Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree, however there have been plenty of quotes that have said otherwise to counter the function of the human sex organs argument.

The other functions exist, but the primary function is reproduction. The other functions are nevertheless important, however.

As an aside, what about justice. Should someone go to jail? That infringes on their free will and causes them harm?

Yes, I encountered this particular dilemma early on. It eventually led to my definition of punishment: it is a morally wrong action sanctioned by the state judical system that preempts future moral wrongs (either by reformation of the criminal or isolation from society).
Locking people away for years on end is morally wrong, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

Which was to counter your argument that it never happens in nature.

I clarified my statement: it is never actively seeked out or preferred over less-incestual relationships in social mammals. A dog, for instance, will not prefer it's own mother over a random female. If and when it happens, it is only because of statistical chance.

A Christian Creationist can use the bible which defines what level of incest is permissable and which isn't.

Do tell.

Not really, you just disagree with their version of natural and ask them to define it. Good to see you have the same problem defining it yourself.

They are the ones making the initial claims. The onus is on them. I have my definitions, but I do not see why I should give mine if the people making the claims will not give theirs. Quid pro quo, Clarice.

Only if it is a male-female couple and only if they don't indulge in safe sex

Nevertheless, it is possible. Indeed, consider the facts that 95-98% of people are heterosexual, and I'm betting a fairly large percentage of people don't practice safe-sex 100% of the time (I couldn't find any stats on the issue, though).
The risk is there.

But that will happen anyway. I fail to see how Homosexuality increases the chances of this happening over hetrosexuality.

It will happen anyway, but in large societies people will rarely form couples on the other side of the group when there are perfectly viable partners next door. Given their sparcity, homosexuals have to travel farther to get a partner, thus bringing distant members of the species into the neighbourhood, as it were.
Of course, this is all negated in our modern world of telecommunications et al. But from an evolutionary POV, it stands.

Some would say the same about homosexuality

A case could be made for the evolutionary advantage of homosexuals in social mammals.

Oh I see. In that case... Thus you are incorrect given my responses above. Of course we could take it as read that this sentence will be at the end of each argument and leave it out.

Agreed. It was more the surmise of my opening statements, anyway.

It is difficult, given the rare cases of 2 people falling in love, only to later discover they are brother and sister who were seperated at birth.

Ah, but what of the case where they know they are related, but fall in love anyway? Is this allowed? Why?

I can state an act is wrong without condemming the people who do it. Unfortunately many people don't see the distinction.

Love the sinner, hate the sin? Forgive me if I don't share the sentiment.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Evidence without the bible..
Well, I doubt the persecution they get (Which i'm sure you believe only followers of Jesus do this!) and that they cannot have children would be of any use here.
Why do you try to trap Christians in a debate and tell them they have no place to stand? The bible is what God revealed to us and tells us about our faith, you tell people to stop being Christians...

Because arguments like "Because the Bible told us so!" are fallacious. They presume the validity of the Bible concerning such a matter.
The main issue is that you only condemn it because your faith tells you you should condemn it. Most people prefer to think for themselves, rather than be thought for.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Halohope,

Biologically. It is.

Biologically it isnt, and I have explained why. What reasoning have you got to present?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

So what was the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] "made for?"

well can you address my response first before this other question? The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] isnt in the anal passage for a start.

I think that we decide on how to use our body parts.

Yes we have hands that can help and hands that can hurt, but they can only do what hands do. You aren’t interested in debating the point, the point was the penis expels urine and sperm, I cant get the hands to do that and neither can you.

Indeed, most sexual expression does not lead to reproduction and is not intended to by the people having sex, despite what the Pope tells people to do or not do.

The Pope is only basing what he says on Jesus Christ’s teaching, not his. Most sexual expression does not lead to reproduction, adultery often does unless one uses contraception, paedophilia usually doesn’t and same-same sex never does, but none of them are God’s purposes according to his word which you don’t believe anyway.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Mr Pirate,

So you claim…yet the only thing you present is your opinion regarding “dysfunctional” show some proof already.

Yes and I have presented the reason, I would similarly say your opinion is dysfunctional.

Left-Handedness is a not frequent occurrence. Are you also claiming that left-handed individuals are dysfunctional?

no you mentioned left-handedness, it irrelevant to my explanation, Yes we have hands that can help and hands that can hurt, but they can only do what hands do. You aren’t interested in debating the point, the point was the penis expels urine and sperm, I cant get the hands to do that and neither can you.

By this standard kissing is “dysfunctional”

On the contrary, by this standard kissing is functional, that’s what lips can do.

And God said nothing about homosexuality.

He has said same-sex sex is error, which is what I am referring to, so what did you have in mind as a definition of homosexuality? .

