NationStates Jolt Archive

qualitively speaking? Really.

qualitively speaking? Really.

clearly.....

Sorry just that until you state it a lot of folks will think y'all are guys.

Oh, I'm not insulted by it. Just thought I would clarify before any more speculation as to my "size" went unchecked.

maybe we all are?

just saying......
Yes but I'm believing you because you've already said you were a woman and you've presented no reason for me not to trust you.

clearly.....
Wench.

Oh, I'm not insulted by it. Just thought I would clarify before any more speculation as to my "size" went unchecked.
Compliment.

Oh, I'm not insulted by it. Just thought I would clarify before any more speculation as to my "size" went unchecked.

i thought camel dude knew something i didn't. went with the flow..... dangerous to leave the room for too long without notifying the remainders.

i didn't actually think that you were saying it was wrong. i just thought i would point out that if i were doom 77 or any other doom i would pick you up on it.Ah, I see now.

Anywho, g'night all! (or good morning depending on timezone).

Wench.

now that was a first. i like it.............. ;)

Yeah I'm camel dude.

again - you are late. only queer people left in here. so we applaud your anger and agree with you fully.


Bwahaha...I started typing it like 5 pages back...

It's hard to keep up in the discussion when your internet is slower than a quadropalegic turtle.

In that case, I'll see you all tomorrow when the righteous Christians decend upon us again.

now that was a first. i like it.............. ;)
I figured you would.

Ah, I see now.

Anywho, g'night all! (or good morning depending on timezone).

afternoon thank you very much

Bwahaha...I started typing it like 5 pages back...

It's hard to keep up in the discussion when your internet is slower than a quadropalegic turtle.

In that case, I'll see you all tomorrow when the righteous Christians decend upon us again.

enjoy

Which timezone are you in? Fiji.

afternoon thank you very much

Early early morning (so that it's really more nighttime) for me. And I have finally finished my work and will now go to bed.

Ciao!

if i'm not mistaken, some animals in zoos have been seen showing homosexual behavior....i'll see if i can find a link, but don't get any hopes up.

It's probably already been noted but, homosexual behaviour in animals has been observed not just in zoos but, in the wild as well.

In other words, it's perfectly natural.

Which timezone are you in? Fiji.

not too far away (oh, i do wish that was it....!)

Early early morning (so that it's really more nighttime) for me. And I have finally finished my work and will now go to bed.

Ciao!

keep that boyfriend stick good and warm

Hmm. Island near Fiji. Damn that's alot of 'em Tonga?

It's probably already been noted but, homosexual behaviour in animals has been observed not just in zoos but, in the wild as well.

In other words, it's perfectly natural.

we've been there and done that. we have lost all the right-wing republican born again righteous people to their beds - now just bollocks

keep that boyfriend stick good and warm
If only you could encourage my girlfriend like that.

Hmm. Island near Fiji. Damn that's alot of 'em Tonga?

you have to remember that when there is nothing around, even distant things are close........

If only you could encourage my girlfriend like that.

well, you're girlfriend is not around to be encouraged.

Elba, Corsica, French Polynesia, New Zealand?

well, you're girlfriend is not around to be encouraged.
Damn fine point.

Elba, Corsica, French Polynesia, New Zealand?

confirmed as kiwiland

So how are all the Tolkien fans?

Originally Posted by Camel Eaters
If anyone else in here switch hits sound off now or it will be confirmed that bi's are a definite minority. sample size not big enough for you? i mean, if at the time there were only three people here, and none of the other two were bi, well, that's a pretty good sample size - quantitatively and qualitatively speeking
Oh, not just the sample size, though that's a biggie. There's also the totally invalid conclusion drawn from the suggestion that not stating something proves its opposite! This is quite an exciting experiment, if you can pull it off.

So how are all the Tolkien fans?

strange bunch of people. likeable, but strange.

strange bunch of people. likeable, but strange.
I'm glad you fing my cousin enjoyable.

HERE is a very good link: http://www.jhuger.com/fredski.mv :D

Oh, not just the sample size, though that's a biggie. There's also the totally invalid conclusion drawn from the suggestion that not stating something proves its opposite! This is quite an exciting experiment, if you can pull it off.
You too are taking Psychology?

Oh, not just the sample size, though that's a biggie. There's also the totally invalid conclusion drawn from the suggestion that not stating something proves its opposite! This is quite an exciting experiment, if you can pull it off.

so you are saying there is a silent majority out there? that's what all the politicians say when they lose the election. cept for gore. he didn't even bother fighting.... and then lets blame nader instead.

You too are taking Psychology?


so not a student!

HERE is a very good link: http://www.jhuger.com/fredski.mv :D

not bad

I'm glad you fing my cousin enjoyable.

i'm sure i would if i met her/him

HERE is a very good link: http://www.jhuger.com/fredski.mv :D
Germachinia you are a sick little bastard and I hate you. Sure make what happened to Matthew Shepard funny. You jackass.

i am so off for the day since i have been so incredibly (in)efficient at work today!!! hitting the town.

watch out for those born agains - they come around when you least expect it and try to cut of your hair.

Germachinia you are a sick little bastard and I hate you. Sure make what happened to Matthew Shepard funny. You jackass.
Okay not the best Christian statement I'm sorry but what happened and then making it humorous even using his name in the original story that was kind of wrong.

Germachinia you are a sick little bastard and I hate you. Sure make what happened to Matthew Shepard funny. You jackass.

anger is not going to get you anywhere. only sarcasm, or a calm conenscending tone will do the trick.....

i am so off for the day since i have been so incredibly (in)efficient at work today!!! hitting the town.

watch out for those born agains - they come around when you least expect it and try to cut of your hair.
See ya tomorrow.

You too are taking Psychology?
No!!! That's the beauty of it. I'm talking common sense.

anger is not going to get you anywhere. only sarcasm, or a calm conenscending tone will do the trick.....
All right. I thought you were leaving the office.

Look, I'm not finding poor Matt's fate funny. It is really unfortunate. I just thought this webpage drew a clever parallel between the issue and... well... skiing.

Even though I don't want to I am forced to sleep. Bye y'all.

Look, I'm not finding poor Matt's fate funny. It is really unfortunate. I just thought this webpage drew a clever parallel between the issue and... well... skiing.
Go check one of the above posts you'll see my apology there.

Wi not trei a holiday in Sveden this yer?

Look, I'm not finding poor Matt's fate funny. It is really unfortunate. I just thought this webpage drew a clever parallel between the issue and... well... skiing.
You belive in Fate? This interests me, because I am actively seeking people who believe in it.

See the loveli lakes...

If anyone else in here switch hits sound off now or it will be confirmed that bi's are a definite minority.

I realize this is a little late, but I, too, play for both teams.

The wonderful telephone system...

And mani interesting furri animals,

Including the majestic Moose!

A Moose once bit my sister...

No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".

We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked.

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...

We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those
responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked
have been sacked.

Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. And dont give me any of this "there is no absolute truth, do whats 'right' to you" crap. I want an intellegent answer from someone out there.


For the life of me I can't understand how supposed morality(right vs. wrong) comes into play here. I'm not going to go into the psychodynamics of it (sexual orientation) nor the definition of morality because when people take the morality stance it's to assault others. Pure and simple. For some people, being moral is meaningless without having another to view and chatise as immoral. The morality agrument is utter shit.

"Morality is the attitude we take towards those we personally dislike." -- Oscar Wilde

...and that's that.

I'd post, only the last bajillion pages have been personal convos between too people :p.

...I have a friend in Kiwiland...

I believe in Fate
Hey Igwarano how you doing?

Okay, prove to me they have relationships and the capcity to recognize a gender-gender relationship.
EDIT: my point is that only humans recognize a relationship, and a gender-gender relationship at that.

what has recognising a relationship got to do with it?
what does "recognise a relationship" mean?

certain animals behave homosexually because they have sex with others of their species who are of the same sex. That is what homosexual means. Don't redefine it to mean something vague that you don't actually define in order to make a lame point.

And I won't even start on why gender is a social and linguistic construct and what you are talking about is sex.

Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. And dont give me any of this "there is no absolute truth, do whats 'right' to you" crap. I want an intellegent answer from someone out there.


You idiot. There are truths. "cheese exists" is a truth. "2 + 2 = 4" is a truth. "Homosexuality is wrong" is an opinion.

How can you expect an absolute answer to a relative question? The intelligent thing is not to ask the question. Or to ask everyone and expect a hundred different answers. Words like "right" and "wrong" aren't very helpful in this context, because they imply either an objective reality or a universal authority against which to compare, and in the case of sexual orientation there isn't one of these.

I'll set out the church position for you. Its up to you to analyse it.

1) Sexuality's main purpose is human reproduction (ergo all forms of sexuality which do not lead to the possibility of conception are "wrong")

2) It is not possible to conceive naturally in a homosexual relationship

3) Therefore, it is not an acceptable use of our sexuality


There are a few problems. The CHurch also acknowledges that a subsidiary purpose of sexuality is strengthening of the marital bond between husband and wife. Some liberals argue this point in a stronger form, i.e. that reproduction can be and is separated from sexuality, and thereforethat 1) is not properly accurate/representative and therefore that homosexuality is not wrong. However, this is really just a difference of opinion on the purpose of sexuality and can spiral into complicated natural law arguments, which get a bit biological.

Some argue that it is also not possible to conceive naturally in some husband/wife relationships because of medical problems, and therefore the argument is weak. However, the Church might argue here that sexuality is still proper in this relationship because it is strengthening the husband/wife relationship.

Does that help?

I'll set out the church position for you. Its up to you to analyse it.

1) Sexuality's main purpose is human reproduction (ergo all forms of sexuality which do not lead to the possibility of conception are "wrong")

2) It is not possible to conceive naturally in a homosexual relationship

3) Therefore, it is not an acceptable use of our sexuality


There are a few problems. The CHurch also acknowledges that a subsidiary purpose of sexuality is strengthening of the marital bond between husband and wife. Some liberals argue this point in a stronger form, i.e. that reproduction can be and is separated from sexuality, and thereforethat 1) is not properly accurate/representative and therefore that homosexuality is not wrong. However, this is really just a difference of opinion on the purpose of sexuality and can spiral into complicated natural law arguments, which get a bit biological.

Some argue that it is also not possible to conceive naturally in some husband/wife relationships because of medical problems, and therefore the argument is weak. However, the Church might argue here that sexuality is still proper in this relationship because it is strengthening the husband/wife relationship.

Does that help?

if the Church supports infertile couples having sex in order to strengthen their marital bond, then they have no justification for failing to support homosexual couples doing the same. they must choose: either the whole purpose of sex is conception, and any sex that can't yield conception is wrong, or sex can have another purpose beyond making babies. if only sex that can result in babies is right, then infertile people, women past menopause, and many disabled persons should never be allowed to have sexual contact and should not be allowed to wed. women who go through menopause or people who become infertile should also have their marriages disolved, since they can no longer fulfill the one necessary criterion for marriage and sexual relations. if the Church would be remotely consistant, rather than being transparently hypocritical and bigotted, i might have some respect for them, but as it is they are no better than the KKK when it comes to gay people.

Am I the only one who finds it incredibily funny that a bunch of people who've taken an oath of chastity think they can dictate what people's sexual behaviour should be?

As someone has already stated, and I will state again, there are several cases of homosexual animal sex which have been documented, especially among birds and certain types of monkeys. It is therefore natural. And as well it is not wrong, each to there own as long as it harms none, and homosexual sex harms none.

what has recognising a relationship got to do with it?
what does "recognise a relationship" mean?

certain animals behave homosexually because they have sex with others of their species who are of the same sex. That is what homosexual means. Don't redefine it to mean something vague that you don't actually define in order to make a lame point.

And I won't even start on why gender is a social and linguistic construct and what you are talking about is sex.
Okay, the process of recognition involves taking input into the brain through senses and attaching a label to it. "Apple", "cloud", "rain", "homosexual". Which of these labels do you suppose animals use and which humans?

As someone has already stated, and I will state again, there are several cases of homosexual animal sex which have been documented, especially among birds and certain types of monkeys. It is therefore natural. And as well it is not wrong, each to there own as long as it harms none, and homosexual sex harms none.

I prefer not to take my moral queues from animals.

Animals also sometimes eat their own feces, mate with their own parents/siblings, and kill their young.

Funny, so do humans.

The point that is made about homosexuality here though is not that it is "good" because it's natural, but because the argument that it's unnatural is utter tripe.

Morally, I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I also acknowledge that we live in a society where people have certain rights, including the right to decide for themselves what is moral.

I don't believe in discrimination, gay-bashing or enforcing my religion/ethics on others. I have a couple of gay family members and we get along fine, and they know my position as well as I know theirs. All is well.

On the other hand, I also owe the gay community nothing. Increasingly, we are living in a society where if you fail to applaud homosexuals for being homosexuals, or for having the courage to come out about it, you can very easily be accused of being a homophobe. This is what I resent. The only thing the gay community, or any other community, has the right to expect from me is my apathy.

This doesn't make me homophobic. It doesn't make me cynical or uncaring or any other label I've seen applied to those who fail to give a great big pat on the back to the gay rights movement.

Changing the subject a little...
Someone I know calls me "confused" because I am bisexual...
Any opinion?

Funny, so do humans.

The point that is made about homosexuality here though is not that it is "good" because it's natural, but because the argument that it's unnatural is utter tripe.

Even if I were to accept the argument that it's natural just because a handful of animals were to do it, that very same argument could then be used to justify a host of other acts that I'm sure you would agree are wrong. Incest, murder and cannibalsim are all things we agree universally are wrong despite being arguably "natural", so at best you're making a point that's irrelevant.

I know you're only trying to make the point about nature, not necessarily justifying, but like I said, it's not relevant.

if the Church supports infertile couples having sex in order to strengthen their marital bond, then they have no justification for failing to support homosexual couples doing the same. they must choose: either the whole purpose of sex is conception, and any sex that can't yield conception is wrong, or sex can have another purpose beyond making babies. if only sex that can result in babies is right, then infertile people, women past menopause, and many disabled persons should never be allowed to have sexual contact and should not be allowed to wed. women who go through menopause or people who become infertile should also have their marriages disolved, since they can no longer fulfill the one necessary criterion for marriage and sexual relations. if the Church would be remotely consistant, rather than being transparently hypocritical and bigotted, i might have some respect for them, but as it is they are no better than the KKK when it comes to gay people.

To my knowledge the Roman Catholic Curch does not beat homosexuals or lynch people. This is an unfair characterization.

This is an example of what I said earlier about the reaction when any person or organization doesn't support the gay agenda. This person disagrees with the Catholic Church, but that's not enough. The Church gets compared to the KKK for failing to fall in line. I'm not Catholic (anymore) but I know they, like many Christian denominations as well as Islam and Judaism have very strong teachings in this area. That is their right.

Why do people insist that everybody gets the right to live according to their conscience and beliefs only as long as they don't disagree with homosexuals?

Wait, let's back up a minute, why is homosexuality morally wrong again?

Okay, the process of recognition involves taking input into the brain through senses and attaching a label to it. "Apple", "cloud", "rain", "homosexual". Which of these labels do you suppose animals use and which humans?

Okay, now you have given me your definition of the word "recognition" the stupidity of your argument is obvious.

Your argument is "only humans can be homosexual because only humans know what the word homosexual means".

Which animal do you think uses the label "food"? And do the ones that don;t use such a label also eat?

Changing the subject a little...
Someone I know calls me "confused" because I am bisexual...
Any opinion?

I call people confused because they are confused. Bisexual people I call "bisexual". Are you confused? Bisexuality in my experience is often a consequence of clarity of understanding.

Am I the only one who finds it incredibily funny that a bunch of people who've taken an oath of chastity think they can dictate what people's sexual behaviour should be?

Possibly. I'm neither a catholic nor a homosexual, but if those are the rules of their game, those are the rules. You wanna play, you play by the rules. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this. You don't have to play if you don't want to.

Wait, let's back up a minute, why is homosexuality morally wrong again?

How deep an answer do you want? I can answer this but it can get pretty deep and detailed.

Incest, murder and cannibalsim are all things we agree universally are wrong despite being arguably "natural", so at best you're making a point that's irrelevant.


Uh... no. Incest, murder and cannibalism are not natural. We humans have the dubious distinction of being virtually the only species to practice any of them, and certainly the only to practice all three.

By contrast, homsexuality is perfectly natural. (Or, to be more accurate, bisexuality is). I used to have two female dogs, and when they were in the mood they didn't care they were both of the same gender, believe me. ;)

As much as I've thought it through, I cannot think of one single valid argument against granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. If two homosexuals want to get married and be happy together, that's fine by me; they're not doing me any harm...

there is nothing bad in homosexualism, and even if it is bad isn't the government seperated from religion, why does everything as to do with the church, the christian complains muslim persecute them but they wonder why they are persecuting homosexuals, everyone has a right to their beliefs, that is all am saying

Possibly. I'm neither a catholic nor a homosexual, but if those are the rules of their game, those are the rules. You wanna play, you play by the rules. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this. You don't have to play if you don't want to.

Except for the fact they indoctrinate children into their religion at an early age and in certain social conditions, peer pressure and fear of being ostricized force you to play the game whether you want to or not.

How deep an answer do you want? I can answer this but it can get pretty deep and detailed.

I have all day.

Except for the fact they indoctrinate children into their religion at an early age and in certain social conditions, peer pressure and fear of being ostricized force you to play the game whether you want to or not.

you aren't forced to play the game whether you want to or not by the church, but by society. peer pressure and fear of ostracization are things you choose to be subject to.

of course in some societies, notably some frican and caribbean ones homosexuals are rightly in fear of their lives. nothing to do with catholicism though.

the catholic and anglican church are trying to look conservative when they are accept Gay bishops to lead them. this is just another ploy by the catholic church to keep memberships, there is nothing bad in being gay and if you can't accept it don't discriminate.

Lets not remember the church in the past has said slavery was important for black. the church said protestants and muslims should be killed or converted.why should i believe the catholic church that has an history of corruption.

you aren't forced to play the game whether you want to or not by the church, but by society. peer pressure and fear of ostracization are things you choose to be subject to.


By society influenced by the church. People who've been indoctrinated don't see a choice and they don't know any better either. Unfortunetly, not everyone is intellectually astute enough to see it. I daresay the church counts on this, that and their blind faith and trust.

Discrimination and crisis most of the time has been caused by the church, we can enforce our religion on someone else, this is evident as the european almost ruined the native americans, the enslave ment of native africans,and racism on the basis of race,sexualism and gender.

everyone in this world is free, if the catholic church allows gay bishops why can't ordinary human beings be gay and have the right to marriage.

I first realized that homosexuality was neither "right" nor "wrong" after I had a long discussion with someone who had known that he was gay ever since we were in Junior High School together.

A few of the people in our school were merciless in harassing him all the way through Jr. High and High School. At the time, I had no idea why this would be so. I talked to him about it several years after we graduated, which is when he told me that he was homosexual and that's why some other students had tormented him.

It hit me then that no one would willingly subject themselves to that sort of harassment, and that being homosexual must not be a "choice" people make, but a condition not under their control.

Given that, how could any reasonably compassionate person not accept homosexuality as a normal variant?

Uh... no. Incest, murder and cannibalism are not natural. We humans have the dubious distinction of being virtually the only species to practice any of them, and certainly the only to practice all three.


Not so. I think you missed my point. My point was that animal behavior is no justification because they do practice all of the above.

I've seen dogs and cats mate with their own parents and siblings. Chimpanzees in the wild as well as ants are known to kill their own kind over territory and food. Scavengers as well as most arachnids and insects frequently resort to cannibalism, as do rodents and fish.

If you're going to argue for homosexuality that's fine but please do not point to the animal kingdom and say "See? They do it too so it must be natural!" Because something being natural does not automatically make it right.

For the record: I'm not conceding that animals naturally engage in homosexuality. If you have a couple of dogs who do it fine, but realize they aren't exactly in their natural environment either.

Given that, how could any reasonably compassionate person not accept homosexuality as a normal variant?

Playing devil's advocate here:

Easily. Would you consider blindness to be a normal variant? What about stuttering? Mild retardation? These are things kids sometimes tease each other about in school.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is inborn then go ahead, but your argument does not prove it's a normal variant.

Well i just think we should leave them to do there own thing, they dont hurt anyone, cept there partner cause come on OUCH!!

There is not only nothing wrong with Homosexuality but to those of us who are gay, (homosexual is a horrible term), it is perfectly normal. The question EVERY SINGLE PERSON who says things against us has to ask themselves is... What would I think if I was gay?

Playing devil's advocate here:

Easily. Would you consider blindness to be a normal variant? What about stuttering? Mild retardation? These are things kids sometimes tease each other about in school.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is inborn then go ahead, but your argument does not prove it's a normal variant.

Blindness is clearly a normal variant as it is normal that some people are blind. Ditto retardation. It is normal that there are retards. Are retards normal? on average people aren't retarded so no. Are queers normal? on average people aren't queer so no. The norm for a person is to be neither retarded no homosexual nor blind. But the norm for a society is to contain retards, blind people and homosexuals.

The topic doesn't really come up with retards or blind people very often though, as it is currently mercifully rare to find someone who claims that being retarded should be banned, or that being blind is morally wrong and blind people shouldn't marry, or that retards should be forced to undergo anti-retardation treatment.

Okay, now you have given me your definition of the word "recognition" the stupidity of your argument is obvious.

Your argument is "only humans can be homosexual because only humans know what the word homosexual means".
Sort of...

Originally Posted by Dempublicents
Why does it matter what the animals are feeling and thinking? They show an obvious preference for the same, rather than the opposite gender (often, in studies, even when presented with mates of both genders). Thus, the attraction to same-gendered animals is natural. That is all the point people are trying to make with that.Exactly! It matters because it is only humans who think that feeling and thinking in terms of an opposite gender is odd in any way.
My argument is that yes, attraction between animals is natural, but a "homosexual relationship" is not what these animals are doing. That is just a label that humans put on it.

It is entirely natural for one being to be attracted to another (preferably same species) being, whether male or female --they can have what we recognize as "a relationship", putting a label on the concept; and we go further and label it "homosexual" when it's same-gender. Finally, we even take an extra step further and say that "homosexual relationships" are odd. If a lion killed a deer would we say it murdered it? Some humans would, some would argue that the lion doesn't understand the concept of "murder", and neither does the deer, so there is no "murder" because there is no murderous intent. Being in a homosexual relationship similarly requires an intent to go a step beyond defining oneself as simply "being in a relationship". Killing is natural; "murder" is defined by man. Relationships are natural; "homosexual relationship" is defined by man. A lion killing a deer is natural, but it is not "murder". A same-sex animal relationship is natural, but it is not "homosexual".

Which animal do you think uses the label "food"? And do the ones that don;t use such a label also eat?
I imagine that, since they don't have "words" animals label things with image recognition. How does one recognize the image of a "homosexual relationship"? To an animal, it looks like all the other relationships.

wow, this thread really took off.

well first off, humans are a bit different than animals so stop rationalizing it by animal behaviour. (I can hear it now, "The DNA is 99% the same! 99%!")

And we realize that this behavior is "wrong" even for animals, it creates a sense of revoltion. Morality is inhernt in all cultures, even in people who have been ostricized from any culture, so it does carry some weight what is thought of as wrong.

The whole blindness is normal and retardation is normal thing: NO! Are you a complete idiot!? you sounded much more intellegent before you said that. Retardation ect... is a genetic defect, a problem, something we are trying to fix. same with blindness, its a problem. Homosexuality: it's the same thing. I believe that some people are born with gay tendancies, but this does not make that up to par. It's a problem that can be fixed, and has been fixed in many cases, the individuals leading happy and enjoyable lives.

wow, this thread really took off.

well first off, humans are a bit different than animals so stop rationalizing it by animal behaviour. (I can hear it now, "The DNA is 99% the same! 99%!")

And we realize that this behavior is "wrong" even for animals, it creates a sense of revoltion. Morality is inhernt in all cultures, even in people who have been ostricized from any culture, so it does carry some weight what is thought of as wrong.

The whole blindness is normal and retardation is normal thing: NO! Are you a complete idiot!? you sounded much more intellegent before you said that. Retardation ect... is a genetic defect, a problem, something we are trying to fix. same with blindness, its a problem. Homosexuality: it's the same thing. I believe that some people are born with gay tendancies, but this does not make that up to par. It's a problem that can be fixed, and has been fixed in many cases, the individuals leading happy and enjoyable lives.
You've disqualified yourself and this thread by finally revealing your biased anti-gay opinion. Bye. Ass.

Still waiting on the morality question ... anything I can play with yet, Koldor? Anyone else?

Holy Fro, if you've going to froth at the mouth, be considerate and leave the thread to the people interested in intelligent discourse.

Sort of...


My argument is that yes, attraction between animals is natural, but a "homosexual relationship" is not what these animals are doing. That is just a label that humans put on it.

"Eating" is a label that humans put on the process of taking food into your mouth and swallowing etc. Animals do nt put this label on. So "Eating" is not what animals are doing, it is just a label that humans put on it.

Are you tripping?


It is entirely natural for one being to be attracted to another (preferably same species) being, whether male or female --they can have what we recognize as "a relationship", putting a label on the concept; and we go further and label it "homosexual" when it's same-gender.


Natural? maybe, so what.
If you decide to call it a relationship, let's call it a relationship.
If you decide to call it homosexual, let's call it homosexual.
It's a homosexual relationship.
And you still mean same-sex not same-gender, but whatever.


Finally, we even take an extra step further and say that "homosexual relationships" are odd.


Why? Why take that step? if you like, they are odd because they are less common than heterosexual relationships. Is that it?


If a lion killed a deer would we say it murdered it? Some humans would, some would argue that the lion doesn't understand the concept of "murder", and neither does the deer, so there is no "murder" because there is no murderous intent.


This isn't really relevant.


Being in a homosexual relationship similarly requires an intent to go a step beyond defining oneself as simply "being in a relationship".


What are you talking about? You just said that if two beings of the same species are in a same-sex relationship it is a homosexual relationship. You don't need to intend to define anything for that to happen, you just have to have a homosexual relationship. Am I only in a relationship if i define the relationship?



Killing is natural; "murder" is defined by man.


OK.


Relationships are natural; "homosexual relationship" is defined by man.


Murder, and homosexual relationship are words whose meaning is defined by man. Killing is a word whose meaning is defined by man. Your definition of homosexual relationship is a relationship (and by this i'm sure you mean a sexual relationship) between two beings of the same sex.


A lion killing a deer is natural, but it is not "murder". A same-sex animal relationship is natural, but it is not "homosexual".

Why? Why is a same-sex animal relationship not homosexual? Did you know that "homosexual" means "sexually attracted to the same sex" ? How are two animals of the same sex who are attracted to each other not homosexual?


I imagine that, since they don't have "words" animals label things with image recognition. How does one recognize the image of a "homosexual relationship"? To an animal, it looks like all the other relationships.


You have no idea whether animals label things with image recognition.

If animals label things with image recognition, you have no idea whether they have a different image for "homosexual relationship" and "heterosexual relationship", or whether they look the same.

OK! I see - you mean animals aren't homosexual because animals don't have homosexual intent, because they don't know whether the animal they're doing is of the same sex or not?

Cheeses why didn't you say this a year ago? You could forget all the nonsense about relationships and definitions and crap.

Still, I don't think you know whether an animal knows the sex of its partner or not. I kind of think it does, because otherwise you'd expect on average that 50% or something of the incidences of animal sex would be gay.

"Eating" is a label that humans put on the process of taking food into your mouth and swallowing etc. Animals do nt put this label on. So "Eating" is not what animals are doing, it is just a label that humans put on it.

Are you tripping?

I am talking about conceptual labels, not words. Ideas. I am talking about the idea of "murder", not "murder" the word. To call it "murder" is to label it with an idea that it didn't previously have; before it was only a "killing" thing.

wow, this thread really took off.

well first off, humans are a bit different than animals so stop rationalizing it by animal behaviour. (I can hear it now, "The DNA is 99% the same! 99%!")


The only reason anyone ever rationalises homosexuality by reference to animal behaviour is because anti-gay people harp on about it being unnatural. So yes we can drop that argument straight away if we can also drop the *unnatural* one.



And we realize that this behavior is "wrong" even for animals, it creates a sense of revoltion.


Who are *we* in this case? And why are you revolted? Examine yourself deeply.


Morality is inhernt in all cultures, even in people who have been ostricized from any culture, so it does carry some weight what is thought of as wrong.

Morality is "the behavioural habits of a culture", so yes, all cultures have behavioural habits. They aren't all the same though. Homosexuality has been acceptable in many cultures.


The whole blindness is normal and retardation is normal thing: NO! Are you a complete idiot!? you sounded much more intellegent before you said that.


Did you actually read what I said? I said it is normal for a population to contain some blind people.


Retardation ect... is a genetic defect, a problem, something we are trying to fix. same with blindness, its a problem.

It is a problem if you think it is a problem. There are lots of blind people and retards who manage just fine. You might be trying to fix them (I doubt it, I mean you aren't a doctor are you?) but a lot of people aren't.


Homosexuality: it's the same thing.

Yes it is the same thing. It's a problem if you think it is, and there are lots of gay people who manage just fine. And some people are trying to fix them, and some people aren't.


