Homosexuality: "Two CONSENTING adults" slogan refuted

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Does consent make adultery and adult incest morally good? No!

[@AVKingJamesBible]

Love your videos and your Ministry. I’m honored to call you a brother in Christ!

[@KenAmmi-Shalom]

Consent denotes agreement which denotes choice thus, homosexuals are admitting that they carry out the homosexual sex act by choice.

[@goebels99]

That is the dumbest argument in history.

[@KenAmmi-Shalom]

@BEYOND URANUS Well, you managed a one word reply--sadly, it is merely an assertion.

[@squirrel_slapper]

@@KenAmmi-Shalom I like how three people responded to you with varying levels of detail and you only chose to answer the person who made a one word comment.

[@KenAmmi-Shalom]

@@squirrel_slapper Well, I don't recall what was going on a year ago in terms of notifications, etc. (there have been times when keeping up with them was tricky). In any case, you think that "That is the dumbest argument in history" includes a level of detail? Is the "you absolute moron" part a level of detail or the "What isn't a choice is the being gay part" which ignores the difference between impulse (which does not seem to be chosen) vs. action (such as choosing a homosexual lifestyle)?

[@raydarable]

Having sex is by choice, feeling sexual emotions for someone of the same sex is not by choice.

[@PhyllisSophical]

You haven't refuted anything with this video. All you've done is put forth your biased view of a topic you clearly need to learn more about. I'm seriously not impressed with your so-called knowledge of the Bible, but then you attended a school that only teaches with a biased blinkered view, which is not an education; it's a confirmation of what you wanted to hear. During your videos, you say the most insulting and demeaning things about homosexuals, but then you claim that "rational people should be able to reason through this issue without name-calling." You don't reason through this issue though. Your arguments are completely one-sided and biased. When I saw in the comment section of your video on the science of homosexuality that you were quoting Whitehead, I didn't even bother watching. Whitehead is not an expert on the subject. He's never done any real studies or proper research. He's not peer-reviewed. And above all that, what he claims is just plain wrong. So you quoted him because he said what you wanted to hear. I have commented on part 1 of this series of yours, but then I checked your education and realized you really don't know the Bible at all. It is not what you think it is. I'm not sure if I will comment on the other parts of this series. It depends on how you respond to my part 1 comments, if you bother.

[@josiahk.2048]

Eight years later in the Bible still says a man shall not lie with a man. That should be all the proof you need, but no, you have to twist it in your own words so it can suit your very belief

[@jkaying1012]

Mike Winger did you get my pm?

[@MikeWinger]

I've been pretty slammed with business recently so please be patient as I do intend to respond. Thanks

[@jkaying1012]

Mike Winger That's fine dear... One time an evolution advocate that I was debating: sent me one, that I never received. So I was just making sure that, that wasn't the case here... And I definitely understand being busy. Right now everything in my life seems to be in a uproar... I don't know where to begin! Just reply when can....No hurry...........Again, God bless.

[@RoseNoho]

As long as all parties involved consent, it's OK. People who marry agree to be faithful. So, adultery isn't OK. But if one spouse tells the other they can have sex with someone else, that's OK.

[@patrickzilla]

Excellent video.

[@goebels99]

More intellectual dishonesty from this guy. He keeps using the word "refuted" in his videos but there is no actually refutation of anything to be seen! Lol

[@saifhaitham4088]

To be honest, he did refute it.

[@lamaar8252]

So.. God's Consent is what matters? 2 Questions.. 1. So, if a follower of Yahweh, Christ, or Allah, went on a 30 person kill spree at a elementary school yelling.. "God Told Me to purge this land and gave me consent of the action. All is for his glory I shall do it." This would be moral by your argument? (And, if you read your bible, you know where I get this reference from) 2. Is there any form of Slavery that you would call moral, when selling your children or future children, with the consent of God? (And, if you read your bible, you know where I get this reference from) Thanks in advance.

[@MikeWinger]

+Lamaar Steadman I think it's worth mentioning that your questions have nothing to do with the concept of God as the foundation for moral truth. Let me explain.1- If someone murders in the name of God it is still murder. Can someone commit evil and say "God told me to do it"? Yes. Does this make it ok? No. If I saw an immoral act done in the name of God I would assume God didn't command it. Now, this is where you will try and equate that with examples of killing at the command of God in the Old Testament. This is nothing like the scenario you describe. If you are going to consider the Biblical account for the sake of it's morality then you need to take it at face value and not restate it in the most uncharitable and myopically bad way possible (which is what atheists tend to do). God judges, that is true, but there are a few considerations that need to be brought up. a- God only punishes them justly b- God has a genuine right to do as He wishes with His creation. The same can't be said of one human over another. c- Physical death isn't the end of the story and what happens after that is actually more important. d- Every time I have EVER heard an attack on the morality of God based on actions in the Old Testament the attacker left out important details in order to paint an ugly picture of the event. I've literally NEVER heard an accurate retelling of the story with a conclusion of it being immoral. I understand the ire of atheists when they have only heard distortions from those by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. I too would consider it immoral if I believed their renditions of the Bible to be accurate. But I have read the text myself. I have considered the philosophical foundations of arguments against and for.2- Slavery. I did a whole message on this issue. kzbin.info/www/bejne/omPUZJmnoZJ1ors

[@goebels99]

+Mike Winger You are being slippery and evading his questions. You have just declared the Old Testament acts of the Hebrews to have been an objective evil. They destroyed people who were different from them because God told them to do so.

