[necro] Is homosexuality right or wrong?

1146	406637

offline

shanke

67 posts

Blacksmith

Posted December 10, '12 7:34am UTC

homosexuality is right and the same time wrong biblically it is a sin to lay in bed with another man but these days people are free to do what they want as long as it is not illegal but some people still do things that are illegal but in some countries homosexuality is illegal and in others it is not so homosexuality is right or wrong is up 2 the person like

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

and in some cultures their customs seams wrong in the eyes of other cultures but like Nichodemus said we as a species on the whole are increasingly becoming unnatural.But some people say homosexuality is not a choice but biological or maybe psychological maybe some help or is it just who you are so we should not be too quick to say homosexuality is wrong and the same time right either.

Sorry guys my first comment had a couple of mistakes in it

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted December 10, '12 8:07am UTC

but it goes wrong when you do things that wasn't supposed to be like hurting each other and so on.

Usually such things are consentual in both homo and hetero relationships. In either, unconsented is considered abuse/assault/****, depending on the sevarity.

1: The purpose of any living being, self-aware or not, is to reproduce so as to continue its existance.

Then why is polygamy frowned upon? And what of sterile creatures, such as most ants, that cannot reproduce, yet serve a different purpose?

4: Because of 3, reproduction is only possible when a man and a woman do the nasty.

What about when it's done through artificial means or surrogates?

offline

sensanaty

1,094 posts

Nomad

Posted December 10, '12 11:57am UTC

1: The purpose of any living being, self-aware or not, is to reproduce so as to continue its existance

I've been in a lot of Western countries and I've been to a lot of Eastern countries. Not once have I ever heard of anyone actually believing in this bull****, educated or otherwise. I've heard the statement before, but no one actually thinks like that, right?

but it goes wrong when you do things that wasn't supposed to be like hurting each other and so on.

At most, I think gays have a tendency to hurt their partner's less than straight couples do. Of course, willfully. But being gay has no correlation to physical abuse in a relationship whatsoever

offline

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

Peasant

Posted December 11, '12 12:49am UTC

1: The purpose of any living being, self-aware or not, is to reproduce so as to continue its existance.

Wrong. The purpose of any species is to survive to reproduce. This does not mean that every individual being will- and in the case of many species (octopi, flies, mice) if every single individual survived to reproduce, the result would be severe overpopulation.

2: living beings can produce sexually or asexually. To maintain relevancy, let's stick with the sexual kind.

Intercourse does not necessarily equal reproduction.

3: For sexually-reproducing living beings, a male gamete, or sex cell (sperm) must combine with a female gamete (egg) to produce a zygote, which eventually grows into another living being of the same species through pregnancy.

One of two statements you have right in this post.

4: Because of 3, reproduction is only possible when a man and a woman do the nasty.

I assume you mean in human beings- in which case, you are still wrong, as in-vitro fertilization occurs.

5: When two women or two men do the nasty, there is 0% chance of either of them becoming pregnant.

You are once again conflating intercourse with reproduction.

6: Therefore, homosexuality cannot lead to pregnancy.

Homosexuals can engage in heterosexual or bisexual sex, or use in-vitro fertilization.

7: Therefore, without pregnancy, homosexuals cannot reproduce.

Pointless statement- but not technically wrong

8: THEREFORE, without reproduction, homosexuals are not following the primary instinct of any living being.

Incorrect. Homosexual sex is non-procreative, but homosexuals can procreate. Also reliant on your first statement, which is also wrong.

9: Any living being not following primary instinct is unnatural.

Incorrect. Living creatures do not have just one &quotrimary instinct"- due to a miraculous organ known as the brain (or the equivalent thereof), the priorities of an individual can change depending on sensory input. In many cases, acting on a reproductive instinct would be counterproductive (due to overcrowding, for instance) but a need for intimacy still exists.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that human sexual activity and attraction is purely procreative. If you had done any research on the subject, you would know just how wrong you are.

10: Therefore, homosexuals are unnatural.

