DescentBB

....which are, what exactly? Please prepare to back up with proven facts, knowledge and references across the entire spectrum of the animal kingdom. Hint: we don't know a small fraction about how emotions nor psychology operate in our own species, let alone, say, dolphins, who might prove illustrative.

Well, first off when one of those kill one another or a male humps another male, all the others don't get bent out of shape

and you don't think humans operate in EXACTLY the same fashion over a different set of chemical, electrical, physical and psychological triggers? Really? Seriously? Please, rush to the local library, or log onto Amazon, and do some reading about
human behavior and things like trained vs.instinctive response.

Well, when I see an attractive female I don't start dry humping the air. I think you actually touched on the key point. We as humans can control which chemicals get released by our actions or thoughts. I don't see that ability in animals. I see them doing the same things over and over, filling their niche in the ecosystem. I'm not sure you can even have an argument over if humans are animals or not. It's either you think they are or they are not. It's painfully obvious at this point that everything is made from the same stuff. Biology understandably overlooks the spiritual side of man, so it as an argument can only go so far. Biology explains our similarities to animals, but it does nothing to strengthen our understanding concerning man's conciousness.

I agree that homosexuality's prevalence in animal species is not sufficient for a "moral" argument justifying it. Instead, it speaks more toward homosexuality's "purpose" in nature. It's true that homosexuality is determined by much more than genetics at present. But why is that? Is it because there is no genetic code that can reliably churn out straight people (or at least with higher rates than we have now)?

Well, I think when you have to start digging around in genetic code to find it's "purpose", the process becomes the answer . You have to begin creating hypothetical reasons to justify it's existence. I assert that the only reason that homosexuality is an issue with humans is the "moral" component.

If you want to make a moral argument against homosexuality, then I feel that the burden of proof is on you. If you think that it is wrong solely because you think God thinks it is wrong, then we are at an impasse. Else, do you think that there is a convincing argument as to why homosexuality is wrong for people who do not believe in a God?

Well, I personally feel it is wrong because God said it is wrong because it seems wrong. Your argument delves into genetic code to try and find a way to justify it, otherwise, why? Because it feels good?

EDIT:Otherwise, would it not be considered abnormal for a man to be able to have a more intimate relationship with another man, than with his like counter-part? That is against nature down to it's atomic core .

No, I even said that the genetic argument wasn't sufficient as a moral argument.

I don't see why homosexuality is wrong because I don't see any reason why it's wrong. Like I said, I think that the burden of proof is on you to show it.

I don't think that something being abnormal makes it wrong. Sometimes doing what's right is abnormal.

In my experience logic needs to be tempered with common-sense. It's quite a gamble to cast aside common-sense, and even the input from a clean conscience, in favor of pure logic. Leaving life's decisions to our best ability to calculate the outcome is relying too heavily on a calculator that is usually not dealing with an adequate number of variables. It's unwise. I've seen people make the mistake, and I've been there myself.

Common-sense is what I was talking earlier when I tried to demonstrate that homosexuality was wrong/harmful in that it denied humanity the normal course of life, which leads to the purest form of happiness that we as human's can experience apart from direct interaction with our creator. It denies you offspring to leave your life's experience and accumulations to, it denies you the renewing effects of being exposed to new life (children) in your aging years, it denies you the security of having children to possibly take care of you in your old age. I could go on, and I had touched on a few other points previously. We could delve into the need to be a real man, and reasons for that, and the helpful offset of the female persuasion in a normal unity of male and female. You think a male can be both?

People have lost their minds. It's clear. They have given up common-sense for a substitute that does not profit them, and they have accepted a distortion of reality. The Bible actually directly addresses this...

Romans 1 wrote:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,c wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,d unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Jeff250 wrote:No, I even said that the genetic argument wasn't sufficient as a moral argument.

I don't see why homosexuality is wrong because I don't see any reason why it's wrong. Like I said, I think that the burden of proof is on you to show it.

I don't think that something being abnormal makes it wrong. Sometimes doing what's right is abnormal.

I'll hearken back to a discussion that we had a while back on the matter of morals. In my opinion, all global moral statements that have any substance boil down to "because God says so." Any other moral argument is only valid in a limited scope, and only carries weight by being accepted by a majority of the people within that scope.

