Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(August 22, 2013 at 9:12 am)genkaus Wrote: ...what I wanted was non-scriptural evidence of homosexuality being unnatural.
Natural?...as in what happens in nature. One visit to the zoo's monkey house should be enough to convince anyone that what happens in a natural state is not synonymous with moral or normative.
(August 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Natural?...as in what happens in nature. One visit to the zoo's monkey house should be enough to convince anyone that what happens in a natural state is not synonymous with moral or normative.
Heterosexual sex happens in nature, too. Guess you better start realizing how unnatural it is, too.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
August 22, 2013 at 8:07 pm (This post was last modified: August 22, 2013 at 8:08 pm by bennyboy.)
(August 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
(August 22, 2013 at 9:12 am)genkaus Wrote: ...what I wanted was non-scriptural evidence of homosexuality being unnatural.
Natural?...as in what happens in nature. One visit to the zoo's monkey house should be enough to convince anyone that what happens in a natural state is not synonymous with moral or normative.
I agree. In fact, I'd personally define morality as the ability to impose a world view ON natural behaviors (or at least the base ones), to the betterment of relationships.
(August 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Natural?...as in what happens in nature. One visit to the zoo's monkey house should be enough to convince anyone that what happens in a natural state is not synonymous with moral or normative.
Then why use the argument that it is unnatural, considering being unnatural is also not synonymous with moral or normative.
The natural argument is simply a response to the unnatural argument, not a defense of homosexuality.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
GC will never get pass this because he doesn't understand how genetics work but expect homosexuality to conform to his version of "evolution" when he believes that evolution isn't real. I mean, how does he even exist with so many contradictions is already a wonder.
August 22, 2013 at 8:57 pm (This post was last modified: August 22, 2013 at 8:58 pm by genkaus.)
(August 22, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Godschild Wrote:
I went and read all those sites, and yet none of them gave any proof to homosexuality in animals, all I seen was someone seen this or someone seen that. I would like to see another dog try and stick his willie in my male Rotties, I can tell you if that happened and the other dog was gay it wouldn't be for long, death has a way of remedying those things. How about one Grizzle trying the same thing with another, yeah boy, death on the mountain. Male and female penguins share egg sitting duties, no big deal there, males find abandoned eggs and get busy doing what comes natural. I'm sure explanations can be found for the others. One thing I noticed, none of those who said they observed these things gave any video evidence, just a bunch of jabber.
Now for argument sake let's say it's true, these animals that would be gay can not reproduce and since this is a truth, well they can not reproduce and pass on the genetics to produce more gays. So if evolution was true then this would eventually eliminate the genetics that would cause such behavior. Mating of animals has one natural purpose to continue the species, if the purpose alters from that it would be unnatural, enough gays and the species is doomed, again end of the gays in that species with the removal of that species from the planet. Seems this is quite unnatural.
@ BWS, abomination Hebrew: towebah or toebah: something disgusting, an abhorrence.
Hebrew: pigguwl or piggul: to stink, unclean.
Hebrew: shaqats or sheqets: to loath, pollute, detest utterly, to be filthy.
Hebrew: baash: to be offensive, be abhorred, loathsome, stink utterly.
Hebrew: shiqquwts or shiqquts: disgusting, abominable filth, detestable.
I'm sure you want see this a meaning unnatural when applied to gay sex, but then that doesn't really mean it doesn't, for me it means unnatural as applied to gay sex.
Just to remind you, that you are wrong about gay sex in the NT.
Romans 1:26 ... For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27) the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Here's why I would vote against gay marriage, Romans 1:32) "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." To give approval would mean I'm guilty of the same and that means death, spiritual death, many Christians are in for a huge surprise and then disappointment. These verses are a confirmation of what I believed before I was a Christian.
Romans 2:14 "For when Gentiles, ie. all non Jews, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." This shows how those who have not heard about Christ will be judged, notice the bold in v. 14.
GC
PS to BWS: I ran across your Patheos site, now I know where all those comments come from, shame on you for copying another's work without giving them the credit.
Same old bullshit. When presented with evidence, cover your ears and go "la la la la - can't hear you".
Then quote scripture once again.
(August 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Natural?...as in what happens in nature. One visit to the zoo's monkey house should be enough to convince anyone that what happens in a natural state is not synonymous with moral or normative.
Agreed. Which is why opposing homosexuality even if it was unnatural would be irrational.
(August 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Natural?...as in what happens in nature. One visit to the zoo's monkey house should be enough to convince anyone that what happens in a natural state is not synonymous with moral or normative.
Agreed, which is why rather than hearing about how unnatural it is, I'd rather hear arguments about why homosexuality is immoral, preferably without recourse to religion at all. "God says so," isn't a great argument in a supposedly secular government, after all; is there even a single non-religiously motivated argument for denying this right?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(August 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Natural?...as in what happens in nature. One visit to the zoo's monkey house should be enough to convince anyone that what happens in a natural state is not synonymous with moral or normative.
Agreed, which is why rather than hearing about how unnatural it is, I'd rather hear arguments about why homosexuality is immoral, preferably without recourse to religion at all. "God says so," isn't a great argument in a supposedly secular government, after all; is there even a single non-religiously motivated argument for denying this right?
I think you could argue that the privilege of accepting your parents' investment in you (i.e. by making you) gives you some moral obligation to match that investment with one of your own. Hearing, "Ewww girls are icky" isn't very encouraging for parents hoping for grandchildren.
August 23, 2013 at 2:31 am (This post was last modified: August 23, 2013 at 2:35 am by Atheist McTighe.)
Homosexuality is not a choice, over 200 species practice homosexuality, homosexuality is a choice as atheism is a religion? get your head out of your ass. you might as well say one can change the color of their skin.
(August 6, 2013 at 11:15 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I haven't ever really put much thought into this area of the theist vs atheist debate, but after a Christian friend shared one too many preachy photos/text about the topic on Facebook, I decided to engage in a discussion with him. I'm eagerly awaiting his response on what I think is quite a unique thought. I thought I'd also write it up here because, believe it or not, I really enjoy hearing the theist's p.o.v. even if I don't show it. Anyways, here goes:
Homosexuality is a choice, so the theist says. This means that, presumably, the person in question *willingly*... *willy*-ngly... ahem, *willingly* chose to sexually pursue the same gender, hence the "choice". What I find amusing is that if that's the case, then the theist is being inconsistent with what they know about *themselves* - rendering their belief that "homosexuality is a choice" internally contradictory. This means that to apply said belief externally to everyone else is just as contradictory.
Why are they being inconsistent? Well, they should ask themselves this: "have I ever had sexual feelings for the same gender?" If the answer is "no", then that means two things:
(1) oddly, homosexuality is a choice, yet *they* themselves are excluded from apparently being able to make said choice.
(2) if (1) is true, then it means for as long as they've known, their orientation was out of their control if they can't seem to ever have a sexual attraction for their own gender.
If they agree with both, then the only sensible conclusion to draw about homosexuals is that they weren't heterosexuals by default who turned homosexual. The theist himself should recognise this from their *own* inability to make that choice. What I particularly like though, is that for the theist to reasonably say that "homosexuality is a choice", it can only mean one thing: they themselves are attracted to both the opposite gender *as well as* the same gender. Because now the choice *is* there, and all it means to be heterosexual is that they are continually suppressing their sexual feelings for the same gender, thus not choosing homosexuality (and conversely, the homosexual obviously choosing not to suppress those feelings).
I will conclude by asking you fellow theists a question that fits your [presumably consistent] belief on sexuality:
Who was the last person of the same gender that you had a crush on?
GC