Gay Lions
Gay Squirrels
Gay Deer and Gay Monkeys
Gay Dogs

Nope.

[i]1: The purpose of any living being, self-aware or not, is to reproduce so as to continue its existance.[/i]\r\n\r\nWrong. The purpose of any species is to survive to reproduce. This does not mean that every individual being will- and in the case of many species (octopi, flies, mice) if every single individual survived to reproduce, the result would be severe overpopulation.\r\n\r\n[i]2: living beings can produce sexually or asexually. To maintain relevancy, let's stick with the sexual kind.[/i]\r\n\r\nIntercourse does not necessarily equal reproduction.\r\n\r\n[i]3: For sexually-reproducing living beings, a male gamete, or sex cell (sperm) must combine with a female gamete (egg) to produce a zygote, which eventually grows into another living being of the same species through pregnancy.[/i]\r\n\r\nOne of two statements you have right in this post.\r\n\r\n[i]4: Because of 3, reproduction is only possible when a man and a woman do the nasty.[/i]\r\n\r\nI assume you mean in human beings- in which case, you are still wrong, as in-vitro fertilization occurs.\r\n\r\n[i]5: When two women or two men do the nasty, there is 0% chance of either of them becoming pregnant.[/i]\r\n\r\nYou are once again conflating intercourse with reproduction.\r\n\r\n[i]6: Therefore, homosexuality cannot lead to pregnancy.[/i]\r\n\r\nHomosexuals can engage in heterosexual or bisexual sex, or use in-vitro fertilization.\r\n\r\n[i]7: Therefore, without pregnancy, homosexuals cannot reproduce.[/i]\r\n\r\nPointless statement- but not technically wrong\r\n\r\n[i]8: THEREFORE, without reproduction, homosexuals are not following the primary instinct of any living being.[/i]\r\n\r\nIncorrect. Homosexual sex is non-procreative, but homosexuals can procreate. Also reliant on your first statement, which is also wrong.\r\n\r\n[i]9: Any living being not following primary instinct is unnatural.[/i]\r\n\r\nIncorrect. Living creatures do not have just one "primary instinct"- due to a miraculous organ known as the brain (or the equivalent thereof), the priorities of an individual can change depending on sensory input. In many cases, acting on a reproductive instinct would be counterproductive (due to overcrowding, for instance) but a need for intimacy still exists.\r\n\r\nYou seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that human sexual activity and attraction is purely procreative. If you had done any research on the subject, you would know just how wrong you are.\r\n\r\n[i]10: Therefore, homosexuals are unnatural.[/i]\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.idstyle.com/safari/animals/lion-041.jpg]\r\nGay Lions[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/gay-animals.jpg]Gay Squirrels[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.environmentteam.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/gay-animals-video.jpg]Gay Deer and Gay Monkeys[/url]\r\n[url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Lesbian*****es.JPG]Gay Dogs[/url]\r\n\r\nNope.

offline

theEPICgameKING

807 posts

Farmer

Posted December 11, '12 4:03am UTC

Wow, my argument's getting picked at a lot here. Surprised...

What I notice is that frequently, those people ranting about how unnatural homosexuality is, tend to be those kind of people saying humans are the crown of creation and above nature. Shouldn't homosexuals be a symbol for how humans are not bound to their primal instincts and can love a person even if no own child ensues?

Screw humanity being above nature! No one is above nature. We are all subject to it. I'm a Wiccan-I believe Nature is what a christian calls God. Yes, I do hug trees. I'm not saying gays are incapable of love, its just that if they dont boink a woman, they cant have a kid. Naturally. Excepting adoptions, etc.

1: The purpose of any living being, self-aware or not, is to reproduce so as to continue its existance

I've been in a lot of Western countries and I've been to a lot of Eastern countries. Not once have I ever heard of anyone actually believing in this bull****, educated or otherwise. I've heard the statement before, but no one actually thinks like that, right?

