NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

*sigh*

Is homosexuality wrong?

No.

/thread

Very wrong.*



*Please take with copious amounts of sarcasm.

No.

I have no idea how to answer the title question (wrong in what regard?), but it's a safe bet the answer's going to be "no".

Unless it's meant in a sense such as "Is homosexuality (the) wrong (way to make babies)?" or "Is homosexuality (the) wrong (answer to the question "Who won the Battle of Bull Run")?" or something, which I rather doubt.

No, how can a thing you're born with and have no choice about be wrong? That's like saying someone's hair colour is wrong.

Is homosexuality wrong?

No.


Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

Nope.

Whether it is a choice or not... it's fine.

Is liking chocolate ice cream wrong?

That's like saying someone's hair colour is wrong.

Yours is.

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

I see. So, being elderly is immoral, huh? Not to mention those disgusting "toddlers" - I mean, if being a toddler weren't wrong, two toddlers would be able to conceive a baby!

I think the real question is - is a three-way involving myself and two women wrong?

If it is, I don't want to be right.

Yours is.

*Punches*

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

Haha, epic fail.

Not. At. All.

You're born with it, so it's not wrong. Why would religious people like the TC think that "God's" will is wrong?

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

I see. So, being elderly is immoral, huh? Not to mention those disgusting "toddlers" - I mean, if being a toddler weren't wrong, two toddlers would be able to conceive a baby!

Not to mention the infertile...smitten down by God for their immoralness!

*Punches*

There is no need to get violent with me, I just happen to be pointing out your major character flaws like your wrong hair colour. It is call constructive criticism, you should be thanking me. Also, work on that funny wheezing sound you make when you exhale.

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

Homosexuality is the wrong way to conceive children, obviously. It is, however, perfectly right for homosexuals. (If you meditate for a sufficiently long time and don't find that homosexuality is right for you, you might be heterosexual. It's not a big deal, though; lots of people are heterosexual, and most of them make it through life just fine.)

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

Two toasters cannot conceive a baby.

Toasters are wrong.

Two decorative pillowcases cannot conceive a baby.

Pillowcases are wrong.

Two helium atoms cannot conceive a baby.

Helium is wrong.

Two internets cannot conceive a baby.

The Internet is wrong.

Two dingle nations cannot conceive a baby.

Dingle nation is wrong.

Why do people want to attach concepts of right and wrong to gender preference? Unless your actions cause damage to another, it's neutral.

Well, altough it's not procreative, morally (as it's the selfish pursuit of personal happiness) it's not wrong at all. Not necessarily what everyone considers pleasure, but so what? If you don't want to do it then you probably don't have to.

Incidently, if the only arguement is that it's wrong because it isn't a procreative action... Well, there are quite a few things men and women can do together in the sexual realm that produce no children... Just saying...

No, how can a thing you're born with and have no choice about be wrong? That's like saying someone's hair colour is wrong.

It could be a subconscious decision you make. It could be different for everyone. But no I do not think it wrong at all.

Two toasters cannot conceive a baby.

Toasters are wrong.

Two decorative pillowcases cannot conceive a baby.

Pillowcases are wrong.

Two helium atoms cannot conceive a baby.

Helium is wrong.

Two internets cannot conceive a baby.

The Internet is wrong.

Two dingle nations cannot conceive a baby.

Dingle nation is wrong.

Uber win.

I see. So, being elderly is immoral, huh? Not to mention those disgusting "toddlers" - I mean, if being a toddler weren't wrong, two toddlers would be able to conceive a baby!


Don’t be a dick toddlers cant physically conceive a baby because they are not fully mature but when they mature they can toddlers are still human they are not separate sexualities like straight and gay. Elderly people can usually no longer have babies because the mother runs out of eggs, not because they have a lack of sperm or eggs during sex.

Why the hell would you compare toddlers to gay people?
And why the hell would you compare elderly people to gay people?

Depends on what you mean.

And what you believe.

Is the simple state of being gay wrong? (By "wrong" I assume you mean "immoral")

The answer is no. Immorality is a conscious choice and if an individual is either born with or through some combination of factors in life acquires an attraction to the same sex, that isn't controlled. Feelings are feelings. That can't be evaluated as immoral.

However, certain belief systems include a morality in which the act of sex between partners of the same sex is considered immoral. Partly because such an act is, by definition fornication in a belief system that doesn't recognize gay marriage, and partly because in such belief systems marriage is an institution specifically designed for the conception and rearing of children within the structure of a family. Since two people of the same sex cannot conceive a child, it falls outside of that structure.

The important thing to note here is that while many such belief systems teach that homosexual activity is immoral, simply having those feelings is not. A common misconception, even among members of those systems, is that simply being gay is in and of itself immoral. This is not true. Actions define an individual's morality, not their feelings.

Of course, if one doesn't subscribe to any of those belief systems then there's no issue either way.

I stated that as neutrally as I can. I'll still get flamed, but meh.

I am a member of a church that teaches us that homosexual activity is a sin. (Not the attraction, the activity.)

Don’t be a dick toddlers cant physically conceive a baby because they are not fully mature but when they mature they can toddlers are still human they are not separate sexualities like straight and gay. Elderly people can usually no longer have babies because the mother runs out of eggs, not because they have a lack of sperm or eggs during sex.

Why the hell would you compare toddlers to gay people?
And why the hell would you compare elderly people to gay people?

Why the hell would you start a boring, trollish, unsophisticated and unnuanced thread?

Don’t be a dick toddlers cant physically conceive a baby because they are not fully mature but when they mature they can toddlers are still human they are not separate sexualities like straight and gay. Elderly people can usually no longer have babies because the mother runs out of eggs, not because they have a lack of sperm or eggs during sex.

Why the hell would you compare toddlers to gay people?
And why the hell would you compare elderly people to gay people?

Why do we have to separate people out just in order to make invidious comparisons?

And why the hell would you compare elderly people to gay people?

I want to field this one.

Because it's icky to think about either group having sex.

*rimshot*

I want to field this one.

Because it's icky to think about either group having sex.

*rimshot*

Which explains the complete lack of a market for gay and lesbian porn.

How did I know this:

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

Would end with this:

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

Two toasters cannot conceive a baby.

Toasters are wrong.

Two decorative pillowcases cannot conceive a baby.

Pillowcases are wrong.

Two helium atoms cannot conceive a baby.

Helium is wrong.

Two internets cannot conceive a baby.

The Internet is wrong.

Two dingle nations cannot conceive a baby.

Dingle nation is wrong.

True none of these can create a baby but if a man and a woman were to have regular sex then they could conceive a baby remove either the man or the women and replace so as to create a single sex relationship they cannot have babies between them.

Dingle? Did you make this thread because you are insecure about your own sexuality?:p

Which explains the complete lack of a market for gay and lesbian porn.

My sarcasm is never appreciated. :(

SNIP

*Flames*

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

As many other people have sarcasticly pointed out - where is the logic in that ?
Not all people HAVE to make babies. In fact, with the large overpopulation we currently have, it would be better if quite a few people didn't.

I like gay people, sometimes I play basketball with them. And then, we eat babies.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.
no homosexuality is not wrong.

i am opposed to civil partnerships for gay couples. they should get married like anyone else.

Don’t be a dick toddlers cant physically conceive a baby because they are not fully mature but when they mature they can toddlers are still human they are not separate sexualities like straight and gay. Elderly people can usually no longer have babies because the mother runs out of eggs, not because they have a lack of sperm or eggs during sex.

Why the hell would you compare toddlers to gay people?
And why the hell would you compare elderly people to gay people?

Exactly how is the statement "If being 80 years old is not wrong, then two 80-year-olds should be able to conceive a baby - and they cannot. Therefore, it is wrong" different from your argument (I mean, besides being correctly punctuated)? If an inability to conceive children through their preferred sex acts makes people immoral, surely 80-year-olds who want to screw other 80-year-olds are WRONG?

True none of these can create a baby but if a man and a woman were to have regular sex then they could conceive a baby remove either the man or the women and replace so as to create a single sex relationship they cannot have babies between them.

And if you removed the man or woman and replaced it with a Christmas tree, they could not have babies either. Does this mean Christmas trees are wrong? Why do you hate Santa Claus?

http://jenden.us/storage/JD/img/not_this_shit_again.jpg

I like gay people, sometimes I play basketball with them. And then, we eat babies.

Sigged.

True none of these can create a baby but if a man and a woman were to have regular sex then they could conceive a baby remove either the man or the women and replace so as to create a single sex relationship they cannot have babies between them.

*sigh*
a) Infertile couples - are they morally wrong?
b) Do you really want to use the ability to create babies as a guideline for morality? If so I have a few council estates to introduce you to. I'm sure you'll be very impressed by the morality of some of the heterosexual relationships there
c) We need less babies in this world not more.
d) IVF!
e) Admit it, you're just insecure in your sexuality because you look at a guy and got hard. Really, it's all right, it's perfectly normal.
f) To answer your question in the OP - I'm thoroughly for civil partnerships* especially if the two girls are hot
...
and I'm one of them.


* Note by civil partnerships I mean the ones we have in the UK which are the photocopy of the marriage legislation. I think it's a shame they had to appease the church by using a different word, but I'd rather use a different term and have the rights than quibble over a word. It'll quietly get changed in a few years anyway in a view to 'cleaning things up' - as they've done in one of the scandinavian countries recently.

And if you removed the man or woman and replaced it with a Christmas tree, they could not have babies either. Does this mean Christmas trees are wrong? Why do you hate Santa Claus?

He votes BNP, rational arguments won't get you anywhere.

Dingle? Did you make this thread because you are insecure about your own sexuality?:p

No I bloody didn’t did it because I could not think of a different thread to start and I thought this might be interesting

He votes BNP, rational arguments won't get you anywhere.

Not sure where you're getting any rationality out of my posts, but thank you for the compliment. :)

No I bloody didn’t did it because I could not think of a different thread to start and I thought this might be interesting

Oooooh, getting all defensive like that doesn't help your cause.

I want to field this one.

Because it's icky to think about either group having sex.

*rimshot*

/winner

How did I know this:



Would end with this:

'cause you've seen it 10,000 times? ;)

*Flames*

OW!

