Why do you think it's wrong for someone else to be gay?

[SkepticThinker]

Some people think it flies in the face of nature.

Those people would be ignoring nature then, in my opinion.

It would be very easy for some to equate same sex parents with single parent households among other things.

How so? What's the connection? And what's the problem with single parent households?

My female cousin has a wife. And they have a child that my cousin gave birth to.

Not me personally but I can see their point. Parenting is important to a person's psychological development. Crucial even.

Single parents can parent just fine. I'm not following.

Two parent households are ideal, I suppose. But I'm not getting the connection between homosexuality and single parent households here.

But of course, there are so many variables that it kind of renders the issue of same sex parental households to be a moot point; or the concept of good parenting in general. Total crapshoot.

Lots of horror stories from heteronormative nuclear households. Or inspiring stories that come from the most unlikely of places.

 

[flowerpower]

Those people would be ignoring nature then, in my opinion.

How so? What's the connection? And what's the problem with single parent households?

My female cousin has a wife. And they have a child that my cousin gave birth to.

Single parents can parent just fine. I'm not following.

Two parent households are ideal, I suppose. But I'm not getting the connection between homosexuality and single parent households here.

I addressed a lot of this in my previous post to Subduction Zone -

Yeah I think I mostly agree.

I'll try to elaborate on what you said you didn't understand - there are some parents who will invest everything they have in their lives to benefit their kids to ensure they have a safe and healthy path through life and the kids might still turn out with a lot of serious problems. Some people come out of places where they aren't cared for at all or even abused and they grow into strong, well-adjusted adults.

Even in spite of the statistics you mentioned and that I acknowledge, the way any given individual grows and the human experience they have ultimately resembles something random. Good parenting is a reasonable ideal for any parent to aspire to but it's far from fail safe.

Which brings us full circle to say that a couple of same sex parents really doesn't amount to much overall - neither good nor bad. Might have some features to it but there's nothing to suggest that it should be discouraged, prevented or outlawed.

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and put myself in the shoes of the people who disparage any heterosexual parents who aren't in it for the long haul. I guess what I had in mind is the psychological idea that kids are influenced a lot from their same sex parent as a role model for themself and their opposite sex parent as a means of interacting with the opposite sex.

I hold that thought experiment with an extremely light grip though. It doesn't take into consideration the influences of siblings, peers or any other random life event. So maybe take what I've been saying here with a grain of salt.

 

[Koldo]

It has to do with choices that are not natural. Natural is connected to evolution and natural selection, which, requires some form of sexual reproduction to pass forward genes. Gay willfully detaches from nature and natural selection since this behavior; male and male cannot reproduce. One needs heterosexual behavior to be part of natural selection.

Don't get me wrong, many gay men are nice people with a positive attitude that can be helpful to others. Many would be selected by nature for many reason, but their choice to detach, from the last step, which needs heterosexual connections, unselects themself.

What I always see as strange, is how Atheists believe in evolution, but they fail to teach natural selection in schools and show how certain human behavior breaks these natural guidelines. It is like they do not believe their own theory enough to use it for applied teaching. Then again the theory also uses dice and cards and games of chance, so any clear cut cause and effect may seem alien. This is not a moral judgement but rather a science based judgement for cataloging natural versus man made contrived.

In the 1980's, AIDS came around and plagued the gay community, more than all other demographics. AIDS and other STD's are still a problem that is disproportional for gays. This is because this detached behavior makes one more vulnerable unless you remain diligent and take manmade precautions to game the natural system.

Again, it comes back to evolution and science education that says one thing, but does not apply the theory to life experience and choices. It leaves the door open to do the opposite of natural and allow anyone to believe this is evolutionary. This is why I often think that science is not in charge of science. Science depends of others for resources; Government and Business, and the donors may have other agenda that are not science based; power and more money. Not preventing preventable disease can be a good business model if the goal is to sell drugs and other medical services.

Abortion is another from the same cloth. Pregnancy implies that the rules of natural selection have been followed; made new combined DNA, check. However, killing the unborn conflicts with an unspoken rule that birth and continued life of the offspring, are needed, just as much, or else we leave the path of evolution and natural selection. This is definitely part of a political and free market business model. The math is not hard to do. It is funny that religion can do the evolutionary math better than science, who stops short, due to quid pro quo.

Check out on a fallacy called 'appeal to nature'.

 

[flowerpower]

Check out on a fallacy called 'appeal to nature'.

Why? And why is an "appeal to nature" necessarily a fallacy?

I mean, I can see both sides - there's an intrinsic beauty in nature that is, more often than not, brutal and horrifying.

Human inventions are impressive and they're often sterile and problematic - they're especially obnoxious when they don't work.

I think I might be way off the reservation on this reply though - might not have much to do with what you're getting at or discussing.

It's just that the phrase "appeal to nature" really strikes a chord with me and I don't think it should be written off too quickly.

 

[Koldo]

Why? And why is an "appeal to nature" necessarily a fallacy?

I mean, I can see both sides - there's an intrinsic beauty in nature that is, more often than not, brutal and horrifying.

Human inventions are impressive and they're often sterile and problematic - they're especially obnoxious when they don't work.

I think I might be way off the reservation on this reply though - might not have much to do with what you're getting at or discussing.

It's just that the phrase "appeal to nature" really strikes a chord with me and I don't think it should be written off too quickly.

Then you should check it out too: Appeal to nature - Wikipedia

 

[libre]

now we actually have the pope actually groveling to the LGBT community

Apologies if this is a terse reply, but he's unwilling to stand up for gay marriage, hardly groveling.

 

[flowerpower]

Apologies if this is a terse reply, but he's unwilling to stand up for gay marriage, hardly groveling.

