Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 7:21 am
(October 7, 2011 at 2:07 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (October 7, 2011 at 8:15 am)Epimethean Wrote: So, what is your actual point then, fr0do? How do you want to tie that to homosexuality? They have sex, so they are not defective-any more than someone who masturbates is. I'm just trying to sort this one out in my head before I move on to other questions.
We have sex because of the natural function to reproduce: The purpose of sexual enjoyment is rooted in the need for the species to proliferate.
Any sexual act which falls outside of the clear function of sex isn't following its natural function.
I'd agree that any non productive sex act is similar, if not identical. My point was that this is a basic moral objection to all of those acts.
So ANY sexual act that is not directly related to producing babies is immoral? be it hetro or homo it's against god?
So presumabably older couples who can no longer have babies because of simple biology are sinners destined for hell if they have sex of any description.
cool, I get it.
.
.
.
.
.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 8:13 am
It's a hard knock life for poor theists. All work and no play.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 5652
Threads: 133
Joined: May 10, 2011
Reputation:
69
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 11:53 am
I don't know about you guys, but when I have sex I always make conception happen...fact.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm
(October 8, 2011 at 5:27 am)aleialoura Wrote: (October 8, 2011 at 5:21 am)fr0d0 Wrote: A misdirected biological process is just that. Misdirected according to who? Biology
(October 8, 2011 at 6:55 am)Ace Otana Wrote: Morality has nothing to say on the nature of nature. It is perfectly natural for there to be gay animals. No negative side effects. No problems. Those gay animals, if all of the species, would wipe out that species. Sounds negative to me.
(October 8, 2011 at 6:55 am)Ace Otana Wrote: In nature, there is no right or wrong, good or bad. Only the natural world. We are part of the natural world and only we define and see good/bad right/wrong. Precisely.
(October 8, 2011 at 6:55 am)Ace Otana Wrote: There is no bad or wrong in homosexuality.
There are no victims. Not to nature, no. But to us [humans] who see the dysfunction, that's a problem.
(October 8, 2011 at 6:55 am)Ace Otana Wrote: There is no wrong in two people (same sex or not) having sex. If both sides consent to it, it is perfectly fine. If it were only the two people affected, then no one else would need to know about it. As we have to know about it because those two people need backing and support from wider society, it is clearly more than an issue for more than the two that consent.
(October 8, 2011 at 7:21 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So ANY sexual act that is not directly related to producing babies is immoral? be it hetro or homo it's against god? We're only talking secular morality Zen. All sexual acts are a result of the species need to reproduce.
(October 8, 2011 at 7:21 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So presumabably older couples who can no longer have babies because of simple biology are sinners destined for hell if they have sex of any description. What you and Kitchie do within your four walls is your business mate 
The natural biological drive might still be there long after the salmon have all spawned up river. I can't see how the old dog should be punished for following his instincts 
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm
(October 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Not to nature, no. But to us [humans] who see the dysfunction, that's a problem.
This 'dysfunction' as you call it exists only in the eye of the beholder. The fact is we as humans have discovered sex has many benefits beyond procreation, including physical and mental health benefits. Our biological drive may have arisen from the need to reproduce, but our understanding of sex has evolved beyond it being the major factor.
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
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Quote:Those gay animals, if all of the species, would wipe out that species. Sounds negative to me.
If that were the case, extinction, they would no longer be able to continue. But as we can see, 10-20% homosexuality is not a problem. All species fail to suffer from homosexuality. So there are no negatives.
Quote:Not to nature, no. But to us [humans] who see the dysfunction, that's a problem.
How is it a problem? At this point in time?
Quote:If it were only the two people affected, then no one else would need to know about it. As we have to know about it because those two people need backing and support from wider society, it is clearly more than an issue for more than the two that consent.
Why do they need backing and support?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 3158
Threads: 132
Joined: September 1, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Actually, from a biology standpoint, homosexual sex makes sense.
Sex has many benefits:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/f...its-of-sex
And as I stated before, men have a ton of sensory nerves in their anus/rectum which makes sex pleasurable, and there is also easy and direct access to the prostate through the rectum, making anal sex very pleasurable. It's almost as if it were meant to be...
Since we aren't in danger of extinction, and life is fucking short, and it doesn't harm anyone, why should we pass judgments on people who happen to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex? Why should anything stop them from reaping the same benefits straight people get from having sex?
Because it doesn't make babies? Right? Well, since homosexuality has been proven to be genetic, would you really have gay people reproducing? Wouldn't that just make more gay people? I mean really, what is the big fucking deal?
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 7:45 pm
(October 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm)Faith No More Wrote: This 'dysfunction' as you call it exists only in the eye of the beholder. The fact is we as humans have discovered sex has many benefits beyond procreation, including physical and mental health benefits. Our biological drive may have arisen from the need to reproduce, but our understanding of sex has evolved beyond it being the major factor. I apologise for the word, I did try to substantiate it clearly above.
Our understanding of sex hasn't changed sex. We discovered some fringe benefits, that were always there of course.
Human morality would be undermined if a doctor would prescribe recreational sex, for example.
(October 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: 10-20% homosexuality is not a problem. All species fail to suffer from homosexuality. So there are no negatives. The species survives because homosexuality is unsuccessful. The species takes the hit of the negative pull.
(October 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Quote:Not to nature, no. But to us [humans] who see the dysfunction, that's a problem.
How is it a problem? At this point in time? Morality is important. Without it we could go murder, rape and pillage without worrying about it. But we do worry about it > ethics are important to us.
(October 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Quote:If it were only the two people affected, then no one else would need to know about it. As we have to know about it because those two people need backing and support from wider society, it is clearly more than an issue for more than the two that consent.
Why do they need backing and support? I'm not saying that they do... they are.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 8:30 pm
(October 8, 2011 at 7:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Human morality would be undermined if a doctor would prescribe recreational sex, for example.
I fail to see how this is true.
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
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: October 6, 2011
Reputation:
0
RE: Homosexuals and Heaven
October 8, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Okay just a couple points. First, yes if 100% of the species was gay we would be doomed. If 100% of the species was men we would be doomed as well, does that make being a man immoral? Unless it looks likely that all of us are going to turn gay there isn't a problem. Secondly even if everyone was gay that wouldn't end the human race. Even though I'm gay i can still have sex with a woman, its not like I become impotent as soon as I kiss a guy. So even if everyone was gay we could still have kids. Both of those arguments are now moot and it would be great if we could hear some logical, or at least new ones. Also biology does not convey morality. It is biologically possible for a 40 year old to get a 12 year old pregnant. So is it okay for a 40 year old to have sex with a 12 year old? I don't think so.
|
