Homosexuals and Heaven

[caboose87]

Hello, lurker here who had to register to get in on this. To start I am an atheist and gay. I do not think being gay is a choice. But one important point that was ignored here is that even if being gay was 100% a choice that still doesn't make it wrong. We have dyes that can change a persons hair color. So is it immoral to be blond unless you were born blond. No. The morality of an act has to be based on the harm it causes. Consenting adults are not causing harm. However these bigots denying rights to gay people are causing harm. Just my two cents, now back to lurking.

[frankiej]

Amen to the lurker...

[fr0d0]

I doubt if two consenting adults ever cared if other people thought what they were doing was harmful, until other people who did were involved. People agree that sexual dysfunction harms a species. <-- That's the moral argument sewn up right there.

[Darwinian]

People agree that sexual dysfunction harms a species. <-- That's the moral argument sewn up right there.

But we are talking about homosexuality. Where did you get sexual dysfunction from?

[fr0d0]

I din't intend to change the subject. A sexual orientation with no procreative function seems to be dysfunctional, to disregard sexual pleasure... which is maybe the point of the objection too.

[Ace Otana]

A sexual orientation with no procreative function seems to be dysfunctional

How?

10-20% of the animal kingdom is homosexual, yet animals of all kinds have no problem maintaining their numbers. Genes are still passed on. It's not like the whole lot are gay and there for won't produce offspring. A mere 10-20% are. No biggy.

Besides, we're vastly over populated, it's not like 20% of the population being gay is gonna make a difference. Never has before. I can take a 30 minute walk up town and I would spot at least 3 dozen mums.
So how can it be dysfunctional?

[fr0d0]

Yes Ace you're agreeing that 10-20% are dysfunctional. We're not painting the whole species here.

[Ace Otana]

Yes Ace you're agreeing that 10-20% are dysfunctional. We're not painting the whole species here.

How are they dysfunctional? If you mean not playing a part in passing on genes and producing offspring, then we need a lot more of them.

You do agree that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality?

[Erinome]

Yes Ace you're agreeing that 10-20% are dysfunctional. We're not painting the whole species here.

The only dysfunction I see here is your inability to see that homosexuality has been going on for centuries, and the only people harmed by it are the homosexuals themselves- and for NO reason.

I see the harm in heterosexual sex every day. Hetero sex not only makes babies, it makes unwanted babies too. I can't recall any gay men having abortions, and the 2 lesbians I have seen were brutally raped and sent to me by the police. How is heterosexual sex more functional than homosexual sex?

Because a woman's vagina was made for a man's penis? Are you aware that the anus and rectum are full of sensory nerves, and that the male prostate can be heavily stimulated by anal sex, resulting in both men ejaculating, one without physical stimulation to his actual penis?

Sounds pretty fucking functional to me. If the only function of sex is to make babies, and that's why you're against it, then you MUST be against birth control too, and pulling out, and oral sex, and masturbation.

If you do any of those, how fucking dare you pervert functional sex. See you in hell.

[fr0d0]

^^ That was directed at you Ace. You said "It's not like the whole lot are gay and there for won't produce offspring" <-- you're calling that minority dysfuntional. (a function of sex = offspring > unable to produce offspring = dysfunctional)

aleialoura : I already covered sex for pleasure. I said "to disregard sexual pleasure"

Did I say that homosexuality was a new phenomenon? Did I say heterosexuality could not produce unwanted consequences?