It is ethically wrong and immoral to persecute 'gays'

[Jade Margery]

What i have posted is scientifically accepted. There's not really a debate on this issue. It is a proven fact that animals have different mental attributes. Their cognition is completely different as it is limited to only sensorial factors: sound, odor, touch, taste and image etc. Animals are therefore not Homosexual, their natural instinct when it comes to sex is - reproduction. Now, quite obviously this is not the same with Human homosexuals. Do gays have intercourse thinking they will reproduce? Its biologically impossible. They have intercourse because they are attracted to the same-sex which is not natural. Far from natural. Its a perversion or extreme alteration of what is natural - to reproduce, and to do that you have to be a couple of the opposite sex.

You didn't really read any of the responses to your earlier post, did you? I mean you may have skimmed them, but obviously comprehension was beyond your grasp.

I can't really add anything to those that came before; all of the things you are saying in this post have already been refuted by several people.

I will say that I wish I could take you over to one of my old friend's houses and have you explain to us both how animals can't be attracted to the same sex while his two tomcats go at it behind the couch, leaving his third, female cat sexually ignored. It's the most compelling argument for naturally occurring homosexuality that I've seen (and also the only one that has made me want to rip my eyes out, but there you go.)

 

[Jro]

I repeat this is not an emflamatory thread, it is an anti-enflamatory thread to prevent inflamatory persecutions against our brethren the gays and lesbians, and bis and trans and all people everywhere, for lack of love is enflamatory and this thread is about extending love to all...and hoping all will be accepted and spread further love and acceptance as Jesus asked us to do.

Yo, OP, you sound like an awesome person with a healthy perspective on the world! For future reference though, it's cis and trans (from the Latin).

 

[Jro]

What i have posted is scientifically accepted. There's not really a debate on this issue. It is a proven fact that animals have different mental attributes. Their cognition is completely different as it is limited to only sensorial factors: sound, odor, touch, taste and image etc.

Not really true- animals have been shown to be capable of having ideals such as value (especially with regards to trade and proportion and weight), reputation, social standing, relative power, etc., etc. in addition to senses that we do not possess.

Animals are therefore not Homosexual, their natural instinct when it comes to sex is - reproduction.

Not all, some do it for pleasure, some do it for dominance. Subdominant male frogs for example will allow the dominant male frogs to copulate with them so that they are able to sneak onto his territory to have sex with his females. A male duck was even recorded having sex with a deceased male duck. Sex is weird bro.

Now, quite obviously this is not the same with Human homosexuals. Do gays have intercourse thinking they will reproduce? Its biologically impossible. They have intercourse because they are attracted to the same-sex which is not natural. Far from natural. Its a perversion or extreme alteration of what is natural - to reproduce, and to do that you have to be a couple of the opposite sex.

Sometimes I have a craving for a diet coke. It has no calories, so it is not satisfying my natural urge to sustain myself. It does not assist me in anyway, and in fact wastes my time and money when I could be purchasing a coke that would give me calories. My stomach never was for drinking diet coke, but I do it anyway because it feels good. For some reason people aren't upset about this.

 

[yasic]

This is not consistent with your previous statement:

"Homosexuality happens with virtually every single animal species ever observed"

I think that's stretching things just a bit. Bonobos are a prime, and unusual case.

We were using different definitions of homosexuality. By the offered definition where 'homosexuality is the knowledgeable desire to have homosexual sexual interactions and desire for companionship with a same-sex parter', then heterosexuality is also unnatural as virtually no animal 'thinks' about having a heterosexual partnership and just follows instinct.

The one I was using when I made my post was 'Homosexuality is the desire to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex in your species'


Either way, after this new definition was presented, I have shown that a number of animals partake in homosexuality including apes and elephants making it a natural event in the animal kingdom. I would go so far to say as that 'homosexuality' (I use quotations as I do not agree with the proposed definition) occurs in all animal species where 'heterosexuality' occurs.

 

[yasic]

What i have posted is scientifically accepted.

Do you have any proof of this? Any scientific studies to back this up? Any refutation to the links I provided?

If not, I want to assert that as a physicist I assert 'There is no God' is scientifically accepted, and since simply holding a degree is all that is needed it must be so, right?

It is a proven fact that animals have different mental attributes. Their cognition is completely different as it is limited to only sensorial factors: sound, odor, touch, taste and image etc.

While animals do have different mental attributes, it is far from true to say that it is limited to only the five senses. Aparently you have never owned a pet as virtually any pet owner can tell you that even animals like cats or dogs have personalities.

When it comes to apes, the animals for complex societies with social hierarchical, punishments dished out for actions of selfishness or pedophilia, knowledgeable use of currency and even the knowledgeable use of prostitution, complex feelings of attachments to others, ability to love and care for pets, and tons of other such mental functions.

I hate to be blunt here, but you seem to lack even the most basic understanding on the complexities of animal behavior. There are tomes upon tomes of research and findings in this topic available in any library or two clicks of google, written in both complex scientific study or easy to understand laymens terms. I would highly recommend you look some up as it is a very fascinating topic.

Animals are therefore not Homosexual, their natural instinct when it comes to sex is - reproduction.

There are plenty of animals that engage in sexual activity for pleasure, with the common two examples being apes and dolphins.

