Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.
Last edited:
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!
What causes one to be attracted to the same sex, we are attracted to the opposite for obvious reasons,our chemical and physical make up is designed to encourage reproduction.
Therefore if that is not happening and you begin looking at the same sex in this way its natural yes, however there is a flaw in the way you were created, not your fault, just like retarded people,they cannot help it but it cannot be said that's normal and the way they should be, they have obvious flaws.
So it's "natural", yet is "flawed"?
A.) That's about as oxymoronic as something can get & B.) as a gay follower of Dharma, this is pretty disheartening. I was going to say "offensive", but I'm more perplexed than offended.
Leftimies said:It's up to you to decide whether or not to correct the
condition.
vtunie said:Why not?
Because. It. is. an. abomination.
Oh, yes, you disagree.
Well, guess what. It takes two to disagree.
And it is NOT about you.
What causes one to be attracted to the same sex, we are attracted to the opposite for obvious reasons,our chemical and physical make up is designed to encourage reproduction.
Therefore if that is not happening and you begin looking at the same sex in this way its natural yes, however there is a flaw in the way you were created, not your fault, just like retarded people,they cannot help it but it cannot be said that's normal and the way they should be, they have obvious flaws.
How can homosexuality be corrected?
All bonobo monkeys are bisexual. In your opinion, is that a flaw, and would bonobo monkeys be better off if they were all heterosexuals?
Of coarse its a flaw, a man born blind still has eyes, so they are obviously flawed.
If your not quite doing what a man does, somethings wrong, not your fault so live the gay life but please don't say their is no flaw.
I'm epileptic,born that way,it sure as hell is not the way we are meant to be,its a design flaw.
I agree. Its not like I am against gays per se, I happen to know quite a few wonderful such persons. Its their insistence on that what they do is perfectly flawless and natural - its this dishonesty and denial that bothers me. It is not healthy for them.
I'm epileptic too
Leftimies said:It's not like I am against gays per se, I happen to know quite a few wonderful such persons. It's their insistence on that what they do is perfectly flawless. It's this dishonesty and denial that bothers me. It is not healthy for them.
Wikipedia said:Queen's University Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal found that "men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards". The report also cited other studies to show that having sex even a few times a week may be associated with the following: improved sense of smell; reduced risk of heart disease; weight loss and overall fitness; reduced depression; the relief or lessening of pain; less frequent colds and flu; better bladder control; and better teeth. The report cited a study published by the British Journal of Urology International which indicated that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.
Wikipedia said:There have been numerous studies indicating that excessive repression of the sexual instinct leads to an increase in the overall level of aggression in a given society. Societies forbidding premarital sex are plagued by acts of rage and tend to have higher rates of crime and violence. There may be a link between sexual repression and aggression, insensitivity, criminal behaviour, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.
psyplexus.com said:If we confine ourselves to modern times and to fairly precise medical statements, we find in Schurig's Spermatologia (1720, pp. 274 et seq.), not only a discussion of the advantages of moderate sexual intercourse in a number of disorders, as witnessed by famous authorities, but also a list of results—including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death—which were believed to have been due to sexual abstinence. This extreme view of the possible evils of sexual abstinence seems to have been part of the Renaissance traditions of medicine stiffened by a certain opposition between religion and science. It was still rigorously stated by Lallemand early in the nineteenth century. Subsequently, the medical statements of the evil results of sexual abstinence became more temperate and measured, though still often pronounced. Thus Gyurkovechky believes that these results may be as serious as those of sexual excess. Krafft-Ebing showed that sexual abstinence could produce a state of general nervous excitement (Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie, Bd. viii, Heft 1 and 2). Schrenck-Notzing regards sexual abstinence as a cause of extreme sexual hyperæsthesia and of various perversions (in a chapter on sexual abstinence in his Kriminalpsychologische und Psychopathologische Studien, 1902, pp. 174-178).
psyplexus.com said:Pearce Gould, it may be added, finds that "excessive ungratified sexual desire" is one of the causes of acute orchitis. Remondino ("Some Observations on Continence as a Factor in Health and Disease," Pacific Medical Journal, Jan., 1900) records the case of a gentleman of nearly seventy who, during the prolonged illness of his wife, suffered from frequent and extreme priapism, causing insomnia. He was very certain that his troubles were not due to his continence, but all treatment failed and there were no spontaneous emissions. At last Remondino advised him to, as he expresses it, "imitate Solomon." He did so, and all the symptoms at once disappeared. This case is of special interest, because the symptoms were not accompanied by any conscious sexual desire.
The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III. He concludes that it is desirable that continence should be preserved as long as possible in order to strengthen the physical health and to develop the intelligence and character. The doctrine of permanent sexual abstinence, however, he regards as entirely false, except in the case of a small number of religious or philosophic persons. "Complete abstinence during a long period of years cannot be borne without producing serious results both on the body and the mind.......