No I bloody didn’t did it because I could not think of a different thread to start and I thought this might be interesting

Well it's been done millions of times before, and most people here aren't bigoted enough to believe that something you have no choice over could be wrong.

Well it's been done millions of times before, and most people here aren't bigoted enough to believe that something you have no choice over could be wrong.

Lulz.

Not sure where you're getting any rationality out of my posts, but thank you for the compliment. :)

They seem rational to me. At least more rational then "lolol god thinkz itz bad coz u dont maik teh baybeez!!11oneoneeleventyone"

Like watching someone blindfolded walking through a land mine field. Even if it is wrong then what?

My sarcasm is never appreciated. :(
nobody likes sarcasm. And nobody uses it around here, either. That would just be weird.

No I bloody didn’t did it because I could not think of a different thread to start and I thought this might be interesting

F.Y.I.? It's not.

*sigh*
a) Infertile couples - are they morally wrong?
b) Do you really want to use the ability to create babies as a guideline for morality? If so I have a few council estates to introduce you to. I'm sure you'll be very impressed by the morality of some of the heterosexual relationships there
c) We need less babies in this world not more.
d) IVF!
e) Admit it, you're just insecure in your sexuality because you look at a guy and got hard. Really, it's all right, it's perfectly normal.
f) To answer your question in the OP - I'm thoroughly for civil partnerships especially if the two girls are hot
...
and I'm one of them.

Answers to

a) No male and female are made to be together
b) No but as an argument against homosexuality it’s a good way to start
c) So you’re saying we all need to have sex with same sex partners to decrease the population of the world
d) Was that between the two having sex or did someone else donate the sperm.
e) Fuck you I am not gay it is not normal it is morally wrong.
f) So civil partnerships now need to be judged on looks and what about guys are they not allowed?

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law

Come back when you manage to prove your morals and natural law to be correct.

However, certain belief systems include a morality in which the act of sex between partners of the same sex is considered immoral. Partly because such an act is, by definition fornication in a belief system that doesn't recognize gay marriage, and partly because in such belief systems marriage is an institution specifically designed for the conception and rearing of children within the structure of a family. Since two people of the same sex cannot conceive a child, it falls outside of that structure.

Why, then, do such belief structures still recognize the marriage of an infertile couple? Or an elderly one? If the purpose of marriage is to produce and raise children, surely these couples should be just as ineligible?

I stated that as neutrally as I can. I'll still get flamed, but meh.

Hopefully, you won't consider this post a flame. <3

my bad missed a comma


*No, male and female are made to be together

Answers to

a) No male and female are made to be together
b) No but as an argument against homosexuality it’s a good way to start
c) So you’re saying we all need to have sex with same sex partners to decrease the population of the world
d) Was that between the two having sex or did someone else donate the sperm.
e) Fuck you I am not gay it is not normal it is morally wrong.
f) So civil partnerships now need to be judged on looks and what about guys are they not allowed?

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law

Sorry DN, but you present a piss poor example of morality for others when you respond to people by saying things like "Fuck you."

Answers to

a) No male and female are made to be together
b) No but as an argument against homosexuality it’s a good way to start
c) So you’re saying we all need to have sex with same sex partners to decrease the population of the world
d) Was that between the two having sex or did someone else donate the sperm.
e) Fuck you I am not gay it is not normal it is morally wrong.
f) So civil partnerships now need to be judged on looks and what about guys are they not allowed?

Your counter-arguments (if they can be called that) are painfully wrong.

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law

Well seeing as dolphins, pygmy chimps and many other animals all have homosexuals amongst their species, I wouldn't say it is against natural law.

e) Fuck you I am not gay it is not normal it is morally wrong.

Your reaction is incredibly defensive, I wonder if you're insecure about something.

Why, then, do such belief structures still recognize the marriage of an infertile couple? Or an elderly one? If the purpose of marriage is to produce and raise children, surely these couples should be just as ineligible?

I can't pretend to be an expert in those systems generally, (being as I'm only a member of one of them!) but I would point out that gay men and gay women are biologically capable of reproducing, but the nature of the chosen lifestyle removes that from the table, thus, a choice, wheras an infertile couple isn't infertile by choice. And as I said before, immorality is the result of choices made.

Again, answering as neutrally as possible 'cause I'm kinda diggin' being a lurker on this one and I think I've had my fill of debating the issue lately ;)


Hopefully, you won't consider this post a flame. <3

Of course not! :fluffle:

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law

how is it morally wrong, exactly?
and it can't be "unnatural" seeing as it's 100% all-natural organisms doing it, most of the time. unless this is an argument against synthetic sex toys, which I suppose is slightly more tenable, if still pretty insane.

Answers to

a) No male and female are made to be together
b) No but as an argument against homosexuality it’s a good way to start
c) So you’re saying we all need to have sex with same sex partners to decrease the population of the world
d) Was that between the two having sex or did someone else donate the sperm.
e) Fuck you I am not gay it is not normal it is morally wrong.
f) So civil partnerships now need to be judged on looks and what about guys are they not allowed?

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law
Dolphins have been known to have gay sex. Are dolphins going against nature? :eek2:

A) So, if a couple is infertile, they shouldn't be together? What if they're both infertile, are they both going against nature/God just by being born that way? What about single people?
B) No.
C) No. He's saying that creating babies is not inherently good.
D) ...
E) *sigh*
F) Poe.

Your reaction is incredibly defensive, I wonder if you're insecure about something.

Well, he IS being attacked from all sides. That'd make somebody defensive, no?

I can't pretend to be an expert in those systems generally, (being as I'm only a member of one of them!) but I would point out that gay men and gay women are biologically capable of reproducing, but the nature of the chosen lifestyle removes that from the table, thus, a choice, wheras an infertile couple isn't infertile by choice. And as I said before, immorality is the result of choices made.

How about a gay couple where both members are infertile? Is that O.K.?

my bad missed a comma


*No, male and female are made to be together
are you suggesting orgies!?

Your reaction is incredibly defensive, I wonder if you're insecure about something.

It's been said.

How about a gay couple where both members are infertile? Is that O.K.?

You mean okay?

Well, he IS being attacked from all sides. That'd make somebody defensive, no?

Technically he's being attacked from only one side (that being "down" with respect to his posts), although once he responds to those attacks, they become "up". So two sides, at most. The in-post banner ads and the avatars/posting titles don't seem to be making any moves against him just yet.

How about a gay couple where both members are infertile? Is that O.K.?

*pokes at that a couple times with a stick while trying to think of a really witty answer.*

Technically he's being attacked from only one side (that being "down" with respect to his posts), although once he responds to those attacks, they become "up". So two sides, at most. The in-post banner ads and the avatars/posting titles don't seem to be making any moves against him just yet.

They will. They will.

Those advertisements have been after us for years!

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law

Thanks, Bluth Corporation, but A does not equal A. There is no such thing as "natural law". There are only societal constructs. Fail again.

Technically he's being attacked from only one side (that being "down" with respect to his posts), although once he responds to those attacks, they become "up". So two sides, at most. The in-post banner ads and the avatars/posting titles don't seem to be making any moves against him just yet.

Well I was thinking more in terms of a 3-D tactical sense... like attacked from above, below, right, left, front, back, in, out...

hm. Somehow the last part of that has me strangely aroused...

They will. They will.

Those advertisements have been after us for years!

We must combat them with Adblock!

You mean okay?

O.K. is an accepted abbreviation.

True none of these can create a baby but if a man and a woman were to have regular sex then they could conceive a baby remove either the man or the women and replace so as to create a single sex relationship they cannot have babies between them.

Is making babies the sole function of sexual activity?

If so, is a heterosexual couple engaging in non-procreative sex doing something wrong?

Thanks, Bluth Corporation, but A does not equal A. There is no such thing as "natural law". There are only societal constructs. Fail again.

I don't think this is TBC. TBC is American.

I don't think this is TBC. TBC is American.

I know it's not.

They will. They will.

Those advertisements have been after us for years!

They certainly have. Why, I recall many a night when I was returning from mailing in a post to NSG, hearing the soft footfalls of an advertisement behind me and feeling its hot stinking breath on my neck, but too fearful to turn round and face it, for the stories agree on one thing: look into an advertisement's eyes, and you will die....

O.K. is an accepted abbreviation.

I know, but it's a bit of an Americanisation.

hmmm...
well first off,
how can you say that anybody else is 'morally wrong'?
Nobody lives off of the same set of morals-
i.e, i think it's morally wrong to place a pea in your mouth, chew and swallow.
just because I feel that they're disgusting and 'wrong' that doesn't mean they actually are, right?
homosexuality is, in a sense, the same.
Just because you look at two men making love and say it's wrong, doesn't make it wrong, the same way you could say killing people needlessly is right, but that doesn't make it right.

That being said, even if the world got together and everyone decided it was wrong, homosexuality would still be around. Denying it or denoting it does not make anything go away, and i would advise everybody to 'live and let live'. if you're not gay, then why the heck does it matter to you?

hmmm...
well first off,
how can you say that anybody else is 'morally wrong'?
Nobody lives off of the same set of morals-
i.e, i think it's morally wrong to place a pea in your mouth, chew and swallow.
just because I feel that they're disgusting and 'wrong' that doesn't mean they actually are, right?
homosexuality is, in a sense, the same.
Just because you look at two men making love and say it's wrong, doesn't make it wrong, the same way you could say killing people needlessly is right, but that doesn't make it right.

That being said, even if the world got together and everyone decided it was wrong, homosexuality would still be around. Denying it or denoting it does not make anything go away, and i would advise everybody to 'live and let live'. if you're not gay, then why the heck does it matter to you?

Painfully small text is painful on this old man's eyes.

I know, but it's a bit of an Americanisation.

Well, it's an American word, and O.K. was the original spelling. Short for Oll Korect. He spelt all correct wrong, you see.

It sure does draw crowd post count is almost exponential. Look at the number of pages 2 one minute later bam 6.

hmmm...
Well first off,
how can you say that anybody else is 'morally wrong'?
Nobody lives off of the same set of morals-
i.e, i think it's morally wrong to place a pea in your mouth, chew and swallow.
Just because i feel that they're disgusting and 'wrong' that doesn't mean they actually are, right?
Homosexuality is, in a sense, the same.
Just because you look at two men making love and say it's wrong, doesn't make it wrong, the same way you could say killing people needlessly is right, but that doesn't make it right.

