Yuor thoughts on homosexuality.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ] Yep, and it doesn't make it wrong either. It just makes it a genetic predispostion. But it would mean that you would be much more likely to commit that action, or you would have a strong desire to do so (and I would agree that to act on that inclination would be wrong).
Click to expand...

See, I am not trying to prove it is wrong using that analogy-you are miscasting my position. My point was that, homosexuals who say that homosexuality is acceptable, because it is genetic (which isn’t actually a valid idea) are stating a conclusion, which doesn’t follow from their premise(s). Now, as I was saying, my only point was to point out the invalidity of the idea that because something is genetic it is moral, not that because their argument is invalid, homosexuality is morally wrong.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ] As for your analogy, I'm not sure it is relevant, because your analogy involves deliberately harming a living creature, which most people would agree is an obvious immoral act. Gays on the other hand aren't harming anyone by being attracted to people of the same gender.
Click to expand...

The relevant factor is that a genetic predisposition isn’t per se moral. But, I’ll concede the point. Let’s say I toss my analogy out the window. I’ll still use the argument that because something is genetic it doesn’t follow that it is moral, and that is a sound argument (irregardless of my analogy). But, good point. *tips hat*

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I realize that for most here the basis for deeming homosexuality wrong is that it is condemned in the Bible. I'd like to go a step further (or a step back, if you will): is there any practical, non biblical reason that homosexuality would be considered wrong?
Click to expand...

There is the nature of human persons argument, which I subscribe to (and isn’t “biblical in nature). This argument says that male humans persons are meant for coupling female human persons even if their coupling doesn’t result in procreation. This argument is based on the natural purpose of sexuality, which is procreation, and as we know only a male and a female can procreate, not two males. This purpose of sexuality, derived from human nature, is not contingent upon a persons desire, or ability etc. That is to say, even if a couple doesn’t’ have a child/children, the natural purpose of sexuality remains the same, making the argument that homosexuality is acceptable because some heterosexual couples don't have children a moot point.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (The-Messenjah @ Mar. 16 2003,5:26)]The topic wasnt about whether itz natural or not, that doesnt matter. there could be a genetic dissorder that causes it. anyone remember the scripture "and the sins of your forefathers will be passed down onto your children and your children's children" now couldnt that be a cause of it???
Click to expand...
If it were a genetic disorder, (deleted), it'd be natural then wouldn't it? But it isn't genetic at all, and it isn't natural at all. And it is wrong.

-name calling isn't necessary --CCGR
 
people don't choose to have cancer, but I know many people who choose to be homosexual.

Our bodies are not designed to live forever and will deteriorate over time. We are designed to reproduce and their is only one way of doing that properly.
 
People can have a genetic predisposition towards cancer though...

Eon
 
actually there's no real proof that smoking causes cancer, and in fact prior to the invention of the automobile, lung cancer was one of the rarest of all cancers, and people had been smoking for nearly 400 years by then.
 
But how MUCH were they smoking back thn? There was a time when smoking in limited qualities was a socially acceptable and debonair thing to do. In recent days, though, it's picked up more, with smokers smoking a lot more. Lots more people do it, too, which causes second-hand smoke. Chain smoking contributes to that as well. I doubt very much that people from two hundred years ago smoked two to three packs a day.
 
you would probably be surprised at the amount of smoking going on, and the places it happened at. Smoking occured in homes, bars, businesses, pretty much everywhere


but it was with the invention of the automobile and the airplane that lung cancer popped up as a commonplace disease, with it's commonplaceness growing as the numbers of cars and planes grew.

This is not to say that cigarettes might not have had a PART to play in it, but there's no proof that they are a cause of lung cancer, and historically nicotine smoke (from cigars, pipe, or cigarettes) seems to play a small or nonexistant part in the causation of lung cancer
 
<speaking out of ignorance here>

what was the average life span 400 years ago. I bet they haven't discovered cancer yet.

</ignorance>

if cars are so dangerous they should have sugeon general warnings on those!
 
jjosprey, heterosexuals molest children to, I don't think that's necessarily a valid argument.
 
I.....live. I have returned from Colorado....Denver, to be more exact. ROck on.
Umm....cancer now? Yeah. Smoking can cause that. So can genes. Possibly....homosexuality is caused by genes?
But I must ask a question: what kind of God would sentence people to homosexuality? And yes I'm using the word "sentence." He made us straight. Okay. He made man and woman for each other. HE didn't create two dudes or two chicks. He made a dude and a chick. Would God allow man to genetically twist into an abnormality that he detests? Questions...
 
There's Ultima on scene again, welcome back :-D!

Yes, I agree you you, Ultima. Two words on homosexuality: Sick, Stupid

Think about it. I don't beleive there's really such a thing as gay "sex." It's not sex. Sex happens between men and women (That is, one man and one woman at a time, not several, just thout I'd clear that up). Really. Is it sex to go up and...aherm...eh...DO a sewer pipe? You know what I'm talking about, I don't need to be more explicit.

No, it's not sex, it's just WRONG.
 
Who said anything about sex? Especially gay sex. Wrong. Nasty. Gross. I don't even wanna think about it.
Oh but Slam let's look at it from the world's perspective: it's their own business what they feel like doing in their bedroom.
Straight people hump, too.
The world looks at it this way: gays work, gays speak, gays are born, gays walk, gays play games, gays hang out, gays eat, gays drink, gays sleep, gays think. Gays are really just a "different" kind of straight.
Fools. Gayness is just wrong and is just sick. It's a sin, might I add. I actually thought up a joke for where all the gays place their accomplishments: The Gayness Book of World Records. Heh.
Sex sex sex. Sex originated as between a man and woman and whatever happens after that. Then man, in his unique mind, decided to differ things up a bit. Men really don't have what women have, ergo gays make do with what they got. Their bad. Gays can't have kids, but still they'd like to be intimate with their queer partners. And so they do it weird ways then the norm that God had originally intended.
Gays are a part of life, much as I grudgingly admit even that. I can't pull a 1984 and monitor the gays in all their actions and send my KGB after them. So I basically just ignore them.
 
True, just sayin'. You can't really address a discussion about either type of relationship without entering sex into the equation somewhere though. In many cases, it tends to be the driving force and end result. This was intended, of course, for what chance would there be at reproduction if not for sex? That just goes further to show how twisted homosexuality is.

Yes, ignoring them is all well and good. The problem occurs when they actually want to be taken seriously. I find that more than a little difficult to do.
 
Taken seriously. Who knows? I think they have as much of an aspiration as any straight person, but I find it a lot harder to compare and socialize with their kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top