[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Blanko, that is an illogical statement, and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself. Infertility is something controlled by G-d and G-d alone. Deliberate perversion of the sexual power is something else entirely.

[Blanko]

But you defined perversion of sexual power as not being able to produce offspring through sexual intercourse. If you're making arbitrary exceptions to that rule, then it's a meaningless rule.

Besides, even if God does control infertility but does not control homosexuality (which you wouldn't know), why would that mean infertile people aren't being perverse when having sex?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

But you defined perversion of sexual power as not being able to produce offspring through sexual intercourse. If you're making arbitrary exceptions to that rule, then it's a meaningless rule.

Besides, even if God does control infertility but does not control homosexuality (which you wouldn't know), why would that mean infertile people aren't being perverse when having sex?

I have time for one more answer, and then I really must eat breakfast. Sex is for two purposes, both equal, being procreation and the sharing of love. The fact that a man and a woman can have babies and share love makes sex licit between them. If they are infertile, then sex is still licit for the second reason. The fact that they can't beget children is not their fault.

By their nature, men and men or women and women cannot have babies. They are acting against divine ordinance when they engage in their perverse behaviours. The fact that they can't beget children is indeed their fault, because they are engaging in an activity that by its very nature makes that impossible.

Fundamentally, a homosexual person has two options. He or she should either try to be happy in an opposite-sex relationship, or if that is not possible, should consecrate his or her life to G-d in sacred celibacy, offering up his or her energies in G-d's service.

I for one do not believe in the "pray the gay away" or hormone therapy business. I believe that both are emotionally destructive to the gay person, and in the case of the second, may be physically destructive as well. As hard as the life of a gay person would be, and as much as I do not envy them their lot in life, I encourage them to offer themselves a living sacrifice to G-d, in dedication and service.

[Blanko]

Gays apply to the second purpose as well, and infertile people by their nature cannot have babies. Again, where's the arbitrary distinction? I don't even know why you bother rationalising it when you could just say that God has a bad case of homophobia.

Then again, this is all purely rhetorical, since God doesn't actually exist and your archaic beliefs have no place in political decisionmaking. (◕‿◕✿)

[Particle Person]

Fundamentally, a homosexual person has two options. He or she should either try to be happy in an opposite-sex relationship, or if that is not possible, should consecrate his or her life to G-d in sacred celibacy, offering up his or her energies in G-d's service.

I can think of at least two other options.

[juner]

None of this has to do with "natural law" or gay marriage. I understand you think it's gross, that isn't evidence. And, in typical fashion, you bigots squeeze in a false equivalency relating to animals.

Of course, the ad hom from the one who can't maintain an argument. the violation of Natural Law applies with animals and with men being with men. Or women being with women. The fact is, you can't produce children in either case. Ergo, it is not natural, and should be forbidden by Public Morality, although what people do behind closed doors should not be regulated. But it certainly should not receive sanction from the State.

Maintain what argument? The best you can come up with is that it offends the sensibilities of your invisible sky fairy, and yourself. That is not an argument. When you say it "violates natural law," I assume you're insinuating it cannot or should not occur in nature, which is demonstrably false. The concept of an invisible, all-powerful sky person is much less natural than homosexuality. That is what should be forbidden by "Public Morality."

I see you're invoking a double standard with Blanko. God controls infertility, but not homosexuality. How convenient. You should tell your God to stop letting straight couples produce Gay children.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Gays apply to the second purpose as well, and infertile people by their nature cannot have babies. Again, where's the arbitrary distinction? I don't even know why you bother rationalising it when you could just say that God has a bad case of homophobia.

Then again, this is all purely rhetorical, since God doesn't actually exist and your archaic beliefs have no place in political decisionmaking. (◕‿◕✿)

We have already proven in an argument that has not been satisfactorily refuted that G-d exists.

[Blanko]

Gays apply to the second purpose as well, and infertile people by their nature cannot have babies. Again, where's the arbitrary distinction? I don't even know why you bother rationalising it when you could just say that God has a bad case of homophobia.

Then again, this is all purely rhetorical, since God doesn't actually exist and your archaic beliefs have no place in political decisionmaking. (◕‿◕✿)

We have already proven in an argument that has not been satisfactorily refuted that G-d exists.

Of course, why would anything not feeding into your confirmation bias be satisfactory? I'm assuming you're talking about Anselm's argument, which is completely ridiculous to probably everyone other than you.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

No one has satisfactorily refuted said argument.

[Blanko]

Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?

[juner]

Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?

The problem is that any argument with religious fundies always degrades back to "you can't disprove God." It always happens because arguments made by these people get torn apart for being illogical, so they fall back on "God says so." And by God, of course only their Abrahamic God, because that is the correct one even though he's a carbon copy of the many Gods and creation stories that preceded him.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?

Ooh, such a big mean atheist. You realise that your kind only make up about 10% of the planetary population, right? And that only that ten percent are convinced by the thoroughly illogical arguments against G-d's existence?

Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?

The problem is that any argument with religious fundies always degrades back to "you can't disprove God." It always happens because arguments made by these people get torn apart for being illogical, so they fall back on "God says so." And by God, of course only their Abrahamic God, because that is the correct one even though he's a carbon copy of the many Gods and creation stories that preceded him.