Since you don't want to acknowledge my basis for making moral statements, you put yourself into a position to deny any moral argument, because any other moral argument can be claimed to be out of context.

If one seeks the “purpose” of homosexuality, then one must also seek the purpose of such things as retardation, I believe this search is futile.

Some things just are.

For roid…

I do not believe homosexuality is immoral, but arguing that point is just as futile. So please note, that I am not on the same side of the argument as these guys, but that I’m not going to waste my time arguing with them either.

I think maybe that's why God went out of his way to label some things wrong, in His sight. Take weed or alcohol for instance, so-called vices. Some people think it's wrong and some don't think it's a big deal. I think in those instances, the person's conscience decides. If it don't make you feel guilty, it's ok for you, if it makes you feel guilty, it is wrong for you. The whole point being the frame of mind someone is kept in and whether that mindset is destructive to their being. Most, but not all homosexuals have deep seated guilty feelings that causes a great deal of them to kill or loathe themselves. That is destructive. No doubt that alot of them kill themselves because the closet queens can't stand the sight of themselves, so it is also mal-adaptive . Beyond clinical observation, it comes down to if you can accept a creation model, because then the argument becomes if it is wrong in GOD's eyes and His way of looking at things and you don't do it out of respect for Him.

EDIT:"debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,c wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; "

Can anybody here make a case for any of this being good or resulting in good? Is there such a thing as sexual immorality or is all sexual conduct acceptable?

flip wrote:Most, but not all homosexuals have deep seated guilty feelings that causes a great deal of them to kill or loathe themselves. That is destructive. No doubt that alot of them kill themselves because the closet queens can't stand the sight of themselves, so it is also mal-adaptive.

Oh holy ★■◆●. Do you want to know why so many homosexual teens wind up killing themselves? It's because they're mercilessly taunted by bigoted assholes, or evil closed-minded parents, or the idiotic masses in society who don't get that, oh hey, some people are different. Don't you DARE try to pin the blame on the kids themselves. That's just foul.

That's exactly what I said . I even went so far as to accuse a good portion ofthose that taunt them of the same crime. Otherwise, why would they care so much? What is a crime is the lack of understanding on the readers part.

flip wrote:Well, I personally feel it is wrong because God said it is wrong because it seems wrong. Your argument delves into genetic code to try and find a way to justify it, otherwise, why? Because it feels good?

God hasn't said anything on the matter lately, unless you listened to Jerry Falwell, who claims God had told him the truth. If there is a God, he either better speak up, or correct the mistakes he made in our human programming, because it doesn't look like homosexuality is really a choice.

Falwell wrote:AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

That from the man who said this too:

Falwell wrote:Any sex outside of the marriage bond between a man and a woman is violating God's law.

So I guess a LOT of people are pissing off God then. Why not go after those who get it on before marriage?

tunnelcat wrote:

Falwell wrote:AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

That from the man who said this too:

Falwell wrote:Any sex outside of the marriage bond between a man and a woman is violating God's law.

So I guess a LOT of people are pissing off God then. Why not go after those who get it on before marriage?

In fact, everyone is pissing God off... Why not go after fornicators? I guess because it's more status quo in our society. As I eluded to in my last post... the root of the problem is a perceived superiority on the part of the persecutor. When you consider the fact that you're just as bad, it's humbling.

So I guess a LOT of people are pissing off God then. Why not go after those who get it on before marriage?

Yep. It's no different than any other kind of rebellion. I'm not sure you can blame God for your programming considering you have the ability to choose how you think and all I'd have to do is look around and God say once that homosexuality was bad and that would be enough for me. I'm not sure if anyone has an answer for my prior question. Is there any such thing as sexual immorality? Or can anything good come from these things:

"debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,c wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful"

snoopy wrote:In fact, everyone is pissing God off... Why not go after fornicators? I guess because it's more status quo in our society. As I eluded to in my last post... the root of the problem is a perceived superiority on the part of the persecutor. When you consider the fact that you're just as bad, it's humbling.

