Love Is Love

[@Apollos_Christian_Apologetics]

Facts are facts

[@pepperachu]

How do you mean?

[@Uteria_888]

Yes and emotions are emotions 🗿

[@simonskinner1450]

Lust is not love. Sin is not righteousness. Sin is not believing. Believing is not faith. Imputing is not imparting.

[@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics]

No, not all forms of erotic expression are morally equivalent. This would mean children and adults could express it together. "But what about consent?" Well, this crowd believes children can consent to impairing their sexual organs through chemical castration. It is far less radical to propose that they could _properly_ use them. And in fact, the major thinkers in this movement's earliest history like Helmut Kettler and Alfred Kinsey _did_ believe children could consent to s*x and advocated for its normalization. Thus, "love is love" is absurd, repugnant, and demonic. 🤮

[@ji8044]

You are a really bad person to make that analogy which has no basis whatsoever in fact.

[@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics]

@ji8044 I'm merely citing the logic of the founders of this movement's thinking. 🤷‍♂️ And I see that you haven't engaged with the analogy, and have instead resorted to reputational attack, as is typical of such activists. If this logic makes you uncomfortable, maybe that's not the best philosophy to follow. 😳 If you're feeling brave, look up "Alfred Kinsey Table 34." You can see it in the images tab. 👀

[@ji8044]

@@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics What you wrote is personally evil on your part. No one is including children in this discussion but those with despicable motives.

[@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics]

@@ji8044 Well, of course you don't want to include children in this conversation, 🤷‍♂️ because you're unwilling to face the implications of your worldview. 😢 Your personal attacks are empty 🫗 because your worldview doesn't focus on truth; it focuses on feelings. 🤷‍♂️ My argument is logical, coherent, and sound. Calling me "evil" and "a really bad person" isn't a refutation. 🤨 It's just a reflection of your feelings.

[@ji8044]

@@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics I suspect that you're hiding something with your obsession with children. No more replies for you

[@larriveeman]

The bible defines love and marriage as well as male and females

[@seanpierce9386]

Where?

[@s2a1ha1j2a]

Isn't Paul's teaching on the body of Christ a vision of identity being fulfilled in relation to a community? And isn't the sermon on the mount a set of rules or commands by such a community must live and function?

[@pepperachu]

What's your point?

[@chrisforeman9949]

Sin is sin

[@seanpierce9386]

Define “sin”.

[@ji8044]

"Non-Christians who pursued lifestyles as sexual libertines" How many mistresses did Solomon have in addition to his wives?

[@pepperachu]

Yes king Solomon had many wives, but this was neither approved by God and look what happened. Solomon fell away from God towards the end of his life and pursued his wives gods which is exactly what God warned would happen

[@mikejurney9102]

Even if all forms of love are equal, not all sex acts are equal. Some sex acts are inherently infectious and unsanitary. Specifically, anal and oral sex is unsanitary between ANY two animals of any species of any gender or orientation of any age. And once you prohibit unsanitary sex acts, where does that leave LGBT relations? And if you think I am mistaken about any of this, then maybe we need to have some medical professionals testify before congress to dispel all of these sex myths.

[@ji8044]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Please find me medical professionals who tell people not to have oral sex. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[@JunkYard-omarnour]

Anal and oral are common acts in hetero relationships Oral are and anal not infectious as long as you are not a carrier of std Plus we have safe sex methods now

[@seanpierce9386]

So your whole argument is that “real” love is only possible through traditional male-female partnerships, and that anyone else is pursuing selfish desires. Then you make a slippery slope argument, referencing a number of other, vaguely related scenarios that pose a danger for their own unique reasons. You neglect to mention that all of the problems you bring up can also happen in traditional relationships. It’s pretty obvious you’re only making this claim for religious reasons, not because it’s actually problematic.

[@RickyForITZY]

Your comment is silly. First we need to come up with a foundation for morality (Craig has already done so in His case for the Moral argument, Ontological Argument and case for Christianity in the person of Jesus and His Resurrrection from the dead). Hence why it is important to know what God who is Goodness and Love Himself says about such matters. Those others are examples that Love is Love is a bad argument. That's not a slippery slope, no idea where you get that from. They all would fit that category simpliciter. If not than there are some boundaries. Not sure what problems you mention but they already acknowledged that they themselves aren't perfect. Literrally says: "Uh but as I say, I'm acutely aware of these own selfish, self-centered tendencies within myself that Reese warns about, and we need to rely upon the Holy Spirit to deliver us from these sinful proclivities and help us to truly bless the other and to seek that person's highest good." So you saying it's not actually problematic is a failure to understand the position in question. Particularly from a Religious perspective as for us and them Christianity is not a mere claim but is true hence there are objective moral values and duties associated with it.

