Sexuality and Choice...

[madhatter85]

Not really. If anything it should be hetrosexual, bisexual and pansexual.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

.....
No, I'm saying that if they chose to act that way we should make no special exceptions for them.

Great! I agree. Homosexuals should have no exceptions. NO SPECIAL PRIVILAGES OR RIGHTS!! They should have all the rights of heterosexuals.
1. Civil unions with fully binding legal and financial authority between married partners. Just like heterosexuals who are married.
2. No fear of being picked out and beaten to death just because of their biological makeup. Laws should be made to increase punishment for those convicted of hunters/attackers of such people with specific biological makeup. Just like heterosexuals who are black, or Jewish, Hispanic, etc...
3. No fear of losing your job, just because of your sexual orientation. Just like heterosexuals.
4. Society as a whole, and both schools and churches (as teachers of what people should accept as public norms) should be taught from this point henceforth, for all time, that homosexual relationships are loving, caring, and publicly acceptable. Just like heterosexual relationships.

Because anything less is just hypocritical, fear and hatred; and does not come close to equal rights. And clearly, any society worthy of being called "civilized" cannot hope to exist with such glaring exceptions.

Madhatter85. When I was an adolescent, I felt that homosexuality was "wrong" because (as a budding biologist) I could see how lacking male+female attraction/intercourse a species is doomed to extinction. And honestly speaking, homosexual relationships are biological dead-ends. True.
Furthermore, as a heterosexual male, I will be the first to admit that seeing two males kiss (etc...) just frankly gives me the heebie-jeebies. :cover:

But......as a member of a civilized society....
Who am I, and who is the church, or the law.....to say that those two men cannot do what they like, even if they won't be passing on their genetic makeup? I have a brother and sister-in-law who are not going to have kids. Approximately 1/4 - 1/3 of heterosexual marriages do NOT result in offspring. Should we counsel them to divorce so that they might find someone else with better odds of reproduction?
Who are we to ostracize and limit the legal rights of people just because their actions make us a little queezy? Should we psychologically counsel and restrict rights for people with 'uncomfortable' body piercings, extensive tattoos, or spiky orange hair?

"Go forth, multiply, and conquer the Earth." (or something like that). Well. The Earth done bin conquered. We can stop multiplying now.

 

[Scott C.]

Should there be a difference between sexual attraction and sexual behaviour when this attraction is merely towards consenting adult members of the same gender? Why?

I believe there is a big difference between sexual attraction and sexual behavior. And let me say, that my views on the subject are based on my religious beliefs. My religion does not speak to the reasons why some people are attracted to the same sex. In fact, it tells people who are so attracted that they should not feel guilty about the attraction.

However, I do believe that sexual behavior is a choice and homosexual behavior is a sin. Based on my views of chastity, I believe the only time that sex is not a sin is when it's between a man and a woman who are married and who are consenting at the time.

I admit that I don't know what it would be like to be attracted to someone of the same gender at the same time that I believe that it's a sin to act on that attraction. I don't know how hard it would be to know that as long as I am so inclined, I will never be able to marry. I will never have that experience, but can imagine that it would be difficult.

On the other hand, there are people of faith, who have heterosexual attraction, and who want to marry, but never find the right opportunity. These people resist their natural desire for sex all of their lives. That would also be difficult. Some people carry very difficult burdens that don't seem fair. Yet, regardless of the burden or the temptation or the difficulty of the task, I believe that God wants us to abstain from sex, except within the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Kerr]

I'm not saying it is impossible for a homosexual to get pregnant. But it is impossible for them to get pregnant outside of sexual reproduction (artificial or otherwise).

Why does this matter when it comes to the morality of homosexuality?

 

[Kerr]

You said that because it requires man and women it is hetrosexual. But hetrosexuality has to do with sexual attraction, so since bisexuality and pansexuality also means you can be attracted to the opposite sex, it means by your logic they are also included.

 

[madhatter85]

Just replace the word and you still have my opinion.

Privileges are given on a set of prerequisites. the privileges of marriage were given because it is an investment in the future of the nation. Since nothing is gained from providing benefits for same-sex couples, there is no point in why we should create provisions for something that is counter-productive to the future of society.

 

[Kerr]

How is it not a disorder? by claiming genetics to be the cause, by definition it is a disorder.

Genetics have a complete disregard for how each individual feels, nor are genetics perfect. Genetics is what causes us humans to have the desire to reproduce offspring. It's is at a very fundamental level. Anything that interferes with that fundamental principle of the desire to procreate is defective

Not really. Genetic causes does not make something a disorder, the nature of it does.