Well, if we're all bad and evil, what does it matter? Might as well live it up, it's downhill after that. And the definition of "debased" is in the mind of the beholder.

flip, if a God created us, he created the software and the programming that goes along with the hardware, and the 2 don't always match up. And if God created that, there probably is a reason for it, because God makes no mistakes. Gays do not "choose" to be that way, they are "programmed", however unintentionally, in the womb, which is part of the fetal formation process. Anyway, who would "choose" to put up with all the bigotry and crap that goes along with being gay? If it were a choice, they could just change back to normal, happy and hunky dory. I don't see that happening much. Most of them are still fighting for their rights, despite the moralists, or end up becoming self-loathing politicians and religious leaders to assuage their guilt complex. They can't go against their brain's software any more than a hetero can, unless they're bi of course. Then they can swing both ways.

Whoever said God didn't make any mistakes? There's a verse in the Bible where it says God was grieved he even made man and repented of it. I don't claim to understand it, but it is there nonetheless. He obviously at one point regretted making man. If that was the case, then why even make them at all if you know you are going to regret it later down the road. No, I honestly think God didn't realize just how evil we would get once we were separated from His presence. Maybe He just couldn't see the evil, but once He did He recognized it right away. I dunno, but the word programming isn't the right word, it's all about choice. Maybe that's the running bet between God and the Devil, to "let them choose for themselves." Of course all this presupposes the existence of God.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, if we're all bad and evil, what does it matter? Might as well live it up, it's downhill after that. And the definition of "debased" is in the mind of the beholder.

Because it wasn't always that way, and won't always be that way. Before the whole tree of the knowledge of good and evil thing with Eve, we weren't sinful. A day will come (the second coming) when the earth will be cleansed of all evil, those who are saved will be given new, perfect, bodies, and will again live in a perfect world. I guess the mean time is about getting into the club that gets to come back to the perfect earth... and our (saved people's) punishment for their breaking of God's law is born by Christ... so it isn't all hopeless, but at the same time it isn't really about anything that we do for ourselves.

flip wrote:Well, I think when you have to start digging around in genetic code to find it's "purpose", the process becomes the answer . You have to begin creating hypothetical reasons to justify it's existence. I assert that the only reason that homosexuality is an issue with humans is the "moral" component.

ever consider that in some species, such behaviors can be seen in response to overpopulation? That is but one of many explanations that bypass 'moral' components.

ever consider that in some species, such behaviors can be seen in response to overpopulation? That is but one of many explanations that bypass 'moral' components.

Reaching for straws actually goes towards my argument.

Because it wasn't always that way, and won't always be that way. Before the whole tree of the knowledge of good and evil thing with Eve, we weren't sinful

I've often thought about this. I'm not convinced man was any different than he is right now, except he didn't think what he was doing was wrong. Hell, God made Adam and then said it wasn't good for him to be alone. Why? Maybe he was masturbating constantly who knows, but in Adam's mind that was ok. So God makes Adam a woman. The sin that threw the whole world out of balance was simply the acquisition of a conscience. When Adam began to see things as God did, as being bad or good, he slowly began to destroy himself.

flip wrote:Hell, God made Adam and then said it wasn't good for him to be alone. Why? Maybe he was masturbating constantly who knows

...this makes a scary amount of sense.

Yea, but what was he thinking about…

Cain's wife?

The sin that threw the whole world out of balance was simply the acquisition of a conscience

This is the only part I'm fairly sure about. Before this, nothing could be a sin because there was no knowledge that is was sin.

flip wrote:The sin that threw the whole world out of balance was simply the acquisition of a conscience.

That's a great insight. Makes sense on many levels.

Without a conscience, there would be no remorse. Without remorse, no one would care what they did unto to others. Without care, there would be anarchy.

snoopy wrote:I'll hearken back to a discussion that we had a while back on the matter of morals. In my opinion, all global moral statements that have any substance boil down to "because God says so." Any other moral argument is only valid in a limited scope, and only carries weight by being accepted by a majority of the people within that scope.

Since you don't want to acknowledge my basis for making moral statements, you put yourself into a position to deny any moral argument, because any other moral argument can be claimed to be out of context.

