Why ever not? If I can confuse AMonger, it's payback, as he confuses me all the time. Because he says homosexuality is determined by the deed, [a point on which he goes into great detail, I notice] not the desire or impulse, which gets very confusing. Is a happy hetero who resorts to gay sex in prison but resumes his actual preference for females when released a homosexual? Is a homosexual who's so far in the closet he's suffocating still a 'pervert'? Is one a homosexual if they tried it once and didn't like it?
There just are not all that many homosexual parents.
You haven't a clue how many, do you? Not even counting the ones who pretend they're hetero, sometimes even to themselves, for many years.
As their numbers increase so will the rest. They are not immune to anything, even the horrors of killing children. They have NO problem killing their spouses, other people, etc. They are human. They are as flawed as much as the rest are.
Can't say that it hasn't happened, but I would agree that nothing has been reported that I can remember with them beating or abusing their kids.
No argument there - but the point was that if they were/are harming their children, why isn't it ever mentioned in the news? I have never seen even ONE report of a gay parent killing their child [but quite a few delusional religious ones!] or being charged with abuse.
Morals are no more rooted in religion than other inherently human traits such as creativity, generosity, etc.
Religion, in the broader sense, was not created, but founded, and by God. Religion, in the more specific sense of the word--modern, organized religion, apart from the religion founded by God when He began His dealings with man--could be said to have been created.They existed long before religion was created to explain the unknown.
No, he's not. Humanist ideals are subjective, while morals are subjective only in application. If you believe something to be morally wrong and do it anyway, you've sinned.Aristotle is correct in saying morals are highly subjective, which is the point AMonger can't seem to get.
Not precisely true. I do, however, believe everybody should live by Christian morals. God expects you to.He thinks HIS morals should be imposed upon everyone,
Every time a sodomite couple pretending to be parents raises a child to not fear the Lord, or to believe that gotry is anything but a ****able sin, they've harmed a child.even when there's plenty of evidence proving they're simply wrong: hundreds of gay parents have raised children as well as [and often much better than] heterosexual parents.
I don't think I've ever heard of a single instance of a gay parent killing or abusing their child, now that I think of it, while examples of 'normal' hetero parents doing so are daily horrors in the news.
Of course it is. Duh. Without the second, the first isn't valid, any more than without the first the second would be valid. They are two sentences which together convey a single idea or thought. They are not separate and mutually exclusive ideas which can be taken out of context, which you are attempting to do.
But since you want to play this game, fine, what about the first sentence is invalid?
Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
All I have to do is come up with a single instance where the statement is true to make it perfectly valid. I can do that with one hand tied behind my back. There are certainly times when religious instruction is also the right thing, but that doesn't in and of itself make the statement invalid.
OK....so you are squicked by two guys being parents as you refer to them as sodomites. So...I guess you are ok with two women getting it on? I give it a thumbs up if they look good.
so...i guess you are ok with two women getting it on? I give it a thumbs up if they look good.
I'm not attempting to validate it at all, since it stands on its own. I'm simply attempting to give you the opportunity to invalidate it.The term religion encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and teachings. One example in no way validate the claim when using a single wide reaching term like religion.
Told what to do by whom, in what religion? Your attempting to paint with an extremely broad brush to validate the Statement.
You keep saying it's invalid, but you won't say why. If you can't do that, then you're right, no point in continuing. Just keep in mind that religion requires following certain rules, both of worship and of behavior. Those rules don't change based on morality, but rather create a morality of its own within the scope of the religion. But the rules have to be followed, no matter what, or the religion itself becomes not a religion at all.
Morality changes all the time in society. Always has. But not religion. Sometimes religion and morality is in conflict, and adherents to a religion are told to follow the religion regardless. And they do. That's what religion is.
If you do something religiously, that means you do it no matter what. If there are exceptions, then you're not doing it religiously. That's where the saying, "doing something religiously", comes from. How can you say that's invalid, when it's a simple fact of life?