That being said, even if the world got together and everyone decided it was wrong, homosexuality would still be around. Denying it or denoting it does not make anything go away, and i would advise everybody to 'live and let live'. If you're not gay, then why the heck does it matter to you?

Why do you feel the need to write in such small letters?

Now a couple of quotes from Leviticus and a couple from Romans and we should have a page count of 10.

Why do you feel the need to write in such small letters?

They're not that small.... and the opposite is even more annoying.

Er, sorry.

The opposite is even MORE annoying!!!!

One looks like you are whispering the other like you are shouting.

One looks like you are whispering the other like you are shouting.

That's the point.

of course it's not wrong. It's just another way of life..

The male homosexual sex act itself is kinda repulsive to hetero people,but if you can get past that,who really cares what adult people do. As long as its not pushed on schoolchildren as some kind of 'alternative' lifestyle,why not let civil partnerships occur?

of course it's not wrong. It's just another way of life..

It was his or her first post so we have to cut him/her some slack. When you first get here things can be a little intimidating.


Font size minimum 10 or 12

Bolded as required

That's like saying that asexuals are morally wrong.

The male homosexual sex act itself is kinda repulsive to hetero people

So...wait. If the thought of two hot, naked men thrusting into each other like animals in heat, sweat dripping down their bare, heaving chests, hands roaming over each other's firm, muscular asses, lips meeting for a brief but passionate kiss is anything but repulsive to you, you're not straight?

My boyfriend is going to be so disappointed...

Homosexuality can't be 100% biological. It just wouldn't make any sense if it was.

Homosexuality can't be 100% biological. It just wouldn't make any sense if it was.

Of course not. Because then the Bible would not be 100% literally true. And we couldn't have that, now could we? When your views don't match science, try to change science, eh?

Homosexuality can't be 100% biological. It just wouldn't make any sense if it was.

Because you know evolution never does anything wacky that prevents genetics from being passed on.


All hail Evolution, the all knowing!

Of course not. Because then the Bible would not be 100% literally true. And we couldn't have that, now could we? When your views don't match science, try to change science, eh?

I don't think you understood. Nice try though!

Because you know evolution never does anything wacky that prevents genetics from being passed on.
Evolution never "does" anything. Evolution is not a force that acts upon a species. By their very nature, homosexuals are disinclined to pass upon their homosexual "traits". Now obviously there are homosexuals who reproduce, but I would think in this day-and-age that is less of an essential element towards leading an accepted life, so the percentage of that happened would decrease. I'm not saying that there isn't a biological element, but I also think there is an environmental aspect to be considered.

I would also note that homosexuality is directly contrary to the idea of "survival of the fittest", so any argument for evolution necessarily flies in the face of homosexuality. Nothing against either evolution or gays, but it is a cautionary tale from following any party line too closely.

not a damd thing wrong.

the amount of interest in it though,
would seem to me, one of the many indicators of human overpopulation.

also, for those so inclined, one of the more humane ways of doing something about it.

I don't think you understood. Nice try though!

Of course, then, what are you arguing on?

Of course, then, what are you arguing on?

That evolution and homosexuality are incompatible because evolution deals with the passing on of traits optimal to the survival of a species and homosexuality deals with attraction that does not lead to the passing on of traits. Thus my conclusion is that homosexuality has not only a strong environmental aspect towards its development, but also that a society which rejects homosexuality as a lifestyle also necessitates its continuance (because homosexuals will be more inclined to have a "normal" life with a wife and children, against their internal judgment - ironic, yes?).

And I know that sounds negative towards homosexuality, but that's not my intention at all. I am not trying to pass judgment.

That evolution and homosexuality are incompatible because evolution deals with the passing on of traits optimal to the survival of a species and homosexuality deals with attraction that does not lead to the passing on of traits. Thus my conclusion is that homosexuality has not only a strong environmental aspect towards its development, but also that a society which rejects homosexuality as a lifestyle also necessitates its continuance (because homosexuals will be more inclined to have a "normal" life with a wife and children, against their internal judgment - ironic, yes?).


You haven't heard of mutation then? And homosexuality hasn't stopped quite a few people from having sex with women, and subsequently creating babies.

That evolution and homosexuality are incompatible because evolution deals with the passing on of traits optimal to the survival of a species and homosexuality deals with attraction that does not lead to the passing on of traits.


Some studies have shown that men with more brothers are more likeyl to be gay, therefore, it is possible that it is evolution in action, in the woman. She has already passed on her traits, and extra children after a point are more likely to starve and or kill each other off, thus spreading her genes around LESS. It's not biology in action on the homosexual man's part, but on the mother's part.

And I know that sounds negative towards homosexuality, but that's not my intention at all. I am not trying to pass judgment.

Doesn't matter. Prepare to receive your "bigot" label and a flaming.

;)

Doesn't matter. Prepare to receive your "bigot" label and a flaming.

;)

*Gives VC a bigot label which is on fire*

I can't pretend to be an expert in those systems generally, (being as I'm only a member of one of them!) but I would point out that gay men and gay women are biologically capable of reproducing, but the nature of the chosen lifestyle removes that from the table, thus, a choice, wheras an infertile couple isn't infertile by choice. And as I said before, immorality is the result of choices made.

I see two further questions that come out of this.

First, why should the choice or lack thereof matter? If the purpose of marriage is to procreate, the reason for being unable to procreate really should be irrelevant in determining whether or not marriage is applicable. The fact that these churches choose to recognize other marriages in which children are not possible suggests that there is some other reason for marriage.

Second, unless such systems are suggesting that gay men and women should go out and get married to people they do not feel sexual attraction to, the fact that they are biologically capable of reproducing is similarly irrelevant. This is especially true if they recognize the fact that sexuality is not chosen, as I doubt they would then encourage homosexuals to go out and get married anyways.

Again, answering as neutrally as possible 'cause I'm kinda diggin' being a lurker on this one and I think I've had my fill of debating the issue lately ;)

Ah well. If you decide not to, I'm sure someone else will take up the banner. =)

Some studies have shown that men with more brothers are more likeyl to be gay, therefore, it is possible that it is evolution in action, in the woman. She has already passed on her traits, and extra children after a point are more likely to starve and or kill each other off, thus spreading her genes around LESS. It's not biology in action on the homosexual man's part, but on the mother's part.

You are trying to tell us it is another one of those donkey + horse = mule things? I am horribly confused why would evolution create anything that could not reproduce?

I think the point is donkeys and horses should not breed together. Unless you want a mule for some reason????

I don't think you understood. Nice try though!


Evolution never "does" anything. Evolution is not a force that acts upon a species. By their very nature, homosexuals are disinclined to pass upon their homosexual "traits". Now obviously there are homosexuals who reproduce, but I would think in this day-and-age that is less of an essential element towards leading an accepted life, so the percentage of that happened would decrease. I'm not saying that there isn't a biological element, but I also think there is an environmental aspect to be considered.

I would also note that homosexuality is directly contrary to the idea of "survival of the fittest", so any argument for evolution necessarily flies in the face of homosexuality. Nothing against either evolution or gays, but it is a cautionary tale from following any party line too closely.

Oy vey, where to begin.

First, "biological" and "genetic" are not synonyms. Saying that homosexuality is unlikely to be purely genetic is very different than saying homosexuality is unlikely to be purely biological.

Second, you don't seem to know what "survival of the fittest" actually means. The point is not "this trait is inherently BETTER" but "this trait is better-suited to help individuals pass on their genes in the particular circumstance and environment in which they live." I can come up with half a dozen ways off the top of my head in which an attraction to one's own gender could be beneficial in particular circumstances. You cannot, therefore, remotely deduce that homosexuals are in any way inherently "unfit."

Third, when talking about a trait as complex as sexuality, even if it were purely genetic, there is approximately zero possibility that one's sexuality would be determined by a single gene. Imagine, for a moment, that having a certain combination of forty-seven genes made one homosexual. How on earth do you know that having 43 of those 47 genes doesn't make one really fertile? (Answer: you don't.) It's ludicrously silly to pretend that a manifested trait isn't conducive to reproduction, therefore, none of the genes that create that phenotype could possibly be beneficial.

I could go on, but that's probably enough to start off with...

And homosexuality hasn't stopped quite a few people from having sex with women, and subsequently creating babies.

I know, and that held a prominent place in my argument.

Some studies have shown that men with more brothers are more likeyl to be gay, therefore, it is possible that it is evolution in action, in the woman. She has already passed on her traits, and extra children after a point are more likely to starve and or kill each other off, thus spreading her genes around LESS. It's not biology in action on the homosexual man's part, but on the mother's part.

I disagree. Women are designed to have as many children as possible. While I understand your reasoning, producing less offspring has never been a natural response to the competition for scarce resources. More offspring is key to the continuation of the species, from a purely biological standpoint, even though we seem to have beat the system as human beings. And do you not see how having more brothers could be an environmental aspect to homosexuality?

The point is not "this trait is inherently BETTER" but "this trait is better-suited to help individuals pass on their genes in the particular circumstance and environment in which they live."
I believe you misread what I wrote. In fact, you must have, or I didn't write it very well, because you are simply restating my argument. I don't understand your conclusions, however. Homosexuality leads to sex that does not produce offspring - how is this passing on any genes at all?

I really don't know why you're arguing with me. We agree! My argument is one of logic, since my knowledge of biology is limited. Simply, that the development of homosexuality relies strongly on environmental impacts as much as it does genetics, due to the inclination of homosexuals not to pass on their traits. I also argued that environmental stimuli cause the reproduction of the homosexual "gene" much more so than evolution does, so we should be thankful for them. But the later argument I think could be more contentious than the former.

You might argue with specific points I make, but if you disagree with the basic premise (homosexuality isn't 100% genetic), please say so.

I would also add that we can argue forever and never reach a conclusion until science catches up, so an agreement might never be reached (among us).

I disagree. Women are designed to have as many children as possible. While I understand your reasoning, less offspring has never been a natural response to the competition for scarce resources. More offspring is key to the continuation of the species, from a purely biological standpoint, even though we seem to have beat the system as human beings. And do you not see how having more brothers could be an environmental aspect to homosexuality?

