Sin does not exist? None, at all?
Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?
If you do not beliee in sin, how, then, can you believe in "wrong"? How does that add up, Cephus, if you equate humans to animals and animals do not regard the term "wrong"?
Let's see.
Do you believe the Bible is infallible?
Do you believe your interpretation of the Bible is infallible?
Do you believe your actions, which you base on your interpretation of the Bible, are infallible?
Be careful how you answer, because if you answer "no" to any of them, then your argument is reduced down to just your personal opinion. If you answer "yes" to all of them, then you demonstrate that you believe you are infallible.
Ha, measured by what, CriticalThought? "Normal" societal feelings?
Consensus and numbers do not equate to absolute scientific fact. Numbers and might do not equate "right".
There are many societies that allow regulation of other's bodies. Socialistic and communistic regulations on Body Mass Index as one small example. My point is that feelings don't make "right". Societies frequently do affect the bodies of others.
Oh I believe in my belief, but I know it's not correct in the eyes of society and I cannot prove it in the slightest. That's what makes us human. We ALL believe things that we cannot scientifically prove. Is "X" right or wrong"? Is "this" acceptable or no? It's all merely passionate conjecture that cannot be proven.
I dunno, sometimes a really good pee can feel awfully satisfying....
Belches are pretty good too. Am I supposed to be doing something to/with my stomach that I don't know about?
You said "The sexuality of other animals (especially mammals, primates and apes)." I understand what you meant, but insects count as animals as well and by the belief that through animals and especially mammals we can define what is natural. You didn't say we can only look at animals closer in relation to humans, but that's getting besides the point.
Apes and other mammals are not on the same intelligence level as humanity.
Sexual organs may be similar in physiology but different species cannot be equated.
Mammals have very diverse sexual practices ranging from mating for life, to mating once and having a male leave the pregnant mother to fend for herself, to mating only during certain times of the year.
What is natural is best defined within a species in my opinion.
I'll say it again. My definition comes from biology.
The vagina is designed for the penis and for coitus. The semen is designed to harbor sperm and allow them to swim through the cervix, through the uterus, into the fallopian tube, and to fertilize an egg. Biologically, the vagina and penis are fitted for each other and other sexual acts are unnatural according to biology (like oral, anal, etc). I'll say this again though, not all unnatural things are wrong.
Sin does not exist? None, at all?
Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? --
I am missing the option ABNORMAL!
Reason: Longer as 5500 years Homosexuality was threaten as Abnormality, only in the last 30 years the Mafias of politically correct secular humanists have pushed Homosexuality as a normal behavior.
Conclusion: all societies which tolerate Homosexuality either already have disappeared or will be disappeared because tolerating of this illness is a sign of decadence and of lower birth rates.
I am missing the option ABNORMAL!
Reason: Longer as 5500 years Homosexuality was threaten as Abnormality, only in the last 30 years the Mafias of politically correct secular humanists have pushed Homosexuality as a normal behavior.
Conclusion: all societies which tolerate Homosexuality either have already disappeared or will be disappeared without any trace because tolerating of this mentally illness is a sign of decadence and lead to lower birth rates.
The idea of gay sex/marriage creating a decrease in population growth is silly. The estimated percentage of gays is pretty low, and I'm sure those idiots having 19+ children will more than compensate for the difference.
Why does having a lot of Children make someone an idiot, in your eyes?
So I really don't see the point in calling it "unnatural" but if you it makes you feel better to call it such, then have at it I guess.
They can't support them. They feed them, educate them, clothe them...through the charity of others. The older of the 19 help raise the younger of the 19, and in this society there is no logical reason to have 19 children. If even one of those kids wants to go to college it'll cost about $65,000 for an in-state, public college. Let's say all 19 want to go, that's $1,235,000. So either 1.2 million in student loans, or hope and pray some of them get scholarships, or they pay for college on their own...while being held liable for helping raise the younger children that the parents don't have time or finances to raise on their own.
Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2002. The Duggars' income is derived from the commercial properties they own.[9][10] They live debt-free,[11][12] which Jim Bob has said is "the fruit of Jim Sammons' Financial Freedom Seminar" he attended years ago (Sammons' Seminar is endorsed by IBLP). Their 650 square meter (7,000 square foot) house was built by the family itself over the course of three years with minimal assistance from friends, primarily in the form of instruction. The home was completed on January 20, 2006. The painting, decorating, furnishings, appliances, and other finishing touches, such as a stocked pantry, were provided by Discovery Networks and corporate sponsors as part of the one-hour television special.[10] The work on and completion of the house were the focus of a one-hour television special entitled 16 Children and Moving In.
Sorry, I mistook your "nature" comment to mean animal life.
I don't think if humans do something it automatically makes it natural. Some humans have sex with children and others have sex with objects, I don't think those are natural. My definition of unnatural is more from a biological standpoint and not necessarily a social one. I do agree though that not all unnatural things are bad. Treating people with synthetic medicines is unnatural but it isn't bad.
I can't even remember the name of that family, but they seem to be doing just fine on their own.
There was an E! story on them. They get food through donations, they had work done to their home to provide sleeping space through donations, they take their kids on mission trips through donations. They aren't on government assistance (that I know of), but they aren't doing it on their own, either.
I would consider low human birth rates as a benefit. We have over populated the planet as it is imo.
You set your belief aside, OhIsee.Then.
Do not assume your belief is scientifically correct. You are not absolute. We all speak our beliefs, and all of our beliefs are unproven in terms of "right and "wrong." Do not for once think your belief is absolute among others.
If you're not even free to think deeply on this subject, then you're just speaking someone else's talking points.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?