The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[Uberpod]

Dude. That's what I said. A surrogate child is one that contains genetic material from one parent and is carried in a willing surrogate.

Yeah - I was agreeing in a way 1137 might challenge.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yeah - I was agreeing in a way 1137 might challenge.

So you literally just admitted to obfuscating what you mean to get a rise out of him. That is insanely childish.

 

[Uberpod]

So you literally just admitted to obfuscating what you mean to get a rise out of him. That is insanely childish.

I am trying to give him a semantics lessons. Drills are important.

 

[Nietzsche]

I am trying to give him a semantics lessons. Drills are important.

Hm.

Alright, fair enough. A little dickish for my taste(badumtish) but I can at least respect the motive.

 

[dgirl1986]

Um, true. Based solely on sextual intercourse as most species always are, and we once were, homosexual intercourse doesn't lead to reproduction.

You say that as though we do not know that our intimacy with our loved one doesnt produce children. We know this.

We have other methods of reproduction or parenting children that need a home.

You completely misinterpreted what I'm saying. If any species (without out modern tech), including humans, were 100% homosexual the species would die. It just doesn't matter anymore. It is absolutely not absurd to associate it with depression, what the hell is that supposed to mean, anyways? Both are natural, possobly genetic, inherent aspects of an individual.

You assume that I have misinterpreted what you have said.

I am not sure where your arguement is coming from regarding what would happen if we were all gay...seems irrelevant and to go to the extremes.

You are comparing a state of mental health (depression) with sexuality (a complicated type of attraction that is not restricted to physical). Depression is in a different classification altogether, THAT is the point. Do not try to lump them together and pretend they are related.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't appreciate being called delusional. I didn't like it when someone called me the "s-word"(racial slur for Hispanics), either. Do you think it's any different to stereotype theists than it is to stereotype gays or different races? I think it's wrong to stereotype, to judge, to condemn, etc. no matter what. I don't separate people. People are who they are. Whether they are gay, straight, religious, atheist, no matter what ethnic group they might be.

People should be defined by their character: Not by their sexual orientation, race or ethnic group, religion, culture, nationality.

Hey @ChristineES...I'm thinking I might not have been very clear with my meaning. In NO WAY was I calling you delusional, nor insinuating that theists are delusional. Quite the opposite. I agree with you that people are people, and should be defined by their character.

If I can have another crack at explaining my meaning?

I'll flip the stereotype, just to show they don't matter. There are arrogant theists. There are also humble theists. And everything in between. There are delusional atheists. And rationale atheists. And everything in between. I wince every time I see an athiest act like they are the only rationale people on earth, since it feeds a stereotype I sometimes end up having to wear. I can see that you feel exactly the same about a 'delusional theist' stereotype.

I see gay people in a slightly different light. They're not having a stereotype based on another persons actions incorrectly applied to them. Instead, they are being stereotyped because of their sexuality. I'm not angry, no matter how atheists get stereotyped as angry. But a gay person is a gay person, so they are copping prejudice for what they actually are, not just a stereotype incorrectly applied.

Meh, it's minor, but I see that as worse. It's is more fundamental to their core being and in the worst cases, of their own self-worth.

Sincere apologies if my post upset you or was confusing. That wasn't my intent, and I would NEVER generalise theists as being delusional. Hopefully on re-reading my post you can see what I was trying to get at, however clumsily I did it.

 

[1137]

That was no knee-jerk reaction. It was truth. And I went back and reread what you wrote. What I wrote stands.

We need to stop calling people that are different then us, - defective, - in some way.

*

Um, I am not calling people than us different, I am calling people who's bodies work against all of nature's natural designs defective, myself included. I have depression, and you would have me go untreated just so I could feel "normal"! It's nauseating, and I have had friends die that way. Likewise with homosexuality, any other life other than ours in modern time would be doomed by widespread homosexuality. There would be no reproduction, no system of surrogates, no adoption. As always, people are thinking in terms of humans - the great and divine - only.

20% of gay couple have biological children, more so lesbians.

You damn well better have a source showing that two members of the same sex having intercourse has produced children.

