Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And I KNOW that you know this isn't accurate, because I can remember linking you to the large volume of research about how homosexuality in men appears to be linked to a recessive gene carried by their mothers.So can we at least dispense with calling anti-gay positions as ignorant, hateful, bigoted and phobic? I mean, even darwinism (which is a popular scientific perspective) is not supportive of "gay rights." Gruelingly and mercilessly so even.
Actually, scientific observation shows that sex is not always about reproduction. It follows that oral and anal sex are valid forms of sexual activity. You are trying to draw ethical inferences from scientific observations, which shows that you don't understand science. And your observations are incomplete in the first place.Can we go back to the OP?
Levay (a gay activist), was thoroughly discredited in his work about being born gay. It is easy to look that up on the internet.
Also, science has shown us, that the digestive tract from mouth to anus is not part of the sexual functions of the human anatomy.
Again, no conclusions about the ethics of gay liberation can be drawn from these observations. And what do you mean by 'aberrant'?Science, once again, shows us that homosexuality is a rare condition and is always an aberrant one where it is exhibited in a species.
As explained above, your claims are ignorant.So can we at least dispense with calling anti-gay positions as ignorant, hateful, bigoted and phobic?
This is not true. There is some evidence that a certain percentage of homosexual individuals in a population helps that population to reproduce, that is, homosexuality appears to have Darwinian benefits.I mean, even darwinism (which is a popular scientific perspective) is not supportive of "gay rights." Gruelingly and mercilessly so even.
Um... that isn't remotely true at all.
Google "p spot", and go from there. (assuming that PC-F has never had, nor ever wants, to recieve the sort of job that euphemistically includes the word "blow" in its common name)
Levay himself actually warned people against drawing too many conclusions from his study.Can we go back to the OP?
Levay (a gay activist), was thoroughly discredited in his work about being born gay. It is easy to look that up on the internet.
Neither are nipples, hands, lips, tongue, eyes, neck, ears, back, thigh, feet, or hair. And yet all of them can be part of sex.Also, science has shown us, that the digestive tract from mouth to anus is not part of the sexual functions of the human anatomy.
Along with blue eyes, left-handedness, polydactylism, albinoism, and a host of others. Are they immoral as well?Science, once again, shows us that homosexuality is a rare condition and is always an aberrant one where it is exhibited in a species.
Wrong. There are a few theories, supported by evolution, that suggest why homosexuality is a beneficial trait within a cooperative species.So can we at least dispense with calling anti-gay positions as ignorant, hateful, bigoted and phobic? I mean, even darwinism (which is a popular scientific perspective) is not supportive of "gay rights." Gruelingly and mercilessly so even.
What ever. You have no interest in reason or fact. I've tried, and if you had shown the slightest interest in what anyone else had to say, I'd continue to converse with you. But you are only here to preach your pre existing beliefs, regardless of what science, evidence, or anyone else may have to say. I'm simply not interested any more in trying to discuss things with people who only want to preach their own POV without interference from anyone else. [ignore]Reality on the walls at work say otherwise.
Deviant and unnatural behavior is offtentimes exciting and enjoyable. Riding a motorcycle is both unnatural and fun. My point is to defend against the charges that being anti-gay is based on meanness, bigotry or hatefulness. It is based on logic and reason.
Motorcycles are fun, but ask a mother of a child killed or seriously hurt on one if she doesn't oppose them for good reasons.
Actually, scientific observation shows that sex is not always about reproduction.
It follows that oral and anal sex are valid forms of sexual activity.
You are trying to draw ethical inferences from scientific observations, which shows that you don't understand science.
And your observations are incomplete in the first place.
Again, no conclusions about the ethics of gay liberation can be drawn from these observations.
And what do you mean by 'aberrant'?
1. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
As explained above, your claims are ignorant.
This is not true. There is some evidence that a certain percentage of homosexual individuals in a population helps that population to reproduce, that is, homosexuality appears to have Darwinian benefits.
What ever.
You have no interest in reason or fact. I've tried, and if you had shown the slightest interest in what anyone else had to say, I'd continue to converse with you.
But you are only here to preach your pre existing beliefs, regardless of what science, evidence, or anyone else may have to say.
I'm simply not interested any more in trying to discuss things with people who only want to preach their own POV without interference from anyone else. [ignore]
That's only an issue if humanity is interested in increasing its population. We've already spread around the Earth and we're increasing in population whether we like it or not.Let's not go there OK? Darwinism finds meaninglessness in those that do not reproduce. Old models replaced by newer ones. Homosexuality creates no models at all. Again, science is on my side. My point once again is shored up by sound reason, science and logic. What you are doing is appealing to emotionalism and the passion for justice that seperates humans from the animal kingdom. Which by the way, I do not oppose.
That's only an issue if humanity is interested in increasing its population. We've already spread around the Earth and we're increasing in population whether we like it or not.
This combined with anti-abortion arguments, and we have too many people, both born and unborn.
So I don't see how being unable to reproduce is a weakness anymore.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying it is hypocritical to follow instructions which you feel are wrong? And are you also saying that worshipping an occasionally immoral god is immoral?
If you are, I don't think I agree. It's not necessarily hypocritical to follow instructions even if you feel they are wrong, but it would be hypocritical to except others to follow them even if you do not.
As for worshipping a God that has been immoral, it depends on how you think it is now. If you think it has changed for the better, and have discarded its previous commands on account of their immorality, you are behaving according to your own morality, not against it. If however, you worship it and follow all its commands, even the immoral ones, you obviously are partaking in its immorality.
