Is It Wrong to Think Homosexuality is a Sin?

[RodISHI]

I already told you by the choices that they make they subject themselves.

And which "choices" caused Down Syndrome?

Come on, time to be a big kid and own your evil comments. Yes, what you said is disgusting, and we're going to demonstrate that your fucked up, magical morality is, in fact, immoral, irrational, and unethical.

That is, if you don't slither away (which you almost certainly will do, because you can already smell that you said something vile).

Go f' your self. I answered you already and you slithered away days ago. I have better things to do than play with you in your shit filled sandbox.

You never once explained how our choices caused harmful genetic conditions, like down syndrome. Anyone can see that for themselves. You are a shameless little liar who said something very evil and stupid, and you are going to dance and prance and preen yourself to avoid owning it.

Again, as anyone can see for themselves. No dummy, you are not fooling anyone with 50 posts saying you don't "feel" like explaining it (which would take ONE post). It's embarrassing just to watch you act this way.

You do like to try to twist shit don't you. From what you claim you not believe in the spirit of God or that the spirit of justice came into the world. Just because you are blinded in your own sin doesn't mean that others are all in that same boat with you. "Embarrassed", highly unlikely. I'd say your more ignorant and feeling like you can be totally unashamed in your little world of lies and attempts at deception more than anything else.

 

[irosie91]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

I believe that homosexuality is a sin as much as I believe that masturbation is a sin.
It is a sin ONLY if one acts it out IN PUBLIC

 

[Taz]

You have nothing, as usual,

So you don't believe that successful behavior naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure?

Doing bad things can sometimes lead to a successful outcome. And doing the right thing can get you killed. So no, not always.

Violating moral laws is not like violating physical laws. The consequence isn't always immediate. It is probabilistic.

But are you seriously arguing that successful behaviors don't naturally lead to successful outcomes?

What some people see as Trump's successful behavior led to a successful outcome, others see as a fat, stupid, immoral jackass. So my question, like it was before, is who gets to choose? Did nature choose Trump's behavior as successful? I sure fucking hope not!

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

 

[ding]

So you don't believe that successful behavior naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure?

Doing bad things can sometimes lead to a successful outcome. And doing the right thing can get you killed. So no, not always.

Violating moral laws is not like violating physical laws. The consequence isn't always immediate. It is probabilistic.

But are you seriously arguing that successful behaviors don't naturally lead to successful outcomes?

What some people see as Trump's successful behavior led to a successful outcome, others see as a fat, stupid, immoral jackass. So my question, like it was before, is who gets to choose? Did nature choose Trump's behavior as successful? I sure fucking hope not!

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

 

[Taz]

Doing bad things can sometimes lead to a successful outcome. And doing the right thing can get you killed. So no, not always.

Violating moral laws is not like violating physical laws. The consequence isn't always immediate. It is probabilistic.

But are you seriously arguing that successful behaviors don't naturally lead to successful outcomes?

What some people see as Trump's successful behavior led to a successful outcome, others see as a fat, stupid, immoral jackass. So my question, like it was before, is who gets to choose? Did nature choose Trump's behavior as successful? I sure fucking hope not!

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

 

[ding]

Violating moral laws is not like violating physical laws. The consequence isn't always immediate. It is probabilistic.

But are you seriously arguing that successful behaviors don't naturally lead to successful outcomes?

What some people see as Trump's successful behavior led to a successful outcome, others see as a fat, stupid, immoral jackass. So my question, like it was before, is who gets to choose? Did nature choose Trump's behavior as successful? I sure fucking hope not!

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

That wasn't what I was talking about. But now that you mention it...

 

[BS Filter]

Violating moral laws is not like violating physical laws. The consequence isn't always immediate. It is probabilistic.

But are you seriously arguing that successful behaviors don't naturally lead to successful outcomes?

What some people see as Trump's successful behavior led to a successful outcome, others see as a fat, stupid, immoral jackass. So my question, like it was before, is who gets to choose? Did nature choose Trump's behavior as successful? I sure fucking hope not!

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

 

[Taz]

What some people see as Trump's successful behavior led to a successful outcome, others see as a fat, stupid, immoral jackass. So my question, like it was before, is who gets to choose? Did nature choose Trump's behavior as successful? I sure fucking hope not!

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

 

[ding]

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Statistically they are the exception, not the rule. In other words, they deviate from the norm.