Morality is up to God for those who believe and that includes all blacks and all Jews. You however seem to be comparing a minority to a criminal act,

First you compare a minority to thieves. Then you suggest that it is quite all right for you to compare other entire minorities to other crimes….then when confronted about this you turn around and they try to claim it wasn’t you saying that at all but it was somehow me.

Wow

No I have basically said the opposite to that. Let me repeat and clarify. Homosexuals are not criminal acts, neither are heterosexuals. Homosexuals and heterosexuals may do criminal acts, and sinful acts, black homosexuals, Jewish homosexuals may do sinful acts, so too black heterosexuals and Jewish heterosexuals may do sinful or criminal acts. It’s the act that is sinful.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII
Rubbish, heterosexuality is the sexual desire, the desire doesn’t even necessarily lead to achiving any biological functions. A man who desires a woman sexually may insert his penis in her anus, biologically that is dysfunctional.

wrongedy wrong wrong wrong... procreation is NOT the ONLY function of human sexuality. Accept it.

Not what I wrote! You have addressed your own point not mine, I agree with your point. My point is that ‘sexuality’ is the sexual desire its not the function of the sexual organ.

These are NOT the ONLY functions of the penis.

What else? If the penis is inserted in other organs like the anus and expels urine or sperm what use is that? Hardly functional. What I think you are claiming is because it is feels good.

I'll say it again, homosexual use of the penis is entirely consistent with biological functions.

Absolutely not, apart from a pleasure, which a heterosexual can also get from the same use of the penis in various ways but that isnt the function it was designed for.

Again, those functions are NOT procreation related, but again, procreation is NOT the only function of the sex organs

No your argument doesn’t work as the sex organ of the man the penis is used not only for procreation but also for expelling urine. So the only sex function of the penis is to deliver sperm, its other function is to expel urine. Your idea of its usage isn’t functional just self gratifying.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_child,

Which is my point: you believe that a designer buiilt the human body including the pleasure centers.

pleasure centres? Alton towers?

Your own designer placed the male g-spot in the anus. What does that say about male-male anal sex?

No the creator God (ie the one testified about in the Bible) placed nerves which arouse in the male and female bodies, the use of them is not necessarily function. And God may have place a so called g-spot in my anus but no man’s penis is the function for it.

And as others have said, sex isn't soley about procreation.

yes like me I have said it isnt just about procreation, sexual activity is but the sex organs aren’t just about sexual functions.

No. Do you have any evidence that my writing is not directly inspired by the God you worship?

Yes loads, I have been posting it widely and frequently.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Then you have no idea what my God has said; others here who know the same God as me understand.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Not what I wrote! You have addressed your own point not mine, I agree with your point. My point is that ‘sexuality’ is the sexual desire its not the function of the sexual organ.

then why do you keep banging on about how homosexuality is "dysfunctional"?

What else? If the penis is inserted in other organs like the anus and expels urine or sperm what use is that? Hardly functional. What I think you are claiming is because it is feels good.

It performs the functions of cementing beneficial relationships in a highly social animal.

Just as valid a function as procreation.

Absolutely not, apart from a pleasure, which a heterosexual can also get from the same use of the penis in various ways but that isnt the function it was designed for.

if its not designed to be pleasureable... then why is it pleasureable?

No your argument doesn’t work as the sex organ of the man the penis is used not only for procreation but also for expelling urine. So the only sex function of the penis is to deliver sperm, its other function is to expel urine. Your idea of its usage isn’t functional just self gratifying.

expeling sperm and urine are not the only functions of the penis. Thats why you can use it for more than these functions

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Because arguments like "Because the Bible told us so!" are fallacious. They presume the validity of the Bible concerning such a matter.
The main issue is that you only condemn it because your faith tells you you should condemn it. Most people prefer to think for themselves, rather than be thought for.

It's part of "believing" something. It sounds fallicious to tell someone to not believe in what they believe in..
Thinking for yourself dosen't make you smarter, not saying it's a bad thing, but why do you assume anyone who is a Christian cannot think for themselves?

 

[djbcrawford]

Tried staying away, but obviously some summing up is needed.

They are the ones making the initial claims. The onus is on them. I have my definitions, but I do not see why I should give mine if the people making the claims will not give theirs. Quid pro quo, Clarice.

On this occasion you claimed it wasn't natural so the onus was on you.

Nevertheless, it is possible. Indeed, consider the facts that 95-98% of people are heterosexual, and I'm betting a fairly large percentage of people don't practice safe-sex 100% of the time (I couldn't find any stats on the issue, though).
The risk is there.

Just like there is a health risk in certain same sex acts.

