Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Is homosexuality right or wrong?

Posted Mar 30, '12 at 5:21am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

And the whole procreation necessity aspect makes me so mad.  We have enough population to get by, let some homosexual couples adopt kids or opt to go without children.  This is no big deal people.  We don't need to keep populating the earth.  If you're that gung ho about expanding the human race beyond the number we currently have then might I suggest more of you go into space-related sciences and figure out how to colonize other planets because this one is getting kinda cramped.

this one is just an excuse for homophobes so they can say they have an explanation. if this was the reason they would also be against streight couples with no children. besides, the fact that the gay couple wont get married wont fix this. they will remain gay and probably wont have children.

 

Posted Mar 30, '12 at 6:55am

BritHennerz

BritHennerz

364 posts

I am a Christian

Surely Christianity is about spiritual experience rather than sexual experience?

If you are pro-life, what about all the same sex couples who have sex and not children?

If God made everyone equal, then why must we prejudice homosexuals?

 

Posted Mar 30, '12 at 10:18am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

being christian is honestly just another excuse of close minded people. the place that supposedly sais being gay is wrong also sais that eating shrimp, bacon and cutting your hair is wrong. of course, they choose to ignore those rules. and not only that, if you do enough research you might also find out that originally christianity has no problems with homosexuality. of course, even if most christians will see a physical proof they will not change their opinions because that was how they were raised and not many people want to change.

what can i say? its difficult to understand that the basic education you got is wrong and i can understand that. still, the people who will ignore others way of views are just too weak to even try and understand that they might be wrong. reminds me of little children really.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

unfortunately i canot find the article i originally searched for :(

it had some really good points and it quoted the bible everytime to show exactly what its saying...

 

Posted Mar 31, '12 at 5:05am

reaperbackinaction

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

has anyone considered that it could be a birth defect? if it is a gene, and it is not the norm, could it be a mutation? inb4 the norm is "indifferent" (3141d). mammals are here for one reason, on a base level, to procreate. so anything that tells us not to, or tells us to try reproduction with another that will not lead to fertilization, is technically a mutation on a cellular level in the opposite direction of progress. seeings as how we need to reproduce sexually to evolve (not saying evolution is the bees knees or whatever), wouldnt a mammal that didnt want to procreate be a hinderance to the evolutionary process? and therefore need to be excluded from the gene pool? i guess not excluded, seems how they did that to themselves. just wondering. also, have to say im not specifically against homosexuals, or transgenders, or straights, or christians. just a clarifier.

 

Posted Mar 31, '12 at 5:48am

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,994 posts

Knight

@reaperbackinaction

I don't know well what originally causes different sexual orientation, nor do I know if this is known in general at all. But it's well possible that it's either on the gene level, or probably simply on the gene regulation level, which does not require mutations in the genes.

Mammals are here for procreation? Reproduction enables the species to survive but it's not a cast goal; such a thing does not exist in evolution.
Mammals are here for procreation? So do all other animals. As bees, or ants. There are even eusocial mammals, see the naked mole rat. In those populations only the queen reproduces, and still it works fine. Granted, it works fine because all workers share 50% of the genes of the queen, and helping the queens offsprings help 50% of their own genes. And of course this isn't the case for most homosexuals. I just wanted to say that not procreating sometimes also leads to success.

"is technically a mutation on a cellular level in the opposite direction of progress". What is the direction of progress in your opinion? Actually there is no such thing in evolution, so not reproducing can't really be seen as 'hindering'. They're simply not contributing to the gene pool, is all.
Also, I refuse to think that it's a mutation, seeing as how frequent it is, and how they're unable to pass on such a mutation; that would mean that it mutated in each single homosexual living being on earth, separately. That's too much.

In my opinion, there's no right/wrong cases in sexual attractions; we are all at a certain point of a gradient between pure homosexuality and pure heterosexuality, both of which are imaginary points. Most people are mostly heterosexual, and sometimes someone is shifted on that gradient towards the middle (bisexuality) or the other end (homoesxuality).
And then there are of course more rare cases where the object of sexual attraction isn't even human, but animals or objects. And there are asexuals, who aren't particularly sexually attracted to anything. Don't ask me how to explain those, but I don't see them as 'hindering' either. I could call it pathological in the sense that it is not usual, but that word carries too much negative ideas with it, so maybe that's a too slippery slope..

