Everyone has their different reasons. Religion, how they've been brought up. [END QUOTE]
just because u were brought up that way does not mean u have to believe it thus if u do believe it it was not forced upon u and that is then a SOLID REASON
But it still was forced unto you. Burying your head like an ostrich doesn't change the fact that your parents instilled such lessons into you. Yet, it's not something that is necessarily wrong if one is exposed to more angles and allowed the final say himself.
I would think being gay means it's hard to maintain an erection during sex.....But hey! I've never been an observer of such things.
a little late. but an obvious example is masturbation. you dont have to find your hand attractive while doing it do you? XP and sometimes people get errections even when not thinking about anything sexual either. its really not that difficult.
I'd say homosexuality is not right nor wrong - it just is. It's wrong to treat homosexuals as worse, it's wrong to keep on yapping about them as if they were better, it's wrong that this topic managed to grow beyond that.
Oh well, can't beat them - join them?
so..IT IS WRONG - THE BIBLE SAYS THAT..wait what? Let me try again.. The Bible mentions "man doing with another man what man does with a woman" as hideous. Just assume it refers to homosexuality, there are a ton of translation issues over there that wouldn't blink before pushing us off to other topics as well. More fun facts - it presents only the male point of view. Well..guess who wrote it and what they thought of womens free fill at that time. Hideous is not wrong - it's bleh, something that will happen, but we'd be better off avoiding it. Warning - the view i'll present is rather shamelessly naturalistic. Just look - two naked women are just naked women..times two. A naked man..well that's a bit of a suggestion that he wants to have sex with something. Being male we'd probably prefer to have sex with that ourselves, so another naked male around is not something nice for us. Multiply that by two and we have double something we would prefer not to have around. We're discussing sexuality so it's even worse - so what if they're doing it with each other? It's two men, it's competition and they're having sex! Of course that's again a male point of view (exaggerated too), I don't know how a woman sees such things and I rather shouldn't put things in womens mouths..without their consent.
Religions aside - what about nature? Well it kindof is natural. After all it happens without scientific help. But it's a dead end in nature - homosexuality does not result in procreation, it does not carry over (unless of course we force procreation of a homosexual with a suitable target, and even then that's disputable). It's generally a mistake, one of many that have to happen and fail while nature tries to improve things by trial and error. As far as I see that - from the nature point the wrongness of the issue has already been dealt with. We need not fight it further.
Oh yes, forgot to add - from the nature point we need not and SHOULD not fight it further, as that would be expending energy on something that's already been dealt with. In other words - wasting energy, and wasting energy is wrong - proper usage of energy yields better chances of survival in the evolutionary process.
it's wrong that this topic managed to grow beyond that.
*In your opinion.* The same way people have a strong opinion that homosexuality is totally wrong. The "right" side of the argument if you read on it pretty much says your argument of "It just is" but it isn't wrong.
Hideous is not wrong - it's bleh, something that will happen, but we'd be better off avoiding it.
The most common translation is "detestable".
Detestable:Deserving intense dislike > Which implies it is something that is wrong, but as you said, there are so many translation issues within the Bible. Not to mention numerous reasoning outside "homophobia" which could have caused such a passage. Finally, even if the translation is spot on and the message is clear as day nothing but hatred - So what. God didn't physically write it. A man did. A man who [if taking the hypothetical latter comment] was homophobic.
homosexuality does not result in procreation
It *can* result in procreation if the two partner decide. Just the way heterosexuality *can* result in procreation. Can homosexuality "result" in procreation without some form of help? Not currently, but here's hoping someday. [More so with lesbians, due to the ability to carry, obviously].
The end of your argument confused me. Do you mean because it "just is", it should be left alone?
If so: It shouldn't be left alone due to the discrimination that has and will always occur surrounding the matter. There will always need to be involvement if hate continues. Although if you're coming from the view that society should just accept it and it should receive the norm status a hetro couple has then preach it brotha.
If you meant something entirely different, well shucks, sorry.
Well you *almost* understood - note that the discrimination you point out is by all means NOT leaving the topic alone.
As for procreation either I fail to understand how is that possible or I used the wrong words. I meant to say that it's not possible to..impregnate through a homosexual act. A male can't impregnate another male can he? same with female to female
But it's a dead end in nature - homosexuality does not result in procreation, it does not carry over (unless of course we force procreation of a homosexual with a suitable target, and even then that's disputable). It's generally a mistake, one of many that have to happen and fail while nature tries to improve things by trial and error.
That may not be true. First off in a group it may prove beneficial to have a few members who don't procreate that can help with care and raising of the offspring who do. Richard Dawkins explains how the gay gene was preserved
As for procreation either I fail to understand how is that possible or I used the wrong words. I meant to say that it's not possible to..impregnate through a homosexual act. A male can't impregnate another male can he? same with female to female
A woman can impregnate another woman, just not naturally. They have sperm dildos. (I'm not going to get into the whole lesbians using anything symbolising a penis argument, because that's a whole other can of worms) but I think the ideas kind of lovely. You can get sperm from a sperm bank placed into this "sex toy" and use it whilst making love to your partner, thus both are involved in the actual act.
I'd argue if that's one female impregnating another. Effectively one of them is impregnated by a male, who's just not present in whole during the act. The other ladys genes do not go through. Nature probably didn't take that into account either - from a natural point the child will have a biological mother and father, not two biological mothers. Point noted though
There is development in China where they use eggs from both 'mothers', fertilize them with sperm but extract male DNA, meaning of course the sperm is needed by the DNA will be from both females.
There is development in China where they use eggs from both 'mothers', fertilize them with sperm but extract male DNA, meaning of course the sperm is needed by the DNA will be from both females.
That sounds rather interesting, do you have a link to any of this research?