I believe that some people are born with gay tendancies, but this does not make that up to par. It's a problem that can be fixed, and has been fixed in many cases, the individuals leading happy and enjoyable lives.

Well, maybe you believe that, and maybe it is true. There are lots of homosexuals who haven't been "fixed" who are also leading happy and enjoyable lives.

To my knowledge the Roman Catholic Curch does not beat homosexuals or lynch people. This is an unfair characterization.

This is an example of what I said earlier about the reaction when any person or organization doesn't support the gay agenda. This person disagrees with the Catholic Church, but that's not enough. The Church gets compared to the KKK for failing to fall in line. I'm not Catholic (anymore) but I know they, like many Christian denominations as well as Islam and Judaism have very strong teachings in this area. That is their right.

Why do people insist that everybody gets the right to live according to their conscience and beliefs only as long as they don't disagree with homosexuals?

Bottle didn't say they were no better than the KKK because of their stance on homosexuality - but because their stance is equally inconsistent. If someone could come up with a consistent and valid argument against homosexuality, I'm sure we would all listen.

I am talking about conceptual labels, not words.

Words are conceptual labels.

Words are conceptual labels.
Different context of the word "conceptual". I am not talking about labels that are concepts, I am talking about concepts that are applied as lablels.

I am talking about conceptual labels, not words. Ideas. I am talking about the idea of "murder", not "murder" the word. To call it "murder" is to label it with an idea that it didn't previously have; before it was only a "killing" thing.

Because "kill" is morally neutral whereas "murder" means "wrongfully kill" and there has to be some moral interpretation of what is wrong.

You are therefore by extension claiming that "same-sex relations" is morally neutral whereas "homosexual" has some moral dimension to it. It doesn't, it just means "same-sex relations".

Not so. I think you missed my point. My point was that animal behavior is no justification because they do practice all of the above.

And our point is that you can't say "It's just not natural" as a reason for it to be wrong if it quite clearly natural for many animals to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

I've seen dogs and cats mate with their own parents and siblings.

Perhaps, but our closest relatives - chimpanzees will not do this. Any who do are ostracized from the group. They do, however, regularly engage in homosexual behavior.

Chimpanzees in the wild as well as ants are known to kill their own kind over territory and food.

Funny, so are human beings.

If you're going to argue for homosexuality that's fine but please do not point to the animal kingdom and say "See? They do it too so it must be natural!" Because something being natural does not automatically make it right.

No one ever said that it did. It is your side who tries to argue that it is wrong because "It's just not natural!" You are the ones making nature a basis for right or wrong.

For the record: I'm not conceding that animals naturally engage in homosexuality. If you have a couple of dogs who do it fine, but realize they aren't exactly in their natural environment either.

Well, studies in natural environment reveal the same types of things. In fact, heterosexual sex has never been observed in the wild in giraffes - but homosexual sex has. Dolphins only form life-long pair bonds (and yes, they do have sex) in male-male couples. Elephants do the same. Birds have completely different same-sex mating rituals and same-sex pair bonds often share nests and raise offspring together. Bonobos chimps have homosexual sex all the time. Bighorn sheep have transexual males that act in every way (including mating habits) as females - of course, bighorn sheep have more homosexual sex in a given year than heterosexual anyways. These are just a select few of the myriad of examples I could bring up. If you want to ignore the evidence, fine - but it makes you look foolish.

My argument is that yes, attraction between animals is natural, but a "homosexual relationship" is not what these animals are doing. That is just a label that humans put on it.

But homosexual sex, is, by definition, same-gender sex. These animals may not have what you would call a "homosexual relationship," but they do have "homosexual pair-bonds" or "homosexual sex."

Your problem is that you think there has to be a relationship to have homosexuality, when in fact homosexuality is simply the sexual attraction to a member of the same sex.

Because "kill" is morally neutral whereas "murder" means "wrongfully kill" and there has to be some moral interpretation of what is wrong.
Right! and only humans have and use the idea of morals.

You are therefore by extension claiming that "same-sex relations" is morally neutral whereas "homosexual" has some moral dimension to it.
Correct.

It doesn't, it just means "same-sex relations".
Have you never been in a relationship? Relationships are not about sex.

Different context of the word "conceptual". I am not talking about labels that are concepts, I am talking about concepts that are applied as lablels.

And yet you ignore that you are the only one in the discussion who thinks the word homosexual has to imply what you call a relationship. The actual definition of the word is simply one who is sexually attracted to another of the same gender. No action or relationship has to be involved.

And yet you ignore that you are the only one in the discussion who thinks the word homosexual has to imply what you call a relationship. The actual definition of the word is simply one who is sexually attracted to another of the same gender. No action or relationship has to be involved.
Two people engaging in same-gender intercourse (for example, a one night stand) need not even be homosexual --sex isn't always about attraction. And I think we can agree that this is not a relationship.

Two people planning on getting to know each other is a relationship --it is something done with the intention that it can build into living together and sharing every aspect of their lives together. If these people are same-gender, then this is a "homosexual relationship".

[Holy Fro #1]
Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. And dont give me any of this "there is no absolute truth, do whats 'right' to you" crap. I want an intellegent answer from someone out there.
[/Holy Fro #1]

It would be wrong for me.

I don't much care what you consider it.

If a community decides that they don't want to see "homosexual behavior" in public, then they have the right to press for that.

Whether they "win" or not is of no consequence to me at all.

If a community decides that they want ONLY to see "homosexual behavior" in public, then they have the right to press for that..!

Work it out in the marketplace, you idiots..! :)

The only reason anyone ever rationalises homosexuality by reference to animal behaviour is because anti-gay people harp on about it being unnatural. So yes we can drop that argument straight away if we can also drop the *unnatural* one.And for that matter there haven't been many people saying homosexuality is ok because it is natural. Rather they've been saying that the argument that "homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural" is unsound because the premise is false. (The argument is also invalid, but either way it's toast).

Did you actually read what I said? I said it is normal for a population to contain some blind people.

It is a problem if you think it is a problem. There are lots of blind people and retards who manage just fine.
I think that most blind people would agree they have a problem. Interestingly this is less true of deaf people. There is a very vocal section of the deaf community that is adament that deafness is not a problem and should not be treated. That debate matters, as some deaf kids can be treated (with cochlear implants). And the matter cannot be left until the kids reach the age of majority (although I suppose the implants can always be disabled later). Still, generally speaking, it is not my place to tell someone that a variation they have is a problem. I would also add that just because something is a problem doesn't mean that the most sensible course is to try and fix it.

You might be trying to fix them (I doubt it, I mean you aren't a doctor are you?) but a lot of people aren't.

Yes it is the same thing. It's a problem if you think it is, and there are lots of gay people who manage just fine. And some people are trying to fix them, and some people aren't.

Well, maybe you believe that, and maybe it is true. There are lots of homosexuals who haven't been "fixed" who are also leading happy and enjoyable lives.As they have every right to do free from meddling busibodies. And as the "treatments" for homosexuality are ineffective, and usually cruel as well, they shouldn't be used on minors regardless of whether homosexuality is a problem or not.

Two people planning on getting to know each other is a relationship --it is something done with the intention that it can build into living together and sharing every aspect of their lives together. If these people are same-gender, then this is a "homosexual relationship".Sans the intent, animals do this too. I don't have links handy, but there are cases of same-sex couples engaging in pair-bonding and rearing behaviour. I don't see how this is not a homosexual relationship regardless of intent.

And our point is that you can't say "It's just not natural" as a reason for it to be wrong if it quite clearly natural for many animals to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
(...)

No one ever said that it did. It is your side who tries to argue that it is wrong because "It's just not natural!" You are the ones making nature a basis for right or wrong.


(...) If you want to ignore the evidence, fine - but it makes you look foolish.

Ok you've missed my point. I said before that even if I were to concede the point of what animals are or are not doing, it is still not relevant toward the homosexuality argument among humans because animals do a lot of things humans find repugnant, and the converse is also true, undoubtedly. I started off by making t his point when i said I do not look to the animal kingdom for my moral queues.

You've disqualified yourself and this thread by finally revealing your biased anti-gay opinion. Bye. Ass.

So what if he's biased? Everybody on this board is biased. Thats' the defenition of a debate. It's not like he's supressing the opposing viewpoint.

You've proven one of my points... I hate the fact that in any open discussion everyone is allowed to have an opinion and hold a personal view as long as they acknowledge that the liberal perspective is right and good and superior. If a liberal speaks up he must be heard. If a conservative speaks up he must be silenced.

And the bad language/name calling only makes you look like a fool.

So what if he's biased? Everybody on this board is biased. Thats' the defenition of a debate. It's not like he's supressing the opposing viewpoint.

You've proven one of my points... I hate the fact that in any open discussion everyone is allowed to have an opinion and hold a personal view as long as they acknowledge that the liberal perspective is right and good and superior. If a liberal speaks up he must be heard. If a conservative speaks up he must be silenced.

And the bad language/name calling only makes you look like a fool.
I'm against discrimination based on the bible. The bible is science-fiction and not suitable to be used to base civil rights on. Especially not if "laws" from it are being selectively applied whenever it is convenient.

Still waiting on the morality question ... anything I can play with yet, Koldor? Anyone else?

Holy Fro, if you've going to froth at the mouth, be considerate and leave the thread to the people interested in intelligent discourse.

Alright but just so I'm clear on this... I'm going to tell you where it comes from but I hope everyone will be mature enough to refrain from religion bashing or going off on why they feel it's wrong, etc. I have shown everybody on this board respect and I expect the same in return.

I can speak for Christianity when I say that there are specific instances in both the Old and New Testament where homosexuality is specifically forbidden. Classified as a form of adultery it's considered generally more serious than fornication between a man and a woman.

In fact, during the time of the Old Testament it was an offense punishable by death. In the New Testament is is described as an abomination, but like all sins it is one that can be forgiven and repented of.

Obviously, if you're not a Christian this isn't relevant to you, so by all means ignore it. Please no flame attacks, I'm just answering the question.

As for why... That's where things get deep and I can only offer my own conclusion based upon what I've learned and observed.

A central theme in Christianity is that of family. This is especially true among Mormons but is emphasized almost universally in all denominations. It would have begin in ancient societies when communities were small and needed everyone's contribution not only in work but in bearing children for the next generation. Often times men were permitted multiple wives to maximize the odds of rearing new sons to take over farming, defence, etc. (Examples include Abraham and Moses.) A homosexual couple, by definition, would be incapable of producing children. It is a situation where they are not contributing to the community in a way that is expected of them and thus they would be in the wrong. Also, in situations where perhaps men or women who were in heterosexual marriages deviated outside the marriage to engage in acts with others, then they were guilty of succumbing to the weaknesses of the flesh. This is the same reason why adultery is considered sinful in general.

Later, in New Testament times the issues would have been similar. While it's true that civilization was well established by then and wouldn't be impacted much by a barren couple, the Christian community itself was small and persecuted, and dealt with survival issues of a similar nature to their ancestors.

All of this speaks to consistency. The rules of morality remain generally consistent over time except where noted by Jesus Himself. Now, you might ask why this is relevant now, in a world of billions of people on the planet and technology that has brought man to space. My answer is where the controversy would begin and so I offer my opinion by wy of FYI, not to bash anybody or to upset anyone.

Morality is a lot like honor. It's when you do what's right even when nobody's looking. Homosexuality is not compatible with a healthy society for a myriad of reasons that we could get into later, but for now suffice it to say that anything people do that is against the good of their community and fellow humans is considered immoral.

All of this is my own personal understanding. Ultimately it is God who defines what is sin and what isn't, and it is not my place to question His wisdom. I try and figure the wherefores and whys of it but if I can't then I rely on faith.

Now, if you disagree with me that's perfectly cool. I am not here to convince anybody. I am here to speak my mind, which I have just as much right to as any other person. No flame attacks, please.

I'm against discrimination based on the bible. The bible is science-fiction and not suitable to be used to base civil rights on. Especially not if "laws" from it are being selectively applied whenever it is convenient.

So if I took something you believed in and refered to it as Science Fiction that would be perfectly acceptable? I doubt it. You've proven my point for me very well. Thank you Gigatron!

how can a sexual orientation be IMMORAL?
this was the real question of the thread wasnt it? is it MORAL to be gay?

to me its an odd question since to be gay is to be exclusively attracted to members of the same gender as oneself. how can attraction be immoral?

one is GAY even if one is a virgin. one is GAY even if one has forced oneself into a heterosexual marriage that has produced children.

lets look as some (kinda) analagous situations:
please excuse their rather flamey nature

you wake up one morning and realize that you have a (unwanted) sexual attraction to your sister. are you immoral? NO, you have a problem but you are not immoral.

in your sexual fantasies you actively imagine yourself having sex with animals. are you immoral? NOPE. you just think nasty thoughts.

you go out on weekends and have sex with members of the opposite sex who you barely know and never plan to see again. are you immoral? BINGO, in many peoples morality you are.

you and your bride marry and have your first sexual experience within the bonds of holy matrimony on your wedding night. are you immoral? NO

do you see where im going with this?

if you are attracted to members of the same sex are you immoral? nope

if you actively fantasize about sex with members of the same sex are you immoral? nope

if you go out on weekends and have gay sex with strangers are you immoral? yup

if you marry a member of the same sex in your church which supports gay marriage and you and your new spouse both have your first sexual experience within these bonds of holy matrimony are you immoral? nope

it seems to ME that whatever standards you set for heterosexual sex would also pertain to homosexual sex. if its OK to have sex with your girlfriend, its also OK to have sex with your boyfriend. if its only moral to have sex with your WIFE, then it would also be MORAL to have sex with your husband.

so when i see you railing against gays as being immoral, i wonder why you dont spend the same amount of energy railing against straight people who have sex outside of marriage.

after all gay people do NOTHING that straight people dont do also. no one complains about the morality of it when straight people do it. so why get so upset when gay people do it too?

So if I took something you believed in and refered to it as Science Fiction that would be perfectly acceptable? I doubt it. You've proven my point for me very well. Thank you Gigatron!
Go ahead and try. I am not religious, so you'll have a hard time finding anything I "Believe" in to call science-fiction.

Go ahead and try. I am not religious, so you'll have a hard time finding anything I "Believe" in to call science-fiction.

: Watches the point sail over Gigatron's head :

how can a sexual orientation be IMMORAL?
this was the real question of the thread wasnt it? is it MORAL to be gay?


The whole assumption behind this debate is the actions of gay people, not their feelings. It's why it's possible for there to be gay men within the clergy in the Catholic Church. Since they take a vow of celibacy, their sexuality would be (ideally) irrelevant.