It will happen anyway, but in large societies people will rarely form couples on the other side of the group when there are perfectly viable partners next door. Given their sparcity, homosexuals have to travel farther to get a partner, thus bringing distant members of the species into the neighbourhood, as it were.

Except they won't be passing on their genes when they get there negating the advantage.

A case could be made for the evolutionary advantage of homosexuals in social mammals.

I've yet to see it.

Ah, but what of the case where they know they are related, but fall in love anyway? Is this allowed? Why?

The challange was not why, but why not.

Love the sinner, hate the sin? Forgive me if I don't share the sentiment.

I can sympathise with a man who commits murder, but hate the fact he has murdered someone. Does this mean you hate people who do wrong or you don't think anything people do is wrong?

 

[djbcrawford]

And God may have place a so called g-spot in my anus but no man’s penis is the function for it.

It is not the same as the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] as it isn't any sort of organ or nerve cluster. It's just the area of the muscle wall behind which the prostate gland is located. This would be coincidence rather than design, just like so called nerve points in martial arts are not "points" but just area's of the body where there are gaps between muscles which allow nerves to be struck as they run behind them or where they can be trapped against the underlying bones. We call it a "point" or "spot", but that's just to label it's location. It doesn't exist as a functional part of the body.

 

[Ohioprof]

Oops. I messed up a quotation here.

 

[Ohioprof]

Having trouble getting my quotations to work tonight. I apologize. Time to give up and go to bed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

pleasure centres? Alton towers?

How droll.

No the creator God (ie the one testified about in the Bible) placed nerves which arouse in the male and female bodies, the use of them is not necessarily function. And God may have place a so called g-spot in my anus but no man’s penis is the function for it.

Why not? What purpose is there for making the prostate gland a g-spot? It could serve it's primary purpose just fine without causing one to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (indeed, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the massage of one's prostate leads to fertilisation). What on Earth is the point?

yes like me I have said it isnt just about procreation, sexual activity is but the sex organs aren’t just about sexual functions.

Why is sexual activity soley about procreation? Why do we abhor rape, if it is only in the name of procreation?

Yes loads, I have been posting it widely and frequently.

I would like to examine this evidence. Care to link me to some?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

On this occasion you claimed it wasn't natural so the onus was on you.

'It'? I don't believe I made any claim that homosexuality/incest was unnatural, or at least, not without being in response to another claim to unnaturality.

Just like there is a health risk in certain same sex acts.

And in heterosexual sex acts. If we prohibit sexual intimacy based on the risk involved, then we should all be lesbians: female-female sex acts carry the least risk.

Except they won't be passing on their genes when they get there negating the advantage.

They won't, but their relatives (who effectively do share their genes, especially immunities and the like) will. The two families will be drawn together, allowing the members in one family to mate with members of the other

I've yet to see it.

Have a look at the evolution of altruism, the principle is the same.

The challange was not why, but why not.

Are you seriously proposing that, if we cannot justify an actions non-immorality, it is automatically declared immoral?

I can sympathise with a man who commits murder, but hate the fact he has murdered someone. Does this mean you hate people who do wrong or you don't think anything people do is wrong?

I hate the murderer because he has murdered. My hate is an irrational response evolved to reject such destructive members of society. The response is quite relevant today.
I have my own moral code when it comes to labeling actions as right, wrong, or neutral, so I do think that people can do wrong.
If a man saves a child from a burning building, I love him. If a man lets that child die, I hate him.

Our emotional responses help society to garner the desired actions (murder, etc) and suppress the undesired actions (murder, paedophilia, etc).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why is sexual activity soley about procreation? Why do we abhor rape, if it is only in the name of procreation?

excelent question

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Just as valid a function as procreation.if its not designed to be pleasureable... then why is it pleasureable?expeling sperm and urine are not the only functions of the penis. Thats why you can use it for more than these functions

It's pleasurable to give a reason for procreation, of course. If it were solely for pleasure with the side effect of procreation then why would the function include a climax?

And with the reasoning in the last part of that quote, your mouth worshiping God and eating are not the only functions of your mouth. Does this make it acceptable to do whatever else you want with it? What I'm saying is that the same mouth can give glory to God just as it can blaspheme Him.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

'It'? I don't believe I made any claim that homosexuality/incest was unnatural, or at least, not without being in response to another claim to unnaturality.

incest is natural, because its a necesary part of God's "Adam and Eve" based plan

 

[EnemyPartyII]

its probably acceptible to do anything with your mouth that serves a distinct biological function

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

what i meant by the mouth analogy is that it can spew both love and hate, yet God's intended function is love is it not?

And the point of that is the body part in itself is not sin, but can be used in sinful ways.