Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[Arthur Brain]

A person has a choice not to pursue romance with someone.
You all act like a person has no control over desires, or must pursue all of what's in front of them to be fulfilled.

All the Vices are encompassed in that reprobate reckoning- gluttony, envy, LUST, greed, sloth, wrath, pride.

Nobody said otherwise. You could fall in love with your friends wife and decide not to pursue it, but you wouldn't have control over who you actually fell in love with regardless, or who you're attracted to. People don't wake up one morning and decide to fall in love or be attracted to their own or opposite genders, simple as.

 

[Crucible]

Nobody said otherwise. You could fall in love with your friends wife and decide not to pursue it, but you wouldn't have control over who you actually fell in love with regardless, or who you're attracted to. People don't wake up one morning and decide to fall in love or be attracted to their own or opposite genders, simple as.

You can't fall in love with someone without having pursued or obsessed with an idea of romance with them.

That's what happens with homosexuals, who have the mindset of being excited by things that are taboo or otherwise not natural to propel it right into a pit of depravity.

You all saying it isn't wrong is like telling addicts there's nothing wrong with drugs.

 

[MrDante]

Yes, please do.
Anything's better than your "that's just like racism" strategy.

What did I make up, anyway?





Really?

Do you honestly think parents have as little control over how they portray their marriage to their children, as they do over their skin color? That's absolutely insane, Brother. Can we drop the adversarial tone for a minute, and just be realistic? You can't honestly believe that, do you?

Be sincere.

I think parents have no more control over their child's sexual orientation then they have over their child's skin color.

 

[MrDante]

A person has a choice not to pursue romance with someone.
You all act like a person has no control over desires, or must pursue all of what's in front of them to be fulfilled.

All the Vices are encompassed in that reprobate reckoning- gluttony, envy, LUST, greed, sloth, wrath, pride.

You just presented an argument against interracial marriage.

 

[glassjester]

You just presented an argument against interracial marriage.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You can't fall in love with someone without having pursued or obsessing with an idea of romance with them.

That's what happens with homosexuals, who have the mindset of being excited by things that are taboo or otherwise not natural to propel it right into a pit of depravity.

You all saying it isn't wrong is like telling addicts there's nothing wrong with drugs.

Then you really have no idea of what you're talking about. I was good friends with a woman for a couple of years and had no romantic inclinations towards her. A couple of friends were ribbing me as to why I hadn't asked her out and it was simply because I didn't have those feelings. I cared about her a lot and she was special as a friend but to me at that time it was as far as it went. Then one day it was like 'boom', all change. You don't get to choose when that happens, at all.

 

[glassjester]

You can't fall in love with someone without having pursued or obsessing with an idea of romance with them.

Absolutely true.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Absolutely true.

No, it isn't.

 

[glassjester]

No, it isn't.

Ok. Since you said it twice, I guess you must be right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ok. Since you said it twice, I guess you must be right.

No, it's because it happens to be true that I said it twice. You don't need to be pursuing someone or obsessing over them in order to fall in love with a person. Crucible's statement was bonkers to begin with and so was yours for agreeing with him.

 

[glassjester]

No, it's because it happens to be true that I said it twice. You don't need to be pursuing someone or obsessing over them in order to fall in love with a person. Crucible's statement was bonkers to begin with and so was yours for agreeing with him.

Love is an act of the will.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Love is an act of the will.

Falling in love is not.

 

[glassjester]

I cared about her a lot and she was special as a friend but to me at that time it was as far as it went. Then one day it was like 'boom', all change. You don't get to choose when that happens, at all.

Are you saying you truly did not want to fall in love with her?

BTW - How'd it turn out? Did you two get married? Just curious. (Sorry, if that's too personal, just ignore it)

 

[Arthur Brain]

Are you saying you truly did not want to fall in love with her?

BTW - How'd it turn out? Did you two get married? Just curious. (Sorry, if that's too personal, just ignore it)

No, I'm saying it just happened without any sort of conscious input on my part. It's going back some years and was unpleasantly ironic for the both of us as she'd pretty much developed feelings for someone else as I had for her at the same point and it was a no go for her on that score either. We once went out for a load of drinks to kinda laugh at the irony of it all. No, we didn't get married but we remained friends although lost touch unfortunately what with life and all. I do know she got married and was happy. I hope she still is.

 

[glassjester]

No, I'm saying it just happened without any sort of conscious input on my part.

Hm.

Does that mean that if you had actively willed it not to happen, you couldn't have stopped it?
Choosing not to will something, either way, is still a choice.

It's going back some years and was unpleasantly ironic for the both of us as she'd pretty much developed feelings for someone else as I had for her at the same point and it was a no go for her on that score either. We once went out for a load of drinks to kinda laugh at the irony of it all. No, we didn't get married but we remained friends although lost touch unfortunately what with life and all. I do know she got married and was happy. I hope she still is.

Ah, thanks for indulging my nosiness!

 

[glassjester]

Well, I'm sure even you must acknowledge that the vast majority of people are guilty of masturbation, even if you managed to restrain from it yourself...

And how long would someone have to abstain from sexual activity before this supposed surplus was reached?

 

[Crucible]

Well, I'm sure even you must acknowledge that the vast majority of people are guilty of masturbation, even if you managed to restrain from it yourself...

The Catholic Church teaches that masturbation is a mortal sin if it is recreational. It is merely a venial sin in it being a moment of weakness in one's discipline. That is, it doesn't separate you from grace in such a circumstance.

 

[glassjester]

The Catholic Church teaches that masturbation is a mortal sin if it is recreational. It is merely a venial sin in it being a moment of weakness in one's discipline. That is, it doesn't separate you from grace in such a circumstance.

I believe the venial/mortal distinction lies in how freely the person chose to act, and how much knowledge they had of the grave nature of the act.

Same goes for all sin. Not just that particular one.

 

[MrDante]

Sadly this is the most thought out and reasoned post we've seen from you.

 

[glassjester]

Sadly this is the most thought out and reasoned post we've seen from you.

Thanks!
I'm partial to that one, too.

Which one comes in second?
Or are all the rest tied for worst?

And which of yours would you say is the most reasoned?