Homosexuality and religious.

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it was no such attempt. Two people who love each other having sex with each other for purposes other than producing offspring are in the same light.

Yeah, in totally natural terms as a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

But what makes you think that it is NOT possible for a homosexual man to have sexual intercourse with a lesbian?

Maybe you need to enrol in a sex education class...

Straw man. Maybe you need to get up to speed. I never thought any such thing.

All I ever said is that a homosexual cannot have sex with his or her homosexual partner and produce a child.

My best friend @Truthseeker is married to a lesbian and they had sex in order to have a child.

 

[Trailblazer]

So is it a fact or an opinion what makes a disorder a disorder?

It is a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

In your opinion.

According to my belief.

 

[We Never Know]

So petty ad hominem is all you have again then. I never wavered in my estimation of your posts, trolltastic, and not vey subtle either. Anyway not much point expending any real energy on the facile guff you post, so I'll just keep pasting the questions you ignored, that exposed the idiocy of your claims.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support your idiotic assumption that being gay is genetic? That has apparently escaped the entire scientific world.

When you're done wiping that egg off your face, gay people can and do reproduce having heterosexual sex. They're are also born overwhelmingly to straight parents. So go on champ, tell us how their genes are going to die out, I'm sure we're all agog with anticipation. Better still tell us why there are still gay people after hundreds of thousands of years.

As i said. "Get caught up"
See my post #2296 that says science doesn't support there being a gay gene. Yet still some people think/say there is a gay gene.

Your post support my post. So all you have done is got egg on your face, your shirt and your lap lmao

If science says there is no gay gene and no straight gene, what do we do? Does that mean there are no transgender genes too?

"There is no single gene responsible for a person being gay or a lesbian.

That's the first thing you need to know about the largest genetic investigation of sexuality ever, which was published Thursday in Science. The study of nearly a half million people closes the door on the debate around the existence of a so-called "gay gene."

In its stead, the report finds that human DNA cannot predict who is gay or heterosexual. Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences, this study and others show, because human sexual attraction is decided by all these factors.

"This is not a first study exploring the genetics of same-sex behavior, but the previous studies were small and underpowered," Andrea Ganna, the study's co-author and genetics research fellow at the Broad Institute and Mass General Hospital, said in a press briefing on Wednesday. "Just to give you a sense of the scale of [our] data, this is approximately 100 times bigger than any previous study on this topic."

Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences, this study and others show, because human sexual attraction is decided by all these factors."

Read more here

https://www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16645977299743&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is a fact.

Well, science has moved on. A disorder is in part an opinion for some human behavior.
I mean I am correctly reading sociology and psychology theories, which explain that.
You are living in the past.

 

[Trailblazer]

But the Bible is not about right or wrong. It is about opinion, so it has nothing to do with everyday world unless you believe that is all opinion and all opinion goes. You are conflating two versions of natural. One is about facts and the other is about opinion.

Much of the Bible is about what God considers right and wrong. That is God's opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

According to my belief.

So is all of nature what you believe?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Much of the Bible is about what God considers right and wrong. That is God's opinion.

So all is natural as per your opinion?

 

[Trailblazer]

So all is natural as per your opinion?

No, what is natural is a fact.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, we don't have to change our views just to keep up with what is considered acceptable in modern society.

No, you don't. Nor does society have to accept religious homophobia. Nor do they need define what that is your way.

@Vinayaka commented, "I think time has already told us, or at least hinted at the final outcome, which is a dying out of the Baha'i faith. It has serious problems, not the least of which is to attract youth within the aging demographic. Kids are just too smart to go with homophobia and other out of date ideas. Within 20 years, many centers will have to close, or sell off properties to other groups. But hey, that's life for a lot of religions. Baha'is aren't alone in this by any means."

Whatever doesn't adapt goes extinct when some biological or cultural pressure is shrinking their numbers. The Christians are seeing this, as they hemorrhage market share in the States, although they are attempting to adapt, albeit too little too slowly. For example, hell theology, which many church elders recognize as being quite off-putting, and so are experimenting with new dogma intended to mitigate that revulsion, such as hell being separation from God, or God doesn't send us there but rather we send ourselves. It's also why so many denominations accept evolution and try not to do battle with science, also quite off-putting to many.

