My views on homosexuality

[Darkness]

thebigpicture, I want to respond to you more formally, but I will not be available for the next 10 hours, so I will have to settle for a quick observation, for now. Your posts seem to make sense if you do not logically think them through. You have a great way of making believe your opinion is the same as fact. Honestly, I think this is why there are so many conservative people in the world. For instance, let's look at the "back-up" plan discussion. How is your opinion said as fact anything but arbitrary? How do you know that God intended the life-death-cycle to be enough?

 

[Desert Snake]

Then shouldn't you be having the conversation with yourself? Sounds like you'd have a lot more fun. You don't need me for this. If there's something on t.v. I don't like, I waste no time in switching the channel. I don't just sit and continue to watch and complain when there are so many other options. So... Psst... a suggestion to you -- switch the channel. Then you won't be bored.

With your incoherent arguments you're only making your own case less valid. Examining the thread, you still haven't provided the actual reasoning behind your beliefs... oh, except some obscure "creator" reference... I think instead of using the title 'the big picture', you should go by 'mr. vague'.:beach:

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, but there is.

I can't think of a single reason why it would be so. Care to tell me any reason why homosexuality would be immoral? In either desire or behavior?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Immoral: “Peter” is gay. He has a sex change because he wants to be exactly like a woman. And the procedure works very well because Peter now looks and sounds exactly like a woman. Post-op Peter then changes his name to “Paula”. Paula meets “Brad”. Brad is a heterosexual man in every way. Paula does not tell Brad that he (Paula) is a post-op transgender. Brad ends up falling in love and has sex with Paula. Time goes by and Brad ends up finding out that the “woman” he thought he fell in love with and had sex with is actually a man. It sends Brad into a downward spiral and ruins his entire life.

Peter is not homosexual. Peter is transgendered. The only potential "immoral" act was his hiding his past from his partner.

Unnatural: It is impossible for two men to make a baby and for two women to make a baby. You have to have both a man and a woman. It’s how we were Created. Our bodies were meant to connect in order for there to be reproduction.

In other words, a man or woman who is infertile should never marry or have intercourse. After all, it is unnatural. It is impossible for that person to make a baby with a person of the opposite sex. And after a woman goes through menopause, they should not have intercourse with their husband. It is unnatural. It is impossible for her to make a baby.
Nor should condoms or other forms of contraception be used. No babies there. must be "unnatural".
My wife had her tubes tied after our third child. I guess our sex life now is "unnatural".

Wrong: It could upset the entire dynamic of the relationship between man and woman. Men could become more and more bitter and antagonistic towards women and women more and more bitter and antagonistic towards men. That, in turn, could upset the entire balance of nature, which in turn could cause the extinction of man.

This is just baseless "slippery slope" nonsense.

Have I made myself clear?

Clear as mud

 

[waitasec]

You have no ground to stand on when it comes to your sexual lifestyle other than saying that you can’t help the way you feel and so you simply must act upon it. Whereas, it is an undeniable fact that you need -- must have -- the opposite sex to reproduce. You cannot get around that. If it were suddenly a situation where there was only one gender, we would go the way of the dinosaur, as it were, and become extinct because it would be impossible to reproduce. Humanity would be done for. Finished. We were not created to pair off as woman and woman; man and man. Otherwise, we’d be able to reproduce that way. Our bodies are made to connect to the opposite sex. Period.

Now you can try to justify your sexual behavior, but the behavior will still remain wrong and immoral and unnatural. It is immoral because of the negative effects it can have and has on mankind; it is unnatural because it goes against what the Creator intended; it’s wrong because it is immoral and unnatural and has the potential to upset the entire balance of nature.

Now, If my expressing that makes me a bigot in your (or anyone else with your point of view about it) eyes, then guess what--? So be it. I couldn’t care less. It doesn’t actually make me a bigot; it just means you are PO’d because I refuse to go the cowardly, politically correct, bandwagoning, “Go on and be gay! There is nothing wrong with it!” route. I’m not that person that will conform to someone else’s beliefs simply because my view isn’t liked by that person. There has to be proof that my views are wrong in order for me to change the way I feel about something. Proof you simply don’t have. So it all goes full circle right back to my initial post. When you can show me a man that can produce a baby by having sex with another man, or a woman that can get pregnant by having sex with another woman, then we can talk about homosexuality being natural, normal and moral. Until then, it is pointless to try to make it right in my sight.

