How does homosexual activity benefit society?

[Meow Mix]

I strongly urge you to read the sample from that book on amazon. The words are amazing, considering the fact that they are from a LESBIAN.

Just wanted to cut in here to say that if she willfully engaged in heterosexual sex which she enjoyed for the sake of it, then she is not a lesbian -- she is bisexual, even if she has a strong preference for women over men.

That is not how it would work for all or even most homosexuals -- they could not do that.

 

[Meow Mix]

And many succeeded. Despite the fact that society tries to convince them that they couldn't.

Besides, arguing that something is natural does not mean it is right. Murder is natural. Cannibalism is natural. Crap eating is natural. Zoophilia is natural. Besides, zoophilia doesn't hurt anyone. Why are we forcing them to change? If gays can't change, then there is no reason to believe that kleptomaniacs, zoophiles, pedophiles, necrophiles, vorarephiles, etc can change.

Ok, first of all, zoophilia does involve nonconsent -- totally different from consensual homosexual relationships. (How anthropocentric of you to assume there aren't consent issues with animals -- as if they aren't sentient!)

Secondly, it's really disgusting that you just compared homosexuality to things like coprophagia and kleptomania. Seriously, I don't offend easily, but what if someone compared Mormonism or something to coprophagia as if it's just expected to be obvious they're in the same category?

 

[connermt]

That is not how it would work for all or even most homosexuals -- they could not do that.

Technically (if you're speaking of straight sex), most homosexuals COULD do that, they just choose not to because it's not their prefernce.
There's a great deal of difference between the act and the preference of sex.

 

[Meow Mix]

Healthiness and temporary "happiness" is not an indication of if it is morally correct. Many criminals lead healthy, and "happy" lives.

What moral connotations does homosexuality have? WHY do you suppose it is immoral? For instance, see below:

Nope, not the same, but the tendencies they have are every bit as strong as a homosexual's. Why would God let any of them be born the way they were, with zoophilic, pedophilic, or necrophilic tendencies? Why would He condemn them to hell before they were born?

All of the "philia's" you mention above are immoral because they involve nonconsent: animals are incapable of providing informed consent yet they are sentient beings (not necessarily conscious beings, sentience is just the capacity to feel suffering). Children are incapable of providing informed consent because they're too young, immature, and don't understand the consequences or possibly even the act. Corpses are still considered the property of the deceased and in a tertiary way of their family's -- more nonconsent.

 

[Meow Mix]

Technically (if you're speaking of straight sex), most homosexuals COULD do that, they just choose not to because it's not their prefernce.
There's a great deal of difference between the act and the preference of sex.

Yeah, it's possible for anyone to hold their nose and do it to achieve some goal (such as having children). I specifically mentioned enjoying it.

 

[connermt]

Lesbians are able to bear children by in vitro fertilization.

Homosexuality helps to limit dangerous runaway population growth. There are far too many people in some countries, not too few. In addition, every new person on the earth contributes to global warming, and uses valuable food and water resources.

What options does nekoboy suggest for homosexuals? Even some supporters of reparative therapy have admitted that it only works about 30% of the time, and works best by far for religiously motivated homosexuals.

Many homosexuals have unsuccessfully tried to give up homosexuality, and became very unhappy during their attempts to give it up.

Initial sexual identity is not a choice, and is generally difficult to change.

Why does homosexuality (or heterosexuality) have to benefit society at all?
Why does everything have to have a benefit? Why can't things just "be"?

Beyond that, one's sexuality is their business, no one else's. If a gay person wants to go to "therapy" it's their choice. If not, that's also their choice. No one should be chastized for their own decision.

From my experience, those who have had their homosexuality "repaired" are lying to themselves for their outward benefit in society. Simply because you can abstain from a desire means only that. If the desire's still there, there has been no "repair" at the fundamental level.

Going beyond all that, human sexuality is like a scale. One is totally straight and 10 is totally gay. From experience, almost no one is a 1 or a 10, no matter how much they may like to think so.
Add some variables in the mix, and you will (some quicker than others) become somewhere between a 2 and a 9.

 

[Meow Mix]

no children come of heterosexual sex too, not always anyway, it's only by being careless. homosexual women could just as easy develop an urge to have 'plenty' of children as any heterosexual woman and their mistakes. it would even double the number.

:areyoucra No thanks!

p)

 

[connermt]

Yeah, it's possible for anyone to hold their nose and do it to achieve some goal (such as having children). I specifically mentioned enjoying it.

Yeah...."enjoying" it is another animal altogether!

 

[sojourner]

It makes sense, inside their own heads anyway.

Lots of things "make sense" inside the heads of the criminally insane, too. I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer and Son of Sam were completely convinced of the reasonableness of their actions.

 

[sojourner]

Besides, arguing that something is natural does not mean it is right. Murder is natural. Cannibalism is natural. Crap eating is natural. Zoophilia is natural. Besides, zoophilia doesn't hurt anyone. Why are we forcing them to change? If gays can't change, then there is no reason to believe that kleptomaniacs, zoophiles, pedophiles, necrophiles, vorarephiles, etc can change.

Except that nothing that ends in "Philia" is considered natural. Everything you've mentioned is considered to be deviant behavior. However, homosexuality does not appear in the DSM. It is considered by the medical and psychiatric community as completely normal. It is both natural and normal, while the other things you mentioned are not.

Please stop lumping homosexuals in with the mentally-ill population. You live in a pretty big glass house, yourself.

 

[nekoboy]

What moral connotations does homosexuality have? WHY do you suppose it is immoral? For instance, see below:



All of the "philia's" you mention above are immoral because they involve nonconsent: animals are incapable of providing informed consent yet they are sentient beings (not necessarily conscious beings, sentience is just the capacity to feel suffering). Children are incapable of providing informed consent because they're too young, immature, and don't understand the consequences or possibly even the act. Corpses are still considered the property of the deceased and in a tertiary way of their family's -- more nonconsent.