Likewise with the homophobia. Growing numbers of people are growing intolerant of religious intolerance (bigotry) and calling the theists out for it. That's what you're seeing in this thread. It seems like the Baha'i here have done all they can to mitigate the reaction of disgust, but to no avail.

There is no lack of evidence, only lack of the kind of evidence you require. Belief is not contrary to the evidence since the evidence indicates that there is a God.

Yes, the kind of evidence an empiricist needs is the kind that makes an idea correct or more likely to be correct than competing hypotheses. What you are calling evidence for a god doesn't meet that standard. Nothing ever written has been or is evidence for a god, since all of it is better explained naturalistically as the words of men, like all other words.

How can homosexual people produce children by having sex with each other?

They can't. They use other techniques to acquire children. They understand that homosexual sex will not produce children. Likewise with going out for a meal. That also doesn't generate children, and gay people understand that, which is why that is also not how they try to procreate. In both cases, there must be another reason for those who do them to do those things.

No, of course I am not suggesting that producing a child is a mandatory goal of every possible sexual act. There are many other reasons why people have sex. That is only one reason, and not the reason why most sex is engaged in.

Yet you have raised the issue during a conversation about why homosexuality is immoral. Your purpose for doing that is clear.

Let's go back and look at what I asked. Trailblazer said: ↑ How can homosexual people produce children by having sex with each other? That was a simple question. I just wanted to know how that was possible. My question was unrelated to what sexual relationships are about, or whether all sexual relationships are about offspring. Clearly, all sexual relationships are not for the purpose of producing offspring. Now do you understand?

Yes, I understand, and it appears that so do the rest of those you are disagreeing with. You consider homosexuality harmful and will make any argument you can think of that you feel supports that faith-based belief. If homosexuality led to sunburn, that fact would be in this thread as an argument against it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, what is natural is a fact.

So it is natural for 2 homosexuals to make a child.

 

[dybmh]

Much of the Bible is about what God considers right and wrong. That is God's opinion.

What a minute... you said God doesn't have opinions because God is all knowing. An opinion is an idea which may or may not be true. That wouldn't apply to God. You convinced me... remember

What you're describing, in my view, is God's attitude, what God considers right and wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

Whose fault is that?



It will disappear from the gene pool. But that hasn't happened with homosexuality, which appears throughout much of the animal kingdom. That should tell you something.



No, you don't, but then you aren't discriminated against for your sexuality, either. You also don't need to proclaim that white lives matter.



I think he's right. Homophobia is a type of hatred. You understand, I hope, that you are not the arbiter of whether others find your opinions bigoted. The objection we see most often here is that the bigot doesn't feel hatred. Why would that matter to deciding whether such beliefs are homophobic and destructive to the gay community? That just means that you've learned to feel good about the belief.



You pushed his buttons and got the reaction you were likely looking for. I think he would agree that posting angrily like that was an act of acute angst caused by the mood of the conversation, which was dismissive of who he is and how he feels, and a net harm to his argument. He has never expressed hatred of any kind on RF before to my knowledge. Now, because of that choice, you get to turn it around and call him the hater, as if he were the instigator or is somehow in the wrong for hating how homophobes have made his life harder and expressing it emotionally. This is the same tactic used with BLM - push them to violence and then say, see, there's the problem.

Too bad that you can't feel empathy there. But you also forfeit empathy when you do that. Yesterday, there was a similar thread complaining about having to be empathetic to the transgendered. It seems to be a symptom of modern American life more and more. Gun people have no empathy for terrified school children or their parents, and walk through Wal-Marts with assault rifles strapped to their backs. Empathy-free Karens are shouting at people in their neighborhoods and calling police over nothing but color. The Christians are inflicting their theocratic beliefs on an unwilling majority, utterly indifferent to the pain that causes. People are coughing in the faces of others for being asked to wear a mask, indifferent to the fears of others around them. The mantra of Republican voters was, "F*** your feelings." All of those people have lost my empathy. I am as indifferent to what becomes of them as they are to those they treat so shabbily.

