Ugh, Dozerfleet wiki creator is just a far-right talking-point-repeating machine. To take ZA's selection previously quoted:
1. Are you an earthworm? No? Then why live like one?
Creationists like to repeat this line from some textbook about how humans are distantly related to earthworms by evolution and then claim this is the reason there are so many school shootings: evolution teaches that
you're nothing! Upon hearing this, students instinctually grab the closest gun and shoot people. Obviously, the problem is biology class, and not readily available access to firearms.
2. If in Adam's fall, so did all (which used to be a mandatory part of teaching children how to read), then...
This is from the
New England primer from 1777. Children were taught the alphabet using Biblical couplets. In modern time, we have A for Apple, B for Ball, etc. But back then they had, for A, "In ADAM's Fall, We sinned all" and for C "CHRIST Crucified, For sinners dy'd," etc. So it was for teaching the alphabet, not to read, and it wasn't mandatory. And he got the quote wrong and mangled the theological message (
If in Adam's fall, so did all? He shouldn't have added the qualifier
if, which casts the whole couplet into theological doubt.)
3. The human mind would be prone to curiosity AND rebellion against a pre-ordained order. Which is exactly what we see.
Maybe God shouldn't have made humans with the ability to rebel against His perfect order but hey, I'm not God. (Also, this bit of chicanery would make mafiosi proud. God makes humanity with the ability to sin and then has His Son as the only way to escape that sin. Oy vey, what a racket!)
4. Therefore, the temptation to violate boundaries that one KNOWS produce no good results will always be there. But some will be more prone to certain harmful tendencies than others. Which is also observable.
No.
7. There is no such thing as sexual "orientation." There is male and female sexuality, and then there is perversion of it. Which is a spiritual AFFLICTION. The reason "orientation" started being used as a term in the 90s was to serve as a more effective political battering ram. This is because the term used before the writing inf 1992's "After the Ball" was "preference."
"Sexual orientation" was first used in 1967, and
After the Ball was published in 1989. Also, no.
But "preference" implied a choice on whether or not to act. Except, there is always a choice. If a pretty lady walks into the room, I have to make a choice to disrobe with her. It's not an automatic response. I can always choose to keep my clothes one and resist her charms.
As if panties could stay in position when Dozerfleet creator walks into a room!
Now, I also have a preference for Asians and Filipinas.
Hahaha
This might be called a "fetish."
Nah, more like racism based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both American and Asian cultures and hinging on the (previously absent) manifestation of ethnic and racial stereotypes.
However, I can, with time, choose to override it and replace it with a fascination for some other type of woman. However, the Orders of Creation are in no way usurped by liking the visual appearance of an ethnicity other than my own. That's still man-woman according to God's plan, and within variations of one created kind. So I don't see a POINT in trying not to find such women interesting.
ok you totally side-stepped the question here
8. It is unfair to say that there is "no connection whatsoever" between Crookedist depravity and pedophilia.
I'd say the problem is depravity, not homosexuality.