Even though we disagree on where morals come from, I think we still share a lot of common moral beliefs that we can appeal to in making moral arguments to each other. For instance, in general, we both believe that hurting people is wrong, so if I were to argue why murdering is wrong, I would show how it hurts the person you're murdering and everyone who knew him. I'm wondering if you think that homosexuality can be broken down into primitives like that about which we might share moral beliefs.

ST wrote:It denies you offspring to leave your life's experience and accumulations to, it denies you the renewing effects of being exposed to new life (children) in your aging years, it denies you the security of having children to possibly take care of you in your old age.

I've mentioned before that gay couples can have children. They just go about it a different way, e.g., adopting, so I don't recognize your point.

In any case, even supposing I did assent to all of your arguments that homosexuality, on average, leads to a less fulfilling life, it's still not clear to me that you've demonstrated anything about it morally. Christians don't say that people who drop out of high school go to hell even though, on average, they won't have as fulfilling of a life as someone who graduates. Straight couples who don't have children or people who choose not to even get married don't go to hell. Why are Christians inconsistent about this?

Spidey wrote:Yea, but what was he thinking about…

Jeff250 wrote:

ST wrote:It denies you offspring to leave your life's experience and accumulations to, it denies you the renewing effects of being exposed to new life (children) in your aging years, it denies you the security of having children to possibly take care of you in your old age.

I've mentioned before that gay couples can have children. They just go about it a different way, e.g., adopting, so I don't recognize your point.

Your choice. I mentioned before that there are going to be problems with gay people trying to have a family (even touched on it in my very last post), so I in turn do not recognize this as an excuse.

Jeff250 wrote:In any case, even supposing I did assent to all of your arguments that homosexuality, on average, leads to a less fulfilling life, it's still not clear to me that you've demonstrated anything about it morally. Christians don't say that people who drop out of high school go to hell even though, on average, they won't have as fulfilling of a life as someone who graduates. Straight couples who don't have children or people who choose not to even get married don't go to hell. Why are Christians inconsistent about this?

I never said that homosexuality is immoral because it is unhealthy and condemns people to an unfulfilled life--I never said homosexuals were going to hell because they can't have children. My argument is that homosexuality is not good for people. The Bible gives God's judgment on homosexuality, along with cowardice and a whole list of other behaviors.

ST wrote:Your choice. I mentioned before that there are going to be problems with gay people trying to have a family (even touched on it in my very last post), so I in turn do not recognize this as an excuse.

It's not that I think that your argument that gay couples can't raise children was your entire argument, but it was a significant portion of it, and you repeated it even knowing that it wasn't true. I'm sure you have some argument for how gay couple's raising children isn't as good as when straight couples do it, but that's an entirely different argument to make than that they can't raise children. I'd be happy to move on to other parts of your argument if I had felt any sense of progress on this one. Do you still think that being gay denies you children, or will you continue to use this in future arguments?

ST wrote:I never said that homosexuality is immoral because it is unhealthy and condemns people to an unfulfilled life--I never said homosexuals were going to hell because they can't have children. My argument is that homosexuality is not good for people.

I don't understand the difference. I can only think that you think that a large reason why homosexuality isn't good for people is because it denies you children, or else why spend so much time on the topic? Do you think that making decisions that deny people children isn't good for them?

I will certainly use it in the future, and you may well hear again. The reason is that if a homosexual wants to raise children, they must raise children that were brought into this world heterosexually by someone else. I make a difference between an answer that only diverts the issue, and an answer that truly answers it. Homosexuals cannot have children. Thus apart from the influence of the FUNCTIONING elements of society my statement is true. Didn't you know that we were discussing evidence that homosexuality is not a healthy state of humanity?

Lesbian women can carry their own biological children via a sperm donor, and gay men can be a sperm donor for a surrogate. So yes, homosexuals can have children.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Didn't you know that we were discussing evidence that homosexuality is not a healthy state of humanity?

not a healthy state of humanity? so do you have the psychological background to make this assertion? and do you have the peer-reviewed research papers from other psychologists, psychoanalysts, and other mental health professionals to bolster your assertion?

as Ferno said, all the stats say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. They are as happy as others (as long as they are not stigmatized), they live as long a life (unless they are beaten up often or don't practice safe sex). Even their children aren't worse off than other children.