[@seanpierce9386]

@ The original statement, “Love is love” is clearly intended to apply to a particular context. By taking it out of context without allowing the imaginary interlocutor to clarify their position, they’ve effectively constructed a straw man. That’s why I’m not a fan of slogans for making or debunking an argument. I see no reason to reject non-heterosexual marriage outside of one’s particular reading of a religious text. If you want to convince me otherwise, please provide one.

[@Caution2TheWind1]

I’m not sure this dialogue was intended to persuade you to agree about the issue at question. You make an important point, they didn’t argue why you should agree, except on religious grounds, for some pretty serious points. I wonder if you rewatched the video if you would notice that what’s happening here is not a dialogue between two competing views, but instead a patient attempt to offer an alternative view. Craig is saying we believe something essentially different from the mainstream. It goes deeper than you probably expect. I notice in your comment that you’ve made an assumption that if it came to argument, what would matter to us is what’s “problematic.” Christians might ask whether you mean pragmatically problematic (I.e. tolerating same-sex relationships causes harm). If the answer is yes, then we would be quick to clarify, we’re not concerned with pragmatism, since God governs what will happen every time a conscious person tries to exercise their agency in nature. I guess my question is, is there anything here to learn, rather than to critique. If not, peace be with you.

[@pepperachu]

That's not the whole argument but only part of a argument that when you veer away from the natural of eros love between a man a woman that's real and unrelated and of legal age then that right there is the as slippery slope.

[@RickyForITZY]

@@seanpierce9386 What context? The context is actually broad not limited. It isn't a slogan that applies only to homosexuals (no reason to limit it there) though used by them, hence it isn't a straw man fallacy. I already provided you the information you need, Craig has argued that without God there are no objective moral values and duties (The Moral Arguement), moreover that Christianity is true (Resurrection of Christ), it's not merely a bible said so sort of thing as you make it seem. I also noted the Ontological argument as well. These are things you need to actually deal with that Craig has already provided in his work. Also I don't think you are necessarily the intended audience of this rather than Christians and their worldview against these things.

[@ji8044]

It's heinous and despicable for so many opponents of gay people to compare them to the criminal activities of which you spoke but the words of which I can't repeat in my comment without getting sent to youtube prison. By the way, apparently the person on the left is unaware that there was no prohibition of polygamy in Judaism. In fact it is sometimes commanded for insistence in the case of a brother's widow Deuteronomy 25:5-10

[@RickyForITZY]

Idk what you mean by opponents of gay people. Remember the issue here is not against the person but against the acts. Against morally wrong behavior. Those struggling with such acts are made in the image of God so should be loved and respected not hated on or victimized as sinners. Now you say well these are criminal activities but this is not the case in many places laws are not stand ins for morality. Laws are made by people to enforce boundaries but they are not morality itself. Laws are descriptive and made, they may even violate the moral law (look at evil laws in many Countries like North Korea), morality on the other hand are necessary and hence timeless. You quote the Old Testament but ignore Jesus who said in the beginning it was not so and that God allowed certain things until the New Covenant would come. It was a gradual process of change to get to the ideal of one male-female union.

[@ji8044]

@@RickyForITZY "Remember the issue here is not against the person but against the acts." No, for instance Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott are both closeted gay men, but Christians ignore that because they are right wingers and support them.

[@ji8044]

@@RickyForITZY "Now you say well these are criminal activities" You may have misunderstood me. I was referring to the illegal sexual activities which right wingers like to lump in with being gay, as if they go together.

[@ji8044]

@@RickyForITZY "You quote the Old Testament but ignore Jesus who said in the beginning it was not so" False, Jesus said that about divorce, not polygamy.

[@RickyForITZY]

@@ji8044 Actually you are wrong, he talkedd about divorce in the context of marriage between one man and one woman. This is quite clear (should also be noted Leviticus 18:18 states: "And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive." The Qumran community understood this as prohibiting polygamy as well. This phraseology links to 1 Samuel 1:2 which discusses rival wives in particular and if were meant to portray an actual biological sister it could have more simply stated "a woman and her sister." These gives credence that polygamy is likely meant here).

[@ji8044]

Germany and Japan prior to World War II are excellent examples of societies in which individualism was greatly suppressed in favor of group identity. How did that work out?

[@pepperachu]

Individuality has it's pros and cons for society. In any case whats your point?