If you look at history, homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Since before the Christian Era, and during the entirety of it (The Acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire, after a futile attempt to stomp it out. Oddly enough, this was their third religion. ) I could tell you about the Greeks and Romans both having male and female homosexuality, as well as incest, imbodied, basically, into their culture... But no one would listen. The fact of the matter is, kings, queens, princes, ect... They basically helped keep homosexuality alive. You wont read about it in text books, since they rarely deal out on the sex slave area. They've all had sexual slaves. My point is, homosexuality is completely imbedded in the history of the world. You can't just kick it out, but just accept the fact that it's here, it's now, and it has been and always will be around. :P
No, it's morally wrong and here is an explanation. Man and Woman were made to have sex, It's impossible to have regular sex with man and man/Woman and Woman. And I don't mean Humping or something else, I'm not going to list ways of sex.
I like how humping is capitalized in your sentence. Just interesting what words you capitalize, like God and Humping.
So it is a sin to use something in a way it is not made to be used? Velcro was made to hold stuff together in space. Does that mean it is a sin to use it to hold your jacket together?
Meaning=Just cause some animal doesn't mean that It's natural in humans.
But this homosexual thing has been seen in a variety of different animals, from intelligent beings like humans to bonabos to mice. Zoologists have weird jobs.
...no, It's because Gay people have no Souls.
God Humping Gay and Souls are all capitalized...Are you trying to send secret messages in your text?
No souls? What do you base that off of? And if that was correct and gay people don't actually have souls, wouldn't the fact that they are still human mean that the souls are useless? Or prove that they don't exist?
No, it's morally wrong and here is an explanation. Man and Woman were made to have sex, It's impossible to have regular sex with man and man/Woman and Woman. And I don't mean Humping or something else, I'm not going to list ways of sex.
Oh I get it. So it's morally wrong to be born without a sex drive right? And no, lesbians can still have regular sex, they can put on a, ya know... Anyways, it isn't morally wrong to experienment with sex a little. I don't understand why it would be. And also, males naturally have a desire to put their penis in a hole in the human body. Any hole. Just putting that out there.
Meaning=Just cause some animal doesn't mean that It's natural in humans.
But since we see it in humans, and it didn't happen artifically, it is natural. Besides, whether or not it's natural doesn't dictate whether it is morally right.
Now that I think about this a little, wouldn't that actually benefit them? I guess thinking that they don't go to an afterlife at all is better than thinking they go to hell, isn't it? So it would benefit them, since no matter what they do, they could not go to hell. So that one high ranking Nazi officer who was part of the early Nazi movement gets out off hell because he was gay? Isn't that kind of unfair?
No, it's morally wrong and here is an explanation. Man and Woman were made to have sex, It's impossible to have regular sex with man and man/Woman and Woman. And I don't mean Humping or something else, I'm not going to list ways of sex.
Saying "regular sex" here is like saying playing platform games is regular gaming while rpgs are something else. There isn't a "regular" way to have sex. One can experience sex in a number of ways and positions.
Meaning=Just cause some animal doesn't mean that It's natural in humans. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
dair5 said it best. Your argument is not only wrong but invalid.
...no, It's because Gay people have no Souls.
Care to define what a soul is? In all likely hood I would contend that no one has a soul.
There are no such thing as natural morals. Morals are relative and created by society and individuals, and therefor differ among everyone, and nobodies morals should be enforced upon anybody else.
Man and Woman were made to have sex
Man and women weren't made for anything unless you're looking at it from a religious perspective, and religion is not an argument.
It's impossible to have regular sex with man and man/Woman and Woman. And I don't mean Humping or something else, I'm not going to list ways of sex.
Who said anything about sex? People don't have gay relationships because they just want sex, they have it because they love their partner.
Meaning=Just cause some animal doesn't mean that It's natural in humans
Anything genetic is natural to humans, and homosexuality is a gene. Don't say "it's a mutation", because every part of every living thing came from mutation of genes.
...no, It's because Gay people have no Souls.
Soul is a religious concept, and once again religion can't be used in this argument.
Something I actually agree with. Just saying it's gross isn't a very good argument. That doesn't mean I disagree, it's just... sort of pathetic
There are no such thing as natural morals. Morals are relative and created by society and individuals, and therefor differ among everyone, and nobodies morals should be enforced upon anybody else.
This is NOT the way to go with this. Moral relativism is a philosophy few actually will support, even though many claim it (see quote). Enforcing one's morals on other people is good and necessary. For example, wanting people to respect homosexuals is enforcing morals on them. Wanting people to tolerate other races is forcing morals on them. Wanting people to not **** torture and kill children? Also forcing morals on them. Morality is the basis for all law. Any behavioral or mental restrictions we put on other people stem from morality. You cannot abandon morality in this case, for to do so is to justify extreme anti-homosexual attitudes and even hate crimes.
