…or, why hippies are idiots.
So I wrote a reply to a "we're killing the planet" blog, and part of it I decided to repost here:There are a bunch of idiots who think that everything should be peace - peace, peace, peace. No fighting, no violence, no killing - a utopia on Earth, as it were. Problem with that is, it's been tried. And it failed. There's a book I read once - "The Arcadians." A bunch of naturalists back in the nineteenth century decided to live in nature and be nonviolent - they failed. Within a couple of weeks, one was drinking (alcohol, not water) and they were all angry at each other. The settlement fell apart.Now, I'm not saying peace is bad - far from it. Peace is a good thing. It's just when people try to take the pie without paying the pieper that things get sticky. Humans are basically evil. And not in the "Ooh, we're killing trees! We're evil!" kind of way - in the "I'm going to kill you because I want your house" kind of way. There is NO WAY to have a perfectly peaceful earth. Those that only act in peace are trampled by those who act out of desire - just like the Vikings and those they raided. In order to keep the Vikings away, peace-loving villages without standing armies would basically give the vikings money in order to uphold that peace. Remember 9/11? The reason behind that horrible act? Why did the terrorists decide to fly a plane into the WTC? Why did they attack the United States? Were we doing something to them? Were we attacking them? No. We were being "peaceful." Holding "peace talks." Trying to negotiate for "peace." However, we happened to be supporting Israel - which was something these terrorists didn't like. So they walked onboard a bunch of planes, took them over, and killed thousands of Americans. We were being overly peaceful - and it cost us. But - and here's where things took a turn for the better - we didn't sit and take it. We stood up and fought back. We became active and vigilant in our defense against terrorism - and since that day, there have been no more World Trade Center disasters. Our current peace is preserved not through peacemongering, but through defensive war.In closing, there's a sentence that easily applies here: "Peace is good. Peace without war… is impossible."
Lust - A usually intense or unbridled sexual desire
Myself. How about that? I have never had an intense, unbridled sexual desire. Thinking about sex is not lust. Wanting sex is not lust. Wanting lust to a point that you can not control you own wanting, and your own thought process because of it… that is lust.In addition, as I already stated, homosexual sex is only not allowed because homosexual marriage is a paradox. Since they can not marry, they can not have sex. Lust is a different case, since lust is a sin in any form and homosexuality has absolutely no countenance in the matter.This point, however, I am not conceding.
What you have described is *not* homosexuality.As the following article shows…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love… what you are describing is not eros, but philia. It has absolutely no bearing on what we are discussing. Next question?Except that you're wrong… your evidence has absolutely no bearing on the subject.
You are denying that a person can be in love with a person of the same sex without having sex, and it still be homosexuality. That is absurd. Homosexuality is not dependent on physical actions. Just like heterosexuality, it is a preference of attraction and nothing else.It is a mental illness and nothing else. There is no genetic, evolutionary, religious, or otherwise reason for its existence. It is no different, fundamentally, from schizophrenia, madness, or any other such illness. Someone thinking he likes people of his own gender is comparable to a human thinking that he is a dog. It is simply a delusion, and should be corrected.
You attempted to make this comparison before to no avail. Since you don't have any knowledge on the subject in the way of real life experience, who are you to say it is a mental illness? There is absolutely no evidence toward that claim. Mental illnesses are characterized by a disregard for how the world works, and therefore exposing a danger to the outside world or yourself. Homosexuals do not exhibit that trait.
There has been research done… tainted, tainted research that is entirely based on the fact that there are biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Have you ever actually looked at that data, or have you just heard it from your friends and assumed it was correct? I think you should take a look. If you open your mind a bit, you'll find that it's all very simple to disprove, and it basically only shows without a doubt that homosexuality is a state of mind, and nothing else.I also believe you should rethink your saying that fundamentally, homosexuality is the same as schizophrenia or madness. There is absolutely nothing you could say to back up that claim.,,,ha ha ha…
"Mental illnesses are characterized by a disregard for how the world works" - sounds like homosexuality to me.For your last two paragraphs, I have a book written by the creator of all things which says it's wrong. Therefore, it is wrong. I haven't even looked at the research you mention. It doesn't matter. Now, I know you'd like to say that it's just a book - but it isn't. I refuse to cater to atheistic viewpoints - the Bible is true. You may not discount it simply because you don't believe it. I've had enough of trying to argue my point from your point of view.I would not like to say it is just a book. I am a Christian myself. The difference between us is that I look to the Bible for what it says, and you look to the Bible for what people tell you it says. As we've already discussed, no where in the Bible does it call out homosexuality as a sin. It makes everything else perfectly clear and then just chooses to be hazy on whether it's alright to be attracted to someone of the same sex? No, I think not. If it were a sin, the Bible would specifically say so about homosexuality, not just sex. Of course sexual impurity is a sin and any sex with someone of the same sex is impurity, but sex is not homosexuality, just like sex is not heterosexuality.
So, what you're saying is that homosexual marriage is wrong; homosexual sex is wrong; but brotherly love between men is not wrong? I believe the issue at stake today in courts and in this debate is that of homoSEXUALITY.
brotherly love is not homosexuality. You can be attracted to another person of the same sex… without having sex with them. Do not even pretend to be so incompetent as to mistake what I am talking about for general comradery.
…you make no sense whatsoever.
So you'd like to say that God made same-gender attractions viable, while at the same time outlawing the results of attraction between same-gendered persons? God made love, attraction, etc. for Marriage and childraising. Your so-called "homosexual attraction" does not fulfill these purposes; so why would God create it? Even from Genesis, God has ordained marriage as between a man and a woman. Why would he create the ultimately worthless "homosexual affection" you mention?