Religion-the reason for gay discrimination

[ssj4sadie]

I don't really get bored because I enjoy trying to figure out new angles from which to create and deliver counterarguments. And there's always the exciting, and often scary, possibility that I may realize I am wrong and have to change my mind.



.

That is legit.

 

[wurd2]

Of course I completely disagree with the homosexual fruit flies. You know it's a farce, yet you cling to it.

I'm not a scientist. Peer-reviewed scientific research, or really articles about that research, is the best information available to me for learning facts about the natural world.

And don't tell me I cling to homosexual fruit flies.



.

 

[SCBQQSTN]

I'll assume you meant species instead of race.

Fair enough, but I think we are very far from the survival situation where a couple should be expected to have a baby to prolong our species. And therefore, a couple incapable of making a baby, between the two, should not be discriminated against.

.

I agree, with over seven billion humans on this planet, worrying about extinction is not exactly a huge concern. However it is irrefutable that the basic needs of food, shelter, and procreation is built into our DNA.

 

[wurd2]

His point of having to make babies is a foolish argument but so is anything I've read from you.

I look forward to you demonstrating my foolishness.

.

 

[hoamskilet]

Just because we have witnessed animals in nature doing something homosexual DOES NOT make it a norm or standard. Not did those animals STAY together. Your logic is Flawed.

This guy gets it. I didn't quite mean that it's physically not possible or never ever happens when I said it's "unnatural" I think there's a multitude of behaviors and actions by humans and any other animal that a logical person wouldn't chalk up to being natural behavior

 

[ssj4sadie]

I agree, with over seven billion humans on this planet, worrying about extinction is not exactly a huge concern. However it is irrefutable that the basic needs of food, shelter, and procreation is built into our DNA.

Geez the Earth's population is growing faster than our national debt. Time to promote homosexuality :idea:

 

[Mr.Bolt-on]

I'm not a scientist. Peer-reviewed scientific research, or really articles about that research, is the best information available to me for learning facts about the natural world.

And don't tell me I cling to homosexual fruit flies.



.

Alright I won't tell them that, but they might get upset.

 

[wurd2]

Let me put it this way. These two questions are identical, by definition of natural:

#1. Is homosexuality natural?

#2. Does homosexuality occur in nature?

.

 

[BlackOutUT]

Let me put it this way. These two questions are identical, by definition of natural:

#1. Is homosexuality natural?

#2. Does homosexuality occur in nature?

.

I think most here are using the word natural when a more appropriate description would be it is not the norm. You may be able to find examples of homosexual behavior in nature, but are any of these animals homosexually pairing for life? I honestly don't know but I would bet no. If there are examples, I bet they are in the minority compared to the rest of the species. As someone else pointed out, there are basic instincts and priorities that every species has ingrained in them. Food, shelter, and the big one, to procreate. Fact is being a life long homosexual, rather in the wild kingdom or in the human world, immediately makes it impossible to procreate. I am no biologist, but I think its safe to say that every animal's soul purpose in life (minus humans) is the further advancement of their seed. Life long homosexuality makes this impossible. This is why some are saying it is "unnatural" or perhaps a better phrase is it goes against the natural order of the advancement of a species.

Either way IMO humans are not animals. We clearly hold several basic instincts, but to compare the human race to any other creature is just foolish.

For the record, I do not agree with homosexuality, but it is a subject that I see both sides of the argument in the political realm. I personally am somewhere in the realm of granting them the same rights as a man/woman marriage, but simply not giving them the title of married. I think this is just about as close to common ground as it will get between the two sides.

 

[thomas91169]

Religion is the reason for many illogical ideals.

 

[wurd2]

Thank you for the clean, clear response BlackOutUT.

I think most here are using the word natural when a more appropriate description would be it is not the norm.

In my experience on this board, all members claiming that homosexuality is unnatural think that natural means or implies morally acceptable. And yet none have admitted to this semantic mistake regardless of how clearly and repeatedly I spell it out.

You may be able to find examples of homosexual behavior in nature, but are any of these animals homosexually pairing for life? I honestly don't know but I would bet no. If there are examples, I bet they are in the minority compared to the rest of the species.

I too do not know.

Fact is being a life long homosexual...immediately makes it impossible to procreate.

Homosexuals can still procreate, just not with the sex of their preference. A homosexual couple can also adopt and raise a healthy and productive human being that contributes to society. And we all know there's an abundance of children available for adoption.

What we know, with reasonable certainty, is that nature has preserved homosexuality within sexual species since the origin of sexual reproduction. We may never discover how or why, but the writing of homosexuality's common presence throughout the animal kingdom is on the wall for anyone with sufficient honesty to read it.

I am no biologist, but I think its safe to say that every animal's soul purpose in life (minus humans) is the further advancement of their seed. Life long homosexuality makes this impossible. This is why some are saying it is "unnatural" or perhaps a better phrase is it goes against the natural order of the advancement of a species.

It is not the case that biological traits of a given species must be oriented or conducive towards procreation.

A famous example of this is a moth's tendency to commit suicide when placed in a dark room with a lit candle. The moth will spiral around the flame, closing in on it to eventually fly right through it and die. This evolutionary preserved trait is a natural byproduct of the moth's navigation system that evolved to use the moon, which lies at optical infinity, to fly in a straight line.

