Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

[Kurt31416]

The notion that one isn't required to prove the negative is a new concept?

 

[Autodidact]

I wasn't saying we're going to die out. I was only pointing out that if all of us were gay, we certainly would. Look, we didn't evolve penises and vaginas, testes and ovaries for no good reason, obviously. The sperm is drawn to the egg... and there is no question what the plan is there with regard to our nature.

Hell, I agree with you that the world is likely becoming over-populated with humans.. and who knows, the tendency toward being gay may even be a function of nature itself to trim the population in some small form.

I was obviously only using that scenario to make a point.

And is this a "natural" form of reproduction? It can't be. You see... therein lies my point. Our nature doesn't provide for humans to pro-create in same-sex relationships. What is so hard to understand about that? It is a simple truth. I am merely being honest about the way things are. I'm sorry if that offends you... but denying it doesn't change it.

You KNOW there is a difference between hair-color and sexual alignment. I'm not even going to make other comment on this point. You can battle it out with yourself.

So by "natural" you mean, something that if some of us don't do, we will die out? That's a weird definition.

Maybe what you meant is the homosexuality is not reproductive. I think we can all agree with that. Although many homosexual people do reproduce.

It's an interesting question as to why we would evolve a non-reproductive form of sexuality, when the primary purpose of sex is obviously reproduction. There are some interesting theories as to why this might be, and I have some ideas on it myself.

But it doesn't follow that homosexuality is not natural, or did not evolve naturally.

 

[Autodidact]

There are no exclusively homosexual mammals.

source?

In any case, there are no other mammals who wear eye-glasses either. Humans are different from other mammals. So what?

 

[Autodidact]

Nature is not a consciousness, therefore no, it has no "intentions" per se. But, nearly every species on Earth concerns itself with it's best and most fruitful propagation at all times. Only humanity breaks this mold. Our sentience allows us to fly in the face of our nature. We do it ALL THE TIME. We inhale smoke. We pierce our skin with metals and other objects. We heal the natural degradation of our bodies through artificial means. We travel in vehicles at speeds that destroy us when something goes wrong. To say that being homosexual doesn't fly in the face of our nature is ludicrous. A penis is built to enter a vagina. Sperm is built to seek the egg. Just you try and deny that. And you want to say that why? So you don't offend someone? Who cares? The truth is the truth.

And let's not forget that I don't believe homosexuality to be "wrong" in the least! Right and wrong are man-made contrivances, used to wield law and rule over the masses. If you and your partner were alone on this planet and were homosexual, who would there be to tell you you were "wrong"? No one! Therefore "wrong" doesn't play into it. However... your "nature" in that particular scenario has doomed your kind.

It does not follow from the fact that homosexuality is not reproductive to a conclusion that the existence of homosexuality is not conducive to the survival and reproduction of the species.

 

[Autodidact]

False, there's not a single solitary mammal that exibits exclusive homosexuality, other than humans.

source?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't have to prove the negative. If you think Elephants have exclusively homosexual relationships, you need to demonstrate it. I say it doesn't exist. Do elephant, human, bonobo, etc. have same sex friends and allies for life? Of course.

Apparently it is common among at least one species of albatross:

On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by two-female pairs.

​

 

[Kurt31416]

source?

Let me guess, you never heard about not being requried to prove the negative either?

Lucky guess?

 

[Kurt31416]

Apparently it is common among at least one species of albatross:

Hint: An Albatross isn't a mammal.

 

[Autodidact]

Good, it's resolved that no mammal exhibits exclusive homosexuality except humans. That's progress.

Nope.

“The variety and ubiquity of same-sex sexual behaviour in animals is impressive — many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, molluscs and nematodes,” write Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk of the University of California, Riverside.
Animals engage in same-sex activity for a variety of reasons, ranging from the need for an alternative child-rearing strategy to mistaken identity. “Male fruit flies may court other males because they are lacking a gene that enables them to discriminate between the sexes,” Dr Bailey said.
“But that is different from male bottlenose dolphins, who engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding, or female Laysan albatrosses that can remain pair-bonded for life and co-operatively rear young.” from here.

 

[J Bryson]

Gay elephant sparks anger in Poland - Telegraph

An exclusively homosexual elephant.

 

[Autodidact]

Last thing I'm saying on this, and it is really only regurgitating my previous statements unfortunately... but just the fact that a species of homosexuals would go extinct is enough for me to conclude that it is against the natural order.

What you don't allow for is the possibility that what might be beneficial for individuals might not be beneficial for species, and it might be beneficial for a species for some of its members to be homosexual, while not all.

 

[Kerr]

The notion that one isn't required to prove the negative is a new concept?

One can ask if it really is better to assume it is unnatural.

Hint: An Albatross isn't a mammal.

What does that has to do with anything? The example means it exists in nature, among other animals, which means it is natural.

 

[Autodidact]

Let me guess, you never heard about not being requried to prove the negative either?

Lucky guess?

Actually, you made an affirmative statement: X does not exist. I'm not asking you to prove it, but to provide the source or evidence for your affirmative statement, such a s review of the scientific literature on the subject, concluding that no such thing as been observed.

 

[Kurt31416]

One can ask if it really is better to assume it is unnatural.

I'll assume that means you are familiar with the notion that one isn't required to prove the negative. If so, why would you expect me to do so?

What does that has to do with anything? The example means it exists in nature, among other animals, which means it is natural.

The statement is mammals. And that no other mammal on earth does so, only humans, and it's natural? Some non-mammals eat their mates after mating. That doesn't make it normal.

 

[Kurt31416]

Actually, you made an affirmative statement: X does not exist. I'm not asking you to prove it, but to provide the source or evidence for your affirmative statement, such a s review of the scientific literature on the subject, concluding that no such thing as been observed.

You are asking me to prove that every god-damned Mammal on the planet is never exclusively homosexual. The classic case of asking someone to do the impossible, prove the negative.

Easy to prove the positive, it only takes one single solitary example.

 

[Kerr]

I'll assume that means you are familiar with the notion that one isn't required to prove the negative. If so, why would you expect me to do so?

Not really, I just said that whatever you meant is worse then assuming homosexuality is unnatural, so I sort of gambled a little, lol.

The statement is mammals. And that no other mammal on earth does so, only humans, and it's natural? Some non-mammals eat their mates after mating. That doesn't make it normal.

Yet for their species it is natural. Just as homosexuality is for us.

And what does normality have to do with anything?

 

[Kurt31416]

If only humans do something like that, and no other mammal does, it's about as unnatural as it gets. If that's not unnatural the word has no meaning.

 

[Kerr]

If only humans do something like that, and no other mammal does, it's about as unnatural as it gets. If that's not unnatural the word has no meaning.

Then it has no meaning, because I have yet to see any proof it is unnatural. If it is a behaviour that exists within the specie, it is natural for that specie.

 

[Kurt31416]

Ah, so child molesting and trunk murderers are natural becuase it exists in the species?

 

[Kerr]

Natural has nothing to do with morality, it just tells if something exist in nature or not. Both love and murder are natural, but only love is a good thing.