Homosexuality is not moral

[Twilight Hue]

Sorry that you were hopeful, but I do have to say something.


Same as sterile women. Are gay men not physically able to impregnate women? Are straight men required to impregnate women?

Going by your reasoning, heterosexuality is also not biologically efficient.

My point is, homosexuality has nothing to do with biological efficiency. Just like it has nothing to do with morality.

That's just not true. If your talking strictly human biology here.

There's sterility with heterosexual couples, sure, but it's a very low figure, and obviously not an outright impossibility.

Men don't get pregnant. Women don't get pregnant without men.

It's pretty straightforward here.

 

[night912]

That's just not true. If your talking strictly human biology here.

There's sterility with heterosexual couples, sure, but it's a very low figure, and obviously not an outright impossibility.

Men don't get pregnant. Women don't get pregnant without men.

It's pretty straightforward here.

It's pretty straightforward that straight and gay men don't get pregnant. Women can get pregnant by homosexual and heterosexual men.

So please provide biological evidence that staright men are more biologically capable of impregnating a woman than homosexual men. Or that a sterile heterosexual man is more biologically efficient at impregnating a woman than a non sterile homosexual man. I await your evidence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's pretty straightforward that straight and gay men don't get pregnant. Women can get pregnant by homosexual and heterosexual men.

So please provide biological evidence that staright men are more biologically capable of impregnating a woman than homosexual men. Or that a sterile heterosexual man is more biologically efficient at impregnating a woman than a non sterile homosexual man. I await your evidence.

Your missing the point. Anyways...

I would assume if a gay man got a woman pregnant, or vice versa, he or she would be regarded as notably less gay I think. I think bisexual would be more accurate.

 

[night912]

That's just not true. If your talking strictly human biology here.

Uuummmmm.........biologically efficient So.....not biology?​

 

[night912]

Your missing the point. Anyways...

I would assume if a gay man got a woman pregnant, or vice versa, he or she would be regarded as notably less gay I think. I think bisexual would be more accurate.

Going strictly by numbers, there are significantly more heterosexual men who can't get pregnant than there are homosexual men who can't get pregnant.

 

[night912]

Your missing the point. Anyways...

I would assume if a gay man got a woman pregnant, or vice versa, he or she would be regarded as notably less gay I think. I think bisexual would be more accurate.

Your assumptions would be wrong and/or you're now just grasping at straws.

So, now you're claiming that a man who is sexually attracted to both men and women is not considered as being bisexual until he impregnates a women. You have a strange way of thinking when it comes to men's sexuality. Apparently you've given a third option regarding homosexuality, the impregnation of women.

So with your way of thinking, how does a heterosexual virgin man work?

BTW,
I'm still waiting for your biological evidence.

 

[Martin]

I honestly don't understand this sanctimonious preoccupation with what other people get up to in the bedroom.
Get a life.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I honestly don't understand this sanctimonious preoccupation with what other people get up to in the bedroom.
Get a life.

It's an evangelical thing. They think God created sex and God sees all.

 

[InChrist]

i watched this video the other day, on one of my subscribed channels:

i think the presentation is excellent

what say you?

According to the scriptures, homosexuality is a sin and is outside of the Creator God’s design for human beings.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

From a strictly biological and practical standpoint. You require two sexes for procreation. One male , one female.

No procreation, no society.

I'm not making a moral argument here though.

Just pointing out the pitfalls of same sex relations based on that context.

It's probably why people see it as a threat and take it too far thinking homosexuality is like some disease that will eliminate society which is not true.

The subtile point I'm making is homosexuality is not really a threat, although people see it that way thinking it will go to an extreme where society will cease to exist or something as a result, so it becomes a moral argument when it's not in spite of it being true.

No, it's mostly because it's seen as "unmanly" for men, and "mannish" for women. That seems to be the root of most homophobia and was certainly the basis for much of Western homophobia going back centuries.

 

[Valjean]

According to the scriptures, homosexuality is a sin and is outside of the Creator God’s design for human beings.

According to which scriptures? I see nothing about this in the Upanishads.
How do these scriptures back the claim up? What empirical evidence do they offer?

 

[Valjean]

No, it's mostly because it's seen as "unmanly" for men, and "mannish" for women. That seems to be the root of most homophobia and was certainly the basis for much of Western homophobia going back centuries.