1. I disagree.
2. Mutation.
3. No. I see it as a biological aspect, hormones in the womb, yea?

While I understand your reasoning, less offspring has never been a natural response to the competition for scarce resources.

....um, yes, actually, it has. They're called "mammals."

Oy vey, where to begin.

First, "biological" and "genetic" are not synonyms. Saying that homosexuality is unlikely to be purely genetic is very different than saying homosexuality is unlikely to be purely biological.

Second, you don't seem to know what "survival of the fittest" actually means. The point is not "this trait is inherently BETTER" but "this trait is better-suited to help individuals pass on their genes in the particular circumstance and environment in which they live." I can come up with half a dozen ways off the top of my head in which an attraction to one's own gender could be beneficial in particular circumstances. You cannot, therefore, remotely deduce that homosexuals are in any way inherently "unfit."

Third, when talking about a trait as complex as sexuality, even if it were purely genetic, there is approximately zero possibility that one's sexuality would be determined by a single gene. Imagine, for a moment, that having a certain combination of forty-seven genes made one homosexual. How on earth do you know that having 43 of those 47 genes doesn't make one really fertile? (Answer: you don't.) It's ludicrously silly to pretend that a manifested trait isn't conducive to reproduction, therefore, none of the genes that create that phenotype could possibly be beneficial.

I could go on, but that's probably enough to start off with...

I don't know about anyone else but this I am interested in:


I can come up with half a dozen ways off the top of my head in which an attraction to one's own gender could be beneficial in particular circumstances.

I knew there was a reason I came on NSG today. Please just couple would be good.

I know, and that held a prominent place in my argument.



I disagree. Women are designed to have as many children as possible. While I understand your reasoning, less offspring has never been a natural response to the competition for scarce resources. More offspring is key to the continuation of the species, from a purely biological standpoint, even though we seem to have beat the system as human beings. And do you not see how having more brothers could be an environmental aspect to homosexuality?

Raising offspring to an age at which they themselves can reproduce is the key to the continuation of the species, not simply have lots of babies. Humans simply invest more in fewer offspring than a turtle for example.

Raising offspring to an age at which they themselves can reproduce is the key to the continuation of the species, not simply have lots of babies. Humans simply invest more in fewer offspring than a turtle for example.

Humans also don't need as many as we have less predators.

Have you ever seen what those little turtles have to go through? Crabs, Seagulls, Sharks, the Sun ... damn

I see two further questions that come out of this.

First, why should the choice or lack thereof matter? If the purpose of marriage is to procreate, the reason for being unable to procreate really should be irrelevant in determining whether or not marriage is applicable. The fact that these churches choose to recognize other marriages in which children are not possible suggests that there is some other reason for marriage.

There is, certainly. (Again, I can only generalize here, since YMMV for individual organizations) If one accepts, as an axiom, the idea that marriage is an institution created by God, and also the idea that the Bible is the word of God and that it does specifically define marriage as being between men and women, then it stands to reason that there is some kind of advantage to being raised as the child of a male and a female parent. While an infertile couple may be unable to bear children of their own, they can always adopt and still fit within that structure.

In a debate the next step would be to get into studies and such on the relative psychological ramifications of being raised by a same sex couple as opposed to a hetero couple, but meh. I'm only talking within the aforementioned axiom.


Second, unless such systems are suggesting that gay men and women should go out and get married to people they do not feel sexual attraction to, the fact that they are biologically capable of reproducing is similarly irrelevant. This is especially true if they recognize the fact that sexuality is not chosen, as I doubt they would then encourage homosexuals to go out and get married anyways.


You're right. In the case of my Church, homosexual members are expected to remain celibate, not to live a lie. In fact I have a friend who is doing exactly that right now. I don't know how other churches handle it, though. I would assume they run the gamut and that some *DO* expect people to just change.


Ah well. If you decide not to, I'm sure someone else will take up the banner. =)

Well so far this, between you and me, feels more like a simple discussion than a debate. It's... refreshing ;)

My only other reason for being in this thread at the moment is to bust out the wisecracks ;)

Some studies have shown that men with more brothers are more likeyl to be gay, therefore, it is possible that it is evolution in action, in the woman. She has already passed on her traits, and extra children after a point are more likely to starve and or kill each other off, thus spreading her genes around LESS. It's not biology in action on the homosexual man's part, but on the mother's part.

Not to mention studies suggesting that female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children - pointing to a possible genetic factor that increases the possibility of homosexuality in men, but increases fertility in women.

I disagree. Women are designed to have as many children as possible.

You are kidding, right?

While I understand your reasoning, less offspring has never been a natural response to the competition for scarce resources.

Actually, it quite often is. In some species, the strategy is to have lots and lots of offspring. Most of them will die, but enough will survive to continue the species (and pass on your genes). In others, individuals have fewer offspring, but put more time and effort into caring for them - making them more likely to survive and continue to pass on those genes. Humans actually tend more towards the latter end of that spectrum.

More offspring is key to the continuation of the species, from a purely biological standpoint, even though we seem to have beat the system as human beings.

This is incorrect. More surviving offspring is the key to continuation of the species. Higher numbers of offspring does not necessarily directly correlate to higher numbers of surviving offspring. In fact, there is a point at which it becomes a negative correlation.


First, "biological" and "genetic" are not synonyms. Saying that homosexuality is unlikely to be purely genetic is very different than saying homosexuality is unlikely to be purely biological.

And then there's this. =)

Third, when talking about a trait as complex as sexuality, even if it were purely genetic, there is approximately zero possibility that one's sexuality would be determined by a single gene. Imagine, for a moment, that having a certain combination of forty-seven genes made one homosexual. How on earth do you know that having 43 of those 47 genes doesn't make one really fertile? (Answer: you don't.) It's ludicrously silly to pretend that a manifested trait isn't conducive to reproduction, therefore, none of the genes that create that phenotype could possibly be beneficial.

Indeed. Something as relatively simple as skin color is directly influenced by at least 5 different genes (and possibly more). And then it is further influenced by diet, exposure to sun, age, etc.

The idea that a complex trait like sexuality (which, like skin color, seems to exist along more of a spectrum than as an either/or trait) would be determined by a single gene is pretty wacky.

Humans also don't need as many as we have less predators.

Have you ever seen what those little turtles have to go through? Crabs, Seagulls, Sharks, the Sun ... damn

Exactly, so a strategy of fewer offspring makes sense.

You are trying to tell us it is another one of those donkey + horse = mule things? I am horribly confused why would evolution create anything that could not reproduce?

I think the point is donkeys and horses should not breed together. Unless you want a mule for some reason????

1. Because Evolution can be random at times.
2. Because more people doesn't always mean more will make it through. Overpopulation can decrease the overall population, scarcity of resources and all that.
3. I am tired of this subject. I bid you adieu.

I don't know about anyone else but this I am interested in:



I knew there was a reason I came on NSG today. Please just couple would be good.

Sure. Imagine a tribal society in which sex is used to cement relationships/alliances. Being able to build such relationships with members of your own gender would help promote peace and stability, leading to a safer environment for one's offspring.

Imagine a society in which a particular STD is common among one gender, but not the other. Being less inclined to have sex with multiple members of that gender, and instead satisfy yourself with your own, "safe" gender while interacting with the other only to breed with a single individual would increase your odds of survival.

There's a couple for you. Like I said, the thing that people don't seem to get about "survival of the fittest" is that it's simply shorthand for "survival of those best adapted to survive in this specific situation," and I'd honestly be hard-pressed to think of very many traits that could NEVER be useful, no matter what. Pretty much the only ones would be things that are intrinsically guaranteed to kill you before you reach puberty. (Such traits, incidentally, do exist, and are both "biological" and genetic.)

There's a couple for you. Like I said, the thing that people don't seem to get about "survival of the fittest" is that it's simply shorthand for "survival of those best adapted to survive in this specific situation," and I'd honestly be hard-pressed to think of very many traits that could NEVER be useful, no matter what. Pretty much the only ones would be things that are intrinsically guaranteed to kill you before you reach puberty. (Such traits, incidentally, do exist, and are both "biological" and genetic.)

What about being really ugly...? :(

I can't believe how many people are breaking out teh sc1enceorz on this.

Does it really matter? For all I know, my next-door neighbour masturbates to bestiality-snuff porn. I have never met my next-door neighbour. What does his choice in porn or partners do to my life?

Why do my sexual preferences have to match, or even make sense to you? What about the straight bondage crowd? So they like being tied up. Not everyone appreciates that. Not everyone has to.

Fucking live let live, people. It's seriously a non-issue.

(for the record, I'm a gay male. And I don't freak out when I hear about a straight couple making a baby. Just a thought.)

I can't believe how many people are breaking out teh sc1enceorz on this.

Does it really matter? For all I know, my next-door neighbour masturbates to bestiality-snuff porn. I have never met my next-door neighbour. What does his choice in porn or partners do to my life?

Why do my sexual preferences have to match, or even make sense to you? What about the straight bondage crowd? So they like being tied up. Not everyone appreciates that. Not everyone has to.

Fucking live let live, people. It's seriously a non-issue.

(for the record, I'm a gay male. And I don't freak out when I hear about a straight couple making a baby. Just a thought.)
Just trying to argue it's not unnatural or inherently wrong.

I have never met my next-door neighbour.

Do you live inside or something?

Just trying to argue it's not unnatural or inherently wrong.

If it's unnatural it wouldn't exist in nature. Last I checked, homo sapiens sapiens is a part of nature.

And who determines what is inherently wrong?

There is, certainly. (Again, I can only generalize here, since YMMV for individual organizations) If one accepts, as an axiom, the idea that marriage is an institution created by God, and also the idea that the Bible is the word of God and that it does specifically define marriage as being between men and women, then it stands to reason that there is some kind of advantage to being raised as the child of a male and a female parent. While an infertile couple may be unable to bear children of their own, they can always adopt and still fit within that structure.

And if they are elderly and unlikely to survive long enough to raise an adopted child? Or are unable to put in the time and energy to do so?

Personally, I see more purpose to marriage than simply procreation - and that purpose is defined right from Genesis on if one is looking for Biblical support. The first mention of marriage in the Bible has nothing to do with reproduction. It is about companionship - about having someone else by your side to help you in building your life.