: Watches the point sail over Gigatron's head :
Your so-called "point" was a strawman which you cannot back up. Especially religion based on the bible is so anti-gay and selective, that I simply laugh about anyone trying to claim moral highground because they believe in the bible, a book written by humans, altered multiple times over the centuries and used and abused for the most dirty deeds in the history of mankind.

Natural? maybe, so what.
If you decide to call it a relationship, let's call it a relationship.
If you decide to call it homosexual, let's call it homosexual.
It's a homosexual relationship.
And you still mean same-sex not same-gender, but whatever.
Same sex or same gender; both make for a homosexual relationship. Sorry if this has been covered already. I haven't read the whole thread, and I really don't want to get into the whole "if he changes his gender but not his dick he's still a he" debate.

I am addressing relationships rather than sexual encounters because "homosexual relationships" is the real issue that society is bitching about. And it's the real issue of this thread. Moral Discussion: Homosexuality Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. Sexuality is not a moral issue, except to orthodox-mentality religious folk. Gay marriages, gay parents, gay "agendas"... these are what the moral issues are. These are relationship issues.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Finally, we even take an extra step further and say that "homosexual relationships" are odd.Why? Why take that step? if you like, they are odd because they are less common than heterosexual relationships. Is that it?
We take this step whether we assign a moral "right" or "wrong" to it. It is social conditioning, here in our Western civilization (religious conditioning, education conditioning, gender-role conditioning, etc). We can consciously backpedal, correct ourselves, and move on, but that step is taken.

Originally Posted by Willamena
If a lion killed a deer would we say it murdered it? Some humans would, some would argue that the lion doesn't understand the concept of "murder", and neither does the deer, so there is no "murder" because there is no murderous intent. Being in a homosexual relationship similarly requires an intent to go a step beyond defining oneself as simply "being in a relationship".

This isn't really relevant.

What are you talking about? You just said that if two beings of the same species are in a same-sex relationship it is a homosexual relationship. You don't need to intend to define anything for that to happen, you just have to have a homosexual relationship. Am I only in a relationship if i define the relationship?
Yes; because "homosexual" is an extraneous label, coming from a mentality that recognizes it. Nature doesn't recognize it --it just goes with the flow.

Still, I don't think you know whether an animal knows the sex of its partner or not. I kind of think it does, because otherwise you'd expect on average that 50% or something of the incidences of animal sex would be gay.
I do think animals identify each other's genders, and I'm all in favour of two boy penguins living together if they like (some of my best friends are penguins). But I don't think it fair to point at penguins and say, "Homosexuality is natural." Sexuality is natural. Same-gender (or same-sex) pairing is natural. Humans have a lot of baggage attached to the label (the idea label) "homosexuality" --relationship baggage, that is quite un-natural.

Your so-called "point" was a strawman which you cannot back up. Especially religion based on the bible is so anti-gay and selective, that I simply laugh about anyone trying to claim moral highground because they believe in the bible, a book written by humans, altered multiple times over the centuries and used and abused for the most dirty deeds in the history of mankind.

You've STILL missed the point, so let me spell it out for you.

My original point on this particular item was that the leftist agenda tends to ridicule and criticize any opinion that disagrees with their own. Rather than respect someone else's right to believe what they will, and express themselves, the left (in this case some homosexual apologists) tend to become spiteful and resort to name calling rather than either agree to disagree, or disagree by stating their points in a civilized and mature manner.

Which you failed to do when you resorted to profanity and personal attacks against the person who started this thread.

You've STILL missed the point, so let me spell it out for you.

My original point on this particular item was that the leftist agenda tends to ridicule and criticize any opinion that disagrees with their own. Rather than respect someone else's right to believe what they will, and express themselves, the left (in this case some homosexual apologists) tend to become spiteful and resort to name calling rather than either agree to disagree, or disagree by stating their points in a civilized and mature manner.

Which you failed to do when you resorted to profanity and personal attacks against the person who started this thread.
Maybe so. I am gay myself and not a "gay apologist". I fight with all my little might against discrimination of gays because I am directly affected by hypocrisy and hatespeech especially of the religious "moralists".

Maybe so. I am gay myself and not a "gay apologist". I fight with all my little might against discrimination of gays because I am directly affected by hypocrisy and hatespeech especially of the religious "moralists".

I can understand why the issue means so much to you, and I agree that anyone who tries to push their beliefs on you is overstepping their bounds.

My objection is that it's unkind of you to refer to a book like the Bible as Science Fiction while at the same time demanding respect from those who cherish it. I realize that the Bible has been used as justification for all sorts of discrimination, war and so on, but that doens't mean that all of us who follow its teachings are discriminatory. In fact, most of us aren't.

Personally, I don't care what you think of the Bible since it's an opinion and thus is harmless to me. You should be aware however, that generalizing Christians and putting down their scriptures is the same as if I came in here and called you a fag and made a statement like all gays should rot in hell or something equivalently mindless.

If you want respect you have to be prepared to show it as well.

You've STILL missed the point, so let me spell it out for you.

My original point on this particular item was that the leftist agenda tends to ridicule and criticize any opinion that disagrees with their own. Rather than respect someone else's right to believe what they will, and express themselves, the left (in this case some homosexual apologists) tend to become spiteful and resort to name calling rather than either agree to disagree, or disagree by stating their points in a civilized and mature manner.

Funny. That's been my observation of the right. :) :-)

Okay, finally someone gave a reason why they believe homosexuality is wrong: God said so.

There are a number of potential ways to retort to this:
1) Well He doesn't exist, so he can't've.
2) No He didn't.
3) Maybe He did, but He also said lots of stuff about loving thy neighbor and not being a jackass, which is more important.
4) So what?

Option #1 is a much bigger debate than we have room for here, #2 has been debated here but I leave that debate to people who have read the Bible, #3 is hard to argue reasonably. Thus, I will argue #4.

Here is why using God's will as the definition of morality is, as they say, "teh suxx0r":
Postulate A: The only difference between a good thing and an evil thing is God's will (this is your argument).
Postulate B: God's will was determined by some decision made by God (you want to accept this - otherwise God's will is not His own)
Conclusion 1: God decided what is good and what is evil. (God's decision => God's will => morality)
Conclusion 2: Before God decided what is good and what is evil, there was no difference between what is good and what is evil (Postulate A + Conclusion 1)
Conclusion 3: God made His decision arbitrarily (That is, He had no cause to make the decision He did, because there was no difference between the things He was choosing).

Do you really want to believe conclusion 3? It states that God looked at an action, murder, let's say, and to decide whether that was good or evil he flipped a coin. Then he looked at honoring thy father and thy mother, flipped a coin, and that coin came up a different way.
You really want to base your morality on divine coin flipping?

I mean, yes, doing all the things that came up "heads" and avoiding all the things that came up "tails" might get you into Heaven, but it still seems unsatisfying to me.

Okay, finally someone gave a reason why they believe homosexuality is wrong: God said so.

Actually if you're referring to my post, it went into a good bit more than that, and elaborated a bit on the otherwise overly simplistic explaination of "God said so." If you're refering to some other post, please disregard this reply.

Changing the subject a little...
Someone I know calls me "confused" because I am bisexual...
Any opinion?
That person is an ass.
Many times have I heard that heteorsexuality and homosexuality are just steps in the road to bisexuality. A road I traveled.

Actually if you're referring to my post, it went into a good bit more than that, and elaborated a bit on the otherwise overly simplistic explaination of "God said so." If you're refering to some other post, please disregard this reply.

I was referring to your post, but now that I think about it I realize my post didn't address yours well. Your post, if I understand it correctly (please tell me if I don't), said that homosexuality is evil because God said so, gave some examples of Him saying so, and then tried to guess at His reasons for saying so.

The part I overlooked was the guessing at His reasons. If God's reasons matter to you, then God doesn't really seem to be the final word. I mean, if you could prove that God was being irrational, wouldn't it be better to disobey Him and instead obey the principles by which He was trying to make decisions? Of course He couldn't make a mistake so that's silly, but if you could figure out His reasoning it would work just as well to follow His reasoning as His edicts.

The difference between "I base my morality on what God says" and "I base my morality on the same things as God" is the same as that between "I base my morality on what Socrates said (everything Socrates said is right is right, everything he said is wrong is wrong, and that's why they're right and wrong)" and "I agree with Socrates on the topic of morality."

Thus, it seems to me that since you believe God has reasons for making His decisions regarding morality, there must have been some sort of Morality even before he made decisions, and isn't that the real source of the distinction between good and evil?

Thus, it seems to me that since you believe God has reasons for making His decisions regarding morality, there must have been some sort of Morality even before he made decisions, and isn't that the real source of the distinction between good and evil?
That's a good way of saying God doesn't exist (even though he/she does)

Why are we having this debate? Shouldn't we just leave people to live their own lives with as little interference from government as possible? Should we not preach tolerance...hell, even acceptance? I can think of many other things that deserve debate. This is not one of them. Give these people their rights as promised by the U.S. Constitution. I don't want to go down in history as being part of the generation that was hypocritical and refused to treat people equally and fairly.

Funny. That's been my observation of the right. :) :-)
Funny that's my observation of every political party.

My objection is that it's unkind of you to refer to a book like the Bible as Science Fiction while at the same time demanding respect from those who cherish it.
i believe that the Chronicles of Narnia are fiction books, and i demand respect from those who cherish those books. i expect respect from people who believe that the Chronicles of Narnia are real, true, and the basis for all morality. i believe that people who think Aslan is real are crazy, but i don't think that excuses them from showing me respect. i don't think their belief in Aslan gives them the right to try to take away my legal status as an equal citizen of my country.

i believe Aslan is a fictional creation. i believe that people who think Aslan is real are either a) very young children b) cognitively equivalent to young children or c) mentally ill or disturbed. nobody has ever told me i am mean or bigotted for holding that opinion about Aslan-believers, yet for some reason people get up in arms when i make the exact same statement with "God" in place of "Aslan." why is that?

Why are we having this debate? Shouldn't we just leave people to live their own lives with as little interference from government as possible? Should we not preach tolerance...hell, even acceptance? I can think of many other things that deserve debate. This is not one of them. Give these people their rights as promised by the U.S. Constitution. I don't want to go down in history as being part of the generation that was hypocritical and refused to treat people equally and fairly.
Why? You ask why? Because we love a good debate and can meet people like ourselves (bi gay funny hetero) ;) :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

That's a good way of saying God doesn't exist (even though he/she does)
if there is any morality beyond God then God is not all-powerful or all-good by definition. if God is not all-good, then why should we worship Him? if God is not all-powerful then why should we obey his commands?

EDIT:

let me put it this way; if God specifically, clearly, and unequivocally told you that the ONLY way to be a truly good person (and get into heaven or whatever) was to torture, murder, and consume (raw) a bunch of kittens, would you believe that action was a good action because God told you that it was? now, replace "kittens" with "infants."

just some food for thought.

Thus, it seems to me that since you believe God has reasons for making His decisions regarding morality, there must have been some sort of Morality even before he made decisions, and isn't that the real source of the distinction between good and evil?

But that's the thing. God doesn't just come up with arbitraty judgments of what is moral and what isn't. If you notice, (and I realize you'll disagree with me on this but please bear with me) most things that are considered moral and ethical tend to be overall better for society. If God presented the Israelites with instructions either on the tablets or thorugh Moses, they tended to be the sorts of things that were good for the group as well as for individuals. It's not necessarily that one flows from the other, but they exist in harmony.

Good and Evil are not at all arbitraty. Good is what is best for society. It is selflessness for the benefit of your neighbor and community. Evil is selfishness to the detriment of community.

Where you and I would differ is in some of the items on the list. Homosexuality and fornication in general are sinful acts, and yet it might be hard to demonstrate why they are evil in the context of the society we live in today. I personally would argue that they are sins for a very good reason, but then that's the point of the debate.

So maybe a better way to fine tune the topic of discussion here is, Is homosexuality beneficial to society, harmful or neither?

if there is any morality beyond God then God is not all-powerful or all-good by definition. if God is not all-good, then why should we worship Him? if God is not all-powerful then why should we obey his commands?
Well God is all powerful so we don't have to worry about it.

for some reason people get up in arms when i make the exact same statement with "God" in place of "Aslan." why is that?

You've got to be kidding.

if there is any morality beyond God then God is not all-powerful or all-good by definition. if God is not all-good, then why should we worship Him? if God is not all-powerful then why should we obey his commands?

EDIT:

let me put it this way; if God specifically, clearly, and unequivocally told you that the ONLY way to be a truly good person (and get into heaven or whatever) was to torture, murder, and consume (raw) a bunch of kittens, would you believe that action was a good action because God told you that it was? now, replace "kittens" with "infants."

just some food for thought.
Then I wouldn't worship that god. Mainly becuase I wouldn't exist thanks to the devouring infants thing... :) :mp5:

i believe that the Chronicles of Narnia are fiction books, and i demand respect from those who cherish those books. i expect respect from people who believe that the Chronicles of Narnia are real, true, and the basis for all morality. i believe that people who think Aslan is real are crazy, but i don't think that excuses them from showing me respect. i don't think their belief in Aslan gives them the right to try to take away my legal status as an equal citizen of my country.

i believe Aslan is a fictional creation. i believe that people who think Aslan is real are either a) very young children b) cognitively equivalent to young children or c) mentally ill or disturbed. nobody has ever told me i am mean or bigotted for holding that opinion about Aslan-believers, yet for some reason people get up in arms when i make the exact same statement with "God" in place of "Aslan." why is that?
Good analogy C.S. would be proud.

[. . .]
Good and Evil are not at all arbitraty. Good is what is best for society. It is selflessness for the benefit of your neighbor and community. Evil is selfishness to the detriment of community.
[. . .]
So maybe a better way to fine tune the topic of discussion here is, Is homosexuality beneficial to society, harmful or neither?

Okay, good, you've clarified your position and it no longer depends wholly upon God.

I believe that homosexuality is beneficial to society. It is no more beneficial than heterosexuality, bisexuality, or any other foosexuality you can come up with: they all result in love, which brings people together, which builds unity, which is good.
In a world with a large population and many children without parents, generating offspring is no more beneficial than not unless everyone (or a large part thereof) starts not generating offspring. This seems unlikely (there is no evidence that the incidence of queerness has ever changed), so I have no reason to believe that homosexuality (and bisexuality &c) is any less beneficial or more detrimental to society than heterosexuality.

Then I wouldn't worship that god. Mainly becuase I wouldn't exist thanks to the devouring infants thing... :) :mp5:
so you believe there is a moral standard beyond God. if that is the case, why believe in any God? if God is not the source of morality, then God is not the ultimate Good, and in that case i don't see why you would worship God rather than simply pursuing the Good.

Okay, good, you've clarified your position and it no longer depends wholly upon God.


Well yes and no. I still believe that God is the ultimate source for these concepts, but since we don't all agree on the essence of God or even whether He exists, I have stated the position in a way that is more universally relevant.

