(October 3, 2015 at 4:21 am)Thedetester Wrote: If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

If it's so "wrong", how come heterosexuals keep producing them, and why is it found across multiple species?

(October 3, 2015 at 4:58 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(October 3, 2015 at 4:21 am)Thedetester Wrote: If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

If it's so "wrong", how come heterosexuals keep producing them, and why is it found across multiple species?

This does not answer my question.We talking about humans here.
again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

(October 3, 2015 at 5:06 am)Thedetester Wrote:

(October 3, 2015 at 4:58 am)Crossless1 Wrote: If it's so "wrong", how come heterosexuals keep producing them, and why is it found across multiple species?

This does not answer my question.We talking about humans here.
again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

Are you seriously asking me to explain the birds and bees to you?  

In any case, why would you assume that sexual identity and attraction is necessarily tied to procreation? And when you speak of "right", are you speaking biologically or morally?

I assume it shouldn't be necessary to remind you that humans are animals, so locating human homosexuality within the wider locus of homosexual behaviors found generally throughout the animal kingdom is not irrelevant. But I certainly understand your reluctance to acknowledge that it is something that naturally occurs with a certain statistical frequency. That would somewhat dampen your idea that it is "sinful", unless of course these other creatures are also capable of sinning.

(October 3, 2015 at 5:18 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(October 3, 2015 at 5:06 am)Thedetester Wrote: This does not answer my question.We talking about humans here.
again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

Are you seriously asking me to explain the birds and bees to you?  

In any case, why would you assume that sexual identity and attraction is necessarily tied to procreation? And when you speak of "right", are you speaking biologically or morally?

I assume it shouldn't be necessary to remind you that humans are animals, so locating human homosexuality within the wider locus of homosexual behaviors found generally throughout the animal kingdom is not irrelevant. But I certainly understand your reluctance to acknowledge that it is something that naturally occurs with a certain statistical frequency.

This does not answer my question.We talking about humans here.homosexual behaviour among animals is engaged in for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with sex. In many cases it is only a ‘ritualized form of aggression’.

again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

(October 3, 2015 at 5:25 am)Thedetester Wrote:

(October 3, 2015 at 5:18 am)Crossless1 Wrote: Are you seriously asking me to explain the birds and bees to you?  

In any case, why would you assume that sexual identity and attraction is necessarily tied to procreation? And when you speak of "right", are you speaking biologically or morally?

I assume it shouldn't be necessary to remind you that humans are animals, so locating human homosexuality within the wider locus of homosexual behaviors found generally throughout the animal kingdom is not irrelevant. But I certainly understand your reluctance to acknowledge that it is something that naturally occurs with a certain statistical frequency.

This does not answer my question.We talking about humans here.homosexual behaviour among animals is engaged in for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with sex. In many cases it is only a ‘ritualized form of aggression’.

again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

Anatomy and genetics, dipshit. And your appeal to nature is fallacious. But don't take my word for it. Look up "appeal to nature".

Quote:If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

Aww, lookit how cute you are.

Human beings use sex for reasons other than procreation (if every sexual act produced a child, our species would have choked itself out quite some time ago).

By making the claim that sexual acts which do not produced offspring are somehow inherently wrong, you are forced to the conclusion that sex between people past child-bearing age or sex between people infertile with each other is somehow wrong.

I haven't taken a psychology course in a mort of years, but if I remember correctly, the clinical term for your premise and its conclusion is 'blindingly, mind-numbingly stupid'.

Boru

(October 3, 2015 at 5:28 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(October 3, 2015 at 5:25 am)Thedetester Wrote: This does not answer my question.We talking about humans here.homosexual behaviour among animals is engaged in for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with sex. In many cases it is only a ‘ritualized form of aggression’.

again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

Anatomy and genetics, dipshit. And your appeal to nature is fallacious. But don't take my word for it. Look up "appeal to nature".

Anatomy and genetics, "dipshit". You know I can call the same.

ah found it
"appeal to nature"
An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".

This is actually supporting me,does homosexuality meet it's function.

again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

---

(October 3, 2015 at 5:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

Aww, lookit how cute you are.

Human beings use sex for reasons other than procreation (if every sexual act produced a child, our species would have choked itself out quite some time ago).

By making the claim that sexual acts which do not produced offspring are somehow inherently wrong, you are forced to the conclusion that sex between people past child-bearing age or sex between people infertile with each other is somehow wrong.

I haven't taken a psychology course in a mort of years, but if I remember correctly, the clinical term for your premise and its conclusion is 'blindingly, mind-numbingly stupid'.

Boru

does homosexuality meet it's function? I don't mean the use of pleasure but I mean does it meet it's natural purpose?

again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

(October 3, 2015 at 5:42 am)Thedetester Wrote: [...]
again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

If incest is wrong, then how come you can get your mother pregnant?

Quote:does homosexuality meet it's function? I don't mean the use of pleasure but I mean does it meet it's natural purpose?

I don't understand this, quite.  The 'natural purpose' of homosexuality is for two people of the same gender to have sex with each other.  Why shouldn't pleasure be the 'function' of homosexuality?

Quote:again,If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

How many times do you want this question answered?  Reproduction is NOT the only point of sexual activity.  Heterosexuals frequently have sex because it happens to be a helluva lot of fun.  Why shouldn't homosexuals do the same without waterheads like you calling it 'wrong'?

Boru

Yeah, it's a good idea when looking things up to read past the first line.

Why don't you just cut to the chase? You think homosexuality is sinful because your holy book suggests as much, right? Your crap about procreation is just a smokescreen for your religious bigotry and because you find homosexuality icky. You're certainly not the first, and it's no skin off my back. But at least own it. Because if it really is about procreation, then why don't you answer Brian's point about people who are past the age for procreating or infertile couples? Sex is not solely about pregnancy. And other people's sexuality, so long as it is practiced with mutual consent, is no one else's business. Not yours; not mine. But you Christers, with your marching orders from your imaginary friend, just can't keep your noses out of other people's bedrooms, can you?

And why should I continue to humor your requests for answers when you apparently won't return the favor? I asked you several pages ago to share those archaeological finds that you think are so persuasive of your religion's truth. I'm still waiting.