Hey now, no need to get angry and curse. I do. Just disproved you. And i'm sorry, but any SPECIES (as nagged upon on page 89) that does not try to continue its existence goes extinct. We live because and for reproduction. Everything else like civilization and whatnot is secondary. Not unimportant, just...not as important as having a child. Why build this amazing civilization and love everything if you go extinct and can't enjoy it?

Then why is polygamy frowned upon? And what of sterile creatures, such as most ants, that cannot reproduce, yet serve a different purpose?

Lemme revise that. 1: The purpose of any SPECIES is to reproduce, indirectly if not directly, in order to sustain their existence.
As for Polygamy, i'm fine with that. since you're still doing it with the opposite gender, it's alright. Even if your Hugh Heffner, yknow, the playboy king.

Hey now, no need to get angry and curse. I do. Just disproved you. And i'm sorry, but any SPECIES (as nagged upon on page 89) that does not try to continue its existence goes extinct. We live because and for reproduction. Everything else like civilization and whatnot is secondary. Not unimportant, just...not as important as having a child.

but it goes wrong when you do things that wasn't supposed to be like hurting each other and so on.
Usually such things are consentual in both homo and hetero relationships. In either, unconsented is considered abuse/assault/****, depending on the sevarity.

Abuse is NEVER right. I'd rather have consentual homo than abusive hetero. Of course i'd also rather have consentual hetero than consentual homo.

4: Because of 3, reproduction is only possible when a man and a woman do the nasty.

What about when it's done through artificial means or surrogates?

Lemme revise that. 4: Because of three, NATURAL reproduction is only possible...yadda yadda yadda. Happy now? Besides, artifical means are not natural. Dont even TRY to dispute that.

Wow, my argument's getting picked at a lot here. Surprised...\r\n[quote]What I notice is that frequently, those people ranting about how unnatural homosexuality is, tend to be those kind of people saying humans are the crown of creation and above nature. Shouldn't homosexuals be a symbol for how humans are not bound to their primal instincts and can love a person even if no own child ensues? [/quote]\r\n\r\nScrew humanity being above nature! No one is above nature. We are all subject to it. I'm a Wiccan-I believe Nature is what a christian calls God. Yes, I do hug trees. I'm not saying gays are incapable of love, its just that if they dont boink a woman, they cant have a kid. Naturally. Excepting adoptions, etc.\r\n\r\n[quote]1: The purpose of any living being, self-aware or not, is to reproduce so as to continue its existance[/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]I've been in a lot of Western countries and I've been to a lot of Eastern countries. Not once have I ever heard of anyone actually believing in this bull****, educated or otherwise. I've heard the statement before, but no one actually thinks like that, right?[/quote]\r\n\r\nHey now, no need to get angry and curse. I do. Just disproved you. And i'm sorry, but any SPECIES (as nagged upon on page 89) that does not try to continue its existence goes extinct. We live because and for reproduction. Everything else like civilization and whatnot is secondary. Not unimportant, just...not as important as having a child. Why build this amazing civilization and love everything if you go extinct and can't enjoy it?\r\n\r\n[quote]Then why is polygamy frowned upon? And what of sterile creatures, such as most ants, that cannot reproduce, yet serve a different purpose?[/quote]\r\nLemme revise that. 1: The purpose of any SPECIES is to reproduce, indirectly if not directly, in order to sustain their existence.\r\nAs for Polygamy, i'm fine with that. since you're still doing it with the opposite gender, it's alright. Even if your Hugh Heffner, yknow, the playboy king.\r\n\r\nHey now, no need to get angry and curse. I do. Just disproved you. And i'm sorry, but any SPECIES (as nagged upon on page 89) that does not try to continue its existence goes extinct. We live because and for reproduction. Everything else like civilization and whatnot is secondary. Not unimportant, just...not as important as having a child.\r\n\r\n[quote]but it goes wrong when you do things that wasn't supposed to be like hurting each other  and so on.\r\nUsually such things are consentual in both homo and hetero relationships. In either, unconsented is considered abuse/assault/****, depending on the sevarity.[/quote]\r\nAbuse is NEVER right. I'd rather have consentual homo than abusive hetero. Of course i'd also rather have consentual hetero than consentual homo.\r\n[quote]4: Because of 3, reproduction is only possible when a man and a woman do the nasty.[/quote]\r\n[quote]What about when it's done through artificial means or surrogates?[/quote]\r\nLemme revise that. 4: Because of three, NATURAL reproduction is only possible...yadda yadda yadda. Happy now? Besides, artifical means are not natural. Dont even TRY to dispute that.

