standing_alone
Well-Known Member
Perfectly. If the gay features (be it genes or whatever is determined), what chances do they have to survive?
Well, it's not like homosexuality makes the reproductive system stop working.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Perfectly. If the gay features (be it genes or whatever is determined), what chances do they have to survive?
I've read something similar to it. What you didn't mention (not intentionally I'm sure) is that they are giraffes with that display homosexual "activities" (as the scientist noted) not that they are literally homosexual giraffes. Which means they might fool around with a male giraffe but still mate with a female one.Did you read the article? Giraffes seem to be doing fine survival wise....that is unless man kills them off.
Well, you are the one using giraffes as examples to establish a moral norm.I'm talking about the evolutionary aspect you brought up.
You want to talk about that in this thread?How do we establish morals?
Ok, but my question is assuming it was a choice, how does that take away anything in your opinion?
Hazel, why?Evelyn,
Since athanasius took off before answering my question, could you answer post number 84? Just substitute your eye color for blue.
Of course not, but in order for the species to continue they'd have to play as heterosexuals to make it work. That is if technology isn't involved.Well, it's not like homosexuality makes the reproductive system stop working.
I think the idea of choice makes a difference. I don't know if being gay is determined mainly by genes, environment, whatever...it's almost certainly a complex behavior (like most sexual and other human behaviors) that is not going to be easily understood. And I also agree with you Evelyn, that it does not matter whether we conclude that it is nature vs. nurture because we don't base our behaviors on those of animals. We are humans.
But the overwhelming majority of folks I've know who are gay say they are only attracted to people of the same sex and it is not a matter of choice. Sexual acts aside, this comes down to a matter of relationships and whether or not one is able to form an intimate bond, a marriage-type bond, with another person. To say a person can't ever form that kind of relationship with a person they are attracted to is taking away an important part of their life, and I don't see how anyone can, on the sole basis of "God say so," take that away from anyone.
Sure, some people might claim that they can only be "intimate" with children or animals and that is 'natural' for them. But these are not consenting adult relationships...there is always an aspect of posessiveness, control, taking what does not belong to you, when one party is not an adult human able to give consent.
I might, of course be wrong. But it seems to me that if there is any question we need to err on the side of empathy, kindness, and compassion.
Of course not, but in order for the species to continue they'd have to play as heterosexuals to make it work. That is if technology isn't involved.
You didn't answer the questions in post 84.Hazel, why?
Right, that's what I was trying to say.I think the idea of choice makes a difference. I don't know if being gay is determined mainly by genes, environment, whatever...it's almost certainly a complex behavior (like most sexual and other human behaviors) that is not going to be easily understood. And I also agree with you Evelyn, that it does not matter whether we conclude that it is nature vs. nurture because we don't base our behaviors on those of animals. We are humans.
It would be a heavy burden I imagine. But "God said so" is all I got.But the overwhelming majority of folks I've know who are gay say they are only attracted to people of the same sex and it is not a matter of choice. Sexual acts aside, this comes down to a matter of relationships and whether or not one is able to form an intimate bond, a marriage-type bond, with another person. To say a person can't ever form that kind of relationship with a person they are attracted to is taking away an important part of their life, and I don't see how anyone can, on the sole basis of "God say so," take that away from anyone.
I can't empathize with something I am not. I can though sympathize. But you are right it's entirely based on my beliefs.Sure, some people might claim that they can only be "intimate" with children or animals and that is 'natural' for them. But these are not consenting adult relationships...there is always an aspect of posessiveness, control, taking what does not belong to you, when one party is not an adult human able to give consent.
I might, of course be wrong. But it seems to me that if there is any question we need to err on the side of empathy, kindness, and compassion.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was trying to say.Well, they could have intercourse with another of the opposite sex for the sake of reproduction and then go right back to their preferred relations with those of the same.
and go right back to their male preferences. That makes them at least bi doesn't it?I've read something similar to it. What you didn't mention (not intentionally I'm sure) is that they are giraffes with that display homosexual "activities" (as the scientist noted) not that they are literally homosexual giraffes. Which means they might fool around with a male giraffe but still mate with a female one.
Not really. But, I already know that you are going to say that all morality is based on what God thinks.You want to talk about that in this thread?
Well, the comparison is a bad one. Hazel eyes don't lead me to do any action. They are just Hazel eyes.You didn't answer the questions in post 84.
Nevermind.Well, the comparison is a bad one. Hazel eyes don't lead me to do any action. They are just Hazel eyes.
I suppose it would.and go right back to their male preferences. That makes them at least bi doesn't it?
Yeah, well that's exactly why I hesitated to answer earlier because I figured you already have me all figured out.Not really. But, I already know that you are going to say that all morality is based on what God thinks.
But "God said so" is all I got.