I have other reasons that are directly theological in nature, and if you like I'll state them, but not for the sake of debate since again, we'd need a common frame of reference.

The whole assumption behind this debate is the actions of gay people, not their feelings. It's why it's possible for there to be gay men within the clergy in the Catholic Church. Since they take a vow of celibacy, their sexuality would be (ideally) irrelevant.
YOUR whole assumption is that
the original post was

Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. And dont give me any of this "there is no absolute truth, do whats 'right' to you" crap. I want an intellegent answer from someone out there.

homosexuality is a sexual orientation

so theres nothing wrong, in your mind, with BEING gay.

so only ACTIONS are immoral

so

is it immoral for one man to KISS another man?

is it immoral for one man to HUG another man romantically?

just WHERE does the level of action get to the stage of actual immorality?

and when you get to that stage just WHAT about it is immoral?

and, more to the point since a straight priest has to be celebate too, is it STILL immoral if you are married within your church? ( im as catholic as the next guy but i DO recognize that if you are married within a different faith your sexual relations are "moral")

Duchess Gloria Dowry Butch! Dewey dacha and trey posts from una maria in una day!


My original point on this particular item was that the leftist agenda tends to ridicule and criticize any opinion that disagrees with their own. Rather than respect someone else's right to believe what they will, and express themselves, the left (in this case some homosexual apologists) tend to become spiteful and resort to name calling rather than either agree to disagree, or disagree by stating their points in a civilized and mature manner.


"Homosexual Apologists"? Are these related to Nazi Apologists, Communist Apologists and Inquisition Apologists? Perhaps I should get a nice, clean blade with an orange, yellow, green, blue and purple hilt, then go do some things for someone to be apologetic about!

Utter tripe. Gay people are beaten, tortured, raped and killed on a regular basis even in the "civilised" world. People like the Catholic Church do not only say that they don't like gay people, they refuse us Communion, excommunicate us and issue statements to stop us getting the right to marry, to protest and march to have our rights taken away where we have been given them.

You scum, you maggots, you filth, you revolting hetero filthy scum-maggots, you make me sick, you fill the streets with your blatant and disgusting acts of heterosexuality, you hide away in your churches and bolt your doors and scream bloody murder when anyone different comes near, you fornicate, molest and fuck until the streets run thick with unwanted, unloved children and the blood of aborted foeti, you haggle amongst yourselves over the value of our lives, none of you listening or caring to what we want, you ask yourself, have our blades' thirsts for blood been quenched, have the soles of our jackboots worn smooth enough against the faces of homosexuals, HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YOU FUCKING SCUM?!

A central theme in Christianity is that of family. ... A homosexual couple, by definition, would be incapable of producing children. It is a situation where they are not contributing to the community in a way that is expected of them and thus they would be in the wrong. Thing is, aside from producing children that are the biological union of the parents, a homosexual couple can act in any other way as the parents of a family, including raising children. I fully agree that families are important, I just don't see why families with same-sex parents don't count.
Also, in situations where perhaps men or women who were in heterosexual marriages deviated outside the marriage to engage in acts with others, then they were guilty of succumbing to the weaknesses of the flesh. This is the same reason why adultery is considered sinful in general.Because it's a weakness of the flesh? Sounds like ascetism. (That and the prohibition against male masturbation). Not that there aren't other potential reasons to consider adultery sinful.
Morality is a lot like honor. It's when you do what's right even when nobody's looking. Homosexuality is not compatible with a healthy society for a myriad of reasons that we could get into later,
I would dispute that.
but for now suffice it to say that anything people do that is against the good of their community and fellow humans is considered immoral.Whereas this I would tend to agree with. Though it does raise the question of whether not contributing as much to the good of a community as expected is to be considered against the good of the community.

Yes; because "homosexual" is an extraneous label, coming from a mentality that recognizes it. Nature doesn't recognize it --it just goes with the flow.Would this not apply to any other word as well?

So maybe a better way to fine tune the topic of discussion here is, Is homosexuality beneficial to society, harmful or neither?I'd go for neither. But as homosexuality is "untreatable", I don't think this is a profitable line of inquiry. Better I think to ask is what should gays do, and what shouldn't they do? (asbestos pants time) Ashmoria's post is a start in that direction.

I have other reasons that are directly theological in nature, and if you like I'll state them, but not for the sake of debate since again, we'd need a common frame of reference.Yup. Pity that more people don't understand this.

Look first we're debating homosexuality then we're dicussing God? And some motherfucker is telling me what I believe. Well here goes.
The Big Fucking List of Levitical Laws
(Punishable by hell)
Eating meat on Fridays
Eating or touching a pig
Shaivng the hair around the dimples
Interaction with a woman during her period
Adultery
Owning a slave that is not from a bordering nation
Homosexuality

Look how far homosexuality was down on the list. Also these laws were only enforced under the OLD coven not after Jesus. So even according to the Bible it's now ok to be gay. Or half gay (like me)

You scum, you maggots, you filth, you revolting hetero filthy scum-maggots, you make me sick, you fill the streets with your blatant and disgusting acts of heterosexuality, you hide away in your churches and bolt your doors and scream bloody murder when anyone different comes near, you fornicate, molest and fuck until the streets run thick with unwanted, unloved children and the blood of aborted foeti, you haggle amongst yourselves over the value of our lives, none of you listening or caring to what we want, you ask yourself, have our blades' thirsts for blood been quenched, have the soles of our jackboots worn smooth enough against the faces of homosexuals, HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YOU FUCKING SCUM?!

And thus, my point is proven far beyond my capacity to ever do so on my own.

so you believe there is a moral standard beyond God. if that is the case, why believe in any God? if God is not the source of morality, then God is not the ultimate Good, and in that case i don't see why you would worship God rather than simply pursuing the Good.
Humor you dry assfuck.

Ok so is homosexuality actually "wrong." you tell me. And dont give me any of this "there is no absolute truth, do whats 'right' to you" crap. I want an intellegent answer from someone out there.



I never said there was no absolute truth. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. In fact, I believe there IS an absolute truth, and I believe that it is encumbant upon every individual to pursue and understand it.

Relativism only comes into play in a society where rights of different people to believe according to their conscience comes into play. In sicu a cirumstance, we are still obligated to search for truth, but not to force what we believe on others.

Humor you dry assfuck.
aren't you cute. careful, if Mommy catches you cussing she will take away your 'puter.

aren't you cute. careful, if Mommy catches you cussing she will take away your 'puter.
No mommie. I <3 my 'puter. It has an apple on it.

Look how far homosexuality was down on the list. Also these laws were only enforced under the OLD coven not after Jesus. So even according to the Bible it's now ok to be gay. Or half gay (like me)

Not so. Just for the record, homosexuality is forbidden in the New Testament. The difference is that the Christian Church was not a Theocracy and thus did not get into the business of punishments. Excommunication was typically the result of such behavior. Still is.

Humor you dry assfuck.

Flaming, hmm? Consider yourself WARNED!
Anything more like that from you, and I will forumban you for a length of time left to my discretion. Do I make myself clear?



http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EyeOfMyrth.jpg
Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

Better I think to ask is what should gays do, and what shouldn't they do? (asbestos pants time) Ashmoria's post is a start in that direction.

I would imagine that gays are subject to the same moral code that straights are, except in the case of relative morality and the different subcultures gay people are part of.
Since we were specifically asked not to consider relative morality, let's assume that gays and straights are subject to the same moral code.
So it seems to me that question boils down to "is it moral (good/right) to. . .
1. Love someone of your same sex.
2. Express your love, privately, for aforesaid person.
3. Express your love publically for aforesaid person (kissing, holding hands, &c).
4. Engage in sexual relations with someone of your same sex (in case someone doesn't think this falls under #2).
?

#1, I believe, in not under conscious control, and so not worth debating (comparable to debating the morality of having green eyes).
#2, if we accept the "what's good for society is good for your soul" definition of morality, seems neutral (no one knows about it, it can't hurt them).
I don't see a big difference between gay PDAs (public displays of affection) and straight PDAs, so I'd say #3 is as moral as expressing love for someone of a different sex.
#4, I think, falls under #2. I mostly separated it in case the Bible decries sodomy but not homosexual snuggling.

And thus, my point is proven far beyond my capacity to ever do so on my own.It was a rather ironic post. But not surprising; whether same-sex <whatever> is considered immoral has very real consequences, and our banter does not exactly reflect the gravity of the situation.

BTW, it would be helpful for you to repeat your opposition to gay-bashing. Such people tend to think they have the support of a silent majority. You are in a good position to disabuse this notion.

It was a rather ironic post. But not surprising; whether same-sex <whatever> is considered immoral has very real consequences, and our banter does not exactly reflect the gravity of the situation.

BTW, it would be helpful for you to repeat your opposition to gay-bashing. Such people tend to think they have the support of a silent majority. You are in a good position to disabuse this notion.

Very Well.

As everybody has noticed by now I am conservative, Christian and believe that Homosexuality is immoral.

At the same time, I believe that in the society in which we are blessed to live, it is wrong to impose one's beliefs on others, to include discrimination and bashing. As long as people's actions are within the framework of the law, they deserve at least the minimum respect accorded to any member of our society.

At the same time, it is necessary to point out that this respect must go both ways. As much as a homosexual man is entitled to live in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, so are those of us who disagree with his morality. To receive respect, one must extend it as well.

I never said there was no absolute truth. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. In fact, I believe there IS an absolute truth, and I believe that it is encumbant upon every individual to pursue and understand it.

Relativism only comes into play in a society where rights of different people to believe according to their conscience comes into play. In sicu a cirumstance, we are still obligated to search for truth, but not to force what we believe on others.
im sorry koldor, you have misunderstood me
the part that you quoted of what i said *see your post above to see what you quoted* WAS THE ORGINAL POST BY SOMEONE ELSE.
i didnt have it clearly marked so i see it was my fault that you misunderstood. THAT point was to show that i wasnt wrong in asking what is so "immoral" about a sexual orientation.....

id much rather you answer what i REALLY asked. which was AS FOLLOWS:


QUOTE
so theres nothing wrong, in your mind, with BEING gay.

so only ACTIONS are immoral

so

is it immoral for one man to KISS another man?

is it immoral for one man to HUG another man romantically?

just WHERE does the level of action get to the stage of actual immorality?

and when you get to that stage just WHAT about it is immoral?

and, more to the point since a straight priest has to be celebate too, is it STILL immoral if you are married within your church? ( im as catholic as the next guy but i DO recognize that if you are married within a different faith your sexual relations are "moral") UNQUOTE

Ok, I'm entering this spat a little late, I've read the past couple pages and will try to respond.


A) Homosexuals cannot have children.

I want to point out that recently scientists grew sperm from female stem cells and eggs from male stem cells.

Very soon, gay couples may have mutually biological children. Until then, there is always invitro and surrogate mothers...which many sterile hetero couples do and few people get too worked up over that.

It is a situation where they are not contributing to the community in a way that is expected of them and thus they would be in the wrong.

Again, many hetero couples simply do not want children (or are sterile and fine with it). Have they *failed* somehow society's expectations?

Should society even care how people run their private lives, or "expect" anything?

This is the same reason why adultery is considered sinful in general.

I thought adultery was wrong not because someone "succumbed to weakness" but because it hurts the partner who is cheated on. As well, do you feel masturbation is immoral?

So maybe a better way to fine tune the topic of discussion here is, Is homosexuality beneficial to society, harmful or neither?

I believe love is beneficial to society in all forms.

A) Homosexuals cannot have children.



i'm gay and i can have children thank you very much.

so theres nothing wrong, in your mind, with BEING gay.

so only ACTIONS are immoral

so

is it immoral for one man to KISS another man?

is it immoral for one man to HUG another man romantically?

just WHERE does the level of action get to the stage of actual immorality?

and when you get to that stage just WHAT about it is immoral?

and, more to the point since a straight priest has to be celebate too, is it STILL immoral if you are married within your church? ( im as catholic as the next guy but i DO recognize that if you are married within a different faith your sexual relations are "moral")

To the above series of questions it seems fairly clear that it's all about intent. Since you specified romantically then the answer is, to be consistent, yes.

Let's be reasonable. Either it's wrong or not. I don't think anybody here would say that it's okay to romantically smooch a guy and then draw the line at sex (assuming their objection is based upon homosexuality being wrong to begin with)

As to the priest issue, I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Are you talking about a gay couple "married" in say, a Methodist congregation being recognized by Catholicism?

An incredible sidestep from the original question. I applaude you.
1) no one has said anything negative about gays here yet.
2) It's obviously not "created" by nature, as everything else in nature works (aka reproduction)
3)Discrimination isnt the topic here. I'm not discriminating and I dont look down on any homosexuals.


Actually, homosexuality has been recorded among a number of other primate species... Gibbon monkeys, in particular. As far as the observers have been able to discern, it's related to the dominance order within the monkey troupe.

To the above series of questions it seems fairly clear that it's all about intent. Since you specified romantically then the answer is, to be consistent, yes.

Let's be reasonable. Either it's wrong or not. I don't think anybody here would say that it's okay to romantically smooch a guy and then draw the line at sex (assuming their objection is based upon homosexuality being wrong to begin with)

As to the priest issue, I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Are you talking about a gay couple "married" in say, a Methodist congregation being recognized by Catholicism?
so WHAT Is immoral about 2 men kissing romantically?
not SINFUL, not UNNATURAL, not YUCKY, but IMMORAL

my point is that its not immoral to not follow the dictates of the catholic church. when you go to church on sunday you do not consider your jewish friends immoral for not joining you. to be immoral for not following the dictates of a religion it would have to be that persons religion.

so if a gay anglican couple were married in the anglican church, would they still be immoral for enjoying the sexuality that has been "authorized" by their religion?

To the above series of questions it seems fairly clear that it's all about intent. Since you specified romantically then the answer is, to be consistent, yes.

Let's be reasonable. Either it's wrong or not. I don't think anybody here would say that it's okay to romantically smooch a guy and then draw the line at sex (assuming their objection is based upon homosexuality being wrong to begin with)

As to the priest issue, I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Are you talking about a gay couple "married" in say, a Methodist congregation being recognized by Catholicism?

or protestant priests being married, or even GAY protestant priests being married (in some parts of the world).

so WHAT Is immoral about 2 men kissing romantically?
not SINFUL, not UNNATURAL, not YUCKY, but IMMORAL

my point is that its not immoral to not follow the dictates of the catholic church. when you go to church on sunday you do not consider your jewish friends immoral for not joining you. to be immoral for not following the dictates of a religion it would have to be that persons religion.

so if a gay anglican couple were married in the anglican church, would they still be immoral for enjoying the sexuality that has been "authorized" by their religion?

