Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No worries, it has been fun .I need to apologise to everyone...
If I had known what my thread topic would have uncovered, I wouldn't have tried to do it.
:sorry:
I started this one to specifically deal with the marriage discussion here.I did create this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/88100-worth-relationship.html
I had hoped some of our more fervent respondents on this thread would clarify their positions, because I am sure that they would like their positions better-understood.
There have been plenty of documented cases of homosexuality in many species.No it has not, You have failed to provide evidence that homosexuality is "normal." If it were "Normal" the human race would have died out long ago.
The article didn't say heterosexual marriage either. But really, the survival of the human race, possibly the entire planet, may depend on homosexuals and infertile couples as a way to keep the population from getting too large. The planet is overpopulated enough as it is. If everyone was heterosexual and fertile, things would be worse.Homosexual marriage does not uphold survival of the human race and therefore is not applicable.
This can also be explained by genetic defects/flaws.There have been plenty of documented cases of homosexuality in many species.
Well, it is theorized to be genetic, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a flaw.This can also be explained by genetic defects/flaws.
Again, please refer to http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ble-explanations-homosexuality-explained.html on why it cannot be an evolutionary response, and why it is a flaw or defect in genetic code. It applies to animals as well.Well, it is theorized to be genetic, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a flaw.
I need to apologise to everyone...
If I had known what my thread topic would have uncovered, I wouldn't have tried to do it.
:sorry1:
For those that believe that a person's sexual preferences is a choice rather than an innate trait...
1. What evidence do you have to support this assertation?
2. Why would someone choose to make a decision that quite often results in physical and social alienation from family and friends?
3. What evidence would you require to change your opinion that sexual preference is a choice?
I'm with you, Ultra. Considering the social stigma that is attached to being a homosexual, who would voluntarily choose such a course? Loss of friends and family, find it more difficult to live a normal life. I don't see why people would choose discrimination or isolation deliberately, based on a mere whim.
I can barely keep up with you! and thanks for making us cry with those Morrissey lyrics.
This can also be explained by genetic defects/flaws.
I read that. I wonder why you come to the conclusion that it has to be a "flaw". i do not see any such conclusion. What i rather see is that your argument is not conclusive and a bit shortcomming.Again, please refer to http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ble-explanations-homosexuality-explained.html on why it cannot be an evolutionary response, and why it is a flaw or defect in genetic code. It applies to animals as well.
Actually he did define "abnormal" as something unusual and different from what was "normal" (in which case "normal" is either what the majority is or what the norms are). But I never understood what was so inheritly negative about it.Obviously to everyone but madhatter, words like "flaw" and "abnormal" are purely subjective. Remember that he was unable to define them.
But I never understood what was so inheritly negative about it.
Actually he did define "abnormal" as something unusual and different from what was "normal" (in which case "normal" is either what the majority is or what the norms are). But I never understood what was so inheritly negative about it.