No need for apologies! Not terse at all. Maybe groveling is far too strong a word.

I just see Francis being unusually friendly to the gay community very cynically and I can't help but think that if the Catholic Church hadn't become such a laughing stock that people are abandoning for reasons everyone knows all too well nowadays, Francis (or whoever the current hypothetical pope would be today) would be just as inhuman, shunning and cruel to gay people as they've always been.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

If they think that it "flies in the face of nature" they are simply wrong. Homosexuality can be found throughout the animal kingdom. It may fly in the face of their religious beliefs but that is an extremely poor reason to try to ban such behavior in others. Are you going to stop eating shrimp or cheeseburgers if Jews order you not to? Are you going to stop eating bacon because it drives Muslims a bit crazy? You would probably tell them to pound sand if you regularly eat those foods. And diet is a small part of what we are. There still are people out there trying to deny the sexuality of others. There are a lot of Republicans that want the Supreme Court to overturn their ruling on marriage equality. So I do not blame the gay community and others for being rather zealous in being give the same rights, not special rights, as others.


Yes, but it appears that a stable household with two parents is the ideal regardless of their sexuality. At least I have not heard of any statistical studies that indicate any problems that are worse in a gay household.


Once again, this can be resolved with statistical studies. One has to be careful in the set up and how it is applied but one can answer many of these difficult questions if one knows what one is doing.

I am sorry, I do not know what you mean by this.

How is it wrong, just because Animals do it that doesn't make it right, my dog used to hump everything from my pillow to my skateboard.

If a mans body is built to have intercourse with a woman then that's what it should be doing.

I may clean my shoes with a toothbrush but I would be ignorant to think because I can do it that's what it's designed for.

 

[libre]

just because Animals do it that doesn't make it right,

The poster you're responding so wasn't arguing that anything animals do is fine.
They were pointing out that the appeal to nature makes no sense here - because homosexuality occurs frequently throughout the natural world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it wrong, just because Animals do it that doesn't make it right, my dog used to hump everything from my pillow to my skateboard.

If a mans body is built to have intercourse with a woman then that's what it should be doing.

I may clean my shoes with a toothbrush but I would be ignorant to think because I can do it that's what it's designed for.

Now you are changing your argument. In other words you just admitted that you were wrong when you said that it "flies in the face of nature". Now if you want to argue whether it is right or wrong for other reasons then state why it is wrong.

And you keep making errors of assuming that a man or woman's body is built for a purpose. You are conflating functions and purposes in this latest argument of yours.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How is it wrong, just because Animals do it that doesn't make it right, my dog used to hump everything from my pillow to my skateboard.

Well, if the argument against it is that it's "not natural" then such an argument would be wrong, given that homosexuality is found throughout nature.

If a mans body is built to have intercourse with a woman then that's what it should be doing.

Who says that's what a man's body (or a woman's body) is built to do?

I may clean my shoes with a toothbrush but I would be ignorant to think because I can do it that's what it's designed for.

Cool, so you realize that something that can be designed to do one thing, can also be used to do other things as well.
So, what's the problem?

 

[Maninthemiddle]

Well, if the argument against it is that it's "not natural" then such an argument would be wrong, given that homosexuality is found throughout nature.

Who says that's what a man's body (or a woman's body) is built to do?


Cool, so you realize that something that can be designed to do one thing, can also be used to do other things as well.
So, what's the problem?

The problem is when you use it for another purpose and try to argue that was what it was designed for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is when you use it for another purpose and try to argue that was what it was designed for.

"Designed for"? What evidence do you have of that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even in spite of the statistics you mentioned and that I acknowledge, the way any given individual grows and the human experience they have ultimately resembles something random.

Yeah, we're not really that unique or special as individuals. This randomness we just don't see reflected in human psychology because we can well predict outcomes of various things, such as the children of authoritative parents are very likely to be healthier and better adjusted adults than those of authoritarian parents.
Raise a child with love and support and we have lots of research to show how it's likely to end. Raise a child in survival mode and again we have the research to know why it's a different story.

Which brings us full circle to say that a couple of same sex parents really doesn't amount to much overall - neither good nor bad. Might have some features to it but there's nothing to suggest that it should be discouraged, prevented or outlawed.

If anything, research hasn't revealed or suggested any inherent shortcomings with homosexual parents (no child has ever been confined to just parents for male amd female role models), but kids of lesbian couples tend to be better adjusted adults who are more emotionally intelligent and healthier.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem is when you use it for another purpose and try to argue that was what it was designed for.

As anal penetration stimulates a lot of nerves, can bring pleasure and even cause orgasms this "designed for" thing falls apart.
Especially since the penis is also used for the dual purpose of sex and waste.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The problem is when you use it for another purpose and try to argue that was what it was designed for.

No, the problem is your specific claim(s) of design that you can't demonstrate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As anal penetration stimulates a lot of nerves, can bring pleasure and even cause orgasms this "designed for" thing falls apart.
Especially since the penis is also used for the dual purpose of sex and waste.

Yeah, but that's icky Checkmate atheist!!

The first emoji reminds me from an instant in the song who's alternative title is "The Loophole".

 

[libre]

If a mans body is built to have intercourse with a woman then that's what it should be doing.

Chairs are built for sitting.
If I choose to stand on one, am I committing an act of sin against the carpenter?

Further, if a priest chooses to be celibate his whole life, is he sinning because his body was created to be with women?

 

[Maninthemiddle]

No, the problem is your specific claim(s) of design that you can't demonstrate.

Watch a couple have sex, there is your demonstration.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

Chairs are built for sitting.
If I choose to stand on one, am I committing an act of sin against the carpenter?

Further, if a priest chooses to be celibate his whole life, is he sinning because his body was created to be with women?

I never once mentioned sin.