That still doesn't answer my question. Many of them have never chosen to become what they became. Why would God let them be born the way they were? Why would God damn them to a life of misery and an afterlife of fire and brimstone before they were even born?

 

[9Westy9]

That still doesn't answer my question. Many of them have never chosen to become what they became. Why would God let them be born the way they were? Why would God damn them to a life of misery and an afterlife of fire and brimstone before they were even born?

That's your problem mate.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Homosexual activity benefits society because the result is healthy, well adjusted, productive members of society. Repressed emotions cause many problems with very little benefits.

 

[sojourner]

That still doesn't answer my question. Many of them have never chosen to become what they became. Why would God let them be born the way they were? Why would God damn them to a life of misery and an afterlife of fire and brimstone before they were even born?

Just because you're disgusted with it doesn't mean that God is similarly disgusted with it. Have you ever considered that you might be **GASP!** wrong about this issue?

 

[Meow Mix]

That still doesn't answer my question. Many of them have never chosen to become what they became. Why would God let them be born the way they were? Why would God damn them to a life of misery and an afterlife of fire and brimstone before they were even born?

That question poses no problem to an atheist, though; so I'm not sure why you're damaging your own case here (unless you believe in a malicious or apathetic deity).

It makes sense that if our minds are emergent properties of our brains, and that nature is for the most part apathetic that our emergent properties come out healthy, that there would be some anomalous brain structures and chemistry. (No, not arguing against free will here, but it is inarguably true that there are physical causal aspects to our personalities, actions, and beliefs)

It doesn't make sense for this to be the case if a benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable God exists.

So... really, why are you asking questions that damages your own worldview (assuming your worldview involves such a being, assuming all Mormons are monotheists)?

Now, I think that it *is* pertinant to this conversation to ask why something has or doesn't have moral connotations. I explained why the -philias you listed have a negative moral connotation, but I certainly don't understand why homosexuality would have any moral connotation whatsoever any more than liking the color green would have a moral connotation.

Can you help explain? Or is this just another one of those "ew, it's icky to me so it must be evil" things?

 

[Father Heathen]

Why would God damn them to a life of misery and an afterlife of fire and brimstone before they were even born?

Any misery they suffer is due to the ignorance and bigotry of society, and the whole fire and brimstone has absolutely nothing to do with any real god. It was concocted in the imaginations of mere mortals as a revenge fantasy and as a tool to control by fear. Justice is when the punishment fits the crime, and no human is capable of committing anything proportionate to eternal torture. Your perception and portrayal of god makes him appear like a petty, infantile, sadistic cartoon character. Nothing worth taking seriously. Using reason and compassion as a basis for morality is far superior than using that filthy tome of yours. Religions, like yours, use god as a sock puppet and project their own egos, emotions, identities and attitudes through "him". The god of your religion was created in man's image, not the other way around. In the modern world, we should examine evidence and think rationality. We shouldn't be wallowing in willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty just to retain ugly, outmoded social perceptions. Mindlessly adhering to arbitrary and rigid nonsense holds us back. Religious fundamentalism has always been the enemy of rights, freedom, equality and justice, has always hindered social progress, and has always stood in the way of scientific and technological advancement. It's filth, period.

 

[nekoboy]

Any misery they suffer is due to the ignorance and bigotry of society, and the whole fire and brimstone has absolutely nothing to do with any real god. It was concocted in the imaginations of mere mortals as a revenge fantasy and as a tool to control by fear. Justice is when the punishment fits the crime, and no human is capable of committing anything proportionate to eternal torture. Your perception and portrayal of god makes him appear like a petty, infantile, sadistic cartoon character. Nothing worth taking seriously. Using reason and compassion as a basis for morality is far superior than using that filthy tome of yours.

Except the fire and brimstone is not eternal.
Plan of Salvation

The question I am asking is: WHY WOULD GOD LET PEOPLE BE BORN WITH A PARAPHILIA IF THERE IS NO HOPE TO CHANGE? Why would God let anyone be born with a tendency that would cause them to hurt others if they had no way to get rid of it? I wasn't talking about homosexuality. Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

Look, we are all sinners. Everyone is worthy of damnation, except for the fact that we were given another chance. It isn't hateful to consider certain practices morally wrong, however. I have friends who are members of the LGBT community, and I don't hold their homosexuality against them, although I can't support them in their decisions.

 

[Father Heathen]

WHY WOULD GOD LET PEOPLE BE BORN WITH A PARAPHILIA IF THERE IS NO HOPE TO CHANGE? Why would God let anyone be born with a tendency that would cause them to hurt others if they had no way to get rid of it?

Because there is no god, at least not as religions typically perceive and portray the concept. And paraplegia are typically developed and can be curved with psychiatric treatment.

 

[waitasec]

Except the fire and brimstone is not eternal.
Plan of Salvation

The question I am asking is: WHY WOULD GOD LET PEOPLE BE BORN WITH A PARAPHILIA IF THERE IS NO HOPE TO CHANGE? Why would God let anyone be born with a tendency that would cause them to hurt others if they had no way to get rid of it? I wasn't talking about homosexuality. Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

why are you asking this question?
don't you already know the answer?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The question I am asking is: WHY WOULD GOD LET PEOPLE BE BORN WITH A PARAPHILIA IF THERE IS NO HOPE TO CHANGE? Why would God let anyone be born with a tendency that would cause them to hurt others if they had no way to get rid of it?

Maybe because he sees nothing wrong with it? Have you considered that?

What about the "tendency" causes them to "hurt others"?