God intended people to be straight

I'd say that such statements are as irrational as their belief in a god.

Happy days

 

I there are no children present I'd say, "You're an effing idiot."

 

Maybe according to your God, but according to my God Im here, Im queer, so you might as well get use to it.

or Ill just say "and thats your opinion" and just repeat it after everything they say.

or Ill tell them Bob Dylan once wrote in a song that said "Please get out of the new world if you cant lend a hand. For the times they are a changin"

 

I'd say "I'm sorry you think that. Didn't that guy also say something along the lines of don't be so rude?"

 

1. Think of God like those internet bullies who never show their face. They think they're all-powerful and can destroy you, but they can't.

2. The one thing I've learned from films [i.e. Divergence] is that they make it out like somethings a 'threat', 'bad' and to be destroyed, but when the truth comes, that is what was meant. Supposed to test humanity and find out what they really stand for. Don't be on the wrong side of history.

 

:roflmao: :roflmao::roflmao:

 

God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs...


Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth...

Sorry, just watched jurassic world.

 

I think it's pretty presumptuous to speak for "God"! And, anyway, that would assume everyone follows your God (or should). Basically, it's "I can't understand it, so it's wrong" bigotry dressed up with religion.

Couldn't you respond the same way? "I'm gay, just like God intended me to be."

 

Well for the first one, I would ask why do you think God intended everyone to be heterosexual? And then when they bring up Adam and Eve, I'll say well that was when the earth was unpopulated so he had to create heterosexuals so they could populate the earth at the beginning. Now that's not much of a problem, especially with the majority of people on earth being heterosexuals. And even if they bring up that humans were made to reproduce so homosexuals are unnatural, I could always say that some heterosexuals can't reproduce soo ya.

Not totally sure about the 2nd one...I need to read the Bible more. (not just to make comebacks lol, I'm actually a Christian) But in the few passages in the Bible that I've read about marriage, I haven't seen anything that says that it was only meant for straight people or a cis man and cis woman.

For the third one, I would just tell them to read the Bible. Because something tells me they didn't get that idea from the Bible.

 

Would probably just give them a sarcastic thumbs up, especially for the last one.

 

God may have, but the Goddess surely did not. She made us all.

 

Good for God. Welcome to hell.

 

I'm heterosexual, the way God intended it to be.

Well, God also made Eunuchs, which homosexuals/asexuals seem to be one of several types. Also, just because Adam and Eve were hetero, does not mean all of their offspring have to be as well. Heterosexuals are mostly the ones that reproduce, therefor, the first humans had to be heterosexual and the opposite sex. What happened before is not proof for what should happen now; otherwise, you'd still be taking part in Old Testament traditions.

God intended marriage to be between a man and woman.

Eh, that's debatable. Most Christians never seem to grasp what Biblical marriage is in the first place. The materialistic marriage ceremony that goes on today is not what He had in mind when it came to marriage. Does God care about you getting your spouse a diamond ring? No, of course not; but De Beers sure does. Biblical marriage is actually just the sex act itself; which is why sleeping around, or in Biblical terms sexual immorality, is deemed an offense. But as others mentioned before, God has given the okay to a man having multiple wives, so one could consider this a gray area.

Bottom line, things aren't as cut and dry as you're making them. At least, not in our perspective where we possess limited knowledge.

God didn't make gays. They're made by Satan.

I've never had a Christian say this to me, and i've gotten into plenty of arguments with many.

 

I'd probably pretend to be possessed by "the demons" and demand they hand over their souls. Hah. I love to mess with people like that, they're usually so gullible. :lol:

 

" God intended people to be straight "

My response: He's got a hell of a quality control problem then. ~1 in 10 people are gay, that's 700 million gay people. If 1 in 10 iPhones were made defective, Apple would freak.

 

It helps to think of the argument they're implicitly making in the form of a syllogism. For instance, for the "God intended marriage to be between a man and woman" argument, the implicit argument could be laid out as:

In general when arguing about morality, I think it's best, if possible, to present an argument that would grant all of their factual beliefs (such as a god existing). So for these types of arguments, I find it best to attack premise 1 by showing them the logical conclusions that would follow from this premise and get them to agree that come of those conclusions are absurd (which is a form of a Reductio ad absurdum argument).

If you person confronting you is a Christian, such an argument is relatively easy to do with the Christian god if you're relatively familiar with the Old Testament. You could point out to the that Yahweh condoned ordered genocide, ordered that children of slave owners shall inherit slaves as property, ordered that a man be stoned to death for collecting sticks on the Sabbath, and many other horrific things. If you can get them to agree that any of these things are wrong, you've undermined Premise 1 of the argument (and, by logical extension, the conclusion).

I see a lot of people attacking these arguments on factual arguments (e.g., "god doesn't exist" or "god doesn't say that"), which is a valid approach. However, taking this approach may require entering into an argument about something else (e.g., arguing that a god probably doesn't exist, or that a god does exist but doesn't say that). Additionally, it's easy to interpret the Bible however you want. People have historically interpreted the Bible to suit their own beliefs.

When arguing about morals, I generally prefer to attack the argument that isn't based in a factual claim because the evidence for those claims can change (although that's not likely when the evidence is based on a holy book). If you're response includes, "Even if god/your holy book/your religion says X...", and it successfully destroys one of the premises of their argument, you've built your objection to their argument on solid rock.


So, my comeback to someone who presents such an argument to me would be something along the lines of, "Well, Yahweh also said [insert horrible thing from Bible] should be done. Do you think [horrible thing from the Bible] should be done?" If they say yes, then you could discredit them by pointing out how immoral their position that condones slavery (or whatever the evil thing from the Bible was). If they say no, then they've undermined premise 1 of their argument, and they agree that just because god wants something to be so, doesn't mean that's the way it aught to be.

 

I really wouldn't waste my breath. A rational, thoughtful person wouldn't make unqualified comments like those shown in the original post. There is nothing to be gained from arguing with idiots.

 

If I still identified as bi at the time: God said Adam and Eve, so I did both of them.

 

Whether or not to engage such a person is a personal choice. However, not everyone who presents really stupid arguments is a really stupid person. Very often, when I hear an otherwise rational and thoughtful person say something very stupid, it's motivated (at least in part) by their religion. I (sadly) probably said some things that were equally stupid when I was a Catholic in my late teens. Yet, IMO, I was a relatively rational person when it came to issues on which my views weren't influenced by religion.

 

Don't respond to them, or at the very least don't let them define the parameters of the discussion. Those questions/statements are designed to be unanswerable (they're so irrelevant that they're not actually wrong), so it's perfectly reasonable to ignore them.

An appeal to God obviously doesn't work for those who don't believe in a god. It's a really dubious tactic to rely on an authority who can't be questioned (in this case, because no material proof of existence is available and the religious texts which claim his existence hold no higher authority than secular texts for the nonreligious). Do not respond to appeals to God, even with a quip insulting God's design; you can never win unless you are actually well versed in theology, and even then the sort of people making those comments wouldn't actually be interested in a serious discussion.

Someone who makes you answer the unanswerable isn't worth your time. Those comments are inane and you'll waste a lot of energy trying to win the unwinnable if you try to take on the challenge.