Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2013, 01:05 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If there is no god, than we should all look to/hope for survivability-enhancing opportunities that are naturally evolving. Since a homosexual homo sapiens pair cannot reproduce, we should consider the repudiation of homosexuality natural and life-affirming. In fact, designed evolution should enhance any anti-homosexual stance.

Discuss. Thanks.

There are two reasons for having sex: to procreate and because it feels good, both physically and emotionally.

If there is no god, why should we assume that homosexuality is "bad" just because it can only be used for one of the two things?

It's like repudiating cars because they can only drive, but planes can drive and fly!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
18-12-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Let us hope he does not go on the attack against bisexuals now!

If reproductive capabilities are the new basis for his hatred, then should god be hated since he did put such a high value on virginity and virgins in the bible - just sayin. Dodgy

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
18-12-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
So basically, force homosexuals to reproduce, for the sake of a larger population? If the human population was at risk of extinction that would make sense, but the human race has been in no position in the last several thousand years in which that would have been necessary or useful. Humans aren't dying out, so the need to increase the population doesn't exist.

Population growth is only good to a certain point. Endless population growth is often self-destructive. When there are too many of a species the resources grow scarce and the population collapses. Populations need to be large enough to resist disasters such as a plague, but small enough to be sustained by their environment.

Humans are within that range right now, closer to the too large to be sustainable side than anything. We don't need more babies.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
>If there is no god, than we should all look to/hope for survivability-enhancing opportunities that are naturally evolving.

Looks like you're hung up on the old 'atheists worship evolution' line of thinking again. Boooooring. Look to whatever you like. If you want to affect survivability on a relatively immediate scale, you'll have to embrace science.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
18-12-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If there is no god, than we should all look to/hope for survivability-enhancing opportunities that are naturally evolving. Since a homosexual homo sapiens pair cannot reproduce, we should consider the repudiation of homosexuality natural and life-affirming. In fact, designed evolution should enhance any anti-homosexual stance.

Discuss. Thanks.

Here's what you don't seem to understand about evolution: It's kind of a haphazard thing. Since evolution is not somehow "programed" by some deity, it is not subject to our "hopes". There is no "life force", not even evolution, leading the multiverse toward some goal. Many species have failed to survive, and continue to fail. Our current science tells us that our entire planet is destined to fail, despite it's ability to adapt to change. If you feel that atheist's cling to evolution as some sort of heaven, you are mistaken. Not only will you and I cease to exist, but every thought that lived on our planet will, in the long term "mean" nothing at all!

Your concern about homosexuals has not, though they have existed throughout recorded history, diminished the ability of human's to reproduce.

But it could happen! I can't imagine the scenario, but the homosexual "gene" could become dominant! And could bring about the downfall of the human species. It is possible to "evolve" to failure. Not only is it possible, but it happens every day. Species die.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
[Image: 11439537874_df5bf701be_o.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
18-12-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 02:00 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  [Image: 11439537874_df5bf701be_o.jpg]

I'm an old, decrepit, man! What does "fick" mean?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
If you have to resort to procreation as an argument against homosexuality, you must also address couples who never procreate because of ability, circumstance, or personal choice. The fact that these people never have children does not diminish their worth as human beings.

In fact, someone has more freedom to work towards the betterment of society as a whole if they have fewer demands on their time and money at home. Someone with no children can devote themselves wholeheartedly to curing a disease, exploring space, or any number of other things that could benefit the whole human race greatly. They could donate money to worthy causes, volunteer their time for charitable causes, or adopt a child who otherwise might not have a loving home. That's not to say someone who has children can't do these things, but the demands on your time and finances are far greater.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Ohio Sky's post
18-12-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 02:08 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  I'm an old, decrepit, man! What does "fick" mean?

1. Don't look it up on Google, it'll result in oodles of german porn.

2. Because the troll is an inarticulate brute, it cannot pronounced the 'th'-sound, therefore he says 'fick'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elcarch's post
18-12-2013, 02:17 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If there is no god, than we should all look to/hope for survivability-enhancing opportunities that are naturally evolving. Since a homosexual homo sapiens pair cannot reproduce, we should consider the repudiation of homosexuality natural and life-affirming. In fact, designed evolution should enhance any anti-homosexual stance.

Discuss. Thanks.

Where to begin.

First of all, this notion that you have where no god means evolution? Shitcan that right now. Evolution is not automatically arrived at without the existence of a god. Rather, evolution is evaluated through examining extensive evidence exhibited in existence.

Second. I will repeat myself. You. Do. Not. Understand. Evolution. And after all the times we've had this discussion, it's obvious that you never will, so while I'll address my comments to you, I'm actually speaking to anyone else who might be reading this thread. While we might find an evolutionary chain of causation leading to the instincts (eg empathy) that form the underlying basis of human morality, evolution does not dictate morality in the sense that you think it does. Evolutionary theory is explanatory, descriptive, and predictive. It is not prescriptive or proscriptive. It tells us how things happened, what happened, and what is likely to happen. It does not tell us what to do and what not to do. You are confusing eugenics with genetics, Social Darwinism with real Darwinism, which is a common and low equivocation put forward by the most wretchedly disingenuous leaders of right-wing Christianity and the cretinous suckers who believe their lies. (I'll refrain from speculating on which category you fall in.) Knowing that certain behaviors will result in higher or lower populations does not tell us to pursue one behavior or the other. By your logic, knowing that gravity makes people fall would create a moral imperative to push people off of cliffs.

Third, there's a difference between "life-affirming" and "maximized output". "Life affirming" does not condone, say, forcible copulation (ie rape) of women at every potentially fertile moment to produce as many babies as possible. (Nor would your maximization logic actually reject additional, same-sex copulation under those circumstances.) You completely ignore issues of quality of life, memetic reproduction, societal structure, kinship, and attempt to reduce the entirety of healthy human existence and sexual activity to a single variable.

Finally, why do I object to the "repudiation" of homosexuality? Well, repudiation is a very interesting word, and my objection depends on the nature of your repudiation. Not counting a form of divorce, it means basically "refusing to accept". Well if that's all you're doing, I have no objection at all. DON'T accept it. Cover your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and go "LALALALALA!" in attempt to drown out the sound of a society that has the gall to actually disagree with you. Become a hermit locked in your house, never emerging. More power to you! If you want help in that, I'll happily glue your lock shut. But when you do more than simply refuse to accept it; when you become an agent of oppression; when you and your socially conservative ilk salivate at the notion of regressing society to the age of Stonewall beatings and Inquisitorial burnings for homosexuality but discover to your dismay that the civilized world no longer tolerates your brand of religious bigotry wielding a bloody sword and calling it virtue; when in your despair you opt for a rearguard of stalled incrementalism; when you call the bullying of gay teenagers freedom of religion for the bullies; when you call the beating of a child who shows the slightest imagined homosexual trait to be good parenting; when you call the denial of the right to be at a loved one's hospital bedside a defense of marriage; when you call exclusion from the military of an able-bodied soldier willing and able to defend the country patriotism; when you channel your money and missionary efforts into engineering the lifelong imprisonment of homosexuals in developing nations like Uganda (oops, wait, your conservative Christianity was aiming for the death penalty... missed it by THAT much); when you not-so-secretly dream of expanding your persecution to infidels and heathens, other races and the other sex, to every other category that is other than you; when, in short, you bring your lies, falsehoods, hatreds and other symptoms of your faith into the public domain and attempt to distort society with them; why then, I'll be there, objecting most strongly, and seeking to block you at every turn.

PS: What is "designed" evolution? That sounds almost like a contradiction in terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 14 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: