It's not a problem for animals to have sex with the same sex

[TagliatelliMonster]

God did not design body parts to go with any or all body parts.

So where in your glorious book is it written which body part is allowed to be combined with wich body part?

God designed specific body parts to go with specific body parts.

Yeah, it's obvious how an average penis is just the right size to fit an average human mouth.
Or how the material of a tongue feels so sensational to a woman when it rubs her clitoris.

Some humans then misused their body parts, putting them where they do not belong.

I must have missed that divine manual on what goes where. Can you point me to it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I'm saying is that saying 'humans are animals', whether one is in line with that view or not, or 'animals do it', is not a justification for behaviour since for thousands of years we have striven to hold ourselves to higher standards than the savagery practiced by other creatures.

But it IS a justified rebuttal to the claim that certain behaviour is "unnatural" and a "lifestyle free choice".
Clearly, that's not the case here, as the frequency of exactly that behavior is common throughout the animal kingdom - the vast majority of those operating purely on natural instinct and not capable of "lifestyle choices".

It means that homosexual behaviour is of natural occurance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is that supposed to mean? Are saying that just because humans can do certain things that anything and everything is meant to be done and it is all part of the design? A human hand can use a knife to cut bread or stab someone...are both uses okay, in your opinion?

I believe God, as the Designer gave laws or instructions, like an owner's manual comes with an appliance or new car. Misusing the item causes damage. I think God in His wisdom knows how humans were designed to function properly.

And one of the "proper" functions of humans, according to said god, is to treat them like personal property.

I don't think you wish to make that argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe it is because the act of sex as God designed it is meant to be more than a physical act. It also has emotional and spiritual ramifications. The scriptures reveal that the two people become ONE.

Exactly. Sex is about more then mere procreation or purely physical pleasure. There's also a deep emotional experience and intimacy. Gay people and gay relationships benefit from these effects as much as any human.

This union where female and male become one in all aspects of their being in a committed marriage gives a complete picture of the image of God. Male with male or female with female is one-sided, out of balance, and according to the scriptures not God's design for human sexuality.

You say this, but the facts do not agree.
Homosexuals in committed love relationships experience their loving relationships just like the others.

Good friends of mine are a gay married couple. The only real hardship they face that I, in a heterosexual relationship, don't have to face... are the hardships that are a direct result from homophobes, discrimination etc, from people (they don't even know) who "disapprove" of their love.

They adopted a kid as well and I can honestly tell you that from all the couples with kids I personally know.... they rank in the top 3, at least, of parenting. In fact, if I'm truelly being honest.... I even find myself thinking sometimes that they are better parents then me and my woman.

Having said that, it is understandable that this is irrelevant to the choices and thoughts of those who do not believe in God or care what His design is at all.

Ultimately, God is completely irrelevant here.
Because even if I would become convinced tomorrow, for some reason, that the christian god exists, it would not at all change my opinion on homosexuality and supposed moral implications thereof.

None of the facts surrounding homosexuality would be changed by that.
It would still be common throughout the animal kingdom.
It would still be obvious that for gay people, it is anything but a "free choice".

I'm a heterosexual and I can honestly tell you that even for a million dollars, I would be physically incapable of gay sex. It would not turn me on and I would be physically unable to do it. I would not and could not hold an erection even if my life depended on it. Because I can't choose what arouses me. And I can guarantee you that even only the mental picture of gay sex will put my sergeant-general to sleep in a matter of seconds - and it would be knocked out for quite some time afterwards.

So my theory is that people who claim it is a "choice", are bisexual. Only a bisexual would experience homosexuality as a "choice"... because calling it a "choice", to me anyway, implies the one making that claim to be physically capable of being aroused by the idea of having sex with the same gender.

Being able to do that.... is what makes you gay or at least bi.



So, in conclusion.... all the facts inform me that homosexuality is part of an individual's "biological profile" just as much as your skin pigmentation is. You don't "choose" it. You either are gay / bi or you aren't. And if you are, then you are and nothing you can do will change that.

You might be able to "suppress" it and live unhappily. But it will always be a part of you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So a disclaimer. I'm cool with LGBT folk. No issues there for me. Just regular folk to me.

But

The number of homosexual animals of any species rises as its population rises as shown in this study Behavioral sink - Wikipedia. Only problem is that overpopulation can lead underpopulation extremely fast, leading to societal decay and eventual extinction if not properly balanced. Nothing wrong with homosexuality but it doesn't produce children. Low birth rates thst already exist will exponentially compound on each other and civilized society will begin to collapse, leading to revolts, wars, cannibalism, and then extinction.

What to do?

Well you can't change someone sexuality or force anyone to have children that doesn't want them.

So it means straight people will voluntarily have to start focusing on family building. Less time focusing on education careers and self indulgence and more time raising families. I say this as 42 year old male with no biological children who has focused the majority of his life on education and career mind you, so I am part of the problem.

We need 2 dedicated parents producing and raising 3 or more children (the more the merrier) as much as possible to try and offset the deficit created.

Of course this won't happen. But it is the only solution to avoid extinction within the next 200 years.

I'm unaware of any species going extinct because of not producing enough off spring due to homosexual individuals not producing any off spring.

 

[Enoch07]

I'm unaware of any species going extinct because of not producing enough off spring due to homosexual individuals not producing any off spring.

Nobody is suggesting that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, and what I'm saying is that just because it occurs in nature that has no bearing on its morality.

True.

It just completely undercuts the theistic homophobic 'argument' saying "It's unnatural!", because it's not unnatural.



As for morality, I consider it a senseless discussion.
To me, asking if homosexuality is moral is like asking if being black is moral.

Things that are outside of the realm of "choice" aren't subject to such questions.

You can't be "guilty" or "innocent" concerning things that aren't within your domain of free choice.

 

[Valjean]

Its so funny and ironic when atheists try to talk about right and wrong

Why, when we think more about morality have stronger internalized moral codes than the religious?

If you have a pre-written list of dos and don'ts, is there's really any need to study other moral codes or think much about right and wrong?
Without the internalized morality of atheists, the religious are precariously balanced, so prefer to stay on level ground.

Someone with crutches has no need to develop the complex, neurological circuitry needed for good balance. Should the religious be expected to navigate morally complex situations, or remain upright on ethically unfamiliar ground? Their morality is simplistic and deontological.

 

[Valjean]

I don't believe that is the way the scriptures work. They are not meant to be picked apart in single isolated verses to prove or disprove someone's own personal theology or desire. The Bible in it's entirety reveals God's perspective, standards, and will for humanity, which I believe is always in our best interest based in His perfect love.
It is very obvious when taking the whole counsel of the scriptures that God designed male and female and brought them together in relationship (Genesis 2:24) and whenever the Bible speaks about a marriage relationship it is always in reference to a man and woman. On the other hand, homosexuality is always addressed as wrong and a behavior outside of God's will. I don't see that a monogamous relationship would change God's view on homosexuality. If it is outside of God's will for humans then it is harmful, as is anything that is outside of God's will or design.

Doesn't the Bible speak uncritically of polygyny, concubinage, and the sexual usage of captives and foreign servants?

 

[Valjean]

You are definitely correct. That was just my poor attempt at a joke in responding to Earthtank, who said this:

Since he stated that man is NOT an animal, I wondered if he considered man to be either plant or mineral. For some reason, he didn't respond.

Perhaps he considers us synthetics.

 

[Valjean]

No. I am not demonizing those who are different. I am only demonizing "sin" which really all, including myself, are guilty of. In my view being "different" does not excuse what the scriptures plainly reveal as sin.


"Conclusion
Attempts to read these texts as anything other than prohibitions of homosexual behaviour do not ultimately work. The plain reading of each passage is the right one. It is homosexual practice in general, rather than only certain expressions of it, which are forbidden in Scripture. To attempt to demonstrate otherwise is to violate the passages themselves. Yet these very same texts list homosexuality alongside many other forms of behaviour that are also against God’s will. The very passages that show us that homosexual activity is a sin, make it very clear that it is not a unique sin. It is one example of what is wrong with all of us."

Your belief that homosexuality is immoral is based solely on biblical scripture. Other religions' scriptures are ignored, as are the reasons for the prohibition.
Your condemnation does not take into consideration causes or consequences. It is simplistic and black-and-white. It's no more credible than the moral codes of countless other religions and cultures.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, and what I'm saying is that just because it occurs in nature that has no bearing on its morality.

What determines morality? Do consequences factor in, or is it solely based on ancient scripture?

 

[Rival]

What determines morality? Do consequences factor in, or is it solely based on ancient scripture?

Whatever you believe determines morality. I was only making the case that nature is not a moral agent and what happens between other animals is not generally looked upon by humans as a moral issue.

 

[InChrist]

I'ld say that your "argument" is self-defeating....

Because if "right" is that which is in compliance with god's design, then prohibiting people to express their own sexuality, is what should be sinfull.

God's design happens to include gay people.
Forbidding them to be gay, would thus be against god's design.

If god didn't want gay people, maybe he shouldn't have designed gay people.

I think this is such a faulty argument. The scriptures are full of examples of behavior people participate in doing, which are contrary to God's design or will for them. God designed humans in His image, who through their wrong actions are impacted by sin in their lives... period... sinful people. There are not "gay people", "straight people", "stealing people". "murdering people", "gossiping people", "gluttonous people", "lying people", etc.. etc. These are just people doing things outside of God's will and design.

According to the scriptures, God's desires the best for everyone and any prohibitions are for our good and utmost benefit now and for eternal joy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why is it sinful for man?

Are there any homosexual animals?

It's not a problem for animals to have sex with their mothers. It's not a problem for animals to rape. It's not a problem for animals to eat their newborn young.

Humans know better and have the self control to refrain.

 

[InChrist]

Exactly. Sex is about more then mere procreation or purely physical pleasure. There's also a deep emotional experience and intimacy. Gay people and gay relationships benefit from these effects as much as any human.



You say this, but the facts do not agree.
Homosexuals in committed love relationships experience their loving relationships just like the others.

Good friends of mine are a gay married couple. The only real hardship they face that I, in a heterosexual relationship, don't have to face... are the hardships that are a direct result from homophobes, discrimination etc, from people (they don't even know) who "disapprove" of their love.

They adopted a kid as well and I can honestly tell you that from all the couples with kids I personally know.... they rank in the top 3, at least, of parenting. In fact, if I'm truelly being honest.... I even find myself thinking sometimes that they are better parents then me and my woman.



Ultimately, God is completely irrelevant here.
Because even if I would become convinced tomorrow, for some reason, that the christian god exists, it would not at all change my opinion on homosexuality and supposed moral implications thereof.

None of the facts surrounding homosexuality would be changed by that.
It would still be common throughout the animal kingdom.
It would still be obvious that for gay people, it is anything but a "free choice".

I'm a heterosexual and I can honestly tell you that even for a million dollars, I would be physically incapable of gay sex. It would not turn me on and I would be physically unable to do it. I would not and could not hold an erection even if my life depended on it. Because I can't choose what arouses me. And I can guarantee you that even only the mental picture of gay sex will put my sergeant-general to sleep in a matter of seconds - and it would be knocked out for quite some time afterwards.

So my theory is that people who claim it is a "choice", are bisexual. Only a bisexual would experience homosexuality as a "choice"... because calling it a "choice", to me anyway, implies the one making that claim to be physically capable of being aroused by the idea of having sex with the same gender.

Being able to do that.... is what makes you gay or at least bi.



So, in conclusion.... all the facts inform me that homosexuality is part of an individual's "biological profile" just as much as your skin pigmentation is. You don't "choose" it. You either are gay / bi or you aren't. And if you are, then you are and nothing you can do will change that.

You might be able to "suppress" it and live unhappily. But it will always be a part of you.

This is a long post and I'm just going out, so don't have time to thoughtfully read it, which I would like to do. I'll try to get back to it, though.

 

[Milton Platt]

Humans copying animals generally doesn't lead to the most civilised behaviour.

Even if you support homosexual sex, this argument is bad.

It isn't necessarily an argument for homosexuality, just an acknowledgement that homosexuality between animals is a normal part of nature. And humans belong to the Animal kingdom.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: God did not design body parts to go with any or all body parts.

So where in your glorious book is it written which body part is allowed to be combined with which body part?

From the Book of Laws which is the Most Holy Book of the Baha’i Faith:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

God designed specific body parts to go with specific body parts.

Yeah, it's obvious how an average penis is just the right size to fit an average human mouth.
Or how the material of a tongue feels so sensational to a woman when it rubs her clitoris.

I would have to argue that most women would probably not agree with you regarding the size, but that’s not the point and not a road I choose to travel.

The mouth was designed for eating and drinking and for communication between humans. It is a misuse to use it for other purposes. The same applies to other body orifices that are designed for defecation.

The purpose of life is not for physical pleasure. Those who have made that their purpose will have hell to pay after they die and no longer have a physical body. Enjoy it while it lasts. It won't be for long.

Some humans then misused their body parts, putting them where they do not belong.

I must have missed that divine manual on what goes where. Can you point me to it?

See above. In the context of that law, permissible sexual intercourse means the penis goes into the vagina.

Sexual intercourse: sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man's erect penis into a woman's vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sexual+intercourse+means

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think this is such a faulty argument.

Nope. It's a perfectly legitemate response to what you said.
You stated this rule: "if it's god's design, then it's ok".
The premise being that god designed everything, like humans and their biological nature.

You'll necessarily have to engage in special pleading to break your own rule when you say that it's wrong for gay people to act upon their gay nature. It's really simple:

P1: if it's god's design, then it's ok
P2: god designed everything, including human and their biological nature
P3: gay people exists

Conclusion: It's ok for gay people to exist and be gay. They exist, so god designed them. They are gay, so god designed them gay.

The scriptures are full of examples of behavior people participate in doing, which are contrary to God's design or will for them.

Being gay is not a behaviour like stealing or whatever.
Just like being hetero is not a behaviour in that sense.

It's just sexual orientation. Your sexual orientation is what it is. Just like your skin pigmentation.
One can't "will" being gay or not. One either is gay or not.

God designed humans in His image, who through their wrong actions are impacted by sin in their lives... period... sinful people. There are not "gay people", "straight people", "stealing people". "murdering people", "gossiping people", "gluttonous people", "lying people", etc.. etc. These are just people doing things outside of God's will and design.

The facts of reality say otherwise.
I don't care what scripture says. If scripture says thing that don't correspond to the facts of reality, then scripture is wrong. It's that simple.

When your beliefs disagree with reality, it's not reality that is incorrect.

According to the scriptures, God's desires the best for everyone and any prohibitions are for our good and utmost benefit now and for eternal joy.

Then the scriptures are in direct contradiction with the "rule" you mentioned earlier: "if it's part of god's design, then it's okay".

It's ridiculous though.

It's like god created black people and then commanding them to be white.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From the Book of Laws which is the Most Holy Book of the Baha’i Faith:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

lol, owkay.
I think that the very thing it centers on, is fundamentally flawed.

It completely ignores that many, many children don't get to live up with the biological parents that produced them, for a wide variety of reasons, and are adopted by other people. These other people can be gay couples.

It also ignores the fact that gay couples are perfectly capable of raising a child like any other.
As a matter of fact, some of them will do a far better job then heterosexual couples. I can say that for a fact, as I personally know such people. I know many hetero couples that totally messed up their kids, who did a mega poor job, who were irresponsible, etc. My gay couple friends would outparent every single one of them. As a matter of fact, they would outparent most couples I know. They are awesome with their kids.

I would have to argue that most women would probably not agree with you regarding the size, but that’s not the point and not a road I choose to travel.

The mouth was designed for eating and drinking and for communication between humans. It is a misuse to use it for other purposes. The same applies to other body orifices that are designed for defecation.

How would you know? Oral sex clearly is a thing that people love to do. Why would any benevolent, just, mercifull and loving god design great pleasure and intimacy inducing body features and then tell you that you can't use them for great pleasure and intimacy?

Was it a "mistake" in the design?
In fact.... why even make orgasms possible? This whole sexual morality thing would simply evaporate instantly.

The purpose of life is not for physical pleasure.

Then why design the human body in such a way that to not only include pleasure inducing features, but even such that any human will instinctively seek out such pleasure to the point that it actually dominates large aspects of his or her life?


It's like designing a hammer but making it look like a screwdriver....

Those who have made that their purpose will have hell to pay after they die and no longer have a physical body. Enjoy it while it lasts. It won't be for long.

Scare tactics. The last resort weapon of the irrational defense.

See above. In the context of that law, permissible sexual intercourse means the penis goes into the vagina.

Ok. Now, why should I care what that book says?