Many advocates of sexual abstinence have attached importance to the fact that men of great genius have apparently been completely continent throughout life. This is certainly true (see ante, p. 173). But this fact can scarcely be invoked as an argument in favor of the advantages of sexual abstinence among the ordinary population. J. F. Scott selects Jesus, Newton, Beethoven, and Kant as "men of vigor and mental acumen who have lived chastely as bachelors." It cannot, however, be said that Dr. Scott has been happy in the four figures whom he has been able to select from the whole history of human genius as examples of life-long sexual abstinence. We know little with absolute certainty of Jesus, and even if we reject the diagnosis which Professor Binet-Sanglé (in his Folie de Jesus) has built up from a minute study of the Gospels, there are many reasons why we should refrain from emphasizing the example of his sexual abstinence; Newton, apart from his stupendous genius in a special field, was an incomplete and unsatisfactory human being who ultimately reached a condition very like insanity; Beethoven was a thoroughly morbid and diseased man, who led an intensely unhappy existence; Kant, from first to last, was a feeble valetudinarian. It would probably be difficult to find a healthy normal man who would voluntarily accept the life led by any of these four, even as the price of their fame. J. A. Godfrey (Science of Sex, pp. 139-147) discusses at length the question whether sexual abstinence is favorable to ordinary intellectual vigor, deciding that it is not, and that we cannot argue from the occasional sexual abstinence of men of genius, who are often abnormally constituted, and physically below the average, to the normally developed man. Sexual abstinence, it may be added, is by no means always a favorable sign, even in men who stand intellectually above the average.
Numerous distinguished gynæcologists have recorded their belief that sexual excitement is a remedy for various disorders of the sexual system in women, and that abstinence is a cause of such disorders.
Agnostic75 said:But I was not defining child bearing age, I was replying to your argument that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain the population. Heterosexuals over 40 do not need to have sex in order to main the population, especially in overpopulated countries.
1robin said:I do not think your opinions on who should be allowed to reproduce are applicable or binding for in our context. I will not just accept who you think should be allowed to breed.
Agnostic75 said:You need to provide medical statistics that only deal with monogamous homosexuals.
There are roughly 140 million homosexuals in the world. It is reasonable to assume that at the very least, the health of 1%, or 1.4 million of them, compares favorably with heterosexuals in general. Logically, there are not any good reasons for those homosexuals to practice abstinence.
1robin said:That is not in the least true if I understood it correctly. Most of the non STD risks I provided once (and will not do again as they disgust me) are not even applicable to heterosexuals. In fact I am not discussing this issue again, it is uncomfortable to me and brings up repulsive images when considered.
Agnostic75 said:Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence. Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs should not play the game at this time, they will beat the odds, and they will enjoy many health benefits from having sex, and they will avoid the risks of long term abstinence.
1robin said:I am not writing laws, I am not making a constitution, I am not a counselor of non-Christian homosexuals, I am not discussing solutions.
1robin said:Murder is still wrong even if we can't stop everyone from killing.
1robin said:I have practiced long term abstinence (every naval man must, an most soldiers of all kinds must). I have never even noticed a problem with abstinence of any type among fellow soldiers who had the slightest self control, after a while you actually almost forget about it. I have noticed nothing but benefits outside a little frustration for the first few weeks.
My gay niece just gay birth to a beautiful baby girl. Oops.It is not really good argument to draw comparison to other species. They are different, and for that reason they are called different species. Black widow spiders eat their mating partners after a screw. Would you consider that 'natural' or ethical sexual behaviour just because it occurs in nature? Nope. We must establish what seems to be normal/natural framework for homo sapiens.
Homosexuality is a flaw that we pick up in difficult birth (as studies seem to indicate), and as such it simply needs to be recognized as such. After all, its only a question of sex - you'd prefer having mere sex instead of being a parent to a child you conceived yourself? Thats...lame
Then again, if one does, its one's choice, one's loss. Not mine. I am not going to stop one from being gay
Also, perhaps interestingly for some, I might add that homosexual activity is not bad itself in any way. It is the neglecting of reproduction while you are perfectly capable of it that bothers me. I don't see it as a sin, evil, wicked or any of those things.
I do not see the point of your claims. Before I debate what they are, to what purpose are you using them? Nothing any minority of species does is a reasonable argument for human behavior.
Wow, this thread is getting kind of offensive again, isn't it.
How about we do something truly amazing ... let's talk about gay people as if they are human beings. And let's treat them as such and not talk down to them or about them as if they're some other species or something. They're just people. They care about the same things as every other person on the planet.
Right, right. Silly me. I don't know what I was thinking. :areyoucraYeah but you know...God hates them and so does Nature, so they aren't like every person...:thud: