Can anyone give me an answer?

[Jet_A_Jockey]

So, why don't you and others simply accept that fact, sort out your own hangups if any, get on with life, and live and let live?

Because you've proven nothing. There isn't exactly loads of evidence for either side of it, so whats the point in stating it as factual? It's like me saying that its impossible for the world to exist while I am asleep, because I've never seen it once.

And don't worry, my life is not interrupted by these statements. Although i could ask the same of you, why don't you accept that most christians believe it when the bible condemns homosexual behavior? Why don't you simply accept that fact, sort out your own hangups if any, get on with life, and live and let live?

 

[KCKID]

Because you've proven nothing. There isn't exactly loads of evidence for either side of it, so whats the point in stating it as factual? It's like me saying that its impossible for the world to exist while I am asleep, because I've never seen it once.

Huh? Eh? What?

And don't worry, my life is not interrupted by these statements. Although i could ask the same of you, why don't you accept that most christians believe it when the bible condemns homosexual behavior? Why don't you simply accept that fact, sort out your own hangups if any, get on with life, and live and let live?

No fair. I asked you first.

 

[Phinehas2]

Speaking strictly from an evolutionary point of view homosexuality is something that would die out.

Very good point. In the theory of evolution species don’t evolve to be the weakest in survival but the strongest. Homosexual doesn’t even produce the weakest let alone the strongest, it doesn’t reproduce so it should be the first to die out.

Dear EnemyPartyII,

any animal in nature that has homosexual sex is "designed" to have homosexual sex. Otherwise they wouldn't do it

is this specific to homosexual sex for humans? if so, why? If not, why would we then decide that someone who has sex because of a desire must mean they were designed to have that sex? I don’t think the mere desire is an indication of what someone is designed for. For example someone may desire to do something good or evil. I don’t see how stealing because of the desire is somehow what people are necessarily designed for, nor for example a paedophile’s desire for sex with children somehow what they were designed for.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Archer93

You condemn a homosexual couple because they can't, short of medical intervention, produce a child to which they both contribute 50% of the genetic material because they can't do that, but do not condemn a heterosexual couple who could do that but choose not to.
Is that basically it?

Well firstly as a homosexual couple cant produce a child, I can see how anyone can condemn them for it, they are already condemned in not being able to do it. Thus the gay and lesbian argument is based on personal accusation of anyone who points out facts.
Secondly, an infertile man and woman is due to a malfunction of the design, the same sex couple is due to no design in the first place.

Also- evolution has not designed the physical body to match the emotions of a homosexual- well, just looking at m/m intercourse- have you ever heard of the prostate gland? It's the male G-spot, is located in the anus, and is the main reason why many gay men like anal sex.

but the male g-spot is in all men isn’t it? I would say the truth is that all kinds of spots could be identified or proposed to validate a sexual activity.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

so animals are designed to eat their young, kill each other, and eat (use your imagination here)? get my point? Just because they can do it does not mean it is intended for them to. Could I shoot pool with a baseball bat? Sure, but should I? Not if I want to win.

Actually, your point is about to backfire on you...

If animals display traits like the ones you mentioned, then yes, that is precisely what they were "designed" to do (or, more correctly, what they evolved to do)

We do not see any trait displayed by an animal that it was not "designed" to, or evolved to, display. Ever.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

sorry, but your statement contradicts itself. First you say we don't know for sure why homosexuality occurs, but then you say that you KNOW it is unchangeable. For something you don't know about for sure, you sure seem to know about what it doesn't do

We don't know what causes gravity, but we know its pretty unchangeable too.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Secondly, an infertile man and woman is due to a malfunction of the design, the same sex couple is due to no design in the first place.

Got a scientifically valid basis for this conclussion?

No. Didn't think so.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

Got a scientifically valid basis for this conclussion?

No. Didn't think so.

It is science, its observable, it is also common sense. Have you any scientifically valid basis for your conclusion?
I hope so if you are demanding it from others, lets see it please.
Also the question I aksed about your recent remarks ...is this specific to homosexual sex for humans? if so, why? If not, why would we then decide that someone who has sex because of a desire must mean they were designed to have that sex? I don’t think the mere desire is an indication of what someone is designed for. For example someone may desire to do something good or evil. I don’t see how stealing because of the desire is somehow what people are necessarily designed for, nor for example a paedophile’s desire for sex with children somehow what they were designed for.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
It is science, its observable, it is also common sense. Have you any scientifically valid basis for your conclusion?
I hope so if you are demanding it from others, lets see it please.
Also the question I aksed about your recent remarks ...is this specific to homosexual sex for humans? if so, why? If not, why would we then decide that someone who has sex because of a desire must mean they were designed to have that sex? I don’t think the mere desire is an indication of what someone is designed for. For example someone may desire to do something good or evil. I don’t see how stealing because of the desire is somehow what people are necessarily designed for, nor for example a paedophile’s desire for sex with children somehow what they were designed for.