Homosexual Christians who would think other homosexuals as abominations or green jelly would obviously be hypocritical and immoral. Not to mention a bit lunatic.
Did I entirely misunderstand?
1) Are you saying it is hypocritical to follow instructions which you feel are wrong?
2)And are you also saying that worshipping an occasionally immoral god is immoral?
If what you state is true, then I suggest you start to use either logic, reason, or science to support your arguments. There are ways that homosexuality helps a cooperative species such as humans. You have been shown this repeatedly. Someone that uses logic, reason, or science in their arguments would either respond to these with a counter-argument or concede that their position is untenable as opposed to just repeating the same unsupported assertion over and over.That's not the issue at all with gays versus Christians. It is about the sensible and logical reasons to oppose lascivious licentiousness and and "anything goes" environment. In darwinism, logic and common sense, anything does not go.
Abortion by medical procedure is also completely unsupported by nature. Why is ti that those that hold to a secular (naturalistic) belief system can have any logical reason to support abortion? Or, gay behavior for that matter.
That's not the issue. In this thread, science does not support gay activism. Only emotionalism and self interest does. My position is to shore up why Christians are not bad people for being anti-gay. Logic, reason and science are on the side of the Christians. That's all I'm trying to say.
OR... OT law is based on tribal pragmatism more than actual morality...
Not only that, but in a familial or clan structure you would have contributing members that did not have children of their own. Win/win. Genes are passed along by those that do procreate and the survivability of the group increases.Oh, also I do recall reading an article (google it, i'm too lazy to post a link) which had information from different scientific studies. Homosexuality has been found in other species besides humans. Theorists speculate the possible function of homosexual creatures in a species are natures way of birth control to stop, or slowdown excess beings being born into an overcrowded population. This would make sense, considering the planet is overpopulated and we seem to have more gay people than ever.
If what you state is true, then I suggest you start to use either logic, reason, or science to support your arguments.
There are ways that homosexuality helps a cooperative species such as humans.
You have been shown this repeatedly.
Someone that uses logic, reason, or science in their arguments would either respond to these with a counter-argument or concede that their position is untenable as opposed to just repeating the same unsupported assertion over and over.
Really? You need to read up on history a bit more. Homosexuality was and is accepted in many cultures. While I have no hard evidence, it seems to me that the more patriarchal a society is, the more male homosexuality is abhorred. Something to do with a male debasing himself by taking the woman's role during sex is my guess. Female homosexuality is almost always given a pass.That statement is the equivalent to the schoolyard: nyah-nyah-nuh-nyah-nah. The Christians that are anti-gay are as sensible as anatomy itself.
How so? We have seen throughout history that society will not cooperate with it and them. Why is homosexuality so repulsive and repugnant to societies throughout history? 5000-years of recorded history and here we are still at the homosexual opposition situation.
Unless you are contending that oral sex or anal sex is not sex, you are making no sense at all.With liberal social and political talking points. Science says that homosexuals don't have sex at all in any way. That's just using observation. Homosexual acts mimick sexuality and nothing more. Please point out how my use of logic here is askewed?
You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting opinions, half truths, and logical fallacies and calling them evidence.And here we are again, I present evidence and you leftists say: Where's your proof? It's an absolutely fascinating thing to behold.
Show me where I have supported 'anything goes'. You are building a straw man instead of dealing with the actual arguments that are presented. That would be a logical fallacy not logic, reason, or science.All my position is, is that "anti-gay" (especially Christian) is sensible and justified and not based on hate or bigotry. It is based squarely on biology, physiology, anatomy and logic.
Please show why "anything goes" is sound logic?
Really? You need to read up on history a bit more. Homosexuality was and is accepted in many cultures.
While I have no hard evidence, it seems to me that the more patriarchal a society is, the more male homosexuality is abhorred. Something to do with a male debasing himself by taking the woman's role during sex is my guess. Female homosexuality is almost always given a pass.
Unless you are contending that oral sex or anal sex is not sex, you are making no sense at all.
You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting opinions, half truths, and logical fallacies and calling them evidence.
Show me where I have supported 'anything goes'.
You are building a straw man instead of dealing with the actual arguments that are presented. That would be a logical fallacy not logic, reason, or science.
Why is homosexuality so repulsive and repugnant to societies throughout history?
I suspect a combination of ignorance, imagination, and the "ick" factor - too many people associate homosexuality with the notion of two blokes getting it on, and get personally rathe squeamish about it.
Fortunately, increasingly people are realizing that in reality, homosexuality is nothing to be scared about.
David
We go from history to the modern world? Pick a goal post.Where in the modern world? It's very recent the inroads homosexuals have made. Very, very recent history-wise.
Then why is homosexuality more prevalent among men than women?Seems rather a natural occurence. Female homosexuality seems less likely to spread deadly disease.
Really? Couple of points on this one. I find this to be disingenuous, at best. They are sex. It's in the name of the act, for goodness' sake. It is not coitus, but it is sex.Biologically, anatomically, both fun adventures you describe have nothing to do with sexual intercourse. They are pseudo in the literal. That would be what "sex" is not. Again, logic is on my side.
Wrong. See above.From your social political correctness dictionary. From the real one, my positions are sound. In the lab they are also supported.
No.Are you not supporting both same-gender marriage and homosexuality as normal?
Your argument is nothing but emotionalism. You find it distasteful. I get that. As I stated earlier in this thread, I find certain act distasteful, but I do not consider practitioners of those acts to be less than me. I do not lobby for them to be second class citizens. I do not consider them to be evil.I answer directly the positions that are presented at me. I use established science as my guide, and not emotionalism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?