• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

HouseofIsrael

HouseofIsrael

Member
Sunstone said:
In most mammals, the female signals her fertility. She goes into estrus or "heat". During that time, it is obvious she is fertile. And in most mammals sex only occurs when the female is in heat or estrus.
Click to expand...
I figure here you speak of animals, primarily. What the term heat means? is it her passion for sex?
If sex in humans is primarily for reproduction, then how do you explain the lack of a pronounced estrus phase in human females? In other words, why don't human females go into heat? Again, why don't humans mate only when human females are fertile -- as is the case in most other mammals?
Click to expand...
Pleasure. Pleasure. Pleasure -it's nice. About the last question, I believe a strong emphasis of sex is placed on pleasure, this is the fact no one can run from, but i still believe that pleasure in sex is not the ultimatum and therefore is just a product of sex. So inasmuch as the estrus phase might not be prevalent in humans (if this is the case)it still doesn't justify the argument. Button-line, sex, pleasurable or pleasure-less was primarily designed to produce offspring. Why don't homosexuals get pregnant after concurrent sexual intercourse if my argument doesn't hold true?
I think you could make a much stronger case that sex is primarily for reproduction in non-humans. But when you try to make a case that sex is primarily for reproduction in humans, you collide with the estrus phase -- or its lack -- in humans.
Click to expand...
I still don't understand how the estrus phase can fit this bill to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
HouseofIsrael said:
I still don't understand how the estrus phase can fit this bill to be honest.
Click to expand...

The point is that animals go into heat, allowing males of the species to have sex with them at only the most opportune times for reproducing. Humans don't have the same structure. Women don't go into heat. There is no "Hey, this is a good time for me to reproduce" mechanism. That mechanism in animals gives you good evidence that sex for them is really just about reproduction. The lack of it in humans gives good evidence that it's not, in fact, only for reproduction.
 
HouseofIsrael

HouseofIsrael

Member
mball1297 said:
The point is that animals go into heat, allowing males of the species to have sex with them at only the most opportune times for reproducing. Humans don't have the same structure. Women don't go into heat. There is no "Hey, this is a good time for me to reproduce" mechanism. That mechanism in animals gives you good evidence that sex for them is really just about reproduction. The lack of it in humans gives good evidence that it's not, in fact, only for reproduction.
Click to expand...
Understood.
 
B

BenFX

Agnostic Practitioner
How is why a Human has sex even a factor in whether or not it is right to call a homosexual a sinner?
The only factors I see involved in this is how you view holy text. Outside of that there is no rational reason to state it as sin or not, but a belief that you are saying what God intended. Read it literally and believe it than homosexuality is a sin, punishable by stoning. Read it in todays context the way we do with other scripture and homosexuality and how the world view it and treat has changed immensely from the days the texts were written, and you can be more lenient. Or, be athiest and it doesn't matter.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The way I see it, if you believe that being homosexual is sin, that is ok, as it is your right to believe so. However, when you begin to demand that the rights of homosexuals be infringed, and build up public anger at gays, then it is wrong.
 
Buttons*

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Sunstone said:
In most mammals, the female signals her fertility. She goes into estrus or "heat". During that time, it is obvious she is fertile. And in most mammals sex only occurs when the female is in heat or estrus.

If sex in humans is primarily for reproduction, then how do you explain the lack of a pronounced estrus phase in human females? In other words, why don't human females go into heat? Again, why don't humans mate only when human females are fertile -- as is the case in most other mammals?

I think you could make a much stronger case that sex is primarily for reproduction in non-humans. But when you try to make a case that sex is primarily for reproduction in humans, you collide with the estrus phase -- or its lack -- in humans.
Click to expand...

Well... there are studies that suggest that a woman actually does give off hormones in a "heat" fashion during the ovulation period where she is most likely to become pregnant. In some cases, women become more attractive to men when they do give of this hormone or pheromone - and also certain men become more attractive to females during this time. (The study I read claimed that most women during this ovulation period fancied men that were built strong, acted manly, and in general were most fit to make babies with. Other times in the month, during menstruation especially, the more feminine looking or acting man is more attractive to women.) It's a scent that largely goes unnoticed.... but does serve the purpose of helping to attract a mate that picks up on this "ready" signal.
 
linwood

linwood

Well-Known Member
HouseofIsrael said:
Button-line, sex, pleasurable or pleasure-less was primarily designed to produce offspring. Why don't homosexuals get pregnant after concurrent sexual intercourse if my argument doesn't hold true?
Click to expand...

Who designed sex?

What are you talking about?

:shrug:

Seems to me the fact that sex is pleasurable is evidence it wasn`t designed.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Wouldn't the fact that two persons of the same sex, engaging in sexual acts could not reproduce by no means render homosexuality as dysfunctional?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the fact that two persons of the opposite sex, engaging in sexual acts that could not reproduce by no means render infertile heterosexuality as dysfunctional?

Button-line, sex, pleasurable or pleasure-less was primarily designed to produce offspring. Why don't homosexuals get pregnant after concurrent sexual intercourse if my argument doesn't hold true?
Click to expand...
Actually, if sex was not for fun, the clitoris and prostate gland would probably not serve the same purposes. Sex, for humans and dolphins anyways, was very much so designed for pleasure, just as much as reproduction. The clitoris allows for human females to orgasm (which I believe human females are the only female species who can orgasm), and the male prostate gland is the equivalent of the female g-spot. Also, the prostate gland can only be stimulated through anal penetration.
 
HouseofIsrael

HouseofIsrael

Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Wouldn't the fact that two persons of the opposite sex, engaging in sexual acts that could not reproduce by no means render infertile heterosexuality as dysfunctional?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Those two people, yes -dysfunctional organs.
Click to expand...
Actually, if sex was not for fun, the clitoris and prostate gland would probably not serve the same purposes. Sex, for humans and dolphins anyways, was very much so designed for pleasure, just as much as reproduction. The clitoris allows for human females to orgasm (which I believe human females are the only female species who can orgasm), and the male prostate gland is the equivalent of the female g-spot. Also, the prostate gland can only be stimulated through anal penetration.
Click to expand...
Sex is fun, that's why it's so hard to stop people from making babies and cheating in relationships but i say homosexuality is dysfunctional on the fact that no matter how much pleasure and penetration is engage by two same sex individuals the possibility of reproduction is 0, this may only make sense of course if one sees my point beyond sex being more than just pleasure, anyways.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
HouseofIsrael said:
Only so if your view of the function of sex is for pleasure and emotions. Because that is all there is to it in the practice of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

For me, the primary function of sex is sharing love. That may be all there is to it, but I find it quite enough.
 
darkendless

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
Autodidact said:
For me, the primary function of sex is sharing love. That may be all there is to it, but I find it quite enough.
Click to expand...

Thats it, Christians don't love each other, they only have sex to pro-create and further condemn the human race.

Don't these threads just **** you off? I'm not a homosexual but i feel strongly for those who are. If my rights were infringed by a certain group of people more than another i'd burn their places of worship down :rolleyes:
 
slave2six

slave2six

Substitious
Enlighten said:
I have now discovered that homosexuality is not a sin, it's a disease...
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, if your God created mankind, for what purpose did he make sex pleasurable? It seems to me that it is this that makes sex such an issue with people. Your book abhors the "lust of the flesh" and things of that nature and yet it was your God who designed people to experience those pleasures that your book later abhors. It sounds like a setup to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top