Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

[Kerr]

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

Besides, homosexuality is not even the same thing as those. It is like apples and oranges.

And to be specific, if a species introduce a behaviour by itself that behaviour is not natural. I do not however think homosexuality is a part of this, since it seems to me like it is nothing you choose but something that has always existed in our species.

 

[Smoke]

Oh boy... here we go. I wasn't really trying to say that I know or have some intimate knowledge of what nature "should be"... I used bad wording with the word "supposed to" in there somewhere.

That's fine, but of course I can only respond to what you say, not to what you might have said if you had thought it out better.

You simply can't sustain a species populated with entirely gay members. Which DOES (no matter what you want to believe) say something about the validity of that state when it comes to natural survival. That is nearly my only point.

Yes, and it's wrong -- not only because gay people can and often do reproduce, but because you are assuming that individuals who don't reproduce don't contribute to the survival of their bloodlines. An extreme example is ants. The vast majority of ants never reproduce. Would you say that arrangement is unnatural?

A childless sibling may contribute, especially in primitive conditions, to the survival of her nieces and nephews in a way that would not be possible if she had her own children to look out for. A childless sibling may also be better able to care for aging parents, freeing up the siblings with children to devote more time and resources to caring for those children. A childless citizen may devote more time and resources to the community than one who must devote more time and resources to bringing up children. The parents of the childless person pass on their genes through their other children who have children. The presence of a childless person in the family may help.

A species in which nobody reproduced would obviously die out. But that is not what we have. When we talk about what is natural, we are talking about what is, not about what might be in some extreme and wholly imaginary circumstance.

The fact is that we have evolved such that a substantial number of us are homosexual. That is not contrary to nature; it is nature.

The sperm is drawn to the egg... and there is no question what the plan is there with regard to our nature.

Nature doesn't have a plan. Nature happens. What works, keeps happening.

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

I know, but it's without merit. You might as well say that having hair is unnatural, since we couldn't see if we had thick hair growing on our eyeballs.

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 really haven't thought this out at all. As modern science provides new ways to reproduce -- ways that were developed, by the way, to help heterosexual couples with reproductive problems -- then of course gay people will take advantage of those scientific advances just as straight people do. Before those advances -- and even since then -- many gay people simply reproduced in the old-fashioned way. Some gave up the possibility of same-sex relationships, and some didn't. Adultery is rampant even among heterosexual couples; do you imagine that gay people haven't often married and taken gay lovers in addition to their spouses? Do you imagine there have never been marriages of convenience, either between two gay people of opposite sex or between a gay person and a straight person? Even among heterosexuals, there are countless people whose primary emotional bond is not with the mother or father of their children. This is so obvious that I'm astonished that anybody could overlook 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.

Of course there is. But there's no difference that shows that having a substantial number of that people with either trait works against the survival of the species, and that's the similarity I was pointing out.

 

[Smoke]

There are no exclusively homosexual mammals.

There are damn few mammal species that are exclusively heterosexual, either.

 

[Smoke]

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

That principle doesn't mean that you can regard any statement as proven as long as it's phrased in a negative form.

 

[Smoke]

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

Classic. Somebody says that homosexuality isn't natural. You show that it is. Then they say, "But it doesn't matter if it's natural!" Well, fine. Then you have no point. Why bring it up in the first place?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

In many primate species same-sex mounting is far more than incidental and should not be dismissed as an unimportant aberration (Small, 1993, p. 143). Female bonobos have been observed to choose genital-genital rubbing with another female over copulation with a male. During one season in which 58 bonobo females were observed, 45 "engaged in homosexual activity" and some were exclusively homosexual (1993, pp. 144-145).
from here.

 

[Masourga]

You really haven't thought this out at all. As modern science provides new ways to reproduce -- ways that were developed, by the way, to help heterosexual couples with reproductive problems -- then of course gay people will take advantage of those scientific advances just as straight people do. Before those advances -- and even since then -- many gay people simply reproduced in the old-fashioned way. Some gave up the possibility of same-sex relationships, and some didn't.

In my opinion, this sentiment you have shared here, defeats your argument. Modern science may have ways of artificially providing you with a child, sure. Where is nature's hand in that? How is that natural?

If a homosexual female goes to a clinic, picks out a sperm donor and has herself inseminated, is that considered natural?

If a homosexual male individual has some ties to a female who is willing to let him impregnate her and carry the baby, isn't that going against his own nature? Sure the act itself and the creation of the child are according to nature, but isn't there still something less than desirable about that circumstance? That requirement that must be met in order to get what you want?

In the end, perhaps "natural" is the wrong nomenclature for what I am trying to describe. There IS something off-balance about the condition though. Again... not "wrong", I would never say that and honestly don't give a flying who-knows-what whether a person is gay, lesbian, straight, etc. It makes no difference in summing up their character or attributes as an individual... and should never be used as a point of judgment. But I believe any of you know what I'm referring to. Perhaps we don't have a word for it. But homosexuality moves against the grain of something. Of that I am sure and will not move on.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

pwned!

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps we don't have a word for it. But homosexuality moves against the grain of something. Of that I am sure and will not move on.