Obviously, in that passage, God recognizes that it is not a good thing for Adam to be alone and thus makes him Eve as a companion - a helper - a partner. (And, in my interpretation, Adam is supposed to be the same for Eve). One could use that passage to argue that even said companionship must necessarily be between a man and a woman. However, once one recognizes that sexuality is not a choice - that we are limited in our choices of partners by factors beyond our control - it no longer makes sense to me to argue that only opposite-sex partners should have that type of relationship.

In other words, if it is not good for Adam and Eve to be alone - if they need partners in life - I see no reason to believe that it is any better for Adam and Steve to be without that partnership.

You're right. In the case of my Church, homosexual members are expected to remain celibate, not to live a lie. In fact I have a friend who is doing exactly that right now. I don't know how other churches handle it, though. I would assume they run the gamut and that some *DO* expect people to just change.

Well, some churches think of it as a choice in the first place. If that is the idea from which they are working, the next step would be, "Change this and you can live a normal life." For those who recognize that it is not a choice, however, it wouldn't make sense to ask them to change.

Well so far this, between you and me, feels more like a simple discussion than a debate. It's... refreshing ;)

Maybe we're mellowing out in our old age?

My only other reason for being in this thread at the moment is to bust out the wisecracks ;)

Well, of course!

Sure. Imagine a tribal society in which sex is used to cement relationships/alliances. Being able to build such relationships with members of your own gender would help promote peace and stability, leading to a safer environment for one's offspring.

Imagine a society in which a particular STD is common among one gender, but not the other. Being less inclined to have sex with multiple members of that gender, and instead satisfy yourself with your own, "safe" gender while interacting with the other only to breed with a single individual would increase your odds of survival.

There's a couple for you. Like I said, the thing that people don't seem to get about "survival of the fittest" is that it's simply shorthand for "survival of those best adapted to survive in this specific situation," and I'd honestly be hard-pressed to think of very many traits that could NEVER be useful, no matter what. Pretty much the only ones would be things that are intrinsically guaranteed to kill you before you reach puberty. (Such traits, incidentally, do exist, and are both "biological" and genetic.)


For the record I don't think homosexuality is a choice or could ever really be a choice for most. It like being right-handed you either are or your aren't.

I can't imagine some sitting at home saying you know I don't have enough conflict in my life. I do not have enough people calling me name and making fun of me. I have not got beaten up enough. I want to be discriminated against. I want to be looked down upon and scorned as being immoral.

It just doesn't work for me. I don't see it as an advantage either more like a punishment, an additional burden to bear as it were.

Do you live inside or something?

No, but I think my neighbour does. Or he keeps awesomely weird hours. He may be dead, I dunno.

And who determines what is inherently wrong?

I do.

I do.

Ahhh. That explains the platypus, then.

In our state it is totally outlawed as it is very wrong. Imperial House of the Ignazi Poland won't give visa to any homosexual.

I can't believe how many people are breaking out teh sc1enceorz on this.

Does it really matter? For all I know, my next-door neighbour masturbates to bestiality-snuff porn. I have never met my next-door neighbour. What does his choice in porn or partners do to my life?

Why do my sexual preferences have to match, or even make sense to you? What about the straight bondage crowd? So they like being tied up. Not everyone appreciates that. Not everyone has to.

Fucking live let live, people. It's seriously a non-issue.

(for the record, I'm a gay male. And I don't freak out when I hear about a straight couple making a baby. Just a thought.)

Speaking as a straight person who likes being tied up, I entirely agree. (As it happens, I'm also a science geek, so I find the topic of why anyone is the way they are interesting, whether it's "Why is Bob into boys but Roger into girls?" or "Why does Bob like broccoli while Roger prefers cauliflower?" but heaven knows I'm not about to start worrying if liking cauliflower is "wrong." :p )

No, but I think my neighbour does. Or he keeps awesomely weird hours. He may be dead, I dunno.

Lol. That made me snort. Anyway, how d'you know it's a he?

Ahhh. That explains the platypus, then.

I thought it might be a good idea, I was wrong. Jesus, can anyone let me forget it?

In our state it is totally outlawed as it is very wrong.

Care to explain how it's wrong?

Speaking as a straight person who likes being tied up, I entirely agree. (As it happens, I'm also a science geek, so I find the topic of why anyone is the way they are interesting, whether it's "Why is Bob into boys but Roger into girls?" or "Why does Bob like broccoli while Roger prefers cauliflower?" but heaven knows I'm not about to start worrying if liking cauliflower is "wrong." :p )

I'm glad you agree. As a science geek I'm sure you understand the fallacy of trying to attach a moral restriction to how elements react. (COVALENT BONDS R BLASPHEMY D00D)

Ahhh. That explains the platypus, then.

Marsupials in general. We almost have them all confined to one continent. Only one left in North America, Opossum.

For the record I don't think homosexuality is a choice or could ever really be a choice for most. It like being right-handed you either are or your aren't.
This is what I disagree very strongly with. I don't think its a "choice" either, but it is influenced by environmental factors. Whereas being right handed isn't (I don't think, though who knows!).

Lol. That made me snort. Anyway, how d'you know it's a he?

Based on the noises coming through the wall, if he's a she she's got a glandular problem.


I thought it might be a good idea, I was wrong. Jesus, can anyone let me forget it?

For a fee.

I'm glad you agree. As a science geek I'm sure you understand the fallacy of trying to attach a moral restriction to how elements react. (COVALENT BONDS R BLASPHEMY D00D)

God hates hydrogen bonding! Do you have any idea what water molecules get up to when we're not looking? *shudder*

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

No, actually you're not wondering about that at all, you are just interested in confirming your own opinion.

As, of course, is the norm on NSG. :D

God hates hydrogen bonding! Do you have any idea what water molecules get up to when we're not looking? *shudder*

I know, right? Someone propose a legal action or something. WATER IS CORRUPTING OUR CHILDREN

Care to explain how it's wrong?

Sure! The normal couple is man and woman, the homosexualism may exist even among animals but it's still awful aberration. Therefore, it's wrong. It's against traditions, it's against growth of population, it's against the normal order. And there is no place for aberrates in our state.

If it's unnatural it wouldn't exist in nature. Last I checked, homo sapiens sapiens is a part of nature.

And who determines what is inherently wrong?

Not. Read my post dangit.

Two dingle nations cannot conceive a baby.

Dingle nation is wrong.

LOL


Dingle, let me ask you this:
Is Heterosexuality wrong?

Not. Read my post dangit.

I'm aware. What I'm saying is, the argument is non sequitur. Things cannot be inherently wrong or against nature. It's like arguing that the grass is not orange. There's nothing to say, no points to reference. It simply is.

I'm aware. What I'm saying is, the argument is non sequitur. Things cannot be inherently wrong or against nature. It's like arguing that the grass is not orange. There's nothing to say, no points to reference. It simply is.

Which makes their so-called points even... Well, less of a point I suppose.

This is what I disagree very strongly with. I don't think its a "choice" either, but it is influenced by environmental factors. Whereas being right handed isn't (I don't think, though who knows!).

Yeah I have heard these before like:

A domineering mother and weak male figure?

Having a strong male figure and weak female?

Being breast fed too much/ not enough?

Having too many brother / having too many sisters?


There are environmental factors to almost everything. Would you be less inclined to admit you are gay in Saudi Arabia. Of course because it means you die!

How does one tell which factors those are? This is of course assuming we want everyone to be hetero which I am not sure we really do but just for argument sake?

There is just no way to quantify what those factors are and even then how would you go about extracting those from the being once they are full grown.

Okay so maybe at one time long back they were not fully homosexual but somewhere along the line that changed.

Answers to

a) No male and female are made to be together
b) No but as an argument against homosexuality it’s a good way to start
c) So you’re saying we all need to have sex with same sex partners to decrease the population of the world
d) Was that between the two having sex or did someone else donate the sperm.
e) Fuck you I am not gay it is not normal it is morally wrong.
f) So civil partnerships now need to be judged on looks and what about guys are they not allowed?

Good for you but it is still morally wrong and is against natural law


<-- points to preceeding pages arguing it's natural, I can't really be bothered to repeat it.

Frankly the reproductive argument is possibly the worst argument against homosexuality because it both pressumes the only point of sex is to procreate (clearly not the case), that maximising birth rate is both morally just and evolutionarily beneficial (the latter is arguable but we can probably conclude not) and that no gay person has ever taken steps (be it IVF or heterosexual intercourse) to ensure further procreation. If we're going to go with types of relationships that are most likley to result in procreation than surely the only moral route is enforced polygamy.




F) Poe.

Well I was going with really obvious joke, but hey whatever floats your boat.

Which makes their so-called points even... Well, less of a point I suppose.

Indeed. If the human mind can fathom something it is natural, in the truest sense of the word. It is of nature. Homosexuality, plastics, the internet, anything. If it exists it is a part of nature.

So the argument should read:

Homosexuality exists, therefore homosexuality is natural.

On the flip side, you could also truthfully state:

Homophobia exists, therefore homophobia is natural.

Congrats, homophobes. You're perfectly natural. I can't fault you there.

Yeah I have heard these before like:

A domineering mother and weak male figure?

Having a strong male figure and weak female?

Being breast fed too much/ not enough?

Having too many brother / having too many sisters?


Environmental =/= Social. Technically in vitro hormone exposure is an environmental factor, as is birth order (which has been found to affect male homosexuality). There probably are a whole host of environmental factors invovled, certainly during pregnancy. Social factors... well the evidence hasn't supported any thus far, so I'm going to go with probably not.

Truth is we're still tyring to figure it out, though whatever the distal causes may be (genetics, hormones, etc...) there are some pretty clear biological and psychological (particularly neurological) proximal causes which firmly disprove the concept that it's a 'choice'.

Truth is we're still tyring to figure it out

Tyring isn't a good idea. One usually needs a complete vehicle to get anywhere. :p

I think its fucking stupid.........but hey thats just me

I think its fucking stupid.........but hey thats just me

the argument? or homosexuality? Seeing as we're overpopulated, and committed homosexual relationships have proved to last longer than committed heterosexual relationships...I'd say that's some pretty smart fucking.