 

Posted Mar 31, '12 at 2:40pm

reaperbackinaction

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

Reproduction enables the species to survive but it's not a cast goal

this was what i was trying to get at. reproduction is necessary for survival. i have to ask, if reproduction is necessary for survival, wouldn't it be  the goal of each and every member of that species?

What is the direction of progress in your opinion?

development of the prefrontal cortex, higher brain functions, becoming immune to diseases, walking upright, opposable thumbs (realizing that several sapiens have also developed this. looking at africa, the ability to withstand immense hunger, live in direct intense heat, greenland, adaptation to live in extreme cold. through procreation and evolution, the human race has taken some pretty amazing strides. also, sorry for any spelling errors, i just got up.

 

Posted Mar 31, '12 at 3:27pm

frodo86

frodo86

110 posts

this was what i was trying to get at. reproduction is necessary for survival. i have to ask, if reproduction is necessary for survival, wouldn't it be  the goal of each and every member of that species?

As a speices, I think we're past the point where we have to even think about contributing to the survival of the human race. There is seven billion people on earth, it's not like we need to think about having a bunch of kids, right?

 

Posted Mar 31, '12 at 3:45pm

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

besides, its not as if homosexual CANT reproduce. they just choose not to. many heterosexuals dont too so you could also call the lack of will to reproduce some kind of mutation. if wed ever get to a situation in which we need to reproduce or we get extinct homosexuals can just have sex with the other gender for that purpose only (and dont forget banks). if we want to look at it in the most general way possible we can pretty much say that all animals are bisexual and they dont have the need to reproduce (just the need to have sex). and that actually makes sense because i doubt a dog cares if that female dog will have puppies from him. instead of looking at reproduction as a goal i think its better to look at it as a side effect of having sex.

 

Posted Mar 31, '12 at 4:37pm

reaperbackinaction

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

besides, its not as if homosexual CANT reproduce. they just choose not to. many heterosexuals dont too so you could also call the lack of will to reproduce some kind of mutation. if wed ever get to a situation in which we need to reproduce or we get extinct homosexuals can just have sex with the other gender for that purpose only (and dont forget banks).

correct. but its not as if i can't dive into the ocean and swim as far down as possible, drowning, and leading to my death. the urge not to is what keeps me alive (for now). its not about will, i have several gay friends both male and female, and a lesbian living with me and my wife, ive asked them all these questions. all of my male gay friends have said that it would be extremely difficult for them to (do the deed) with a female, even if it was survival we were talking about. because humans have sex not just procreation anymore, but for pleasure as well, there is a mental side of the equation that would hinder their natural ability to reproduce.

if we want to look at it in the most general way possible we can pretty much say that all animals are bisexual and they dont have the need to reproduce (just the need to have sex). and that actually makes sense because i doubt a dog cares if that female dog will have puppies from him. instead of looking at reproduction as a goal i think its better to look at it as a side effect of having sex.

i see your point. but remember that dogs and most other mammals lower brain functions do not gain the pleasure from sex. of course we cant read minds, or talk to a dog, but it has been shown in nature that packs of wild animals do not just have children willy nilly, and only the most alpha males and females mate, thus creating the strongest offspring with the best chance to survive in this ever changing world. besides all of that, i do not believe that animals have the intellectual capabilities to understand things like population, and genetics, and evolution.  i don't really understand why some people always use the excuse that some animals of lesser brain functions exhibit homosexual tendencies, they aren't really comparable, at-least, not for this discussion, humans have evolved out of that class. that would be like me saying that dogs have an amazing sense of smell, so you should too, or that badgers can eat rotten meat and dig large dens in solid ground with only their hands, so you have no excuse not to eat rotten meat and live in a hole.

 

Posted Mar 31, '12 at 4:45pm

reaperbackinaction

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

As a speices, I think we're past the point where we have to even think about contributing to the survival of the human race. There is seven billion people on earth, it's not like we need to think about having a bunch of kids, right?

in the sense of over population, yes, more kids would be quite detrimental to society. in the sense that natural selection has been put on hold, and its not only the strongest the survive anymore, no. the intelligent and physically superior people on this planet need to be having more children and the ignorant and weak need to be having less. that is how a species makes progress. the weak are killed, or banished ,or ignored, and the strong thrive and multiply.

on a semi-related note, i urge all of you to watch the movie Idiocracy. about this exact subject. and then take a look at humanity today, and realize how close we are getting the that reality coming to fruition.

 
Reply to Is homosexuality right or wrong?

You must be logged in to post a reply!