Now, quite obviously this is not the same with Human homosexuals. Do gays have intercourse thinking they will reproduce? Its biologically impossible. They have intercourse because they are attracted to the same-sex which is not natural. Far from natural. Its a perversion or extreme alteration of what is natural - to reproduce, and to do that you have to be a couple of the opposite sex.

If your claim is correct that animals only have sex for reproduction, (Which it is not), and doing otherwise is unnatural, would you have to conclude that using a condom or birth control pills is also unnatural and should be treated the same way as homosexuality. Would you want to outlaw condoms or marriage if a member is infertile?

 

[thegospelisgoodnews]

Spreading misinformation like the notion that gays are more diseased and die younger is gay bashing.

well I guess if I was saying deep sea fishing and loggers live much shorter lives than others, this to would be considered fishermen bashing, or lumberjack bashing.......simple statistics are not bashing, if you find the statistics to be in error then just say I think the statistics you quoted are wrong, try to free yourself from the victim mentality that everyones out to get you

 

[Jade Margery]

well I guess if I was saying deep sea fishing and loggers live much shorter lives than others, this to would be considered fishermen bashing, or lumberjack bashing.......simple statistics are not bashing, if you find the statistics to be in error then just say I think the statistics you quoted are wrong, try to free yourself from the victim mentality that everyones out to get you

If you provide the source of those statistics, as in not plucking them out of your memory, and that source is a reliable and peer reviewed study by an objective party, then no, saying gays live shorter lives is not bashing.

You have not done this however, AND that is only one of the several things you erroneously said, the rest of which are equally are untrue and bashifying. (I made a word!)

 

[razeontherock]

Just for the record, this thread is about the morality of bashifying, (or no) and in no way discusses any merit of homosexuality. (Or not) So it appears to be well within CF parameters, as well as an aspect that truly needs discussion.

To make my point: who would Jesus bash?

 

[ryeaber]

Money changers?

 

[razeontherock]

And other religiious hypocrites, yes; but not for being gay.

 

[HeathenWarrior]

When one persecutes another, do they ever wonder how it would be on the other end of the stick? Maybe not, which is why they do so.

Before you try to attack another for something as simple as sexual orientation, ask yourself if you would like to be attacked in the same way for something else...like your religious preferences. Or your choice in automobile. Or sports teams.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Jesus forgives hetersosexuals as well as homosexuals, both are the same before HIM. He looks at the heart

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Can't find any rule against this topic anywhere.

Can someone show me where it is written or suggested that we can not be pro love and acceptance and pro Christian and be against killing strangers like those of Sodom.

It is definitely a topic of ethics and morals.

I think we can agree that killing is definitely wrong. Kiling babies, killing supposed enemies, killing teens for back talking, so why not discuss why we should instill killing those of the so called wrong sexual orientation.

Its discussable and it can help people think through their minds and hearts, so why not. But can anyone find a rule which states otherwsie that gayness can not be discussed.

I know there is a board where gayness recovery is written about, and pro gayness acceptance can not be mentioned there because it is a 'Christian ONLY' Board, but this one is OPEN to ALL.

 

[rturner76]

Homosexuality is not right to me.

So I'm not gay

 

[razeontherock]

I know there is a board where gayness recovery is written about, and pro gayness acceptance can not be mentioned there because it is a 'Christian ONLY' Board, but this one is OPEN to ALL.

Top of p 5 in this thread cites the rule relevant to homosexuality. As long as we stay away from that, we should be ok to discuss the ethics of bashing (or not bashing)

 

[Jase]

Gays wants approval not just tolerance. Sorry, not going to approve of that behavior.

I don't approve of Conservative Christianity, so guess we're even.

 

[Jade Margery]

Just for the record, this thread is about the morality of bashifying, (or no) and in no way discusses any merit of homosexuality. (Or not) So it appears to be well within CF parameters, as well as an aspect that truly needs discussion.

Good point Raze. Let us get this back to an acceptable topic, and mayhaps the thread will survive!

To make my point: who would Jesus bash?

I've always thought 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' was Jesus speak for "I call firstsies!"

 

[Jase]

well I guess if I was saying deep sea fishing and loggers live much shorter lives than others, this to would be considered fishermen bashing, or lumberjack bashing.......simple statistics are not bashing, if you find the statistics to be in error then just say I think the statistics you quoted are wrong, try to free yourself from the victim mentality that everyones out to get you

So being part of 2 (arguably 3) of the most persecuted minorities on the planet doesn't give me the justification to feel attacked by such outlandish claims, but Christians in the United States who make up the overwhelming majority of the population and do most of the persecuting can pull the persecution card on a daily basis?

 

[Jase]

Homosexuality is not right to me.

So I'm not gay

Lol, you couldn't be gay if you wanted to, it's not a choice.

 

[rturner76]

I just wonder who give somebody the right to tell somebody else how to live their life when they are not doing anything to impede on your personal freedom. Like I said, I'm not gay but if the next person is, that has no effect on me what so ever. Go ahead and gay it up. Be the gayest gay you can be because that's YOU. Weather you have a choice or not to me it doesn't matter it is what it is and it does not hurt me. *Rant Over*

Jesus never said one word in any gospel about sexual orientation and if I'm not mistakes neither did any disciple so if it was a God issue, I think one of the Disciples would have addressed it directly?