makes sense if we look at the whole of it, that he is warning them of the high cost of discipleship; that if they follow his path, all else must be a distant second. Immediately thereafter, as if to demonstrate his point a storm threatens to sink their ship.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 47 by Clownboat]

Clearly a woman's tongue is poisonous. Something about Eve and original sin or something. How that relates to female to female relations I don't know.

Moderator Comment

This is a topic that is easily derailed and/or pushed into prurient directions cross the line from serious conversation to snarks...especially when one-line comments that don't advance the conversation show up. Whatever amusing and salacious remarks you may be tempted to offer, please don't share them.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

I'm not arguing you can't stick what you want where you want, I'm also not arguing it isn't desirable at times to stick what you want where you want. I'm saying that regardless of that we still know what is meant to go where.

We know what is meant to go where now, do we? You are saying man is supposed to go with woman. Well, here we are a case of what person A knows differs from what person B knows. Now what? The only secular significance I see here is reproduction, is that what you've been getting at all along?

[Clownboat]

In relation to male or female tongues I didn't actually mention the sex and you can imply I meant all tongues.

Tongues, fingers, dildos, whatever don't change or affect the argument because the argument isn't what fits but pattern matching.

Even if a circle fits in a square hole it's still not the correct answer.

I'm not arguing you can't stick what you want where you want, I'm also not arguing it isn't desirable at times to stick what you want where you want. I'm saying that regardless of that we still know what is meant to go where.

Pattern matching: The ability to identify patterns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_r ... sychology)

Am I using the right phrase to describe my point? I am open to a better clinical definition.

Try this game and tell me how you go: http://pbskids.org/barney/children/game ... sgame.html

Did you not have an answer for this?:

'If pattern matching was a real thing, what makes the tongue of a women different than the tongue of a man?'