[@vernonhuffman2311]

@@goebels99 They're aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalways slippery on word play and definitions these days. That's why theists have shifted the arguments these days to "arguments of definitions." "Can someone commit murder and say god told me to do it and it still be wrong?" Just watched this guy in a video this week say that if god told him that killing people would be fine -then it would be fine. This snake eating its tail thing will never go anywhere.

[@squirrel_slapper]

@@MikeWinger Calm down, Lubricated Lenny. Your slippiness is too much.

[@ProSanityMan-gr7sq]

This is such a great video… assuming that for some reason you’re gonna change your mind when I go to watch one of your deer videos.. please tell me you still have morals and values and still sane.

[@elliotmydude]

Ok, the last few examples were ridiculous. As for the 'adultery' (also known as a THREESOME) you automatically assume that that is believed to be wrong. You tried to prove your opinion, by using more of your opinions. You really accomplished nothing of value.

[@caitm.193]

Sex outside of marriage is not in the same category as suicide/drug abuse, because it's not inherently harmful to the people doing it. *Can* it have negative consequences? Yes, but that's not by default. I do know you believe it's a sin nonetheless, while I no longer really believe in sin; so, my retort may seem like a straw-man argument.

[@valerietaylor9615]

I’m not religious, but I believe in sin.

[@jessicafoster1196]

You didn't refute anything. Your view of sexuality being a moral issue is merely your subjective opinion.

[@coreykirby1632]

@@impattman2199 facts

[@coreykirby1632]

He did refute it he took there slogan as long as it’s 2 adults consenting then it’s morally ok that’s the slogan so he was being consistent and used your slogan and took things that let’s say two consenting adults agree upon that they want to do so when he said if two consenting adults agree to kill each other then being consistent with your premise that will be morally OK because it’s two adults consenting

[@doreenscott4223]

Everyone knows that what you DO with your "sexuality" IS a moral and sometimes even a legal issue.

[@lithium9210]

Look, Being Gay is Haram. Why? Cuz' Allah said so. Don't like it? Then I'll get Abdul to bring the rocks.

[@joshuasalcedo3630]

A

[@stephanmarcus448]

All morality is relative. Stripping out circumstance from action makes it impossible to judge the morality of an action. Bob shoots an armed intruder in his house. (Bob good.) Intruder was father of kid Bob had abducted. (Bob bad). Father had been abusing child. (Bob good.) etc etc. There is no fixed truth upon which morality can be founded. Christians read the Bible and interpret what they read to place certain moral obligations on them, but not all people who identify as Christian agree on what these obligations are. A Christian's morality is contingent on their interpretation of the Bible and they cannot prove that their interpretation is better than anyone else's, because the Bible doesn't say which parts are to be taken literally and which are allegorical nor does it contain any instructions on how the text is to be used. When it comes to what is 'right' or 'wrong' believers are in exactly the same boat as atheists. You have to rely on your own conscience and reason, but you complicate matters by injecting a further element of Biblical interpretation and trying to figure out what the will of God is. Conflict arises when people insist that they are absolutely right and those who disagree with them are absolutely wrong. No matter what you believe, religious or not, conservative or liberal, once you yield to zealotry you're doing more harm than good.

[@saifhaitham4088]

Morality can't be true. Why? Because if I view incest as right and you view it as wrong, you is right? Due to the law of non-contradiction, both can't be right.

[@coreykirby1632]

No sir truth is for everybody it’s not relative to people otherwise if it was you can’t call anybody wrong just like how you can’t call somebody wrong because they like chicken and you like pizza more it’s just your preference

[@stephanmarcus448]

@@coreykirby1632Two people are drowning. You can save only one. You know nothing else about them, so what is the objective, incontrovertible right thing to do? If it turns out that you saved a serial killer and left his victim to drown did you do something immoral? In another instance the two men are identical in every respect: who are you obligated to save now? The "torturing a baby for fun," example: what if an evil dictator gives you a choice: torture one baby or he will kill a thousand. Unbeknownst to him, you're a psychopath who enjoys torturing babies. Can you work out what the moral situation is without writing a lengthy essay? Trying to prove the truth of anything is a much harder proposition than you think and once we venture into abstract fields it tends toward the impossible.

[@stephanmarcus448]

@@saifhaitham4088 Not true: Without an objective measure to determine the truth of two premises the law of non-contradiction does not apply especially If it is a mere difference of opinion. If a large group agrees on some measure of morality and applies it consistently you can, at least, build a local moral code.

[@saifhaitham4088]

@@stephanmarcus448 Let me correct myself since I made that comment a year ago. Believing in the objectivity of morality is akin to believing the laws of math or logic. Both are intuitive and universal. If we say that we can't believe in morality because it only exists in advanced humans, but so does our scientific laws in acquiring truth. To say that morality is relative is presuposing materialism and we wouldn't expect a material world to have moral agents. Therefore, there is evidence to suggest the objectively if morality is most probably true.

[@squirrel_slapper]

Cringe