Another attempt to liken homosexuals to paedophiles? Is this not old for you by now?

The science is sound. Genetics heavily influences homosexuality. So, if humans are in fact "designed" at all, then apparently homosexuality is part of that design.

As for claiming your opinion is common sense, thus valid, well, I'll see your common sense and raise you a heliocentric model, and then kick in a quantum physics.

 

[Archer93]

Dear Archer93
Well firstly as a homosexual couple cant produce a child, I can see how anyone can condemn them for it, they are already condemned in not being able to do it. Thus the gay and lesbian argument is based on personal accusation of anyone who points out facts.
Secondly, an infertile man and woman is due to a malfunction of the design, the same sex couple is due to no design in the first place.

but the male g-spot is in all men isn’t it? I would say the truth is that all kinds of spots could be identified or proposed to validate a sexual activity.

Okay, condemmed by whom? Or by what? We've already had a discussion on this thread as to how homosexuality could be a consequence of something that is evolutionarily or socially beneficial.

That same-sex couples cannot breed in the same way opposite-sex couples can is not argued. That there is any moral value to the relationship as a result of that is.
Basically, if a pair-bonded couple do not breed, why is the reason for the lack of breeding an issue?
Inability to have children, choosing not to have children, matching sets of genitalia- the end result is the same.
If everyone was sterile, if everyone decided not to have children, if everyone only had same-sex sex, then yes, humans would die out.
Why is there this level of hand-wringing over the last scenario only?

Yes, many parts of the body can operate as erogenous zones. The pleasure from them reinforces the pair-bonding, often in non-reproductive ways which also works to reduce the risk of over-population in early pre-historic societies when resources were scarce.
If pair-bonding only occured during reproductive intercourse then there would be more children born than the group could support.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

Another attempt to liken homosexuals to paedophiles? Is this not old for you by now?

Well that’s the Christian way my friend, in Romans 2 we see the Christian believers who were being addressed were not perfect and free from sin themselves, save through the blood of Christ. Therefore Christians don’t consider themselves better than anyone else.
In fact I have likened the desires not the people.

The science is sound. Genetics heavily influences homosexuality.

Disputable. Science has also shown that there is no concrete evidence genetics have influenced homosexuality.

So, if humans are in fact "designed" at all, then apparently homosexuality is part of that design.

Well evidently not, neither according to evolution theory or Biblical creation.
Science is based on observation, we can see that the sex organs of men and women are designed for each other and the two sex organs of men or of women simply aren’t compatible except for sexual gratification. But I asked you have you got any scientific evidence, you seem to have implied you have but you haven’t posted it.

But you still haven’t answered my question, all you have done is report me for it. The question is..is what you said specific to homosexual sex for humans? if so, why? If not, why would we then decide that someone who has sex because of a desire must mean they were designed to have that sex? I don’t think the mere desire is an indication of what someone is designed for. For example someone may desire to do something good or evil. I don’t see how stealing because of the desire is somehow what people are necessarily designed for, nor for example a paedophile’s desire for sex with children somehow what they were designed for.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Archer93,

Okay, condemmed by whom?

well you tell me, you are the one who was talking about people condemning. As far as Christians are concerned there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

That same-sex couples cannot breed in the same way opposite-sex couples can is not argued.

True, the point is that same-sex couples cant breed, they need someone of the opposite sex.

Basically, if a pair-bonded couple do not breed, why is the reason for the lack of breeding an issue?

The couple that can breed is man woman, until you recognise that there is no point in suggesting ‘a pair-bonded couple’.

Inability to have children, choosing not to have children, matching sets of genitalia- the end result is the same.

Not to me or the word of God in the Bible, to me its is evident that a same-sex couple is not only disordered thinking but physical disorder.

If everyone was sterile,

but while not everyone is sterile, no same-sex couples can produce children even if they are fertile. And remember I call ‘same-sex pair bonding’, perversion.and error like the Bible says.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Actually, your point is about to backfire on you...

If animals display traits like the ones you mentioned, then yes, that is precisely what they were "designed" to do (or, more correctly, what they evolved to do)

We do not see any trait displayed by an animal that it was not "designed" to, or evolved to, display. Ever.

So by your 'evolutionary' definition, homosexuality is just a method of population control, part of that whole survival of the fittest scheme.

I'm not sure how it backfires on me though, since I don't agree that animals (or people) are designed to do some of the things that they do. The difference between us and animals however is that we have a greater ability to act on choice rather than instinct. Instinct tells me to spread my genetic seed as much as possible in order to help assure continuation of my line.