 

[madhatter85]

Why does this matter when it comes to the morality of homosexuality?

Who is talking about morality?

I'm talking about science and genetics.

 

[madhatter85]

You said that because it requires man and women it is hetrosexual. But hetrosexuality has to do with sexual attraction, so since bisexuality and pansexuality also means you can be attracted to the opposite sex, it means by your logic they are also included.

Yes, they are both included if the reason someone is either of those is genetics and not just choice.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Sperm comes from males. Eggs come from females. You would not have sperm banks without males who sell/donate to them.

Do you think that none of those males are homosexual? Or that none of the women who use the sperm for insemination are homosexual?

I'm not saying it is impossible for a homosexual to get pregnant. But it is impossible for them to get pregnant outside of sexual reproduction (artificial or otherwise).

No one is arguing that. Your earlier claims were that it had to be "heterosexual" reproduction (which doesn't exist). Are you retracting that statement and claiming "sexual" reproduction now?

Actually my arguments are based solely around the idea of a so-called "Gay gene" or have you not noticed?

So you posit that it IS, in fact, genetic? Or not?

 

[Scott C.]

btw, the prime example of sexual immorality, almost never discussed on these boards, is rape. Heterosexual, male dominant, woman-harming rape. And it's quite prevalent. For some reason you don't see Christians raving on about that.

If I have never said so in the past, let me say now that male dominated rape of women is a serious sin and a serious crime. If someone wants to argue to the contrary, I'll be happy to defend my position.

 

[Kerr]

Privileges are given on a set of prerequisites. the privileges of marriage were given because it is an investment in the future of the nation. Since nothing is gained from providing benefits for same-sex couples, there is no point in why we should create provisions for something that is counter-productive to the future of society.

Except for being a nation worthy of being called free nothing is gained... nothing except for traditions are damaged... and I don´t care about tradition anyway.

 

[madhatter85]

Not really. Genetic causes does not make something a disorder, the nature of it does.

You just proved my point.

If there is a "Gay gene" then the "nature" of that gene conflicts with the fundamental principles of species reproduction. Unless the genetic evolution or mutation provides an alternate fundamental reproductive function, the genetic code must be flawed.

 

[Kerr]

Who is talking about morality?

I'm talking about science and genetics.

When people talk about homosexuals needing help it is always about morality.

 

[Perfect Circle]

You just proved my point.

If there is a "Gay gene" then the "nature" of that gene conflicts with the fundamental principles of species reproduction. Unless the genetic evolution or mutation provides an alternate fundamental reproductive function, the genetic code must be flawed.

So we shouldn't allow sterile individuals to get married?

 

[madhatter85]

Do you think that none of those males are homosexual? Or that none of the women who use the sperm for insemination are homosexual?

It doesn't matter either way.

No one is arguing that. Your earlier claims were that it had to be "heterosexual" reproduction (which doesn't exist). Are you retracting that statement and claiming "sexual" reproduction now?

they mean the same thing. you are arguing semantics which does not further this discussion. Focus on the actual conversation rather than old words since you obviously know what i am saying.

So you posit that it IS, in fact, genetic? Or not?

This question is laughable since i am basing my arguments on the proposition that homosexuality is genetic.

 

[Kerr]

You just proved my point.

If there is a "Gay gene" then the "nature" of that gene conflicts with the fundamental principles of species reproduction. Unless the genetic evolution or mutation provides an alternate fundamental reproductive function, the genetic code must be flawed.

Wrong, disorder must impair the person in questions ability to function in some way. Homosexuality does not. Thereby it is not a disorder. It was taken out from the list of disorder in my country for a reason.

 

[madhatter85]

Except for being a nation worthy of being called free nothing is gained... nothing except for traditions are damaged... and I don´t care about tradition anyway.

Tradition provides us with cultural stability. Which is important in the fundamental growth of any nation or society. since the practice of homosexual behavior is counter productive to the growth of a nation or society, why should it be recognized as "normal"

 

[madhatter85]

So we shouldn't allow sterile individuals to get married?

Sterility has no effect on this conversation as it is also a genetic defect. There are no provisions given for sterile people as it is not behavioral.

 

[madhatter85]

When people talk about homosexuals needing help it is always about morality.

No, I have never once mentioned morality in this conversation, you brought it up. My arguments have been based in scientific data.