I’ve noticed that I have to be extraordinarily detailed for some of you to understand a fundamental point, so that there will be no confusion about why the behavior of homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and wrong I am going to provide some examples and/or more specific reasons:

Immoral: “Peter” is gay. He has a sex change because he wants to be exactly like a woman. And the procedure works very well because Peter now looks and sounds exactly like a woman. Post-op Peter then changes his name to “Paula”. Paula meets “Brad”. Brad is a heterosexual man in every way. Paula does not tell Brad that he (Paula) is a post-op transgender. Brad ends up falling in love and has sex with Paula. Time goes by and Brad ends up finding out that the “woman” he thought he fell in love with and had sex with is actually a man. It sends Brad into a downward spiral and ruins his entire life.

(This same scenario can be reversed with a woman having a sex change into a man).

Unnatural: It is impossible for two men to make a baby and for two women to make a baby. You have to have both a man and a woman. It’s how we were Created. Our bodies were meant to connect in order for there to be reproduction.

Wrong: It could upset the entire dynamic of the relationship between man and woman. Men could become more and more bitter and antagonistic towards women and women more and more bitter and antagonistic towards men. That, in turn, could upset the entire balance of nature, which in turn could cause the extinction of man.

Have I made myself clear?

no you haven't

and how many heterosexual men and women lie about their marital status and have affairs? this explains nothing, well yeah something...your ignorance...

 

[Storm]

Immoral: “Peter” is gay. He has a sex change because he wants to be exactly like a woman. And the procedure works very well because Peter now looks and sounds exactly like a woman. Post-op Peter then changes his name to “Paula”. Paula meets “Brad”. Brad is a heterosexual man in every way. Paula does not tell Brad that he (Paula) is a post-op transgender. Brad ends up falling in love and has sex with Paula. Time goes by and Brad ends up finding out that the “woman” he thought he fell in love with and had sex with is actually a man. It sends Brad into a downward spiral and ruins his entire life.

(This same scenario can be reversed with a woman having a sex change into a man).

Unnatural: It is impossible for two men to make a baby and for two women to make a baby. You have to have both a man and a woman. It’s how we were Created. Our bodies were meant to connect in order for there to be reproduction.

Wrong: It could upset the entire dynamic of the relationship between man and woman. Men could become more and more bitter and antagonistic towards women and women more and more bitter and antagonistic towards men. That, in turn, could upset the entire balance of nature, which in turn could cause the extinction of man.

Have I made myself clear?

1) Homosexuality is not the same as trans.
2) The problem in the scenario you outline isn't minority sexuality, it's dishonesty.

 

[gnomon]

You have no ground to stand on when it comes to your sexual lifestyle other than saying that you can’t help the way you feel and so you simply must act upon it. Whereas, it is an undeniable fact that you need -- must have -- the opposite sex to reproduce. You cannot get around that. If it were suddenly a situation where there was only one gender, we would go the way of the dinosaur, as it were, and become extinct because it would be impossible to reproduce. Humanity would be done for. Finished. We were not created to pair off as woman and woman; man and man. Otherwise, we’d be able to reproduce that way. Our bodies are made to connect to the opposite sex. Period.

Now you can try to justify your sexual behavior, but the behavior will still remain wrong and immoral and unnatural. It is immoral because of the negative effects it can have and has on mankind; it is unnatural because it goes against what the Creator intended; it’s wrong because it is immoral and unnatural and has the potential to upset the entire balance of nature.