That is a very excellent point, since for most people their concept of morality comes from their religion. Since some religions permit homosexual unions then indeed they would not be considered immoral within the context of that belief system.

However, one must also be aware that members of religions who do NOT permit homosexual unions would look at those churches as being apostate and misguided from the top down, which means from their perspective there is no moral justification.

That is a very excellent point, since for most people their concept of morality comes from their religion. Since some religions permit homosexual unions then indeed they would not be considered immoral within the context of that belief system.

However, one must also be aware that members of religions who do NOT permit homosexual unions would look at those churches as being apostate and misguided from the top down, which means from their perspective there is no moral justification.
yes i know what you mean
as an atheist catholic i am very well aware of the rules of religions being different from the rules of general society. and i personally have no problem with any religion deciding for "themselves" what their standards of morality are. (wellll unless they are totally bizarre and include human sacrifice)

I can speak for Christianity when I say that there are specific instances in both the Old and New Testament where homosexuality is specifically forbidden. Classified as a form of adultery it's considered generally more serious than fornication between a man and a woman.

Not all Christians believe that every word in the Bible is correct, so you do not speak for all Christians. Of course, I haven't found a single person who, when confronted with certain passages, actually does believe all passages of the Bible are correct.

In fact, during the time of the Old Testament it was an offense punishable by death.

So was wearing clothing made of two different fabrics. So was being raped in a town and not being saved. So was not bleeding on your wedding night (and no, this does not necessarily mean you are not a virgin). So was beating your slave to death - of course, if he survived for a day or two, you were off the hook since he belonged to you in the first place. Do you really think that all of those laws came directly from God?

In the New Testament is is described as an abomination, but like all sins it is one that can be forgiven and repented of.

It is described this way by Paul, who was also very chauvinistic, but was not even mentioned by Christ.

Obviously, if you're not a Christian this isn't relevant to you, so by all means ignore it. Please no flame attacks, I'm just answering the question.

I am a Christian and it is relevant to me, as I find it disturbing that those who profess belief in the Christian God also profess hate and try to force their religious views on others, rather than simply witnessing to them.

A homosexual couple, by definition, would be incapable of producing children. It is a situation where they are not contributing to the community in a way that is expected of them and thus they would be in the wrong.

Is a heterosexual couple who marry but decide not to have children equally wrong? Or is it really just the homosexual act that bothers you, and not the lack of children?

Also, in situations where perhaps men or women who were in heterosexual marriages deviated outside the marriage to engage in acts with others, then they were guilty of succumbing to the weaknesses of the flesh. This is the same reason why adultery is considered sinful in general.

Adultery is bad because it is harmful to your partner (therefore against the golden rule). However, this is completely irrelevant to a discussion about a monogomous homosexual relationship.

Morality is a lot like honor. It's when you do what's right even when nobody's looking. Homosexuality is not compatible with a healthy society for a myriad of reasons that we could get into later, but for now suffice it to say that anything people do that is against the good of their community and fellow humans is considered immoral.

There is no demonstration you could possibly give that a homosexual relationship is detrimental to society as a whole. In fact, if the couple isn't beaten up on the street just for being gay, they contribute just as much to the community as any other couple.

All of this is my own personal understanding. Ultimately it is God who defines what is sin and what isn't, and it is not my place to question His wisdom. I try and figure the wherefores and whys of it but if I can't then I rely on faith.

But you aren't really relying on faith. Faith requires introspection, prayer, and listening directly to the voice of God. You have based your faith entirely on the Bible, which is quite clearly a flawed document.

Now, if you disagree with me that's perfectly cool. I am not here to convince anybody. I am here to speak my mind, which I have just as much right to as any other person. No flame attacks, please.

You do have a right to your opinion, but never claim to be speaking for *all* of any particular group. Also, don't try to force your belief on those who may feel differently. That is all I ask.

yes i know what you mean
as an atheist catholic i am very well aware of the rules of religions being different from the rules of general society. and i personally have no problem with any religion deciding for "themselves" what their standards of morality are. (wellll unless they are totally bizarre and include human sacrifice)

but who decides what is totally bizarre? what is totally bizarre to you can be perfectly normal to someone else.

but who decides what is totally bizarre? what is totally bizarre to you can be perfectly normal to someone else.
since there was the word *I* all over that post, i am talking about MY judgement of whats totally bizarre and im NOT gonna apologize to my human sacrificing brothers for it.

You do have a right to your opinion, but never claim to be speaking for *all* of any particular group. Also, don't try to force your belief on those who may feel differently. That is all I ask.

You know, of all the replies I've gotten in this thread, this one irritates me the most. If you think I've been trying to force my beliefs on others then you have not been paying attention to my posts. I have repeatedly reinforced my view that it is wrong to push what you believe on others. I have not been doing so.

The post you responded to was a reply to someone's request for why it was considered immoral. I used references from the Bible because that is the common Christian belief source.

Also, for the record, my faith is not based upon the Bible in and of itself. The Bible is a document. I agree that some people worship the book and not the message. I am not such a person.

yes i know what you mean
as an atheist catholic i am very well aware of the rules of religions being different from the rules of general society. and i personally have no problem with any religion deciding for "themselves" what their standards of morality are. (wellll unless they are totally bizarre and include human sacrifice)

Forgive me, but what exactly is an "atheist catholic"?

You know, of all the replies I've gotten in this thread, this one irritates me the most. If you think I've been trying to force my beliefs on others then you have not been paying attention to my posts. I have repeatedly reinforced my view that it is wrong to push what you believe on others. I have not been doing so.

In this thread, no you have not. Of course, that's not what I said - what I said is please do not do it. But thank you so much for completely ignoring the bulk of my post - I'll remember to not take time answering your posts from now on.

Of course, I do seem to remember you arguing (in another thread) against state recognition of homosexual unions, which is, by definition, forcing your beliefs on others.

The post you responded to was a reply to someone's request for why it was considered immoral. I used references from the Bible because that is the common Christian belief source.

And you said that you spoke for Christianity - which was untrue - and could be construed as you trying to push your particular version of Christianity onto all other Christians.

Also, for the record, my faith is not based upon the Bible in and of itself. The Bible is a document. I agree that some people worship the book and not the message. I am not such a person.

Good. But then you must recognize that fact that the ideas that you come to through prayer and reflection may be different than those reached by another person - since human beings are fallible and all.

since there was the word *I* all over that post, i am talking about MY judgement of whats totally bizarre and im NOT gonna apologize to my human sacrificing brothers for it.

but everybody decides based upon their judgment. if a catholic priest condemns homosexuality, he/she does so based on his judgement that his/her church is right - but the catholic priest that does not condemn homosexuality does so based on his/her judgement that his/her church has made a mistake.

the frame of reference is in constant motion and development, and what was bizarre in the 1950s, 1960s or even just a decade ago is no longer bizarre - whilst things everyday in the middle ages (i.e having sex in front of your children is no counted as highly irregular behaviour)

Forgive me for bumping in without reading the rest of the discussion as I may repeat something that's been said in the last 28 pages.

Some sheep farmers discovered some of their male sheep were only having relations strictly with other males. This intrigued scientists that caught word and they disected the sheep and found that those particular sheep all had areas of their brain that were different from the male sheep that only made babies with females. If the same is true in humans, then then gay people cannot be blamed for thier sexual preference.

Besides, follow common sense. What human, if they could help it, go ahead and do something they've been taught all their life against? Even serial killers and abusive persons will only do what they do because of mental illness or growing up with the belief that violence is an appropiate problem solver because of it being demonstrated by parental units.

My $0.02, Proumdulcis.

Forgive me for bumping in without reading the rest of the discussion as I may repeat something that's been said in the last 28 pages.

Some sheep farmers discovered some of their male sheep were only having relations strictly with other males. This intrigued scientists that caught word and they disected the sheep and found that those particular sheep all had areas of their brain that were different from the male sheep that only made babies with females. If the same is true in humans, then then gay people cannot be blamed for thier sexual preference.

Besides, follow common sense. What human, if they could help it, go ahead and do something they've been taught all their life against? Even serial killers and abusive persons will only do what they do because of mental illness or growing up with the belief that violence is an appropiate problem solver because of it being demonstrated by parental units.

My $0.02, Proumdulcis.

you are right about the sheep thing. however, this isongoing research by some women somewhere in montana or something. her project was given due attention in a documentary on UK television with some american comedian hosting it for (i think) C4 on gay animals. it was aired about two years ago, and since then i have heard nothing more about it.

Some sheep farmers discovered some of their male sheep were only having relations strictly with other males. This intrigued scientists that caught word and they disected the sheep and found that those particular sheep all had areas of their brain that were different from the male sheep that only made babies with females. If the same is true in humans, then then gay people cannot be blamed for thier sexual preference.

Speaking of sheep - there are even more interesting tales to tell.

In bighorn sheep, the sheep segregate themselves into a male herd and a female herd which travel completely seperately. The males regularly engage in sex within their own herd, but if approached, a female will only allow a male to mount her if it is during the mating season. (Thus there is year-long homosexual sex, but only relatively occasional heterosexual sex). On top of that, there are male sheep that travel with the female herd and act in every way as a female. These sheep, like the females, will only allow males to mount them during mating season.

but everybody decides based upon their judgment. if a catholic priest condemns homosexuality, he/she does so based on his judgement that his/her church is right - but the catholic priest that does not condemn homosexuality does so based on his/her judgement that his/her church has made a mistake.

the frame of reference is in constant motion and development, and what was bizarre in the 1950s, 1960s or even just a decade ago is no longer bizarre - whilst things everyday in the middle ages (i.e having sex in front of your children is no counted as highly irregular behaviour)
very true
so what is a rational basis for deciding the MORALITY of homosexuality?

that being the subject of this thread

as far as im personally concerned, the same standards should apply for all sexual relationships. if its OK for a straight couple then its OK for a gay couple. i dont, for example, feel it is immoral for unmarried people to have consentual sex. those who DO find it immoral should find it as immoral for straights as for gays.

so it leads me to wonder on what basis anyone could find homosexuality IMMORAL. i can see sinful, i can certainly see "not my cup of tea", even "unnatural" (although what difference it should make if its natural or not i dont know)

Speaking of sheep - there are even more interesting tales to tell.

In bighorn sheep, the sheep segregate themselves into a male herd and a female herd which travel completely seperately. The males regularly engage in sex within their own herd, but if approached, a female will only allow a male to mount her if it is during the mating season. (Thus there is year-long homosexual sex, but only relatively occasional heterosexual sex). On top of that, there are male sheep that travel with the female herd and act in every way as a female. These sheep, like the females, will only allow males to mount them during mating season.

and speaking of mounting only in mating season: there is an island of new zealand somewhere in which all the seagulls are female and they live in couples, raise the young ones together, then mate with whatever young males there are when mating season comes around, and the extradite them from the island.

In this thread, no you have not. Of course, that's not what I said - what I said is please do not do it. But thank you so much for completely ignoring the bulk of my post - I'll remember to not take time answering your posts from now on.


Will it make you feel better to know that I'm answering it piecemeal? It was a long post.


Of course, I do seem to remember you arguing (in another thread) against state recognition of homosexual unions, which is, by definition, forcing your beliefs on others.

You are mistaken. I have not participated in any other threads related to this topic.


And you said that you spoke for Christianity - which was untrue - and could be construed as you trying to push your particular version of Christianity onto all other Christians.

I imagine it could be construed that way by someone who was looking to pick a fight. It could also be construed as a simple matter of me misspeaking.

Now as to the other...


So was wearing clothing made of two different fabrics. So was being raped in a town and not being saved. So was not bleeding on your wedding night (and no, this does not necessarily mean you are not a virgin). So was beating your slave to death - of course, if he survived for a day or two, you were off the hook since he belonged to you in the first place. Do you really think that all of those laws came directly from God?

Are you talking about actual Biblical text, or are you referring partially to later traditions constructed during the time of the Maccabees?


It is described this way by Paul, who was also very chauvinistic, but was not even mentioned by Christ.

This isn't really relevant. It would be impossible to capture everything He ever said in the space of those few chapters, and indeed the text itself points this out. Paul was an Apostle who was given revelation.


I am a Christian and it is relevant to me, as I find it disturbing that those who profess belief in the Christian God also profess hate and try to force their religious views on others, rather than simply witnessing to them.

This is the same sort of generalization you called me out on. Wouldn't it be more precise to say that there are many who do but not all Christians are like this?


Is a heterosexual couple who marry but decide not to have children equally wrong? Or is it really just the homosexual act that bothers you, and not the lack of children?


I never said this bothered me or not. I was simply putting out some cultural reasons why such things would have been wrong in the ancient times. Please, if you're going to insist on going through my post line by line and then insist I reply to each point, do take the time to make yourself fully aware of the context.


There is no demonstration you could possibly give that a homosexual relationship is detrimental to society as a whole. In fact, if the couple isn't beaten up on the street just for being gay, they contribute just as much to the community as any other couple.

I think this would have been better phrased as "There is no demonstration you could possibly give that I would accept...." By saying this you've already shown that your mind is not open to any reply I might give on this matter, which leads me to wonder why I should.


But you aren't really relying on faith. Faith requires introspection, prayer, and listening directly to the voice of God. You have based your faith entirely on the Bible, which is quite clearly a flawed document.

Here is where you made a couple of false assumptions about me that are not supported by anything I said in the posts. I do make use of the teachings of the Bible, yes, but my faith is based on far more than that, as is my understanding.

Now, I do agree that there are a great many flaws in the Bible, mostly related to omissions, so the reader has to be aware of context and so on, but it doesn't invalidate the message, and it doesn't make the Bible worthless.

No more evil words from Camel I swear. From now on a more toned down form of sarcasm for me.

very true
so what is a rational basis for deciding the MORALITY of homosexuality?

that being the subject of this thread

as far as im personally concerned, the same standards should apply for all sexual relationships. if its OK for a straight couple then its OK for a gay couple. i dont, for example, feel it is immoral for unmarried people to have consentual sex. those who DO find it immoral should find it as immoral for straights as for gays.

so it leads me to wonder on what basis anyone could find homosexuality IMMORAL. i can see sinful, i can certainly see "not my cup of tea", even "unnatural" (although what difference it should make if its natural or not i dont know)

you are right - all the way

and as for the question of what rationality to use; i don't know. i don't have an answer to that question. if i did, i would be the female noam chomsky. there is no framework that we can all agree on. the only thing we can do is accept each other for who we are and what we are - and for what we do as best we can - using our own framework. the problem only arises when a financially and influentially powerful framework of moral behaviour uses that power to try and influence politics in their favour.

Did anyone see Law and Order? It had a good thing on this issue.

And for those who think I have a an Apple it's Windows for me. Oh yeah.