Thanks for the biology lesson. Does not change what I said.

Actually it does, as I am trying to get you on the same page as me when you're off rambling about whatever.

Some people don't seem to realize that gays have sperm and ova. It would funny if it weren't so sad.

Wow, really? You are vastly more intelligent than to be putting out such a - simply put - dumb post. Are you really unaware that having sperm doesn't actually accomplish pregnancy? I mean, come on. Two homosexual men or women having sexual intercourse cannot produce a child.

On the other hand, it is always interesting to see the two sides of all (actually most) philosophies. I always see the people who agree with me on "big" topics (such as homosexuality) to be educated and well reasoning. Then you come to something like this and they'll put their fingers in their ears just as fast as young earth creationists to make sure everything seems kosher.

1137,

Gays can have children biologically related to them. Lesbians often do.

That is not the equivalent of homosexuals having biological children. As stated many times already, this does indeed work with our modern culture. I am fully pro-gay marriage and anti-homophobia, but that does not change the facts. Modern humanity is not the be all / end all of biological life, and when it comes to biological processes we have to look at the big picture. We are not special in this regard.

But you're more than obviously not going to listen.

 

[1137]

You say that as though we do not know that our intimacy with our loved one doesnt produce children. We know this.

We have other methods of reproduction or parenting children that need a home.

We do. For the final time, modern humanity is not the be all / end all of biological processes, and from this second out I right out refuse to argue with those putting modern humanity on some divine, greater than nature pedestal.

You assume that I have misinterpreted what you have said.

I am not sure where your arguement is coming from regarding what would happen if we were all gay...seems irrelevant and to go to the extremes.

You are comparing a state of mental health (depression) with sexuality (a complicated type of attraction that is not restricted to physical). Depression is in a different classification altogether, THAT is the point. Do not try to lump them together and pretend they are related.

Oh, so what is the difference from the natural state of depression and homosexuality? You think we depressed people chose to be this way? We do it for attention? It is a phase?

This line of thought disgusts me and is extremely dangerous.

 

[ChristineES]

U









Wow, really? You are vastly more intelligent than to be putting out such a - simply put - dumb post. Are you really unaware that having sperm doesn't actually accomplish pregnancy? I mean, come on. Two homosexual men or women having sexual intercourse cannot produce a child.

On the other hand, it is always interesting to see the two sides of all (actually most) philosophies. I always see the people who agree with me on "big" topics (such as homosexuality) to be educated and well reasoning. Then you come to something like this and they'll put their fingers in their ears just as fast as young earth creationists to make sure everything seems kosher.



T.

There are other ways to produce biological children than straight intercourse. Or if someone has intercourse with the opposite sex with just the intent of conception. But thank you for saying my sarcastic post was dumb, it made my day.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Consider this option when it comes to sexuality and reproduction...

A transgender man with a vagina and uterus has sex with a cisgender man with a penis and a healthy sperm count. Two men, yet male-to-male intercourse having the potential to conceive.

That's just one option among many.

 

[Uberpod]

That is not the equivalent of homosexuals having biological children.

I listen, but you are using concepts too rigidly. Homosexuals have biological children. Here let me help. An orange is a fruit and a color. Homosexual is a sexual action and an identity. In sum. Please figure out when we are talking about a fruit.

 

[1137]

There are other ways to produce biological children than straight intercourse. Or if someone has intercourse with the opposite sex with just the intent of conception. But thank you for saying my sarcastic post was dumb, it made my day.

See my above post where I refuse to debate with those claiming that modern humanity is somehow free of objective aspects to life, such as biological processes. All you show here is that it is silly for us to be anti-homosexuality in the modern day. Absolutely earth shattering this is not, and it does nothing to address the FACT that any other species or time of our evolution would be disadvantaged by homosexuality. That is literally the only claim I have made, and nobody could comprehend it for some reason.

 

[Nietzsche]

Consider this option when it comes to sexuality and reproduction...

A transgender man with a vagina and uterus has sex with a cisgender man with a penis and a healthy sperm count. Two men, yet male-to-male intercourse having the potential to conceive.

