Now on to one of the sub questions. Is it natural? Well, someone mentioned that it wasn't natural only for humans. Now, why this discrimination? If the Gods of various religions keep throwing and creating people who are homosexual, either a) They're bad factory operators or b) Something is fishy with whatever anti-gay talk religious conservatives swear is sacred.
I dont mean to offend anyone by saying this, but I think that homosexuality IN HUMANS is unnatural and wrong. Men are meant to have sexual intercourse with women, whether it is for pleasure, or for procreational purposes. God, (or gods for other religions), made man in his image, but it doesnt mean he, she, they can control what the person thinks. Maybe. maybe not. We might find it all out when we die, or not.
god also created eva/eve (idk the spelling in english) and honestly, thats when troubles started XP. so maybe that means that men are better then women and that we all SHOULD be homosexual except for once every X years when we have to reproduce? again, you cant get inside gods mind and you can take everything in any way you want. god didnt create adam/eve with a disability. disabled people should suffer because of that? eventhough it is considered unnatural to be disabled they staill gain (hopefully) the respect they should get as human beings.
god didnt create adam/eve with a disability. disabled people should suffer because of that? eventhough it is considered unnatural to be disabled they staill gain (hopefully) the respect they should get as human beings.
Are we back to trying to compare homosexuality to a disability?
eventhough it is considered unnatural to be disabled
no no no of course not. i guess i didnt point out the above sentence in a good enough way. im saying that being disabled IS considered unnatural and even they get the same respect/rights. while homosexuality IS natural they dont. defenitely not saying homosexuality is like a disability. i know what a disability is
I dont mean to offend anyone by saying this, but I think that homosexuality IN HUMANS is unnatural and wrong. Men are meant to have sexual intercourse with women, whether it is for pleasure, or for procreational purposes. God, (or gods for other religions), made man in his image, but it doesnt mean he, she, they can control what the person thinks. Maybe. maybe not. We might find it all out when we die, or not.
A) Why is it unnatural? B) How would YOU know what God intended for us? If there is such an increasing number of homosexuals, what does it say about God? Either he made a mistake, a ton of them, or it isn't wrong.
Men are meant to have sexual intercourse with women, whether it is for pleasure, or for procreational purposes.
Not at all. Men are not meant to do anything, women are not meant to do anything. If for reproduction, then yes, a man and a woman must have sexual intercourse, at least that's how it generally goes. This is because of the functional boundaries and the fertility thing. But when in the seek for pleasure, there's no such thing as a fertility of functional boundary concerning the gender of each involved party. Well, there's the 'boundary' society puts, of course. I just wanted to say this is the only restriction, and it's purely arbitrary.
If for reproduction, then yes, a man and a woman must have sexual intercourse, at least that's how it generally goes. This
Agreed. Let's make this clearer.
It all depends on context doesn't it? When people have sex, the majority of the time is to have pleasure. Do you have sex to reproduce? No. most of the time. The context of your argument is laughable, since most people don't have sex to reproduce most of the time.
Being gay isn't right, but who cares?
Be careful about making bold assertions and statements without backing it up with an argument.
I'm saying that it goes against nature. Why? Because a man's **** is clearly designed to go inside the woman's vagina. It's a biological fact. Therefore it is not intended for men to go with men.
Designed. Like it was someone who did it. If you mean God, it is in the Bible that he gave the humans the free will.
Nothing is 'designed' in natural selection; that would mean that it has been designed to be like that, meaning there was an intention; which is BS. It evolved into that, but this isn't tied with any 'obligation' of use or anything like that^^ So like you said, it doesn't matter, and it also doesn't go against nature sicne nature has no goal or objective against which you could be.
1st. Why does everything in a discussion such as this have to get so heated up into an argument, almost? 2nd. Why are we talking like we all know everyting? Nobody knows everything. Sorry, I just had to say this.
Generally, but that doesn't explain why this is like that. Because this isn't a debate.
Like it was someone who did it. If you mean God, it is in the Bible that he gave the humans the free will.
No dice. He gave humans free will, but He gave no license to do whatever. Free will does not free you from the human or moral significance of your actions.
Anyway, homosexuality in humans is natural. Things do have an evolutionary function (procreation), but I wouldn't use language as strong as purpose. It personifies evolution too much. It's academic anyway, because whether or not it is natural has no bearing on whether or not it is moral.
It's academic anyway, because whether or not it is natural has no bearing on whether or not it is moral.
Yeah it does. O.o If you bear no attraction to the opposite sex there is nothing that should prohibit you into actually engaging in sexual activity.
If you bear attraction to the same sex there is nothing that should inhibit you into actually engaging in sexual activity. Explain why it should be otherwise, honestly -- people have mighty fine no problem with opposite-sex couples but when it comes to the opposite, there really needs to be a reason. Procreation is pretty much the only difference between the two -- if it was not natural and all people were attracted to the opposite sex, the key trait of being able to procreate is something you should not turn down, and doesn't make sense in any way.
I think I agree with Xzeno on this one. It doesn't have to be natural for it to be moral or not. The problem I'm seeing is that it's only being called immoral just because someone said so and not because of how it may violate another person.