That's not what Ferno said. Ferno's post was nothing but a bunch of static, and yours is a fabrication. "all the stats" indeed. What you just did was take the popular excuses and conveniently superimpose them over KNOWN/common issues with homosexuals in order to preset your preferred reality, and under the guise of scientific objectivity. You did it with a lot of confidence, I'll give you that.

seriously? a fabrication? do you want me to dig the papers up? I can do it, but only if they will really be taken seriously and will at least have the potential to change your mind.

ST wrote:I will certainly use it in the future, and you may well hear again. The reason is that if a homosexual wants to raise children, they must raise children that were brought into this world heterosexually by someone else. I make a difference between an answer that only diverts the issue, and an answer that truly answers it.

You specifically claim that gay couples are denied

• children to leave experience and accumulated property to
• children's renewing effects of being exposed to new life as one ages
• children's security to take care of you as you age

even though you already knew that, e.g., adopted children perfectly satisfy all three of these criteria. If we are incapable on making progress on this issue, then we clearly won't on any other.

You will never convince a christian that homosexuality is not wrong. It is a dysfunction and against the natural order of things, in our view. Just as anything else that doesn't complete our evolvement from animalistic behaviour, I'm being generous here . The best that can be hoped for is genuine tolerance and patience towards other human beings and realize that we live in an imperfect world. Concessions have to be made.

Some churches even accept practicing homosexuals. But in any case, my goal isn't to completely change anyone's mind. If you think that homosexuality is immoral because God forbids it, then sure, that seems arbitrary to me, but I'm sure where I get my ethics from seems arbitrary to you. We can agree to disagree. However, this thread has also seen a lot of bad moral arguments made against homosexuality, where I don't think reasonable people can disagree, and I'd like to at least see people stop making those bad arguments.

flip wrote:You will never convince a christian that homosexuality is not wrong.

if that were true, it would be sad. The fact that several denominations allow for gay clergy shows that it is NOT true.

It is a dysfunction and against the natural order of things, in our view.

OUR? Now, you claim to speak for Christians as a whole? Really? Where do you rank on the higherarchy, Flip? Are you a bit under the Pope, maybe even with, say the Archbishop of Canterbury? Come on, dude, step back from the self-delusion machine.

Just as anything else that doesn't complete our evolvement from animalistic behaviour, I'm being generous here . The best that can be hoped for is genuine tolerance and patience towards other human beings and realize that we live in an imperfect world. Concessions have to be made.

well, amen to that last part.

There is a fairly consistent failure to understand what I'm saying, even though once you take the sum total of what I've written I believe often it can mean nothing else. That's my fault for not being more exhaustive or obvious. I'm more apt to be efficient in the way I phrase things.

Jeff, if you want to demonstrate or judge the merits of something in the most scientific way possible, how many related subjects should you allow to be combined with the subject in question? Should you judge the merits of homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality, for instance, while allowing otherwise unmet needs to be met through heterosexual means? You and Top Gun are content to deal with a tainted subject, and see nothing wrong with it. So are "we" incapable of making progress here?

Pandora, I didn't mean that you made the papers themselves up, I mean you fabricated the notion that they satisfactorily dismiss or explain all of the problems encountered in committing oneself to homosexual behavior, or by children of "families" where the parents are homosexual--always in favor of homosexuality and in spite of those opposed to it. That is an assumption on your part.

@ callmeslick Flip is not out of place in his representative speech. You should understand that "churches" hold to varying degrees to the teachings of scripture. When the Bible says that homosexuals are hell-bound (unredeemed), and the church down the street says they are qualified to teach young Christians while they themselves are at odds with the kingdom of God, it is clearly the church that is not representative of Christianity, despite how that may offend anyone's interests. It's just common-sense. The Pope is not representative of Christianity, by the way. Adherence to Christian principles set forth in the scripture and communicated individually by God through his spirit (never at odds with the written word) are all one needs to be representative of Christianity. It's not a matter of hierarchy.

Did you just call someone "dude"?