 

[irosie91]

What some people see as Trump's successful behavior led to a successful outcome, others see as a fat, stupid, immoral jackass. So my question, like it was before, is who gets to choose? Did nature choose Trump's behavior as successful? I sure fucking hope not!

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

yeah----sorta. Deviant is not a nice word for a NATURALLY occurring "deviation" from
nature------there were lots and lots-------in nature that which CAN happen----does.
Some people are born blind----some homosexual

 

[Taz]

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Statistically they are the exception, not the rule. In other words, they deviate from the norm.

So left handers deviate from the norm as well then, and your point is meaningless. It's all natural, as in, made by nature.

 

[irosie91]

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Statistically they are the exception, not the rule. In other words, they deviate from the norm.

So left handers deviate from the norm as well then, and your point is meaningless. It's all natural, as in, made by nature.

true------I am a deviant lefty. but nice anyway

 

[Taz]

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

yeah----sorta. Deviant is not a nice word for a NATURALLY occurring "deviation" from
nature------there were lots and lots-------in nature that which CAN happen----does.
Some people are born blind----some homosexual

BS is a Jehovah's Witness, NOW you're talking about deviation and deviant!

 

[Taz]

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Statistically they are the exception, not the rule. In other words, they deviate from the norm.

So left handers deviate from the norm as well then, and your point is meaningless. It's all natural, as in, made by nature.

true------I am a deviant lefty. but nice anyway

dingbat is trying to say that homosexuality is a deviation of the norm, it's not, the norm in nature is to have some homosexuality.

And you're not deviant, you're BADASS!

 

[ding]

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Statistically they are the exception, not the rule. In other words, they deviate from the norm.

So left handers deviate from the norm as well then, and your point is meaningless. It's all natural, as in, made by nature.

No. Normalizing deviance from the standard leads to predictable surprises. That's my point and it is valid.

 

[Taz]

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Statistically they are the exception, not the rule. In other words, they deviate from the norm.

So left handers deviate from the norm as well then, and your point is meaningless. It's all natural, as in, made by nature.

No. Normalizing deviance from the standard leads to predictable surprises. That's my point and it is valid.

I already shot down that dumb thesis a long time ago. Nature is full of different surprises that go against the majority (which you wrongly call the norm), and it's all part of a whole. Nobody is deviating from anything, nature demands variety. So everything is natural and leads to their own outcome.

 

[BS Filter]

What part of probabilistic outcomes did you not understand?

What part of normalization of deviance from the standard eventually leads to predictable surprises did you not understand?

Because here you are still arguing exceptions over the self evident truth that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

The only people who argue against that are people who don't accept accountability and believe in blind luck.

So nature is better off with gay beings in it. Nature being so successful and all.

Diversity is good. Normalizing deviance from the standard, not so much.

Being gay isn't deviant. Please try again.

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Nope. That's your opinion, not a scientific fact. If they're born with male genitals, they're a male, etc.

 

[ding]

Homo Sapiens are heterosexual by nature. That means homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Statistically they are the exception, not the rule. In other words, they deviate from the norm.

So left handers deviate from the norm as well then, and your point is meaningless. It's all natural, as in, made by nature.

No. Normalizing deviance from the standard leads to predictable surprises. That's my point and it is valid.

I already shot down that dumb thesis a long time ago. Nature is full of different surprises that go against the majority (which you wrongly call the norm), and it's all part of a whole. Nobody is deviating from anything, nature demands variety. So everything is natural and leads to their own outcome.

Actually you didn't shoot it down. Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

All you did in the past was try to muddy the waters on what normalization of deviance means because you can't debate it honestly.

 

[ding]

The standard is one man and one woman to raise a child.

 

[Taz]

Actually, some people are naturally homosexual, meaning made by nature, so no, not deviant but natural.

Statistically they are the exception, not the rule. In other words, they deviate from the norm.

So left handers deviate from the norm as well then, and your point is meaningless. It's all natural, as in, made by nature.

No. Normalizing deviance from the standard leads to predictable surprises. That's my point and it is valid.

I already shot down that dumb thesis a long time ago. Nature is full of different surprises that go against the majority (which you wrongly call the norm), and it's all part of a whole. Nobody is deviating from anything, nature demands variety. So everything is natural and leads to their own outcome.

Actually you didn't shoot it down. Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

All you did in the past was try to muddy the waters on what normalization of deviance means because you can't debate it honestly.

So give me an example of your theory. And be honest about it.