Now, If my expressing that makes me a bigot in your (or anyone else with your point of view about it) eyes, then guess what--? So be it. I couldn’t care less. It doesn’t actually make me a bigot; it just means you are PO’d because I refuse to go the cowardly, politically correct, bandwagoning, “Go on and be gay! There is nothing wrong with it!” route. I’m not that person that will conform to someone else’s beliefs simply because my view isn’t liked by that person. There has to be proof that my views are wrong in order for me to change the way I feel about something. Proof you simply don’t have. So it all goes full circle right back to my initial post. When you can show me a man that can produce a baby by having sex with another man, or a woman that can get pregnant by having sex with another woman, then we can talk about homosexuality being natural, normal and moral. Until then, it is pointless to try to make it right in my sight.

I’ve noticed that I have to be extraordinarily detailed for some of you to understand a fundamental point, so that there will be no confusion about why the behavior of homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and wrong I am going to provide some examples and/or more specific reasons:

Immoral: “Peter” is gay. He has a sex change because he wants to be exactly like a woman. And the procedure works very well because Peter now looks and sounds exactly like a woman. Post-op Peter then changes his name to “Paula”. Paula meets “Brad”. Brad is a heterosexual man in every way. Paula does not tell Brad that he (Paula) is a post-op transgender. Brad ends up falling in love and has sex with Paula. Time goes by and Brad ends up finding out that the “woman” he thought he fell in love with and had sex with is actually a man. It sends Brad into a downward spiral and ruins his entire life.

(This same scenario can be reversed with a woman having a sex change into a man).

Unnatural: It is impossible for two men to make a baby and for two women to make a baby. You have to have both a man and a woman. It’s how we were Created. Our bodies were meant to connect in order for there to be reproduction.

Wrong: It could upset the entire dynamic of the relationship between man and woman. Men could become more and more bitter and antagonistic towards women and women more and more bitter and antagonistic towards men. That, in turn, could upset the entire balance of nature, which in turn could cause the extinction of man.

Have I made myself clear?

Quite clear. You are relying solely on your concept of a Creator and this Creator's purposes for mankind, as opposed to the more than thousands of other views presented of Creators and their purposes throughout history, as opposed to relying on any scientific literature.

To counter your argument all I have to do is state that I believe in a Creator and that the revealed purpose of this Creator is anything I want it to be to counter anything you ever say.

Interesting.

 

[Duck]

Then what makes it wrong, in your opinion? If you feel that the function of sex isn't only reproduction, what makes homosexuality wrong, in your eyes?

Obviously, as I have said before (as a general statement about right-wingers/conservatives that oppose LGBT rights), it is because homosexual sex is somehow both completely icky and oddly compelling...

 

[Duck]

The same thing that makes incest wrong. The same thing that makes bestiality wrong.

There is no shifting goalposts here. I made a point. Did not waiver. So that little accusation...not cutting it.

It's comparable in the fact that they are both wrong.

Could you explain to me why when pressed regarding the "why" of their feelings regarding dislike of homosexuals, homosexual sex, homosexual marriage, and all other things that might be remotely related to LGBT folks, it is almost axiomatic that folks like you will bring up the act of ******* animals or one's siblings as if that is the same as having sexual relations with an unrelated consenting adult of the same gender?

 

[Duck]

The Creator of the us and the universe.

could you narrow that down a bit? Which particular creator? The one that I follow didn't, to the best of my knowledge, address the specifics of sexually moral behavior; were I to take the behavior of the Gods as a moral guide, it is perfectly acceptable to prostitute one's self for the good of your group (Loki, resulting in Odin's horse Sleipner), or for that matter to gain something one wishes (Freya to gain Brisingamen), or to establish the hierarchy of human society and to disseminate knowledge to humanity (Heimdal).

So, again, not particularly impressed by arguments that some ill-named deity called "Creator" is condemning the actions of his creation occurring in accord with the nature of that creation.

 

[Duck]

And why do you think that is?



I don't think people teach vehemently against incest simply because "parents are strong and lustful" and "children are weak and vulnerable." There is another underlying reason as well.



You know I had to laugh because I knew that that question would produce the equivalent of crickets on this thread. And I was right. There is a fear to answer that question and I (as well as they) know why. Yep! Theeeeeey know why they don't wanna answer.