Environmental =/= Social. Technically in vitro hormone exposure is an environmental factor, as is birth order (which has been found to affect male homosexuality). There probably are a whole host of environmental factors invovled, certainly during pregnancy. Social factors... well the evidence hasn't supported any thus far, so I'm going to go with probably not.

Truth is we're still tyring to figure it out, though whatever the distal causes may be (genetics, hormones, etc...) there are some pretty clear biological and psychological (particularly neurological) proximal causes which firmly disprove the concept that it's a 'choice'.

Yeah but that is not what most are saying it comes down to the following question:


Which is responsible for a person sexuality? Nature or nurture?

I would say in just about 90-95% of cases nature has more to do with this aspect than anything in the environment.

Can one "learn" to be homosexual?

Of course you can learn to "fake" homosexuality or learn to "act" like they do but not for the "main drive" it is either there or it isn't.

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

Why won't you conservatives just leave people alone? So what if someone is gay? If they want to get married, fine, it doesn't affect you. And not just homosexuality, but you think ANYTHING that you don't agree with must be "evil" and "morally wrong". If you have a problem about something, at least argue about it intelligently, don't just say "It said it was bad in the Bible, so it must be wrong"

Homosexuality is not wrong.

The answer depends on what ppl believe. I as a Christian believe that it is wrong. Is it natural, I say I don't know definitively b/c I have heard of instances where extremely young children such as 2yrs. old say things like they're a girl but there a boy (I don't believe environment has had that much of an affect on a child that early), BUT it is also normal to want to have sex with someone you're not married to. However, having sex before or outside of marriage is still wrong. Many feelings come naturally to us but that doesn't mean we should act on all of them.

The answer depends on what ppl believe. I as a Christian believe that it is wrong. Is it natural, I say I don't know definitively b/c I have heard of instances where extremely young children such as 2yrs. old say things like they're a girl but there a boy (I don't believe environment has had that much of an affect on a child that early), BUT it is also normal to want to have sex with someone you're not married to. However, having sex before or outside of marriage is still wrong. Many feelings come naturally to us but that doesn't mean we should act on all of them.

Who defines your moral code? Who says what 'should' be done? What flavour of Christian are you?

I mean, these are rhetorical, so don't feel like I'm attacking you. But different sects believe different things. You can't speak for the entire Christian community based on the teachings of your church.

The answer depends on what ppl believe. I as a Christian believe that it is wrong. Is it natural, I say I don't know definitively b/c I have heard of instances where extremely young children such as 2yrs. old say things like they're a girl but there a boy (I don't believe environment has had that much of an affect on a child that early), BUT it is also normal to want to have sex with someone you're not married to. However, having sex before or outside of marriage is still wrong. Many feelings come naturally to us but that doesn't mean we should act on all of them.



This is hard one as I think repression left unchecked is also a very bad thing. You are in sense denying yourself and in time those barriers you have put will begin to fall or weaken and then you have a mall shooting or a bell tower sniper or something equally unpleasant. Can a person really every truly unlearn this?

And if they are elderly and unlikely to survive long enough to raise an adopted child? Or are unable to put in the time and energy to do so?

That, I would say, speaks to the companionship you outlined below...


Personally, I see more purpose to marriage than simply procreation - and that purpose is defined right from Genesis on if one is looking for Biblical support. The first mention of marriage in the Bible has nothing to do with reproduction. It is about companionship - about having someone else by your side to help you in building your life.

Obviously, in that passage, God recognizes that it is not a good thing for Adam to be alone and thus makes him Eve as a companion - a helper - a partner. (And, in my interpretation, Adam is supposed to be the same for Eve). One could use that passage to argue that even said companionship must necessarily be between a man and a woman. However, once one recognizes that sexuality is not a choice - that we are limited in our choices of partners by factors beyond our control - it no longer makes sense to me to argue that only opposite-sex partners should have that type of relationship.

In other words, if it is not good for Adam and Eve to be alone - if they need partners in life - I see no reason to believe that it is any better for Adam and Steve to be without that partnership.


That's one interpretation, although obviously those churches who see it differently are also including other language from other parts of the Bible, which I will take as a given we're both very familiar with, being veterans of these sorts of debates. :D

I like that you brought this up because I'd be very hesitant to tie companionship too closely with reproduction for exactly the issues you've mentioned. Generalizing again here, I am pretty sure most denominations of churches who frown upon homosexual activity do so because on some level Christians are expected to raise children. It's really not optional. Choosing not to have children (without compelling reason) is considered disobeying God's will. Companionship is only one part of a marriage.

For cases like you mentioned, an elderly couple for whom children aren't an option in any way, shape or form, the same rules still apply. It's kinda like someone who was orphaned saying the Commandment about honoring one's mother and father doesn't apply to them... They're still expected to live by that philosophy even if it has no direct practical application on them.

Again, YMMV since I'm no expert on all individual congregations or anything.


Well, some churches think of it as a choice in the first place. If that is the idea from which they are working, the next step would be, "Change this and you can live a normal life." For those who recognize that it is not a choice, however, it wouldn't make sense to ask them to change.


Exactly. The idea that somebody deliberately chooses who they're attracted to never made sense to me, even when I was a member of groups that preached that. Why would somebody choose an attraction that would lead either to loneliness or to being cast out by friends and family? It's just intellectually lazy to make that assumption.

I think a lot of people do it though. It's a lot easier than looking deeper and really trying to figure it out. But then, that's one of the reasons I rejected a lot of those branches of Christianity.


Maybe we're mellowing out in our old age?


Heaven forbid!

And yet... I think just reading that sentence triggered new gray hair growth on my head. Bah!

Edit: Is it just me, or does this thread seem to be attracting an unusually high number of first time posters and/or puppets?

Jesus was gay. How morally wrong could it be?

Tyring isn't a good idea. One usually needs a complete vehicle to get anywhere. :p

Yeah, yeah I know, it's why Psychology is still the weedy kid at the back of the science queue. We haven't been around long enough to sort anything out properly and half the time when we do biology beats us up and steals our homework and calls it his idea! *stamps foot*

Jesus was gay. How morally wrong could it be?

Then how did he have a kid with Mary Magdalene?

Why the hell would you start a boring, trollish, unsophisticated and unnuanced thread?

Aren't you the one who started the thread about "pegging"?

but heaven knows I'm not about to start worrying if liking cauliflower is "wrong." :p )

But it is! (unless it's in aloo gobhi)

Jesus was gay. How morally wrong could it be?


Huh?

Edit: Is it just me, or does this thread seem to be attracting an unusually high number of first time posters and/or puppets?

You know better than that, this is normal for any religious thread (or one with religious overtones).

Yeah, yeah I know, it's why Psychology is still the weedy kid at the back of the science queue. We haven't been around long enough to sort anything out properly and half the time when we do biology beats us up and steals our homework and calls it his idea! *stamps foot*

That's okay. As a former philosophy major I'm not even in the line, I'm standing at the other end, selling my half-baked brown-n-serve concepts to the sciences.

Mmm, tastes like worldview-shift!

Yes.

"Wrong" or not (and I don't believe it's wrong, personally), it doesn't harm anyone, so what's the fuss?

Who defines your moral code? Who says what 'should' be done? What flavour of Christian are you?

I mean, these are rhetorical, so don't feel like I'm attacking you. But different sects believe different things. You can't speak for the entire Christian community based on the teachings of your church.

My church is non-denominational but we probably have the most similarities to Holiness/Pentacostal. Don't really know the exact beliefs of those churches though. I believe that the God defines morality and that the Bible is inerrant and says that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a tough sin to explain since it involves emotions such as love but for whatever reason that is what God says it is. My closest guess right now is that God is a creative being and made us in His image to be creative in many ways including reproductively. Homosexuality distorts God's original intention for sex and marriage and is therefore a sin. I'm am not God so I cannot give the exact reason why but I can keep studying the Bible and praying to find out and hopefully help those that do struggle with homosexuality. But if I find out that churches like the United Church of Christ is right and homosexuality is fine then I will change, but so far that is not what I understand to be true.

But it is! (unless it's in aloo gobhi)

When I was on the South Beach diet a few months back, one of the foods I was supposed to eat was "South Beach mashed 'potatoes'" - which turned out to be pureed cauliflower sprayed with fake butter. Now THAT is a crime against nature!

Now THAT is a crime against nature!

Just like my face.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

If you were trying to knock-off your cute cousin at the Christmas get-together, and you snuck into her room, and penetrated her roughly from behind...

...only to have your aunt start screaming that you were raping your uncle...

then it would be wrong.

My church is non-denominational but we probably have the most similarities to Holiness/Pentacostal. Don't really know the exact beliefs of those churches though. I believe that the God defines morality and that the Bible is inerrant and says that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a tough sin to explain since it involves emotions such as love but for whatever reason that is what God says it is. My closest guess right now is that God is a creative being and made us in His image to be creative in many ways including reproductively. Homosexuality distorts God's original intention for sex and marriage and is therefore a sin. I'm am not God so I cannot give the exact reason why but I can keep studying the Bible and praying to find out and hopefully help those that do struggle with homosexuality. But if I find out that churches like the United Church of Christ is right and homosexuality is fine then I will change, but so far that is not what I understand to be true.


I've bolded the pertinent context to illustrate my point. You define your own moral code, with influence from your church. I guarantee that not all members of your church feel the same way as you.

Another side point - if God created sex and marriage, in all their forms, how could anything distort his vision? If he is all-powerful, and if he is the source of all things, is he not then the source of all things that he hates?

In short,

God created Lucifer. Lucifer created evil. Therefore, God is directly responsible for the creation of evil.

Whatever form you want to identify 'evil' as, if God is the source of all, that includes whatever you dislike - and whatever he dislikes.

I believe that gay sex is against the will of G-d, and therefore wrong.

I also refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other human beings. The US (for instance) does not use Jewish values as a basis for legislation. It uses American values, with the preservation of liberty chief among them.

Therefore, I support gay marriage in the US. I say it is morally wrong, but since when do I dictate what others can and cannot do?

