what? i think you misunderstood them. the sexual attraction to children isn't a mental disorder, but they have a name for a mental disorder where "one struggles with their attraction to children, and want to fix it"
Wasn't homosexuality once considered a mental disease? Wasn't homosexuality once considered a taboo? Don't some homosexuals still struggle with it and doesn't affect some in their daily lives?
the wording is very similar, but they are not the same. homosexuality is under no circumstances considered a disorder in of itself, just like any other type of attraction
Tell that to the guy who comes out as being a pedophile and then suffers from disrespect and slander from those in society
also, his posts were inaccurate. they were researches conducted by christians in the 80s. they are not only outdated, they are extremely biased, anti-homosexual propaganda, and from what i read, blatantly incorrect. not to mention some were just peoples personal narratives, which in no way constitutes as a study of an entire group of people, even if it was correct. (which it wasn't)
Ok so where are your links and sources then?
It is natural. But it's not right. Morals aren't natural things, they're created through human empathy and higher intelligence. Instincts are as natural as you can get, some animals instincts tell them not to eat their young, some's don't. It's not right in our eyes, but it's also not unnatural.
Created by humans, something subjective to each person or a society of people, yet we tell the middle east that their morality is wrong
I'm not denying anything...I literally stated multiple times what is natural and unnatural is redundant in terms of logical reasoning...why are you so slow?
You're confused lol, I don't care whether or not being gay is natural or not, but you used it as some sort of reasoning to justify your thought that being gay is somehow wrong. So I'm addressing that as it's illogical af.
I will admit, you threw me for a loop a couple of days ago. I admire your persistence. However, just because the majority agree with you doesn't make you correct. Now let me go back and readdress a couple of points you made
Lmao...planes didn't exist during the period of time the stories within the Bible were written, obviously it wouldn't mention it.
You don't see humans evolving to grow wings, making flight unnatural for us to partake in, airplanes do not exist outside of human influence, are not used outside of the human race etc, making it unnatural, yet it is still not unethical. My point is that something being natural or unnatural is not a basic for judging human ethics or morality, period. This is simple.
Whether or not homosexuality is natural or not is irrelevant to the discussion.
Assuming that there is just one based definition for being natural. When I said natural, I was referring to human nature it is irrelevant to the discussion. Just about everything that exist in our society today is considered unnatural by your definition but like I stated above, there is more than one definition.
Definition of NATURAL
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
Log cabins, some of the food we eat, etc are all things that fit both definitions. I'll admit that I do not know that if airplanes are made out of anything artificial. However, your flying example is moot considering the fact other animals do so. You stated that flying is unnatural yet other animals do it. The plane itself might be unnatural, however, the act of flying is not according the logic used to defend homosexuality. Your argument is also based on morality, which I said before is subjective from person to person and since it does not cause harm to humans then it should be ok. So I guess we should
- Stop driving gas cars
- Stop flying planes
- Stop Smoking
- Stop making paper
The list can go on.
Because the sexual attraction can lead to that.
Meanwhile homosexual sexual attraction leads to what negative affects again?
And what does whether or not a pedophiliac attraction is right or wrong have to do with whether or not a homosexual attraction is right or wrong?
You're logic is in shambles.
And how exactly is my logic in shambles? Don't homosexual couples have to face the impact of negative feelings due to the guilt they feel in their life (depression, suicide, etc)? See this is why I take "studies" very lightly. Pedophilia and homosexuality were both considered a mental disease (fact), but now since the majority feel like there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (since it causes no harm) then it should be allowed when pedophilia is frowned upon? What happens when a man is a pedophilliac but doesn't let the negative aspects of it affect his daily life? You think that if a 40 year old man comes out about him being one he will get smiles and praise? This is where the hypocrisy of liberals and people who support it come in at. Unless we can prove that being gay is 100% factual genetic, then we can talk.
You also seem to be missing the point. The comparison made has nothing to do with homosexuality being wrong or right, it to show the hypocrisy of those who support it
i love when random people on the internet think they can understand the constitution and law better than THE SUPREME COURT.
**** kim davis, and **** anyone who forces their beliefs into the government.
I've heard two different sides, I've heard congress is higher than the SC and vice versa. I don't quite understand so can you elucidate? Also can provide sources as well? I was on FB and someone that lived in Kentucky stated something different than what you are stating
