forbidding people to love each other

[The Grand Nudger]

Your god is the single most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of, personally.

Religion isn’t what makes calculus work.

- but who cares? You’re not a brilliant man dropping timeless wisdom here. You’re telling us that a ghost co-signs your very human bigotry. No more, no less.

Did you have any thoughts on my question? What happens to your beliefs when you insist that a false thing must be accepted?

[The Architect Of Fate]

If course they do. But the idea of God is definitely not dumb. Virtually all famous names in philosophy/physics/mathematics had something to say about God. Some of them considered their religion to be a primary motive of their scientific work, like Newton or Abdus Salam.

Yes, it is. The fact that smart people embraced a dumb idea and that dumb idea lead them to good ideas. Does not refute the fact it was a dumb idea and they were dumb to believe in it .

[no one]

It's hilarious how godders can vomit their malevolent vitriol against anything them deem offensive to their narrow minded doctrines, but it's forbidden to hit them where it hurts most. Then the feel feels are valid.

[Ravenshire]

You're really beginning to strike me as one who is afraid of his own sexual orientation.

To be completely honest, I might be able to relate to why females may get attracted to each other. But why a male would prefer a male rectum to female physiology is completely beyond me.

It's ok, phyll. You don't have to hide it around here. Although... if you're in a Muslim controlled country, you'll want to be careful there.

[Astreja]

Virtually all famous names in philosophy/physics/mathematics had something to say about God.

And yet not one of them has ever produced actual empirical evidence for a god. Being an expert at one thing, such as mathematics, does not make someone an authority on something so poorly evidenced that there are no actual experts.

---

"allocating resources" is a pretty common expression, it just happens that, in our context, women are the natural resource. So.. No disrespect intended.

Seriously, you smarmy little bastard? I. Am. Not. A. Fucking. Resource. What you said is unforgivably disrespectful.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Klorophyll

Now repeat after me : riding men is bad, it's disgusting.

You should have led with that, and saved all that tedious arsing about regarding nature and resources.

And if you find the physical expression of homosexual love ‘disgusting’, I have a solution for you: Stop watching it.

Boru

Edit: I’d also be very, very careful about referring to women as a resource to be allocated. Say it to the wrong woman, and she’ll dislocate your trouser furniture for you.

[GUBU]

a things naturalness ir unnatural ness is not equivalent to its rightness or wrongness.

I agree. but it seems that, if something is unnatural it's more likely to be wrong. If natural means serving our natural needs of survival/procreation. Then anything unnatural like males copulating with males instead of females is clearly a faulty allocation of resources. A male would rather share his genetic makeup with a female to serve the purpose of procreation.

But I admit it's hard to make a case against homosexuality without referring to some religious repertoire...

In that case better to outlaw the worship of allah then, given that it's demonstratively unnatural.

[purplepurpose]

If it wasn't in the bible, people wouldn't notice gays. Serious Christians who follow bible strictly are trained to hate sin.

[polymath257]

So, even under your definition, why would 'natural' be good?

You complain that homosexuality doesn't serve our instinct to procreate. To me, that is a positive about homosexuality! There are already too many people on Earth. We should be reducing the population through attrition as opposed to adding more to it.

So, in this sense, homosexuality may well serve our instinct for survival.

There are better ways to reduce population (or decrease the birth rate) like birth control. No need to encourage these sexual orientations. 

A word of warning though: All ideologies that endorse ethnic cleansing like nazism and such can use your same rationalization.

In any case, I find the whole argument to be silly. Most people don't choose who they love. They fall in love and decide what to do from there. And there is nothing inherently wrong with men loving men nor of women loving women. And, to go further, there is nothing wrong with people expressing their love for someone via sexuality.

Unfortunately, I am not bisexual, so I am not inclined to share sexuality with anyone who is not female. But that doesn't mean I am against others finding happiness in sex with whoever is willing.

What's silly is to base your argument on what people fall in love with.. you can also fall in love with your neighbor's wife, for instance, are you sure there is nothing wrong with expressing your love to you neighbor's female ? (Y/N)

That depends on her agreement with her husband. Violating a promise to a loved one is immoral. So, if she made a promise to be monogamous, it would be wrong. If she did not, then there would be no issue that I can see. Since my agreement with my wife allows such, it would not be an issue for me either.

---

Boinking the neighbors wife may be wrong, but that’s natural by your definition as well, kloro.

If it violates no promises, what is wrong with it?

[The Grand Nudger]

If it wasn't in the bible, people wouldn't notice gays. Serious Christians who follow bible strictly are trained to hate sin.

Oh they would, they would, that’s why they see it in their magic books even when it isn’t there, like so many other issues contemporary god botherers have glommed on to. People think that they’ve gotten better over time, but that’s probably not true, I think they’ve just been getting worse.

-No reason I could think of poly, but it was still worth pointing out to kloro that even if it were wrong, it wouldn’t be wrong for any reason he’d expressed as a justification.