My church is non-denominational but we probably have the most similarities to Holiness/Pentacostal. Don't really know the exact beliefs of those churches though. I believe that the God defines morality and that the Bible is inerrant and says that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a tough sin to explain since it involves emotions such as love but for whatever reason that is what God says it is. My closest guess right now is that God is a creative being and made us in His image to be creative in many ways including reproductively. Homosexuality distorts God's original intention for sex and marriage and is therefore a sin. I'm am not God so I cannot give the exact reason why but I can keep studying the Bible and praying to find out and hopefully help those that do struggle with homosexuality. But if I find out that churches like the United Church of Christ is right and homosexuality is fine then I will change, but so far that is not what I understand to be true.

The bible also says heterosexuality is a sin.


Sex is only NOT a sin, where there is marriage. Obvious answer - let gays marry.

Indeed. If the human mind can fathom something it is natural, in the truest sense of the word. It is of nature. Homosexuality, plastics, the internet, anything. If it exists it is a part of nature.

So the argument should read:

Homosexuality exists, therefore homosexuality is natural.

On the flip side, you could also truthfully state:

Homophobia exists, therefore homophobia is natural.

Congrats, homophobes. You're perfectly natural. I can't fault you there.

Hey, cancer's all natural. So are earthquakes, tornadoes, arsenic, ionizing radiation, and poop. "Natural" connotes only "existing in nature" -- not "good for you" or "morally right" or "somehow better than artificial stuff". Arguments over the naturality* of homosexuality are irrelevant to arguments over its morality.

* What's the *real* word that means this and isn't derived from the name of a NS poster?

If you were trying to knock-off your cute cousin at the Christmas get-together, and you snuck into her room, and penetrated her roughly from behind...

...only to have your aunt start screaming that you were raping your uncle...

then it would be wrong.

I told you not to talk about last Christmas. That was between us, damn it.

Hey, cancer's all natural. So are earthquakes, tornadoes, arsenic, ionizing radiation, and poop. "Natural" connotes only "existing in nature" -- not "good for you" or "morally right" or "somehow better than artificial stuff". Arguments over the naturality* of homosexuality are irrelevant to arguments over its morality.

* What's the *real* word that means this and isn't derived from the name of a NS poster?

The point of my later post was to emphasize that everything is natural, since it is derived from nature.

And are you implying that cancer is immoral? My deceased relatives would beg to differ.

In any case, morality is in the eye of the beholder. The point is that no one person can define another's moral code. I use 'profanity' in daily speech, and yet nobody tells me this is something I should not be allowed to do. Some don't enjoy it, but they don't tell me it's immoral.

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

Just what we need on the planet. More babies.

Homosexuality is the way to go, the earth can't support us as it is the last thing we need to do is add more babies too it.

Let the population die off say 20-40% and then it will improve.

I say we stop giving the third world countries money and let them die.

Homosexuality Wrong?. Not on your nelly, it's the future.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.
No, it's not wrong.

This has been "Easy answers to easy questions."

Who cares if gay people get married? It doesn't affect anyone except them.

As far as I know, homosexuality is a genetic problem, not a choice.

No, it's not wrong.

This has been "Easy answers to easy questions."

ah, the sweet smell of reason in the evening.

Who cares if gay people get married? It doesn't affect anyone except them.

As far as I know, homosexuality is a genetic problem, not a choice.

Right. Just like blond hair is a genetic problem. Your choice of words leaves a bit to be desired, I say.

My church is non-denominational but we probably have the most similarities to Holiness/Pentacostal. Don't really know the exact beliefs of those churches though. I believe that the God defines morality and that the Bible is inerrant and says that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a tough sin to explain since it involves emotions such as love but for whatever reason that is what God says it is. My closest guess right now is that God is a creative being and made us in His image to be creative in many ways including reproductively. Homosexuality distorts God's original intention for sex and marriage and is therefore a sin. I'm am not God so I cannot give the exact reason why but I can keep studying the Bible and praying to find out and hopefully help those that do struggle with homosexuality. But if I find out that churches like the United Church of Christ is right and homosexuality is fine then I will change, but so far that is not what I understand to be true.

The Bible is several thousand years old. How much of it one takes as literal truth, and how much one considers guidelines, is probably up to the individual denominations or even individual people.

At the time the Bible informs us one must not lie with a man as with a woman, or something to that effect, the world had no concept of sexual orientation the way we consider it today (that concept -- dividing people into straight, gay, bi, etc. -- is apparently only about 150 years old, although I haven't studied it myself). The admonition could have referred very specifically to sex acts that were common at that time, but incomprehensible to us at this time: for instance, it could warn against (presumably "straight" to 20th-century readers) men, married to women, sleeping with other men outside of wedlock for pleasure; conversely it could warn against men actually forming relationships with other men, while not actually prohibiting married men from taking male lovers on the side; it could have been enshrined there to warn against the spread of a certain venereal disease, much like the kosher/halal requirements in Judaism/Islam, or the injuctions in favour of circumcision; it could refer to any number of things which we are not aware of at present.

tl;dr: God needs a new Word. Someone should write a few new books for the Bible. Even if they only start out as apocrypha and only later make it into the full edition.

Who cares if gay people get married? It doesn't affect anyone except them.

As far as I know, homosexuality is a genetic problem, not a choice.

Who cares if straight people get married? It doesn't affect anyone except them.

As far as I know, heterosexuality is a genetic problem, not a choice.

The answer depends on what ppl believe. I as a Christian believe that it is wrong. Is it natural, I say I don't know definitively b/c I have heard of instances where extremely young children such as 2yrs. old say things like they're a girl but there a boy (I don't believe environment has had that much of an affect on a child that early), BUT it is also normal to want to have sex with someone you're not married to. However, having sex before or outside of marriage is still wrong. Many feelings come naturally to us but that doesn't mean we should act on all of them.

You do realize, I would assume, that homosexuality is not an action? One can be homosexual but never have sex, just as one can be heterosexual and never have sex.

So it would seem that you are not arguing that homosexuality itself is wrong, but rather that one should not act upon homosexual attractions.


That's one interpretation, although obviously those churches who see it differently are also including other language from other parts of the Bible, which I will take as a given we're both very familiar with, being veterans of these sorts of debates.

I think others also emphasize the procreative aspects over the companionship ones, while I think the primary purpose for marriage is having a partner in life. I think the idea of raising a child within that structure arose out of the need to give a child a stable environment, not because the structure itself was designed specifically to provide such an environment.

And I snipped some of your post out to cut down on length, but I would also point out that my view of sex - and the reason I think it is generally seen by various Christian denominations as being restricted to marriage - is to be an expression of a specific type of companionship. I think sex is meant to be an expression of love between two people who have chosen to build a life together. Again, the fact that procreation is then tied to sex would have to do with the fact that two loving parents raising a child together is, in my opinion, a better situation than one parent trying to go it alone or having parents who don't work together.

Heaven forbid!

And yet... I think just reading that sentence triggered new gray hair growth on my head. Bah!

Color your hair, like me. Then you'll never know if you've got grays. =)

Edit: Is it just me, or does this thread seem to be attracting an unusually high number of first time posters and/or puppets?

Threads on this topic always seem to do that. There are a few topics that always seem to draw them in.

The point of my later post was to emphasize that everything is natural, since it is derived from nature.

And are you implying that cancer is immoral? My deceased relatives would beg to differ.

In any case, morality is in the eye of the beholder. The point is that no one person can define another's moral code. I use 'profanity' in daily speech, and yet nobody tells me this is something I should not be allowed to do. Some don't enjoy it, but they don't tell me it's immoral.
Great; we're all in agreement here. Pizza all around.

it's the future.

I can see "Homosexuality: It's the Future!" as the tagline for a parodic show of some kind. Or maybe I'm just insane.

I can see "Homosexuality: It's the Future!" as the tagline for a parodic show of some kind. Or maybe I'm just insane.

I'm seeing some awesome 1950's 'kitchen of 1970' ad. 'And in the future, the modern housepartner won't even have to cook dinner for his loving workingpartner! With the press of a button, the meal is served - and each dish is electromagically designed to suit each partner's disgusting, perverted, blasphemous needs!'

Who cares if straight people get married? It doesn't affect anyone except them.

As far as I know, heterosexuality is a genetic problem, not a choice.

Nuh-uh. Heterosexuality is totally immoral and unnatural. The way men and women act sometimes, it's like they're two different species! And what do you get when two different species crossbreed? Horrifying abominations, that are probably sterile! Again, proving the "unnatural" part. As for the immoral part... well... have you ever watched an act of heterosexual sex? It's totally icky! Sometimes they're not even wearing all their clothes! Which makes it immoral.

And if you disagree with me I'll ignore the salient parts of your argument and only pick up on the minor points and errors, which I will ridicule loudly.

I'm seeing some awesome 1950's 'kitchen of 1970' ad. 'And in the future, the modern housepartner won't even have to cook dinner for his loving workingpartner! With the press of a button, the meal is served - and each dish is electromagically designed to suit each partner's disgusting, perverted, blasphemous needs!'

The hard part will be writing a theme song.

I can't think of anything that rhymes with "lesbian", for instance.

I believe that the God defines morality and that the Bible is inerrant and says that homosexuality is a sin.

(a) Where does it say that?

Note: You may find passages stating or suggesting that homosexual sex is a sin, but I doubt you'll find one saying that being homosexual is, in and of itself, a sin.

(b) If the Bible is inerrant, why does it misdefine the circumference of a circle? Why does it identify rabbits as animals that chew the cud, bats as birds, and insects as 4-legged animals? Why does it allow men to sell their daughters into slavery and/or take slaves from other tribes and advocate genocide?

The hard part will be writing a theme song.

I can't think of anything that rhymes with "lesbian", for instance.

"Lesbian, begin again"

The hard part will be writing a theme song.

I can't think of anything that rhymes with "lesbian", for instance.
Rewrite the Flintstones theme song. Last line's "You'll have a gay old time."

"Lesbian, begin again"

Vowels don't match up, at least in my accent (eh ee uh vs. eh ih uh eh). I could just find a word ending in -es or -ez and add bian on the end, but that's sort of a cop-out.

Vowels don't match up, at least in my accent (eh ee uh vs. eh ih uh eh). I could just find a word ending in -es or -ez and add bian on the end, but that's sort of a cop-out.