I'm quoting this just because it's funny. "I'm sure there's something wrong with it. I don't know what, but I'm sure it's something, and I will not change my mind." That's funny.

It's probably because you're heterosexual that it doesn't seem quite to you, but I'm homosexual and I assure you heterosexuality doesn't seem quite to me either.

 

[Peggy Anne]

Please dial 1-800- god, and complain about his creation of homosexuals. It isn't a lifestyle, or choice. It is wired into them, genetically. Like eye color, or anything else. Ask them if it's a choice, and see what they say.

 

[Kerr]

If a homosexual male individual has some ties to a female who is willing to let him impregnate her and carry the baby, isn't that going against his own nature? Sure the act itself and the creation of the child are according to nature, but isn't there still something less than desirable about that circumstance? That requirement that must be met in order to get what you want?

There is a difference between nature and personal nature . For example, it is against my own nature to ignore when someone I care about suffer, but it is not against nature.

In the end, perhaps "natural" is the wrong nomenclature for what I am trying to describe. There IS something off-balance about the condition though. Again... not "wrong", I would never say that and honestly don't give a flying who-knows-what whether a person is gay, lesbian, straight, etc. It makes no difference in summing up their character or attributes as an individual... and should never be used as a point of judgment. But I believe any of you know what I'm referring to. Perhaps we don't have a word for it. But homosexuality moves against the grain of something. Of that I am sure and will not move on.

That grain of something is a something that is a human construct and does not exist in reality.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not asking you to prove it,

You are asking me to prove

*thinks Kurt has a reading comprehension problem*

 

[Christless Christianity]

I think it is wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin. I think it supports and contributes to prejudice against and ignorance of homosexuality. I think spreading the idea, that homosexuality is a sin, is harmful to many, especially gay youths (who are not worldly enough to see past the nonsense).

I want to know what other think about this.

Now, to be clear, I am not questioning the right to spread this nonsense. I understand freedom of expression and its importance. But just because something is lawful that does not mean it is right.

Not all Christians consider homosexuality a sin. It's relatively a new obsession with the modern Christian church. When you study the issue, right wing fundamentalism is wrong on the issue. This book as well as many others will set you free from ungodly hatred as a Christian who claims to know the God of grace and love.

Amazon.com: Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, Revised and Expanded Edition: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (9780664233976): Jack Rogers: Books

 

[Kurt31416]

Besides, homosexuality is not even the same thing as those. It is like apples and oranges.

Strawman argument. I didn't say they were the same. You said anything humans did was natural. That's clearly false.

 

[Smoke]

In the end, perhaps "natural" is the wrong nomenclature for what I am trying to describe. There IS something off-balance about the condition though. Again... not "wrong", I would never say that and honestly don't give a flying who-knows-what whether a person is gay, lesbian, straight, etc. It makes no difference in summing up their character or attributes as an individual... and should never be used as a point of judgment. But I believe any of you know what I'm referring to. Perhaps we don't have a word for it. But homosexuality moves against the grain of something. Of that I am sure and will not move on.

We have a couple of words for it. My word for it is bigotry. Lilithu's preferred phrase for it is systemic bias. Either way, it means you keep insisting there's something "off" about gay people even though you can't come up with a single rational reason for thinking so.

 

[Kurt31416]

I strongly support homosexual's right to pursue happiness in the short time we have on earth. it's the Golden Rule. Leonardo DaVinci, Alan Turing, some wonderful people were homosexuals. To a space critter landing from another planet, it would be a big joke how we are so obsessed with sex.

But I strongly resent the tendency to want to limit Freedom of Speech, and oppose any attack on the traditional family and family values, which needs all the help it can get. Seems they could find happiness without attacking the family and family values.

 

[Smoke]

But I strongly resent the tendency to want to limit Freedom of Speech, and oppose any attack on the traditional family and family values, which needs all the help it can get. Seems they could find happiness without attacking the family and family values.

And in fact that's exactly what we have done. It's homophobia that poses a threat to families; we pose no threat whatsoever to traditional families. We only pose a threat to institutionalized bigotry.

 

[Vile Atheist]

And in fact that's exactly what we have done. It's homophobia that poses a threat to families; we pose no threat whatsoever to traditional families. We only pose a threat to institutionalized bigotry.

Silly Smoke. Don't you know by "traditional", what is really meant is "heterosexual"?

 

[Sunstone]

But I strongly resent the tendency to want to limit Freedom of Speech, and oppose any attack on the traditional family and family values, which needs all the help it can get. Seems they could find happiness without attacking the family and family values.

Can you give examples of what you mean by (1) attempting to limit freedom of speech, and (2) attacking traditional family and family values?

 

[Kerr]

Strawman argument. I didn't say they were the same. You said anything humans did was natural. That's clearly false.

No, I said anything that has not been "added", that have existed with us from the very beginning and always will, is natural. Which is not false, I have yet to see a reason why "natural" must be something that can be considered good. It is a term without any forms of moral implications.

What I was reacting to is that it seemed like you said that if a child molester cannot be natural, homosexuality can´t be. That would be comparing apples and oranges, but maybe I missunderstood.