That's just one option among many.

When we have the ability to do that, no doubt will that forever silence the argument. But as of yet we lack that advancement. Working on it, mind, but not there yet.

 

[1137]

I listen, but you are using concepts to rigidly. Homosexuals have biological children. Here let me help. An orange is a fruit and a color. Homosexual is a sexual action and an identity. In sum. Please figure out when we are talking about a fruit.

We can use concepts as loosely as you want to the point where they all lose all meaning.

asjdl;fh lsa;jdhg;lj ,ndgklas slakfga'si.

 

[Uberpod]

If you consume girl scout cookies does that make you a cannibal??

 

[ChristineES]

See my above post where I refuse to debate with those claiming that modern humanity is somehow free of objective aspects to life, such as biological processes. All you show here is that it is silly for us to be anti-homosexuality in the modern day. Absolutely earth shattering this is not, and it does nothing to address the FACT that any other species or time of our evolution would be disadvantaged by homosexuality. That is literally the only claim I have made, and nobody could comprehend it for some reason.

I made no such claim. I am neither anti-homosexual or pro-homosexual; what I do try to do is see things through others' eyes. I try to have compassion for others: I fail at it, sometimes, too. And I don't condemn others, because Jesus told us not to (we Christians).(I am not saying you are not any of those things).

 

[Nietzsche]

If you consume girl scout cookies does that make you a cannibal??

Are they made of actual girlscouts? I'm a little hungry.

If not, I think I'll just wait for Communion.

 

[ChristineES]

Hey @ChristineES...I'm thinking I might not have been very clear with my meaning. In NO WAY was I calling you delusional, nor insinuating that theists are delusional. Quite the opposite. I agree with you that people are people, and should be defined by their character.

If I can have another crack at explaining my meaning?

I'll flip the stereotype, just to show they don't matter. There are arrogant theists. There are also humble theists. And everything in between. There are delusional atheists. And rationale atheists. And everything in between. I wince every time I see an athiest act like they are the only rationale people on earth, since it feeds a stereotype I sometimes end up having to wear. I can see that you feel exactly the same about a 'delusional theist' stereotype.

I see gay people in a slightly different light. They're not having a stereotype based on another persons actions incorrectly applied to them. Instead, they are being stereotyped because of their sexuality. I'm not angry, no matter how atheists get stereotyped as angry. But a gay person is a gay person, so they are copping prejudice for what they actually are, not just a stereotype incorrectly applied.

Meh, it's minor, but I see that as worse. It's is more fundamental to their core being and in the worst cases, of their own self-worth.

Sincere apologies if my post upset you or was confusing. That wasn't my intent, and I would NEVER generalise theists as being delusional. Hopefully on re-reading my post you can see what I was trying to get at, however clumsily I did it.

I hope that I, in no way, pooh-poohed the suffering that I know that gays have gone through in the past.

 

[Uberpod]

We can use concepts as loosely as you want to the point where they all lose all meaning.

asjdl;fh lsa;jdhg;lj ,ndgklas slakfga'si.

This is everyday language use. Consider the following Priest Reproduction is rare but it happens. Gay reproduction is 20%

 

[Ingledsva]

Um, I am not calling people than us different, I am calling people who's bodies work against all of nature's natural designs defective, myself included. I have depression, and you would have me go untreated just so I could feel "normal"! It's nauseating, and I have had friends die that way. Likewise with homosexuality, any other life other than ours in modern time would be doomed by widespread homosexuality. There would be no reproduction, no system of surrogates, no adoption. As always, people are thinking in terms of humans - the great and divine - only...

That idea that homosexuals are defective is only in your mind.

I have already explained they could be Evolutions answer to several survival actions.

You are not defective either. Your chemistry is just out of whack. Hopefully they will figure out how to get it back to optimum soon. Lots of people need it.

I mean - if I agreed with you - I would have to call all of the people up here with Seasonal Affective Disorder, - defective, when in reality their depression is from lack of enough sunlight.

So you, and they, are not defective.


*