You are right about the zoo animals, but it's not homosexual behaviour, its bisexual. In fact, all animals are bisexual. Humans are animals. Draw your own conclusions. In other words, nature created sexual behaviour. Some of it results in procreation, but that is obviously not the only reason to have sex (and I pity all who believe so). Human society created heterosexuality.

Tribes in South American and Asian jungles has proven to be completely bisexual when "discovered" by the "world".
An example where things went the other way is Greece, around 500BC. Where democracy was created, the purest form of sexual relation was considered to be that of an older man and a younger boy.
This shows that sexuality is greatly affected by social and moral standards.

Heh, I have another, somewhat extreme, example. I know a very good looking transsexual girl. Meaning she is a really hot chick, with a cute face, long, blonde hair and nice breasts... but also a penis.
She has told me about how she picks up men at bars, men who call themselves heterosexual. Even when they find out she is really a man, they still want to make out with her (she is hot). Once they make out with her, they will let her perform oral sex on them. And once a guy gets that kind of service, gender becomes irrelevant =) Almost all of them have actually ended up having sex with her.
Hmm, I digress here, but my point was that heterosexuality is in no way the most natural form of sexualilty. Nature is bisexual.
Oh, by the way, this is not an opinion, I am merely straightening out some of the very few facts we have available in this discussion =)

Did anyone see Law and Order? It had a good thing on this issue.

some of us are watching like series 'five years ago'................

Whoops well anyways synosis time. Guy who's been trying to prove that homosexuality is a mental disease walks in on his gay son having sex with another man, kills man.
I am Lube Dude hear me roar (wetly)

Whoops well anyways synosis time. Guy who's been trying to prove that homosexuality is a mental disease walks in on his gay son having sex with another man, kills man.
I am Lube Dude hear me roar (wetly)

point being???

It had a point which I forgot. Sorry. BTW it's not illegal gambling.

Doesn't everyone, at least once in their life, think about sexual activity with someone of the same sex? (If you don't admit it then your a liar!)

So what's wrong with it? You've thought about it! Might not be your cup of tea - but then 'straight' sex isn't everyone's first choice either!
I actually did. Those were the worst two weeks of my life, when I was afraid of being what I despise. Fortunately, i found some porn, looked at some breasts, and ... cured!

You are right about the zoo animals, but it's not homosexual behaviour, its bisexual. In fact, all animals are bisexual. Humans are animals. Draw your own conclusions. In other words, nature created sexual behaviour. Some of it results in procreation, but that is obviously not the only reason to have sex (and I pity all who believe so). Human society created heterosexuality.

Tribes in South American and Asian jungles has proven to be completely bisexual when "discovered" by the "world".
An example where things went the other way is Greece, around 500BC. Where democracy was created, the purest form of sexual relation was considered to be that of an older man and a younger boy.
This shows that sexuality is greatly affected by social and moral standards.

Heh, I have another, somewhat extreme, example. I know a very good looking transsexual girl. Meaning she is a really hot chick, with a cute face, long, blonde hair and nice breasts... but also a penis.
She has told me about how she picks up men at bars, men who call themselves heterosexual. Even when they find out she is really a man, they still want to make out with her (she is hot). Once they make out with her, they will let her perform oral sex on them. And once a guy gets that kind of service, gender becomes irrelevant =) Almost all of them have actually ended up having sex with her.
Hmm, I digress here, but my point was that heterosexuality is in no way the most natural form of sexualilty. Nature is bisexual.
Oh, by the way, this is not an opinion, I am merely straightening out some of the very few facts we have available in this discussion =)

i think you just pinpointed something very important: the only real facts that we have is that we are not alone (in the universe - kidding) in exhibiting homosexual behaviour - and if it is instinct for animals.......

I actually did. Those were the worst two weeks of my life, when I was afraid of being what I despise. Fortunately, i found some porn, looked at some breasts, and ... cured!

that's how i got "sick".................

I checked the past few pages...the usual bullshit.

1) Gay marriage is wrong because gays can't have kids.

You going to ban sterile hetero folk from marrying as well?

As well, gays can and often do have children through surrogates (as sterile hetero couples are known to do) and in the future may even be able to produce biological children (eggs were grown from male stem cells, and sperm from female stem cells...the implications of this are enormous).

2) The Bible-

Shut up.

Separation of Church and State

3) Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

So, whaddya gonna do, try to *cure* them? Imagine yourself being *turned* gay...not very likely, yes? Call homosexuality what you want, it doesn't change the fact that it is simply an orientation, and that is no reason to deny rights.


It's funny that people spend so much time and energy trying to ban gay marriage. Especially from so-called *Christians*...who apparently lost Christ's message of love and tolerance somewhere along the way during their obedience to the Bible.
Yes cure them. Make them repress the vile gene.(if it really is a disease). It's probably though, just a life choice.

that's how i got "sick".................
Oh, and my feelings towards lesbians are same as towars male homo's.

Oh, and my feelings towards lesbians are same as towars male homo's.

does it not worry you that you are spreading so much hate? don't you think that spreading hate makes this world a worse place?

Forgive me for bumping in without reading the rest of the discussion as I may repeat something that's been said in the last 28 pages.

Some sheep farmers discovered some of their male sheep were only having relations strictly with other males. This intrigued scientists that caught word and they disected the sheep and found that those particular sheep all had areas of their brain that were different from the male sheep that only made babies with females. If the same is true in humans, then then gay people cannot be blamed for thier sexual preference.

Besides, follow common sense. What human, if they could help it, go ahead and do something they've been taught all their life against? Even serial killers and abusive persons will only do what they do because of mental illness or growing up with the belief that violence is an appropiate problem solver because of it being demonstrated by parental units.

My $0.02, Proumdulcis.
Whoever said animals can't be sick/wrong?

does it not worry you that you are spreading so much hate? don't you think that spreading hate makes this world a worse place?
It did, but then i remembered: i am not a hippie.


P.S. a lot of months ago, I was even standing on death sentence for homosexuality. Today, I don't think they should be killed, but I am still against it.

This debate is sorta pointless. I will not convince anyone of you, you will not convince me.

I wish I could viciously flog anyone who actually believed that there should be specific laws governing who someone could love. Make no mistake about it, if you believe such laws should exist you deserve flogging, and you don't deserve food.

Whoever said animals can't be sick/wrong?

who made the sick/wrong?

I wish I could viciously flog anyone who actually believed that there should be specific laws governing who someone could love. Make no mistake about it, if you believe such laws should exist you deserve flogging, and you don't deserve food.

meet doom 777

I wish I could viciously flog anyone who actually believed that there should be specific laws governing who someone could love. Make no mistake about it, if you believe such laws should exist you deserve flogging, and you don't deserve food.
So if I love a 5-year old, that's all right?

who made the sick/wrong?
...
Homosexual people are sick/wrong. Didn't I already say that?

...
Homosexual people are sick/wrong. Didn't I already say that?

just a few times - my question is: who made us and the queer animals sick and wrong? what cause this sickness and wrongness?

So if I love a 5-year old, that's all right?
of course. but a five year old is not a consentual adult - and that love is not about sex.

Whoever said animals can't be sick/wrong?
nature. if homosexual behavior was a maladaptive trait it would not be present in so many different species. research has proven that homosexual behavior is advantageous in a variety of contexts for a variety of reasons, and therefore it is not wrong by any biological standards.

if you believe there is some other criterion for "wrongness" than functional success, you are going to have to defend it. be prepared to show how your system is necessarily better than any alternate system presented.

nature. if homosexual behavior was a maladaptive trait it would not be present in so many different species. research has proven that homosexual behavior is advantageous in a variety of contexts for a variety of reasons, and therefore it is not wrong by any biological standards.

if you believe there is some other criterion for "wrongness" than functional success, you are going to have to defend it. be prepared to show how your system is necessarily better than any alternate system presented.

that's what i've been trying to get doom to do

thank you bottle for your eloquence

So if I love a 5-year old, that's all right?
if you love a five year old that would be a wonderful thing, because your love would prevent you from harming that child in any way. if you love a child, you would never be able to engage in the act of physical love with them because such a harmful act would be incompatible with your feelings for the child.

just a few times - my question is: who made us and the queer animals sick and wrong? what cause this sickness and wrongness?
Our amazing fashion sense perhaps? I know I'm really helping but y'all are kinda' depressing.

just a few times - my question is: who made us and the queer animals sick and wrong? what cause this sickness and wrongness?
Sorry for the long reply time -- very bad bandwidth atm.

Again, bodies are designed to be heterosexual. I hope i am not pushing this too far. In addition to the child problem, a penis is designed to enter vagina -- they are similar in size, and vagina's have natural lubrication and all. A penis is not designed for the anus -- the anus is too small, there are a lot of close veins which leads to a lot of bleeding. Furthermore, it's in people's genes to seek the opposite sex. Homosexuality goes against all that. Add to this the religion factor.

nature. if homosexual behavior was a maladaptive trait it would not be present in so many different species. research has proven that homosexual behavior is advantageous in a variety of contexts for a variety of reasons, and therefore it is not wrong by any biological standards.

if you believe there is some other criterion for "wrongness" than functional success, you are going to have to defend it. be prepared to show how your system is necessarily better than any alternate system presented.


If you're going to hold your opponents to that standard of evidence then I insist you adhere to it as well. Please cite the research that proves the biological advantage of homosexual behavior.

Blindness is a flaw found amongst many different species. Is it therefore not maladaptive?

Heh, I have another, somewhat extreme, example. I know a very good looking transsexual girl. Meaning she is a really hot chick, with a cute face, long, blonde hair and nice breasts... but also a penis.
She has told me about how she picks up men at bars, men who call themselves heterosexual. Even when they find out she is really a man, they still want to make out with her (she is hot). Once they make out with her, they will let her perform oral sex on them. And once a guy gets that kind of service, gender becomes irrelevant =) Almost all of them have actually ended up having sex with her.

Now the situation is getting complicated. The girl of the story (I'll call her Samantha, which is most likely not her real name, to protect her privacy) sleeps with men. Woman sleeping with men: big whoop. You attach significance to this because you believe that "she is really a man." That's a great disservice to Samantha, because I'm sure she considers herself "really a woman." She dresses like a woman, acts like a woman, probably has a lot of estrogen and not much testosterone like a woman, considers herself a woman. . . indeed, she is a woman in all but her genitalia and her genes.

Clearly, you think genitalia have something to do with sexuality ;). They do, mind you, but they're only part of the puzzle. In this case, I think other aspects of Samantha are what attract the guys in bars, and I would not consider sexual activity between them to be homosexual, nor bisexual.

Since Samantha told you this story, I suspect she may have offered her opinion of the "'heterosexual' men" (note double quotation marks), and I would be very interested to hear it.

Blindness is a flaw found amongst many different species. Is it therefore not maladaptive?

(Genetic) blindness is typically caused by mutation. One or more of the genes that codes for the pigments in the retina is damaged, causing the protein it encodes not to fold properly and thus, not to function properly.

Homosexuality is not likely a mutation. Its incidence is much much higher than one would expect of a mutation, unless there is a plethora of large proteins needed for heterosexuality, and in their absence one is homosexual. The idea that there are proteins that make you heterosexual is an odd one, because before those proteins were evolved, everything would be homosexual, and 100% homosexuality in a population is maladaptive and would not allow the evolution necessary to develop these supposed "heterosexuality proteins."

It seems safe to say that homosexuality is not caused by a mutation, and thus not comparable to blindess.

If you're going to hold your opponents to that standard of evidence then I insist you adhere to it as well. Please cite the research that proves the biological advantage of homosexual behavior.

Blindness is a flaw found amongst many different species. Is it therefore not maladaptive?

first of all, i don't believe there is any objective criterion for "wrongness" beyond functional success, so if you are going to hold me to the same standards that i set forth then your job is done...remember, i said "if you believe there is some other criterion for "wrongness" than functional success, you are going to have to defend it. be prepared to show how your system is necessarily better than any alternate system presented." so if you are going to apply my rules to my position, then i don't have to defend a thing because i am not proposing an alternate standard of wrongness :).

however, i am much nicer than that.

i cannot possibly post all the evidence showing homosexuality to be adaptive...it would take pages and pages. there are textbooks on the subject. if you visit the other running thread on homosexuality i have posted some snippets of the research that has been done, but i don't feel like retyping that mess right now (it's very late, and i am about to toddle off to bed).

to address blindness: it is very easy to demonstrate in any animal species that blindness is maladaptive, unless one is looking at species specifically designed for blindness (such as molerats, bats, etc, in which blindness is a positive trait). with the exception of humans, blindness is virtually NEVER found to be naturally occuring in wild animal populations; the only blind animals found in the wild are blind as a result of injury, not because they were born with that trait, and blind animals do not survive long. when an animal in the wild is born blind it is due to a detrimental mutation in their genes, and that animal will not survive to reproduce and pass on the mutation.

on the other hand, as i showed on the other thread, homosexuality in animals often increases reproductive fitness. part of the reason people fail to grasp this is that most people believe reproductive fitness is measured by how many young you pump out; in fact, reproductive fitness is measured by how many of your young survive to reproduce. for example, if you have 10 kids but not a single one lives long enough to reproduce, your fitness is lower than that of somebody who only produces one child but successfully rears that child to adulthood. in the animal kingdom, there are many measured ways that homosexual behavior increases an individual's likelihood of passing on their genetic material...again, i detailed many of those on the other homosexuality thread, some place around page 55 or so i think, and i may be able to re-type them here tomorrow.

feel free to TM me if you have any specific questions that you would like me to answer; i have a minor specialty in evolutionary modeling, so i am up on a lot of the current research in the field.

Our amazing fashion sense perhaps? I know I'm really helping but y'all are kinda' depressing.

we are not depressing, we are being serious........ lighthearted lube.

I've read the first few pages of this stupid thread and if the other 30-something pages are like the first few, then I must say this is the longest string of stupidity I have ever seen. Its mainly a bunch of homosexuals declaring superiority over everyone else and making up facts to back it up. Homosexuality is a choice, not a race and its the wrong choice. I'm not saying gays should be discriminated against, I'm just saying that homosexuality should be treated like smoking: Allowed but discouraged. That's all there is to it.