I think property rights and progeny claims factor in, as well. Herders have strict rules about rustling another herder's livestock. Even if not outright stolen, women can easily be impregnated if not closely guarded, and the man may have a claim on the child. It might also affect her economic value in marital alliances.

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think property rights and progeny claims factor in, as well. Herders have strict rules about rustling another herder's livestock. Even if not outright stolen, women can easily be impregnated if not closely guarded, and the man may have a claim on the child. It might also affect her economic value in marital alliances.

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

Huh???

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From a strictly biological and practical standpoint. You require two sexes for procreation. One male , one female.

No procreation, no society.

I'm not making a moral argument here though.

Just pointing out the pitfalls of same sex relations based on that context.

It's probably why people see it as a threat and take it too far thinking homosexuality is like some disease that will eliminate society which is not true.

The subtile point I'm making is homosexuality is not really a threat, although people see it that way thinking it will go to an extreme where society will cease to exist or something as a result, so it becomes a moral argument when it's not in spite of it being true.

That would be interested we get to a period where people can get to a place where procreation does not need to be limited to the bounds of romantic/biological attraction.

If society needed to survive by procreation, why would one's sexual orientation be a problem IF both parties agreed there's no love involved.

For example, my friend always wanted to have children. She still had sex with her friend to have the child but they were in agreement that it wasn't for anything else. He's in the children's lives, has his own wife, and they all don't treat each other different despite the scenario.

Makes me think of Star Trek... how did they work things out on Vulcan during Amok Time.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

According to the scriptures, homosexuality is a sin and is outside of the Creator God’s design for human beings.

perhaps the scriptures are being misinterpreted for personal (selfish, hateful?) reasons by those people who misuse 3 or 4 verses out of 30000 plus verses, without taking into account the entirety of God’s word

i read the scriptures and concluded that God’s design was for human beings to love one another, and to NOT judge anyone

John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Matthew 7:5 “ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

whats that about a NEW commandment?

just saying

 

[Valjean]

Huh???

Women were little more than livestock back in the old days.
Come to think of it, in some parts of the world, even today......

 

[InChrist]

perhaps the scriptures are being misinterpreted for personal (selfish, hateful?) reasons by those people who misuse 3 or 4 verses out of 30000 plus verses, without taking into account the entirety of God’s word

i read the scriptures and concluded that God’s design was for human beings to love one another, and to NOT judge anyone

John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Matthew 7:5 “ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

whats that about a NEW commandment?

just saying

And I’m just saying that the scriptures state homosexuality is sinful and falls short of God’s design for human sexuality. I think God’s truth surpasses human feelings and His love and wisdom always desires what is the very best for those He created.
I didn’t say anything about judging. Although, I believe the scriptures are clear believers are to judge sin among themselves and encourage one another with humility to repent and turn back to Christ, starting with themselves without hypocrisy, as the scriptures you listed point out.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Women were little more than livestock back in the old days.
Come to think of it, in some parts of the world, even today......

True to an extent, but that doesn't seem to be the main reason why lesbianism has been looked down upon (when attention is paid to it in the first place). It seems to go back to violating cultural views of masculinity and femininity from what I can tell from the historical evidence.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I have no problem with religious views that aren't forced or coerced onto others, that is perfectly fine in my book!

It just means certainly that Baha'i is not for me. As a gay woman, I'd never be able to have physical intimacy, and that's important to me. (I mean, aside from other, skeptical reasons). But again, more power to people that believe as they want while not pushing religion onto others.

The need for love and connection is important, so any religion that tamps down natural desire for love is wrong. I think this might be why conservative religious leaders often find themselves caught in taboo sexual situations.

 

[Sand Dancer]

And I’m just saying that the scriptures state homosexuality is sinful and falls short of God’s design for human sexuality. I think God’s truth surpasses human feelings and His love and wisdom always desires what is the very best for those He created.
I didn’t say anything about judging. Although, I believe the scriptures are clear believers are to judge sin among themselves and encourage one another with humility to repent and turn back to Christ, starting with themselves without hypocrisy, as the scriptures you listed point out.

It's weird how Yahweh made us, but then punishes us when we act like humans.