You realise that such a statement betrays a fundamental ignorance of Judaism. 1, there is no such thing as a Jewish fundamentalist. The Hebrew Bible is read on so many literal and non-literal levels simultaneously that to take it only one literal way would be stupid. 2, we don't claim that others have to agree with us. You don't have to be a Jew to be saved, or any of that crap. But homosexuality violates the Seven Laws of Noah given to all mankind, Jews and non-Jews alike.

In sum, Junker, before opening your yap and making a blanket statement about all Abrahamic religions, I would make sure I knew what I was talking about. Its painful to embarrass yourself, is it not?

[garygreen]

Ooh, such a big mean atheist. You realise that your kind only make up about 10% of the planetary population, right? And that only that ten percent are convinced by the thoroughly illogical arguments against G-d's existence?

Ooh, such a big mean Jew. You realise that your kind only make up about 0.2% of the planetary population, right? And that only that point two percent are convinced by the thoroughly illogical arguments favoring Judaism?

Srsly tho you're super smart.

[Tom]

Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?

Ooh, such a big mean atheist. You realise that your kind only make up about 10% of the planetary population, right? And that only that ten percent are convinced by the thoroughly illogical arguments against G-d's existence?

Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?

The problem is that any argument with religious fundies always degrades back to "you can't disprove God." It always happens because arguments made by these people get torn apart for being illogical, so they fall back on "God says so." And by God, of course only their Abrahamic God, because that is the correct one even though he's a carbon copy of the many Gods and creation stories that preceded him.

You realise that such a statement betrays a fundamental ignorance of Judaism. 1, there is no such thing as a Jewish fundamentalist. The Hebrew Bible is read on so many literal and non-literal levels simultaneously that to take it only one literal way would be stupid. 2, we don't claim that others have to agree with us. You don't have to be a Jew to be saved, or any of that crap. But homosexuality violates the Seven Laws of Noah given to all mankind, Jews and non-Jews alike.

In sum, Junker, before opening your yap and making a blanket statement about all Abrahamic religions, I would make sure I knew what I was talking about. Its painful to embarrass yourself, is it not?

Fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines.
You believe that all 613 mitzvot should be kept including stoning/killing Israelites who transgress some of them.
If that's not fundamentilistic what is.

But, you are a hypocrite, as with a non-jewish wife I'm sure you don't keep many mitzvots/commandments yourself.

The seven laws of Noah are made up. Even in the torah you cannot find them.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Gary, since we are an ethnic group that has our own religio-philosophical way of looking at the world, and don't seek converts (although we do accept those who show sincere interest and effort)  that is a false equivalency.. Atheists have tried to convert people by pursuasion and by brute force, killing millions in the process. We haven't pulled that shit since the conquest of Canaan.

[juner]

In sum, Junker, before opening your yap and making a blanket statement about all Abrahamic religions, I would make sure I knew what I was talking about. Its painful to embarrass yourself, is it not?

There's nothing embarrassing about it. They're all the same. Sure, some details are different because different groups spun off from the original, but it's all the same nonsense, copied from previous religions and creation myths.

I get it, you want all the effort you put into your studies to mean something. It doesn't. It does have value from a historical and cultural perspective, but in modern day to day life, it is meaningless.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Tom, grow up. The 7 Laws are very clear. Do not blaspheme. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not commit sexual immorality. Do not rip the limb of living animal for food. Establish courts of justice. I never remember the seventh. They are all there except the sixth, and that is derived as necessary to enforce the others.

It is not fundamentalist to insist on obedience to Halacha. I would advise you to quit whining. It sounds like your definition needs work.

[Tom]

Tom, grow up. The 7 Laws are very clear. Do not blaspheme. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not commit sexual immorality. Do not rip the limb of living animal for food. Establish courts of justice. I never remember the seventh. They are all there except the sixth, and that is derived as necessary to enforce the others.

It is not fundamentalist to insist on obedience to Halacha. I would advise you to quit whining. It sounds like your definition needs work.

The seven laws of Noah are made up. Even in the torah you cannot find them.
Besides, you fundamentalists claim that the torah is for the Jewish/Israelite/converts people only.

Your statements are really ridiculous.

Btw, you are a hypocrite, as with a non-jewish wife I'm sure you don't keep many mitzvots/commandments yourself.

Let's start with one:
For example, you post on this forum on the Shabbat.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

What is the definition of work? Is it lighting a fire? Yes. Does posting here do that? No. Could it be called writing? Perhaps. But is writing the same work it was in the Bronze Age? No. I said I was a traditional Jew of Orthodox tendencies. I did not say I was strictly Orthodox. You are going to have to wake up earlier in the morning if you hope to win any pilpul arguments with me.

[Tom]

What is the definition of work? Is it lighting a fire? Yes. Does posting here do that? No. Could it be called writing? Perhaps. But is writing the same work it was in the Bronze Age? No. I said I was a traditional Jew of Orthodox tendencies. I did not say I was strictly Orthodox. You are going to have to wake up earlier in the morning if you hope to win any pilpul arguments with me.

Halacha is pretty clear about using a computer on Shabbat.

So, don't talk about, I quote you: "insist(ing) on obedience to Halacha" if you don't obey it yourself.

There are many more mitzvots/commandments you don't keep. You know that!
You are a hypocrite!