If I have homophobia then you certainly have religiophobia being you don't agree with them much.

Edit...

Just because one disagrees with someone about their life doesn't mean they hate them.

I disagree with hookers life, drug users life, etc. but don't hate them.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you don't. Nor does society have to accept religious homophobia. Nor do they need define what that is your way.

When did I ever say that society has to do either of those things?
Conversely, religious people do not have to accept what society considers acceptable or define what that is the way society defines it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

@Vinayaka commented, "I think time has already told us, or at least hinted at the final outcome, which is a dying out of the Baha'i faith. It has serious problems, not the least of which is to attract youth within the aging demographic. Kids are just too smart to go with homophobia and other out of date ideas. Within 20 years, many centers will have to close, or sell off properties to other groups. But hey, that's life for a lot of religions. Baha'is aren't alone in this by any means."

This has been given in Prophecy, that a time would come when the Cause of Baha'u'llah is seen as insignificant and becomes a plaything for those that are set in their ways.

So out of genuine Love, I offer hang on for the ride of your life, the world and all we know of, will change dramatically.

Have a look at history, where are all those great civilizations that archaeology now dig up, this old world order will not continue.

The warnings given in scriptures do unfold, but not in the way we have perceived.

Stay safe, stay happy. Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet you have raised the issue during a conversation about why homosexuality is immoral. Your purpose for doing that is clear.

I raised the issue but I never said that is why I consider homosexuality immoral.
The only reason I consider it immoral is because God considers it immoral.

Yes, I understand, and it appears that so do the rest of those you are disagreeing with. You consider homosexuality harmful and will make any argument you can think of that you feel supports that faith-based belief.

Yes, I understand, and it appears that so do the rest of those you are disagreeing with. You consider homosexuality harmless and will make any argument you can think of that you feel supports that personal opinion.

I believe that homosexuality is harmful to the soul because that is a religious belief, but I am not the one who is making all the arguments here, in case you have not noticed. I have no arguments to make, only beliefs to share, and I do not care if people agree with them, since I am not trying to sway anyone in my direction. I am mostly an onlooker and I am on this thread primarily for the entertainment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I raised the issue but I never said that is why I consider homosexuality immoral.
The only reason I consider it immoral is because God considers it immoral.

Yes, I understand, and it appears that so do the rest of those you are disagreeing with. You consider homosexuality harmless and will make any argument you can think of that you feel supports that personal opinion.

I believe that homosexuality is harmful to the soul because that is a religious belief, but I am not the one who is making all the arguments here, in case you have not noticed. I have no arguments to make, only beliefs to share, and I do not care if people agree with them, since I am not trying to sway anyone in my direction. I am mostly an onlooker and I am on this thread primarily for the entertainment.

So stop using natural.

 

[Trailblazer]

What a minute... you said God doesn't have opinions because God is all knowing. An opinion is an idea which may or may not be true. That wouldn't apply to God. You convinced me... remember

What you're describing, in my view, is God's attitude, what God considers right and wrong.

When I said that is God's opinion I meant that is what God knows is right and wrong.
Yes, it is God's attitude, what God considers right and wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

I raised the issue but I never said that is why I consider homosexuality immoral.
The only reason I consider it immoral is because God considers it immoral.

Yes, I understand, and it appears that so do the rest of those you are disagreeing with. You consider homosexuality harmless and will make any argument you can think of that you feel supports that personal opinion.

I believe that homosexuality is harmful to the soul because that is a religious belief, but I am not the one who is making all the arguments here, in case you have not noticed. I have no arguments to make, only beliefs to share, and I do not care if people agree with them, since I am not trying to sway anyone in my direction. I am mostly an onlooker and I am on this thread primarily for the entertainment.

Why is it that if someone doesn't agree with a homosexual's life, they must hate them?

Does that mean that if someone doesn't agree with a religious persons life, they hate them?