"Your parents will think you're being a Thespian
Acting the part, when you're really a lesbian"

Okay, that's the best I've got. That's a stumper!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgvlaIC8YIY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgvlaIC8YIY&feature=related

I like you. Let's get married, unless you're also male, that would just be completely immoral and what-would-the-neighbours-say.

I think others also emphasize the procreative aspects over the companionship ones, while I think the primary purpose for marriage is having a partner in life. I think the idea of raising a child within that structure arose out of the need to give a child a stable environment, not because the structure itself was designed specifically to provide such an environment.

And then you've got the extremes, whose ridiculous position on sex (that not only should it be for procreation ONLY, but that if you enjoy it you're sinning) resulted in a misconception about Christian sexuality in general that *still* dogs us all, regardless of denomination

I remember reading an essay once, you may have seen it... Written by a preacher in a colonial era church up north to his congregation. In it, he outlines the idea that married couples should avoid sex in general, doing it only to try and procreate. The wife was advised to nag her husband constantly so that he'd be too annoyed with her to want sex. When the time came to actually do it, they were to remove as little clothing as possible. No noises, no enjoyment, and to get it over with quickly.

*shudder*


And I snipped some of your post out to cut down on length, but I would also point out that my view of sex - and the reason I think it is generally seen by various Christian denominations as being restricted to marriage - is to be an expression of a specific type of companionship. I think sex is meant to be an expression of love between two people who have chosen to build a life together. Again, the fact that procreation is then tied to sex would have to do with the fact that two loving parents raising a child together is, in my opinion, a better situation than one parent trying to go it alone or having parents who don't work together.


Maybe, but I'd point out that those last two circumstances aren't the ideal either. I think that's why remarriage for widows/widowers is encouraged, and divorce is (ideally) anathema to Christian life.

(Which feels weird for me to say, since I think few people in history have been as happy to divorce as I was. Even now I'm sometimes tempted to celebrate the day I received my divorce decree in the mail.)


Color your hair, like me. Then you'll never know if you've got grays. =)

:sighs: Somehow the idea of doing that feels like admitting defeat.

I mean, I'm 34 and still have a full head of thick hair. Maybe I'd be better off counting my blessings.


Threads on this topic always seem to do that. There are a few topics that always seem to draw them in.

I guess... Just seems more than usual this time, and most of them don't seem to be the usual conservative lurkers.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

Yes, but if you show your work you'll still get half credit. (The correct answer is actually "4e.")

Then how did he have a kid with Mary Magdalene?

He's the Son of God, duh. :p

I've gone back and forth a bit on how I feel about homosexuality, but right now I'm more towards the "who cares what they do as long as they're not hurting anyone" side of the scale.

Its not my lifestyle, but if it does no harm I see no point in opposing it.

I've gone back and forth a bit on how I feel about homosexuality, but right now I'm more towards the "who cares what they do as long as they're not hurting anyone" side of the scale.

Its not my lifestyle, but if it does no harm I see no point in opposing it.

I'm even okay with them hurting someone, so long as it's consensual.

I'm even okay with them hurting someone, so long as it's consensual.

And I'm not, gay or straight. Not clear and serious harm, anyways.

But I don't see how being gay, or in a gay relationship, inherrently hurts anyone. Hence, I find no reason to oppose it.

I see. So, being elderly is immoral, huh? Not to mention those disgusting "toddlers" - I mean, if being a toddler weren't wrong, two toddlers would be able to conceive a baby!

Just because something is different,doesn't mean it's wrong!If an Afro like another Afro,it's just as right as an Afro liking a white person.I actually support gays.:fluffle:

And I'm not, gay or straight. Not clear and serious harm, anyways.


So... no spankings in Casa Romulans, then?

Homosexuality is something one is born with, how can it be wrong? We do not tell sociopaths they cannot marry.

No, and any assertion that it is wrong is mere ignorance turned into a point of view.

So... no spankings in Casa Romulans, then?

No, though spankings would be on the low end of the harm scale.

No, and any assertion that it is wrong is mere ignorance turned into a point of view.

We should teach all points of view in school--we cannot indoctrinate our children against their will with concepts like: "the world is round".

Yes, it goes against the very reason of life

Yes, it goes against the very reason of life

Wait, your whole raison d'etre is not to have sex with someone like you?

It's sad and disturbing that you're so obsessed with this.

NO
my opinion is if couples get together an cant have kids more room for my future kids
thats why i say go ahead an be lez/gey as long as the population dies done along with it =]

Wait, your whole raison d'etre is not to have sex with someone like you?

That's sad and disturbing.

No, his purpose is to further cock-up the planet by creating more persons.

Yes, it goes against the very reason of life

On the contrary, gay people can eat tacos too. :)

Yes, it goes against the very reason of life

There is a lot more to life than simply reproducing. That is but one of many aspects of and possible reasons for life.

Personally, I've wondered if homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation that serves as a form of population control. God knows in an overpopulated world, having an extra X % of the population not breeding can't hurt us. Of course, I have no evidence whatsoever to back up this speculation, but its an interesting thought.

One way to pursue this would be to see if their was a statistical increase in homosexuality in overpopulated species, maybe.

NO
my opinion is if couples get together an cant have kids more room for my future kids
thats why i say go ahead an be lez/gey as long as the population dies done along with it =]

Imagine how much better the world would be if it were half homosexual: Less pollution, no starvation, cheaper housing, and so much more!

why would anyone think it is natual to be sexually excited by the smell and taste of $hit?

why would anyone think it is natual to be sexually excited by the smell and taste of $hit?

An interesting question; why not make a thread of it? as it is not relevant to this discussion.

why would anyone think it is natual to be sexually excited by the smell and taste of $hit?

Ooo, somebody needs a dictionary.

why would anyone think it is natual to be sexually excited by the smell and taste of $hit?

uhhhh... how many bodily functions have pleasing aromas? And how is this relevant to the topic? I don't enjoy the smell and taste of shit. Some people do.

Ooo, somebody needs a dictionary.

And a gentle reminder of what urine comes out of. ;)

Just as wrong as fornication, adultery, bestiality, and incest. Everybody has their sin. I am just glad that is not one I am tempted with. Government shouldn't condone any of these behaviors with legitimacy.

Anyone else notice the absurd number of newbies flaming?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1395/530587085_6b5938a689.jpg?v=0

I was going to say, looks like the same n00b using multiple puppets. Ah, puppet wanking. So wrong.

Sigged.

Oh wow, you flatter me.:$

No, how can a thing you're born with and have no choice about be wrong? That's like saying someone's hair colour is wrong.




You can be born addicted to cocaine does that mean doing drugs is ok

Just as wrong as fornication, adultery, bestiality, and incest. Everybody has their sin. I am just glad that is not one I am tempted with. Government shouldn't condone any of these behaviors with legitimacy.

When did ignorance become a point of view?

You can be born addicted to cocaine does that mean doing drugs is ok

Not relevant. Next.

On the contrary, gay people can eat tacos too. :)

Indeed they can. :D

why would anyone think it is natual to be sexually excited by the smell and taste of $hit?

Homosexuality =/= sexual excitement over the smell/taste of shit

Just as wrong as fornication,

Harms no one. So yes, just as wrong, though at the other end of the scale from the one you meant.

adultery,

Wrong, yes. In this case mainly because cheating hurts your spouse.

bestiality,

Probably physically damaging in a lot of cases. Also, consent is impossible. In other words, actual harm.

and incest.

Increased health issues to any children, among other things. I would also consider it a violation of a healthy relationship between family members.

Six brand-new nations are simultaneously flaming on the same thread; why is anyone responding?

Because its amusing, and because someone has to point out the bull shit, even when its this obvious.;)

Because its amusing, and because someone has to point out the bull shit, even when its this obvious.;)

I reserve that kind of fun for Vanishing_shame's threads. I love that guy.

Yes, it goes against the very reason of life

Orgasms?

why would anyone think it is natual to be sexually excited by the smell and taste of $hit?

Observation?

Some people are... so it would be pretty dumb to deny it.

But what does that have to do with the topic?

Just as wrong as fornication, adultery, bestiality, and incest. Everybody has their sin. I am just glad that is not one I am tempted with. Government shouldn't condone any of these behaviors with legitimacy.

Your sin would be 'judging', then, I guess?

You can be born addicted to cocaine does that mean doing drugs is ok

Are you implying that 'being gay' is something you get from your parents?

I was going to say, looks like the same n00b using multiple puppets. Ah, puppet wanking. So wrong.

And yet, oh so right.

Dance with me Lois. Dance the dance of life.

Are you implying that 'being gay' is something you get from your parents?

Just like herpes. *nods*

Wrong, yes. In this case mainly because cheating hurts your spouse.

Increased health issues to any children, among other things. I would also consider it a violation of a healthy relationship between family members.

Adultery and incest don't have to be non-consensual...

Just like herpes. *nods*

More like sterility, I would have thought...

;)

Adultery and incest don't have to be non-consensual...

True. Did I ever claim otherwise?

And yet, oh so right.

Dance with me Lois. Dance the dance of life.

There's life in the old girl, yet?

True. Did I ever claim otherwise?

The 'harm' to a partner in adultery - isn't a factor if your partner is okay with your adultery.

The emotional 'violation of a healthy relationship between family members' of incest... isn't a violation if all the participants are (legally able to consent, and) consenting.

More like sterility, I would have thought...

;)
...I see what you did there...
There's life in the old girl, yet?

Yep. Just had to hook the jumper cables up to her nipples.

The 'harm' to a partner in adultery - isn't a factor if your partner is okay with your adultery.

Maybe not. This is something that I'll concede might depend on the individual relationship. \

I think we can agree however that in a lot of cases, it is harmful.

The emotional 'violation of a healthy relationship between family members' of incest... isn't a violation if all the participants are (legally able to consent, and) consenting.

I believe that its still emotionally and psychologically unhealthy. But I'm not a psychiatrist, and I haven't researched it greatly, so I might have trouble backing that up. Doesn't mean I'm changing my mind on it though.

In any case, there's still the issue of health effects for any children resulting from such a relationship.

AHHHH I hate this I am up to all hours of the night with no decent thread forcing me to argue semantics with someone I go to bed and this one pops up. It is not fair I tell you, just not fair!!!!

No.

Next question.