offline

rayoflight3

437 posts

Nomad

Posted December 11, '12 4:20am UTC

1: The purpose of any SPECIES is to reproduce, indirectly if not directly, in order to sustain their existence.

8: THEREFORE, without reproduction, homosexuals are not following the primary instinct of any living being.

By changing your first premise, you've invalidated your argument as well. Now you don't have a statement that implies that the &quotrimary instinct of any living being" is to reproduce. Species encompasses too many individuals for you to say "any living being."

Plus, is the instinct you're referring to really reproduction itself? Isn't it the act of reproduction (i.e. intercourse)? We want to have sex because it feels good, and offspring are the byproducts of that pleasure-seeking (if we allow it).

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted December 11, '12 8:24am UTC

its just that if they dont boink a woman, they cant have a kid. Naturally. Excepting adoptions, etc

So...sex is only a natural act if you can create a child out of it?

Besides, artifical means are not natural. Dont even TRY to dispute that.

So..if I get a natural sperm cell and a natural egg...and have them create a youngling outside of the womb, but with the natural development processes still intact...it is unnatural?

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted December 11, '12 11:22am UTC

any SPECIES that does not try to continue its existence goes extinct.

because i dont want and have kids means that humanity is going extinct?
never knew my life had such a impact on humanity.

We live because and for reproduction. Everything else like civilization and whatnot is secondary. Not unimportant, just...not as important as having a child.

reproduction is on the bottom of my list of importants.

we as humanity and the earth itself would be better of if we had 5 billion people less then we have walking the earth now. this whole reproduction thing is in the end killing humanity and the earth. well done.

i'm fine with that. since you're still doing it with the opposite gender,

i do aswell, but absolutely not for the means of reproduction.
a kid would destroy our life.

offline

HahiHa

8,256 posts

Regent

Posted December 11, '12 8:03pm UTC

I'm not saying gays are incapable of love, its just that if they dont boink a woman, they cant have a kid. Naturally. Excepting adoptions, etc.

Yeah, so what?

And i'm sorry, but any SPECIES (as nagged upon on page 89) that does not try to continue its existence goes extinct. We live because and for reproduction.

And because it is the species as a whole that is important in that example, I don't see why a few homosexual individuals should be unnatural; after all, you wouldn't say most ants are unnatural just because they don't reproduce right? They contribute in some way, of course much more directly and efficiently than homosexuals will ever be able to, but even homosexuals are thought to have some advantage (which one is the big question), or else it wouldn't have prevailed so long in so many species right? Besides, population control is an important part of survival, so saying reproduction is the most important thing is slightly awkward. It's a crucial aspect, but so is drinking water.

because i dont want and have kids means that humanity is going extinct?
never knew my life had such a impact on humanity.

Admittedly though, you're not a species, are you?

[quote]I'm not saying gays are incapable of love, its just that if they dont boink a woman, they cant have a kid. Naturally. Excepting adoptions, etc.[/quote]\r\nYeah, so what?\r\n\r\n[quote]And i'm sorry, but any SPECIES (as nagged upon on page 89) that does not try to continue its existence goes extinct. We live because and for reproduction. [/quote]\r\nAnd because it is the species as a whole that is important in that example, I don't see why a few homosexual individuals should be unnatural; after all, you wouldn't say most ants are unnatural just because they don't reproduce right? They contribute in some way, of course much more directly and efficiently than homosexuals will ever be able to, but even homosexuals are thought to have some advantage (which one is the big question), or else it wouldn't have prevailed so long in so many species right? Besides, population control is an important part of survival, so saying reproduction is the most important thing is slightly awkward. It's a crucial aspect, but so is drinking water. \r\n\r\n[quote]because i dont want and have kids means that humanity is going extinct?\r\nnever knew my life had such a impact on humanity.[/quote]\r\nAdmittedly though, you're not a [i]species[/i], are you? ;)