Both sides make an argument from morality. Neither has any objective source of moral fact to turn to. Reason can demonstrate why one side should be considered better, though. But don't think that this can be done without morality or emotion.
A word on whether or not homosexuality is natural: natural is a term difficult to define. One person has observed that what animals do is not necessarily natural or right for humans. Quite true. However, if one cedes that it is natural in animals, he or she will be hard-pressed to demonstrate a significant asymmetry between the human case and the animal case to argue that it isn't natural for humans. But it's doable.
That said, what is natural or not isn't relevant. At all. This is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to nature. We don't hold other unnatural acts to be evil per se. So what about this case makes it different? Naturalness isn't enough to make a moral judgement on it, unless we apply that standard universally. Since you're all arguing on computers, I know you don't.
...no, It's because Gay people have no Souls.
At last, an accurate statement. It is true, homosexuals do not have souls.
No. It's just using things in certain ways is, Like using a hammer to commit suicide.
So using things in a way it isn't intended isn't a sin, it is the action that is a sin? So why did you not say so?
So killing is a sin? So that must mean sex is a sin? How do Christians reproduce?
Or is it just using the tools on certain people OK? So you can't kill yourself with a hammer, but killing your neighbor is perfectly acceptable? No? Then why is homosexual sex bad when heterosexual sex is OK?
Read above, Anyway no they would hang in Limbo and be tortured by the empty nothingness.
Why limbo? How does your insane heaven/hell/limbo system work?
It is morally wrong though.
Why?
I have nothing wrong with just love but sex is too far.
Why?
This is NOT the way to go with this. Moral relativism is a philosophy few actually will support, even though many claim it (see quote). Enforcing one's morals on other people is good and necessary. For example, wanting people to respect homosexuals is enforcing morals on them. Wanting people to tolerate other races is forcing morals on them. Wanting people to not **** torture and kill children? Also forcing morals on them. Morality is the basis for all law. Any behavioral or mental restrictions we put on other people stem from morality. You cannot abandon morality in this case, for to do so is to justify extreme anti-homosexual attitudes and even hate crimes.
Some morals are ok to implement on other people. For example, laws to avoid killing people is a good thing to implement on the whole society. But, for example, I am not going to break your house in for drinking on your couch, even though I don't drink myself. Why should I? You can stop the hate crimes, but not the ideals. Wanting something is different than forcing them to. I would like a sandwich, I am not forcing anyone to make one. I am personally fine with homophobia and racism, assuming no one is harmed in a hate crime. And why shouldn't I be?
It isn't all or nothing, you can force some morals without forcing others.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but aren't y'all forcing your morals on him, telling him that he's wrong because he says homosexuality is morally wrong? I'm honestly neutral on this debate. As long as I don't get hit on by a guy, I could care less. I'm just saying.
@blk- I'm just going to stop you here. I've seen you flip-flop on your postitions almost constantly. first gay people aren't allowed to love, then gay people aren't allowed to love one of their own sex, then you put love is fine but not sex?
do you really see how indoctrinated you are right now?
here's another thought for your religiously addled brain (your mentality seems more like a disorder than homosexual desire), if gays are going to hell just for being gay in their hearts no matter what they do, wouldn't that mean that they are going to hell anyway? wouldn't it be better for them to live their life in their form of happiness now, and let them burn for it later, instead of making their lives an eternal hell 24/7?
yes, I made a religious appeal. I haven't done that in a while.
but aren't y'all forcing your morals on him, telling him that he's wrong because he says homosexuality is morally wrong?
No. Taking the neutral position (that it's not wrong, it just is) isn't forcing morals on him.
Further, he isn't even providing reasons other than a select few logical fallacies as to why homosexuality is "wrong."
Why limbo? How does your insane heaven/hell/limbo system work?
I have never heard the afterlife described in the same way when talking to different people.
In some cases, it's another life. Or another world. Or paradise. Or God's home. Or a perfect earth. Or a place just where all believers go. Or your own personal paradise...etc. Makes you wonder why there's so many inconsistencies.
yes, I made a religious appeal. I haven't done that in a while.
Guess you've cooled down from your...unconversion? and see that people aren't going to change so easily :P
What makes it morally wrong? Things aren't immoral by way of virtue.
I have nothing wrong with just love but sex is too far.
It goes to far that two consenting people wish to do something together that in no way harms anyone else on the outside of those actions? How is that going to far?