Thats the difference between natural (instinctual) man and spiritual man. The bible calls us to act with thought rather than instinct.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

We don't know what causes gravity, but we know its pretty unchangeable too.

really? tell that to the other celestial bodies.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Another attempt to liken homosexuals to paedophiles? Is this not old for you by now?

The science is sound. Genetics heavily influences homosexuality. So, if humans are in fact "designed" at all, then apparently homosexuality is part of that design.

As for claiming your opinion is common sense, thus valid, well, I'll see your common sense and raise you a heliocentric model, and then kick in a quantum physics.

the same can be said about alcoholism, which is why the argument is pointless. It's not about whether someone is genetically made to appeal to certain things , its about the choices made.

It's not about what you are, its about what you do with what you have.

 

[Archer93]

Dear Archer93,
well you tell me, you are the one who was talking about people condemning. As far as Christians are concerned there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

By the gods...
We've gone over why argument from reproductive capacity is a logical fallacy a hundred times before- if you don't get by now the hypocrasy of claiming that an inability to reproduce is okay if it's a design flaw but is an excellent reason for legislating against same sex couples, then there's little point in trying to debate with you.

But for your information, lines like these are condemnatory.

Well firstly as a homosexual couple cant produce a child, I can* see how anyone can condemn them for it, they are already condemned in not being able to do it.

*should that have been a 'can't'? Either way though, still condemnatory

And remember I call ‘same-sex pair bonding’, perversion.and error like the Bible says.

You may not mean to be condemnatory, you may not want it to be conmenatory, you may even try to say that it isn't condemnatory, but in fact it is condemnatory.
What you are doing in those lines, is condemning people.
Either stop it or admit to it.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Dear EnemyPartyII

Well that’s the Christian way my friend, in Romans 2 we see the Christian believers who were being addressed were not perfect and free from sin themselves, save through the blood of Christ. Therefore Christians don’t consider themselves better than anyone else.
In fact I have likened the desires not the people.

To bare false witness against a minority is the Christian way?

Disputable. Science has also shown that there is no concrete evidence genetics have influenced homosexuality.

Weasel wording on your part.
But if you think it is debatable why not start a thread listing all the published and peer viewed evidence showing sexual oriention is a choice and we can debate it

Well evidently not, neither according to evolution theory or Biblical creation.

You might want to actually learn something about evolution and the theories behind it before making such statements

Science is based on observation, we can see that the sex organs of men and women are designed for each other and the two sex organs of men or of women simply aren’t compatible except for sexual gratification.

Yet its quite easy to observe that millions of gays and lesbians manage it just fine. So I guess that proves you wrong

But I asked you have you got any scientific evidence, you seem to have implied you have but you haven’t posted it.

You are providing actual scientific evidence? I must have missed that. where exactly is the scientific evidence you presented?

 

[BigBadWlf]

the same can be said about alcoholism, which is why the argument is pointless. It's not about whether someone is genetically made to appeal to certain things , its about the choices made.

It's not about what you are, its about what you do with what you have.

Actually the same cannot be said of alcoholism

To be an alcoholic one must first drink to excess multiple times. Homosexuals are homosexual before any sexual experience. The genetic predisposition to alcoholism is not a prerequisite to becoming an alcoholic. In fact the majority of alcoholics do not have such a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition involves actual permanent changes in the brain caused by multiple exposures to high concentrations of alcohol in the blood stream. Having sex (while often described as a ‘mind blowing’ experience) does not change brain structure. Further an individual can drink even to excess without becoming an alcoholic (including those with the genetic predisposition)

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Actually the same cannot be said of alcoholism

To be an alcoholic one must first drink to excess multiple times. Homosexuals are homosexual before any sexual experience. The genetic predisposition to alcoholism is not a prerequisite to becoming an alcoholic. In fact the majority of alcoholics do not have such a genetic predisposition. The genetic predisposition involves actual permanent changes in the brain caused by multiple exposures to high concentrations of alcohol in the blood stream. Having sex (while often described as a ‘mind blowing’ experience) does not change brain structure. Further an individual can drink even to excess without becoming an alcoholic (including those with the genetic predisposition)

So you are saying that certain genetic predisposition does not heavily influence risk of alcoholism? Thats all I was getting at, is that just because someone is made a certain way it doesn't mean that it is correct for them to act on it. I didn't do the comparison to pedophiles or any other crazyness for obvious reasons.

 

[BigBadWlf]

So you are saying that certain genetic predisposition does not heavily influence risk of alcoholism?

The majority of alcoholics do not have the identified genetic disposition.

And more to the point the comparison between alcoholics and homosexuals is false

Thats all I was getting at, is that just because someone is made a certain way it doesn't mean that it is correct for them to act on it.

Like being made left handed?

I didn't do the comparison to pedophiles or any other crazyness for obvious reasons.

There are un-obvious reasons?