offline

theEPICgameKING

807 posts

Farmer

Posted December 11, '12 10:26pm UTC

Hey, wait a minute! All species technically belong in any living thing. I was right the first time! My argument prevails.

And because it is the species as a whole that is important in that example, I don't see why a few homosexual individuals should be unnatural; after all, you wouldn't say most ants are unnatural just because they don't reproduce right? They contribute in some way, of course much more directly and efficiently than homosexuals will ever be able to, but even homosexuals are thought to have some advantage (which one is the big question), or else it wouldn't have prevailed so long in so many species right? Besides, population control is an important part of survival, so saying reproduction is the most important thing is slightly awkward. It's a crucial aspect, but so is drinking water.

Righto. I absolutely agree with you. If the entire species suddenly turned gay, it would be screwed, no innuendo meant.
I suppose gayness does keep the population's birth rate from sky-rocketing, especially in such an insidious species like Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Perhaps it IS natural, but in a really weird and backwards kind of way. ....Well, i'm still not comfortable near any Fruit, but at least I dont think they're "wrong" as much as before.
Congrats, you swayed my opinion. Happy now? Wanna go and prove abortion's wrong? Wait, wrong thread for that. But i'm NEVER changing my pro-choice attitude, not in a million years.

we as humanity and the earth itself would be better of if we had 5 billion people less then we have walking the earth now. this whole reproduction thing is in the end killing humanity and the earth. well done.

Read above. The most important matter is that we Sex Responsibly, getting away from the Catholic "Go have 12 kids or burn in hell!" mentality. 2 is enough in this modern medicine world. Just like drinking alcohol-Too much and you die, too little and you're not "cool", whatever cool means. Actually a little red wine helps your heart...I'm really off-topic today aren't I?

Hey, wait a minute! All species technically belong in any living thing. I was right the first time! My argument prevails.\r\n[quote]And because it is the species as a whole that is important in that example, I don't see why a few homosexual individuals should be unnatural; after all, you wouldn't say most ants are unnatural just because they don't reproduce right? They contribute in some way, of course much more directly and efficiently than homosexuals will ever be able to, but even homosexuals are thought to have some advantage (which one is the big question), or else it wouldn't have prevailed so long in so many species right? Besides, population control is an important part of survival, so saying reproduction is the most important thing is slightly awkward. It's a crucial aspect, but so is drinking water. [/quote]\r\n\r\nRighto. I absolutely agree with you. If the entire species suddenly turned gay, it would be screwed, no innuendo meant. \r\nI suppose gayness does keep the population's birth rate from sky-rocketing, especially in such an insidious species like Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Perhaps it IS natural, but in a really weird and backwards kind of way. ....Well, i'm still not comfortable near any Fruit, but at least I dont think they're "wrong" as much as before. \r\nCongrats, you swayed my opinion. Happy now? Wanna go and prove abortion's wrong? Wait, wrong thread for that. But i'm NEVER changing my pro-choice attitude, not in a million years.\r\n\r\n[quote]we as humanity and the earth itself would be better of if we had 5 billion people less then we have walking the earth now. this whole reproduction thing is in the end killing humanity and the earth. well done.[/quote]\r\nRead above. The most important matter is that we Sex Responsibly, getting away from the Catholic "Go have 12 kids or burn in hell!" mentality. 2 is enough in this modern medicine world. Just like drinking alcohol-Too much and you die, too little and you're not "cool", whatever cool means. Actually a little red wine helps your heart...I'm really off-topic today aren't I?