While I wouldn't consider having an incestuous affair with any of my siblings (I don't find them particularly attractive) or parents (one is dead, the other something of an ***, married and hetero) for other people, my primary objection to incest is related to issues of consent. Due to the nature of familial relationships, I find it unlikely that an informed consensual relationship would form. There are, in my mind, too many power dynamic issues that preexist (parent-child, older sibling-younger sibling, dominant sibling-submissive sibling, etc) for a sexual relationship between two members of the family to really be consensual. If through some made-for-TV type of confluence of events it comes about that two siblings were raised separately (adopted out at birth or some other development of the Plot-Contrivance Man) and met in a bar, fell madly in bed together then found out that they were related, I wouldn't have any issue with their relationship, the relationship would likely NOT be fraught with the power dynamics normally associated with a more conventional sibling relationship.

As for why close kin relationships are likely to have disastrous results from child bearing, it is related to the likelihood of reinforcement of recessive genes causing genetic diseases, aka "inbreeding".

 

[rocketboy]

What, if anything, does incest have to do with homosexuality?
I guess they're both prohibited by Torah (the old testament).
But IMO that has nothing to do with true morality, and has more to do with the opinions of Jews in the 1st century BC, when Torah was written.

 

[waitasec]

We make judgements every day in life about people. Life is filled with making judgment calls and saying whether you feel something is right or wrong. We have the right to make judgements in life. Doesn't mean those judgements are always right. In some cases they aren't. People misjudge people all the time. But, you still have the right to make judgements. What we don't have the right to do is judge what happens to that people when this all comes to an end. Only the Creator makes that final judgement. And as I've clearly stated on more than one occasion, I'm not one of those that feel that gay people are going to go to hell (so to speak) just because they are gay.

and do you believe your judgments should infringe on the rights of individual freedoms...especially if it is considered "normal" ( for lack of a better word) by psychologists and it is not hurting anyone? really, it isn't any of your business, is it? the only way i can see why you would feel that your judgement would trump others personal freedoms (when homosexuality doesn't involve hurting anyone by infringing on the rights of others) is when you think you are acting as if you were morally superior, when the very act of infringing on the rights of others makes you morally inferior.

I didn't ask what society thought. I asked if you thought incest was wrong and immoral.

well i don't know about you but i do abide by the laws society has placed, i'm funny that way...:sarcastic
so because incest isn't a behavior that is up in our faces everyday, yeah it is odd behavior...but we are developing primates after all.

The act of incest is immoral in and of itself.

you think that because your society says so...

The normal act of a man having sex with a woman in and of itself is not immoral. Though, there are some immoral behaviors in some heterosexual relationships.

so what's the problem...no one is perfect...are you?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think it's hilarious when we get someone who is so steeped in the procreative male ejaculatory bias. Creator or not.

Baby-making is by no means the end-all and be-all of sexuality. Period.

 

[Caladan]

Baby-making is by no means the end-all and be-all of sexuality. Period.

Old man: "back in my days we used to have sex in order to bring babies, it seems that you young people only do it for fun!"

 

[thebigpicture]

Deformity and miscarriage are not the same thing,
however,
since you bring it up,
miscarriage is natural abortion,
so someone with high odds of miscarriage
that continues purposefully to keep getting pregnant,
is ... encouraging the odds of more natural abortions.

You're the morality guy.
I'm guessing you have no moral issues with this,
though natural abortion and medical abortion
do end in the same results.

I'm doubting also that the health of the woman
plays into your morality spectrum either.
But you can correct me if I'm wrong.



I was referring to notably high odds of deformity.
(as in incest)

Your chances of death after birth are 100%...
and everyone winds up hurt in life.
It is inevitable.
But certain things raise the odds of certain kinds of hurts.
It is up to every individual to guage the odds of their own hurts,
and their own casualties,
and play their own odds,
against their own weak hands,
in hopes of their own win.
It's just not necessary to drag children into the middle of your high risk gambles.





Start setting your hand picked boundaries
on individuals who are not hurting anyone,
who are just living their lives,
and don't be too suprised
when you don't like the boundries
others set on you.