I've read the first few pages of this stupid thread and if the other 30-something pages are like the first few, then I must say this is the longest string of stupidity I have ever seen. Its mainly a bunch of homosexuals declaring superiority over everyone else and making up facts to back it up. Homosexuality is a choice, not a race and its the wrong choice. I'm not saying gays should be discriminated against, I'm just saying that homosexuality should be treated like smoking: Allowed but discouraged. That's all there is to it.

scuse me, but i don't think anybody here has declared superiority other than doom and yourself.

i aplaud and agree with Xeronista, but at the begining the original author basically said he wanted a strait out answer and not beating around the bush.

i think being gay is wrong and if they are still gay and havn't repented when they die that they are going to burn in HELL with the devil :D

for those who don't know the devil is being punished in hell to, he doesn't rule the place like movies would like you to believe.

little nicky is a tight movie though.

i aplaud and agree with Xeronista, but at the begining the original author basically said he wanted a strait out answer and not beating around the bush.

i think being gay is wrong and if they are still gay and havn't repented when they die that they are going to burn in HELL with the devil :D

for those who don't know the devil is being punished in hell to, he doesn't rule the place like movies would like you to believe.

little nicky is a tight movie though.

you dazzle me with your brilliance

Homosexuality is a choice

Why would someone choose to subject themselves to the hatred of his fellow man? Why would he choose to be unable to legally marry? Why choose to divide the number of potential partners available to oneself by about 9?

Homosexuality is not a choice. If it were, since it is so clearly not a good choice to make in this society, no one would make it.

I've read the first few pages of this stupid thread and if the other 30-something pages are like the first few, then I must say this is the longest string of stupidity I have ever seen. Its mainly a bunch of homosexuals declaring superiority over everyone else and making up facts to back it up. Homosexuality is a choice, not a race and its the wrong choice. I'm not saying gays should be discriminated against, I'm just saying that homosexuality should be treated like smoking: Allowed but discouraged. That's all there is to it.
Yes.

Why would someone choose to subject themselves to the hatred of his fellow man? Why would he choose to be unable to legally marry? Why choose to divide the number of potential partners available to oneself by about 9?

Homosexuality is not a choice. If it were, since it is so clearly not a good choice to make in this society, no one would make it.
Why do people become nazis, or KKK members? People still hate those groups.

Yes.

most of the stupidity provided by yourself

Why do people become nazis, or KKK members? People still hate those groups.

that's hilarious. you are compating gay people to the KKK? i think you just lost it.

Homosexuality is not likely a mutation. Its incidence is much much higher than one would expect of a mutation, unless there is a plethora of large proteins needed for heterosexuality, and in their absence one is homosexual. The idea that there are proteins that make you heterosexual is an odd one, because before those proteins were evolved, everything would be homosexual, and 100% homosexuality in a population is maladaptive and would not allow the evolution necessary to develop these supposed "heterosexuality proteins."

This assumes that 100% of the cases of homosexuality among humans is accountable by biology. Now, I know people have a myriad of opinions on this subject, but even those who advocate a biological explanation for homosexual tendencies would be taking a leap to say that it is applicable in all cases.

With that said, the incidence becomes questionable.

If proteins are not involved then why discuss it? Since so many people seem to have read up on this then I'd invite them to chime in on hereditary/biological factors.

virgin you arn't going to be very effective in your arguments if you call people stupid., or saying they have lost it.

and for kkk, nazis, exe...

i hate them to.

i think the kk,nazis, gays, exe, are the work of satan.

first of all, i don't believe there is any objective criterion for "wrongness" beyond functional success, so if you are going to hold me to the same standards that i set forth then your job is done...remember, i said "if you believe there is some other criterion for "wrongness" than functional success, you are going to have to defend it. be prepared to show how your system is necessarily better than any alternate system presented." so if you are going to apply my rules to my position, then i don't have to defend a thing because i am not proposing an alternate standard of wrongness :).

however, i am much nicer than that.

i cannot possibly post all the evidence showing homosexuality to be adaptive...it would take pages and pages. there are textbooks on the subject. if you visit the other running thread on homosexuality i have posted some snippets of the research that has been done, but i don't feel like retyping that mess right now (it's very late, and i am about to toddle off to bed).

to address blindness: it is very easy to demonstrate in any animal species that blindness is maladaptive, unless one is looking at species specifically designed for blindness (such as molerats, bats, etc, in which blindness is a positive trait). with the exception of humans, blindness is virtually NEVER found to be naturally occuring in wild animal populations; the only blind animals found in the wild are blind as a result of injury, not because they were born with that trait, and blind animals do not survive long. when an animal in the wild is born blind it is due to a detrimental mutation in their genes, and that animal will not survive to reproduce and pass on the mutation.

on the other hand, as i showed on the other thread, homosexuality in animals often increases reproductive fitness. part of the reason people fail to grasp this is that most people believe reproductive fitness is measured by how many young you pump out; in fact, reproductive fitness is measured by how many of your young survive to reproduce. for example, if you have 10 kids but not a single one lives long enough to reproduce, your fitness is lower than that of somebody who only produces one child but successfully rears that child to adulthood. in the animal kingdom, there are many measured ways that homosexual behavior increases an individual's likelihood of passing on their genetic material...again, i detailed many of those on the other homosexuality thread, some place around page 55 or so i think, and i may be able to re-type them here tomorrow.

feel free to TM me if you have any specific questions that you would like me to answer; i have a minor specialty in evolutionary modeling, so i am up on a lot of the current research in the field.

I find that post very interesting but I would point out that it is not reasonable to make the assertion that blindness NEVER occurs in the natural world at birth, since, as you said, the animals don't live long so it would be much more difficult to observe them. I would be curious as to why it would occur in humans and not in any other species.

that's hilarious. you are compating gay people to the KKK? i think you just lost it.
Order for debating online:

Read statement.
Read my response.
Write your own response.
Don't skip the first part.

virgin you arn't going to be very effective in your arguments if you call people stupid., or saying they have lost it.

and for kkk, nazis, exe...

i hate them to.

i think the kk,nazis, gays, exe, are the work of satan.

just running commentary. none of you guys are saying anything that hasn't been covered - and doom has a tendency to just throw out wild statements without even trying to explain them with any kind of rational or reason.
and as for being the work of satan and being grouped with haters - and that includes you -, at least i don't hate anybody, and if satan made me, well, that still makes it natural, and therefore not wrong, to be gay then......

I've read the first few pages of this stupid thread and if the other 30-something pages are like the first few, then I must say this is the longest string of stupidity I have ever seen. Its mainly a bunch of homosexuals declaring superiority over everyone else and making up facts to back it up.

There's some heterosexuals as well that see no problem with homosexuality...are you saying that I am declaring homo-superiority as well? Doesn't make much sense. Were the whites who marched alongside blacks in the 50s declaring black superiority?

Homosexuality is a choice, not a race and its the wrong choice. I'm not saying gays should be discriminated against, I'm just saying that homosexuality should be treated like smoking: Allowed but discouraged. That's all there is to it.


When I hear a single gay say they chose to be homosexual, then I will consider it. Until then, it's just tons of heterosexuals saying it's a choice, and homosexuals saying it's not...and on this I'll trust the homosexuals.

And I like your brilliant analogy of gayness to smoking, it shows real thought.

virgin you arn't going to be very effective in your arguments if you call people stupid., or saying they have lost it.

and for kkk, nazis, exe...

i hate them to.

i think the kk,nazis, gays, exe, are the work of satan.
yea, except i am jewish, so I don't think satan is evil. But they are defined as people who made very questionable life choices.

hmm... heredity.

i've heard a teacher say that in some homosexual cases there is a gene or somethin that is shorter in them.

genes can affect you alot, but after your mind has started thinking for itself when your born, then its a choice cause after your past 2-3 years old your genes stop making you thoughts for you.

and yes i am a hatter, but i am also willing to have civilized arguments.

scuse me, but i don't think anybody here has declared superiority other than doom and yourself.

Not to defend the hate mongering, but I don't recall seeing anywhere in that post where they claimed superiority as such, at least, no more than most other posters on here. If you want credibility you have to base your rebuttals on their actual argument.

When I hear a single gay say they chose to be homosexual, then I will consider it. Until then, it's just tons of heterosexuals saying it's a choice, and homosexuals saying it's not...and on this I'll trust the homosexuals.

First of all, murderers can say they never chose to kill. Will you believe them? What makes the situation different.
SEcond, even if it is a mental disease, then they should repress it.

hmm... heredity.

i've heard a teacher say that in some homosexual cases there is a gene or somethin that is shorter in them.

genes can affect you alot, but after your mind has started thinking for itself when your born, then its a choice cause after your past 2-3 years old your genes stop making you thoughts for you.

and yes i am a hatter, but i am also willing to have civilized arguments.

it is not all about thought - it's about feelings, it's about love - and also, if one leg is shorter than the other, and this is genetic, think it's gonna grow if you stop thinking about it after the age of like 3? do you see how unreasonable this argument is?

it is not all about thought - it's about feelings, it's about love - and also, if one leg is shorter than the other, and this is genetic, think it's gonna grow if you stop thinking about it after the age of like 3? do you see how unreasonable this argument is?
But homosexulity, if indeed a defect, is not a physical defect, but a psychological one.

First of all, murderers can say they never chose to kill. Will you believe them? What makes the situation different.
SEcond, even if it is a mental disease, then they should repress it.

why should we repress? who am i hurting by any of many actions?

Not to defend the hate mongering, but I don't recall seeing anywhere in that post where they claimed superiority as such, at least, no more than most other posters on here. If you want credibility you have to base your rebuttals on their actual argument.

well, generally being told that i am going to hell does imply that someone thinks they are better than you - so superiority complex.

First of all, murderers can say they never chose to kill. Will you believe them? What makes the situation different.
SEcond, even if it is a mental disease, then they should repress it.


You are comparing homosexuality to murderers? Now who's grabbing at straws?

But homosexulity, if indeed a defect, is not a physical defect, but a psychological one.

i never implied that anything was a defect - i was talking pure genetics. my one leg is 2 centimeters shorter than the other. not noticeable, never has affected me in any way.
and as for phsyocology - you think that feeling that you get insidide when you think you are just gonna burst is purely physocological? you think an orgasm is not physical?

why should we repress? who am i hurting by any of many actions?
Finally, you reach the best argument for homosexuality: the ONLY one i stumble upon when see.
Perhaps an answer goes like this:
the more gays there are, the more people think it's ok to be gay, and experiment with it. If half your highschool was gay, there woudl be much more higher percentage of gay-simpathisers in the reamining, then if all of high school was straight. Since some are bound to like it, they turn gay. Thus, homosexuality spreads out. If all of human kind goes homosexual, its going to die out without reproduction. Of course you can say, like Femininty on international incidents, that sperm is to be produced by some bacteria, but that is also dangerous, as A) it makes men useless for reproduction, and B) if bacteria mutate, that's the end of that.

i never implied that anything was a defect - i was talking pure genetics. my one leg is 2 centimeters shorter than the other. not noticeable, never has affected me in any way.
and as for phsyocology - you think that feeling that you get insidide when you think you are just gonna burst is purely physocological? you think an orgasm is not physical?
A fully straight man can have sex with a man, and experience an orgasm. that doesn't make them gay, that makes their penises stimulated enough to achieve it. Also, feelings can be repressed: just think of all the people that became gay at the age of 50+. If they are indeed born with it, then they have supressed it for 50 years successfully.

Why do people become nazis, or KKK members? People still hate those groups.

Not nearly as many people choose to join such groups as "choose" to be gay, and they tend to have reasons.
Nazis presumably believe that Nazism is a legitimate political ideology that is, in fact, the best one around, and therefore doesn't deserve the bad rap it's gotten and needs more supporters for the good of the whole world.
Klansmen are more complicated, but presumably the harbor a burning hatred for people not like they are, so hanging around with a bunch of other people just like them and torturing people not like them is right up their alley. Probably the only people who disapprove of the Klan are not like Klansmen (that is, they aren't ultra-conservative, Christian, rural, white males), and thus their opinions don't matter to Klansmen.

That said, I've never done interviews but suspect that 99% of Nazis and Klansmen will admit to having chosen to join that organization, and <1% of gays will admit to having chosen that sexual orientation.

This assumes that 100% of the cases of homosexuality among humans is accountable by biology. . .

The statements were made in the context of homosexuality as a (mal)adaptive trait. That's all about biology. If homosexuality is a choice or product of upbringing (and said upbringing is not defined entirely by genetics), then it is not any sort of trait relevant to evolution or genetics.

you said that you hadn't heard of homo's making a choice to be homo's,

i have, it's called people who are in jail and miss sex, so they will do anyone

okay i'm in a mixed and diverse town, (hatter=someone who isn't afraid to voice there oppinion and say if they think somethings wrong=someone who goes against popular opinions on current events/arguments)

for example,

everyone kinda says their opinion to degree, then they say "but i'm not against it"

i'll strait out say if i'm against something, like i hate homosexuality.

but i'm still willing to debate things.

Finally, you reach the best argument for homosexuality: the ONLY one i stumble upon when see.
Perhaps an answer goes like this:
the more gays there are, the more people think it's ok to be gay, and experiment with it. If half your highschool was gay, there woudl be much more higher percentage of gay-simpathisers in the reamining, then if all of high school was straight. Since some are bound to like it, they turn gay. Thus, homosexuality spreads out. If all of human kind goes homosexual, its going to die out without reproduction. Of course you can say, like Femininty on international incidents, that sperm is to be produced by some bacteria, but that is also dangerous, as A) it makes men useless for reproduction, and B) if bacteria mutate, that's the end of that.

So you're telling me...that all of human kind is in danger of "turning gay", that homosexuality is like a virus, once it gets out of control, left and right die-hard heteros will be succumbing to it, and be raging flaming homos?

Could you imagine yourself "turning gay"? Probably not.

Finally, you reach the best argument for homosexuality: the ONLY one i stumble upon when see.
Perhaps an answer goes like this:
the more gays there are, the more people think it's ok to be gay, and experiment with it. If half your highschool was gay, there woudl be much more higher percentage of gay-simpathisers in the reamining, then if all of high school was straight. Since some are bound to like it, they turn gay. Thus, homosexuality spreads out. If all of human kind goes homosexual, its going to die out without reproduction. Of course you can say, like Femininty on international incidents, that sperm is to be produced by some bacteria, but that is also dangerous, as A) it makes men useless for reproduction, and B) if bacteria mutate, that's the end of that.

the issue is lost - there are plenty of liberlaly minded, gay-friendly countries out there where generally, gay- haters do not exist, yet there is no evidence that a higher percentage of these populations are gay.

you said that you hadn't heard of homo's making a choice to be homo's,

i have, it's called people who are in jail and miss sex, so they will do anyone

okay i'm in a mixed and diverse town, (hatter=someone who isn't afraid to voice there oppinion and say if they think somethings wrong=someone who goes against popular opinions on current events/arguments)

for example,

everyone kinda says their opinion to degree, then they say "but i'm not against it"

i'll strait out say if i'm against something, like i hate homosexuality.

but i'm still willing to debate things.

that's not 'turning homo' - that is just having the need for physical stimulation and the touch of another human being - a sensation (thouch in general) that is underrated as a human need.

oo, and so that jews understand me when i use satan and hell.

satan and hell are like baal for you jewish people.

and the old testement does include hell, so i don't think i will have to explain that