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted December 11, '12 10:40pm UTC

Hey, wait a minute! All species technically belong in any living thing. I was right the first time! My argument prevails.

No, it doesn't. The reason being you are calling homosexuality unnatural because it does not produce offspring and said that producing offspring is the primary drive of every living thing. This is not true. In a great many species there are individuals inside which may not take part in reproduction but still benefit their species' survival by performing other tasks. Like Hahiha noted, ants.

If the entire species suddenly turned gay, it would be screwed, no innuendo meant.

No it wouldn't. As I said before, homosexuality is not the same as being infertile. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproduction. If everyone was a homosexual then reproduction would be done for the sole purpose of offspring. I'm not sure how that would pan out though, whether surrogate mothers would become the norm or "test-tube" babies would...

Anyways, I'll say it again because apparently no one understands this point. Homosexuals are not infertile, they are perfectly capable of producing a child, just not with one whom they would feel a sexual attraction towards.

[quote]Hey, wait a minute! All species technically belong in any living thing. I was right the first time! My argument prevails.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, it doesn't. The reason being you are calling homosexuality unnatural because it does not produce offspring and said that producing offspring is the primary drive of every living thing. This is not true. In a great many species there are individuals inside which may not take part in reproduction but still benefit their species' survival by performing other tasks. Like Hahiha noted, ants. \r\n\r\n[quote]If the entire species suddenly turned gay, it would be screwed, no innuendo meant.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo it wouldn't. As I said before, homosexuality is not the same as being infertile. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproduction. If everyone was a homosexual then reproduction would be done for the sole purpose of offspring. I'm not sure how that would pan out though, whether surrogate mothers would become the norm or "test-tube" babies would...\r\n\r\nAnyways, I'll say it again because apparently no one understands this point. Homosexuals are not infertile, they are perfectly capable of producing a child, just not with one whom they would feel a sexual attraction towards.

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted December 11, '12 10:47pm UTC

Admittedly though, you're not a species, are you?

oops i readed that wrong.

i mend that a few homosexuals wont cause the extinction of humanity.

If the entire species suddenly turned gay

ic no way how this is even possible.

I suppose gayness does keep the population's birth rate from sky-rocketing, especially in such an insidious species like Homo Sapiens

not really.
birth rate is still sky-rocketing. at this rate, earth can't keep up whit resources in about 150 year. if not less, like 60 year.

The most important matter is that we Sex Responsibly, getting away from the Catholic "Go have 12 kids or burn in hell!" mentality. 2 is enough in this modern medicine world.

less would be much better. 0.3 kids or something is enough for the next few hundred years.
to bad that aint going to happen =(

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted December 12, '12 12:21am UTC

Hey, wait a minute! All species technically belong in any living thing. I was right the first time! My argument prevails.

It would be the other way around, any living thing belongs in a species. What you're saying is similar to saying all hockey teams belong in hockey players. It doesn't make sense that way. To carry this analogy further you're statement of reproduction would be similar to saying how all hockey players on a team are trying to score a goal. This completely ignores that on that team (species) there are those playing other roles other than just scoring goals. If everyone on the team were scoring goals, that team would lose.

offline

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

Peasant

Posted December 12, '12 12:49am UTC

"Perhaps it IS natural, but in a really weird and backwards kind of way. ....Well, i'm still not comfortable near any Fruit, but at least I dont think they're "wrong" as much as before."

It's okay, honey, maybe all you need to do is find the right gay man

offline

pangtongshu

9,808 posts

Jester

Posted December 12, '12 6:21am UTC

[quote]its just that if they dont boink a woman, they cant have a kid. Naturally. Excepting adoptions, etc

So...sex is only a natural act if you can create a child out of it?

Besides, artifical means are not natural. Dont even TRY to dispute that.

So..if I get a natural sperm cell and a natural egg...and have them create a youngling outside of the womb, but with the natural development processes still intact...it is unnatural?[/quote]

Did you overlook my post..or are you ignoring what I said EPICgameKING?

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → [necro] Is homosexuality right or wrong?