Live and let live,
(ie. live your life and leave the other guy alone)
in the end, tends to work out best for everyone.
(except of course the control freaks)

I’ll just sum it up -- Your reasoning doesn’t make sense regarding having incestuous couples getting their tubes tied and vasectomies based on the fact that the pregnancy could end in hurting someone because that isn’t the only case in which a pregnancy could end up hurting someone. In other words, had you just stated that everyone should be left alone regardless, then my initial response would’ve been different. I still would not have agreed with you, it’s just that my response would’ve been different. It’s when you said that because incestuous relationships bring about deformed children and implied that those couples should not be allowed to have children, that’s when your reasoning stopped making sense. But, I do get what you’re saying. You think that anybody should be able to have sex with anybody (providing the sex is consensual) and that everybody should just do whatever it is they want under the sun. Oh, as long as it doesn’t “hurt” anybody. Got it. I just don’t agree.

By the way, you’ve got me all wrong.

 

[thebigpicture]

thebigpicture, I want to respond to you more formally, but I will not be available for the next 10 hours, so I will have to settle for a quick observation, for now. Your posts seem to make sense if you do not logically think them through. You have a great way of making believe your opinion is the same as fact.

My posts make perfect sense if you allow yourself to actually think it through. Which is obvious, you guys don't. A lot of my opinions are fact. You just don't want to admit that.

Honestly, I think this is why there are so many conservative people in the world.

You presume to know me. You don't. But, for the record, the problem doesn't lie within people being conservative. The problem lies within people who don't want rules to exist. It lies within people who want to live in an anarchic world. But the truth of the matter is is that rules exist. There is a right and a wrong. There is morality and immorality. There is good and bad. These things exist whether you like it or not. Not everyone is willing to live in a chaotic world where people just do any and every freaky thing under the sun and not have to be judged and/or reprimanded for it. Most of us know that rules are needed. There has to be boundaries in life.

For instance, let's look at the "back-up" plan discussion. How is your opinion said as fact anything but arbitrary? How do you know that God intended the life-death-cycle to be enough?

Because it's common sense. A balance is kept through the natural cycle of life; that is obvious to see. It's in both the animal kingdom as well as mankind. What, are you going to suggest that homosexuality balances the animal kingdom as well? Are you kidding me? To think or even suggest that homosexuality exists in order to keep a balance doesn't even remotely make sense. If it makes sense to you, it's because you want it to make sense. Not because it actually does.

 

[thebigpicture]

With your incoherent arguments you're only making your own case less valid. Examining the thread, you still haven't provided the actual reasoning behind your beliefs... oh, except some obscure "creator" reference... I think instead of using the title 'the big picture', you should go by 'mr. vague'.:beach:

When I first read that, I was like “Incoherent?” I didn’t get how you found any of my posts incoherent. Then I looked at your name “Pot-Kettle” and remembered thinking something about you a while back (which is the reason if you notice, I don't often respond to you). Then it all clicked. Pretty much anything would seem incoherent to you. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[thebigpicture]

I can't think of a single reason why it would be so. Care to tell me any reason why homosexuality would be immoral? In either desire or behavior?

Been there. Done that. Go look it up.

 

[thebigpicture]

Peter is not homosexual. Peter is transgendered. The only potential "immoral" act was his hiding his past from his partner.

No, Peter is homosexual. He is a gay man that wants to be a woman. No operation in the world is going to actually make him a woman. It may make him resemble one, but he will never be a woman. He will never have the DNA of a woman. He will always be XY not XX. Period. He was born a man and will remain a man regardless of what he does to resemble a woman. He is a man having sex with another man. Therefore, he is gay.

In other words, a man or woman who is infertile should never marry or have intercourse. After all, it is unnatural. It is impossible for that person to make a baby with a person of the opposite sex. And after a woman goes through menopause, they should not have intercourse with their husband. It is unnatural. It is impossible for her to make a baby.
Nor should condoms or other forms of contraception be used. No babies there. must be "unnatural".
My wife had her tubes tied after our third child. I guess our sex life now is "unnatural".

I've already covered this. Look it up.