It may very well be the case that homosexuality is a natural byproduct of the genes which manifest the sex facilities by which we procreate. If this is true, then it would be very incorrect to suggest that homosexuality does not go hand-in-hand with procreation.

Either way IMO humans are not animals. We clearly hold several basic instincts, but to compare the human race to any other creature is just foolish.

Chimpanzees routinely destroy college students in short-term memory contests. And their muscle material per volume is superior to ours in strength by at least a factor of two (the infamous factor of six is apparently an exaggeration). What, other than egocentric bigotry, entitles you to claim that comparing humans to any other species is foolish?

We are made of the same physical elements, the same amino acids, the same proteins and enzymes, the same cellular structures, the same basic organs, and we also think and act via the same neurological functions. In terms of moral behavior, chimpanzees demonstrate concepts of fairness and sharing. And the great apes mourn the deaths of their young as well as make tools in anticipation of future work. We even have orangutans that use a special iPad application to communicate with us, and in so doing, they demonstrate a shockingly sophisticated vocabulary.

Although our neurology, overall, represents the pinnacle of brain evolution here on earth (as far as we have discovered), human beings ARE in fact animals in every sense of the word. This is all beside the point that, technically, we are also classified as such in the domain of biology.

Bear this in mind:
If cows could paint, they would paint the gods as cows.

.

 

[bad360rt]

I already said those laws for heterosexual couples should NOT exist.

Which solves the whole problem.

But they do exist, so while you lobby to have over a thousand laws repealed (it's probably going to take a while), homosexuals should be afforded the same benefits/protections that those laws currently provide to heterosexual couples.

I always wondered why none of the 'Founding Fathers' of America had any writings about homosexuality or how the Bill of Rights applied to folks that described themselves as homosexual. At least I've never come across any, so there is a good possibility I could be mistaken. I mean the issue of 'homosexuality' would be an incredibly radical and controversial topic for the 18th century. I mean look at the controversy around it in the late 20th century and early 21st century. Yet not a blip it seems in the writings of our 'forefathers.'

Probably one of the worst arguments in this thread. Our founding fathers also didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to include black people, and in fact most were slave owners themselves. Try again.

imma go with the fact that a gay couple cant make a baby....seems it has nothing to do with the bible, and has everything to do with procreation.

did I say they must make a baby somewhere????? If so, I missed it.

It was your first post in this thread. Procreation is not a valid argument either, otherwise all sterile couples, or couples just not intending to have children (I know several), shouldn't be allowed to get married either.

 

[WireEater]

[youtube_browser]A8JsRx2lois[/youtube_browser]

 

[hoamskilet]

In my experience on this board, all members claiming that homosexuality is unnatural think that natural means or implies morally acceptable. And yet none have admitted to this semantic mistake regardless of how clearly and repeatedly I spell it out.

I'm glad you brought semantics up because that was pretty much my first thought of the basis of your argument when you jumped into the conversation.

Take a peek at what webster's dictionary has to say about the meaning of the word "unnatural"

Unnatural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of UNNATURAL

1
: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2
a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse
b : lacking ease and naturalness
c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance>

Right there in the good old dictionary it associates the word unnatural with lacking normal behavior and makes no mention of morals.

Can't wait for your explanation on how homosexuality is normal behavior

 

[neatofrito1618]

I'm glad you brought semantics up because that was pretty much my first thought of the basis of your argument when you jumped into the conversation.

Take a peek at what webster's dictionary has to say about the meaning of the word "unnatural"

Unnatural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of UNNATURAL

1
: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2
a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse
b : lacking ease and naturalness
c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance>

Right there in the good old dictionary it associates the word unnatural with lacking normal behavior and makes no mention of morals.

Can't wait for your explanation on how homosexuality is normal behavior

...over 10,000 species exhibiting homesexuality means homesexuality is in accordance with nature, which by definition makes it consistant with the normal course of events.

 

[hoamskilet]

Ok, so we'll go ahead and chalk up pedophilia, rapist, murderers, cannibalism, etc....as normal behavior/course of events as well right? Because after all, it does happen

 

[joeg215]

[youtube_browser]A8JsRx2lois[/youtube_browser]

Bet they didnt see that coming.

 

[wurd2]

Hoamskilet, I care not to argue whether homosexuality is normal behavior. If you wish to advocate your point that homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that it isn't normal behavior, then by the secondary definition of the term unnatural, you may be correct. I do, however, find this tactic suspicious albeit clever.

Note that by the primary and most commonly used definition of unnatural, you are still wrong. And furthermore, natural is still not the equivalent of morally acceptable.

My point stands:
Homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore natural.

.

 

[hoamskilet]

hahah, ok

 

[DaleM]

...over 10,000 species exhibiting homesexuality means homesexuality is in accordance with nature, which by definition makes it consistant with the normal course of events.

At the end of the day both the physiology and species survival prove that it is an aberration of nature, not the normal process.

For example, the anus is watertight and expels feces. All movement is outward from the bowels.

The vagina on the other hand has a superb function of its muscles working towards procreation and receptive of the penis.

Semen in an anus is nothing more than a mixture of lubricant, man-goo, and crap.

To take it to hyperbola, if all humans became homosexual the species would cease to exist. There is no way this is the natural outcome. Anomalies occur, but they are neither the natural course of survival nor the normal physiological operation of the body.


Outside of that, I don't care who does what to who as consenting adults.