Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Your lack of knowledge of evolution betrays you once again.

Why do women live beyond their fertile years? Why do they outlive men?
Non-reproducing kin aid in the survival of individuals who share genes with them.
And since those genes may be present but unexpressed in some, they are perpetuated.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
18-12-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If there is no god, than[sic] 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.

No god; that's a good idea. I see you are coming around to reason. However, your reasoning is faulty and there is no such thing as designed evolution. You will need to learn a lot more about reason, logic, and biology in general. Take some courses at a real university.

You're welcome. Drinking Beverage it's then not than

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
18-12-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 02:17 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  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.

Sorry. That just made me laugh picturing PJ doing that.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 02:37 PM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2013 05:13 AM by IndianAtheist.)
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.
okay so that means we should also consider repudiation of the blind,deaf,socially isolated,sterile couples just because they cannot reproduce ??

Do you realize that there are OTHER ways you can contribute in the well being of your species than just plain old having more babies ? there's already enough of us on the planet we're NOT running short of humans.

@Please jesus I'm not going to be modest anymore if you're spewing hate speech ! [Image: 1343833711921_7659624.png] thanks.
(18-12-2013 02:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your lack of knowledge of evolution betrays you once again.
Something tells me that he's just a pathetic troll who gets his kicks by posting purposely retarded topics like these.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
I actually wrote down my arguments, and some arguments of John Corvino that I expanded on so it would make these dead horse kicking trolls like PJ easier to deal with. Cut and paste!

PJ's argument is twofold. That homosexuals can't produce children, and that if all people were homosexual, the population would die off. I'll address each one.

1) "Its against the laws of nature because the union cannot produce children." Okay then, why is it that infertile couples should be allowed to marry? Or elderly couples for which children cannot result? Or couples that simple do not want children. I am not making an argument from exception. I'm really not....what I'm trying to understand why the exceptions of infertile/elderly/barren by choice couples are acceptable exceptions and homosexual unions are not? Why is it okay for one exception, but not the other?

2) "If all people were homosexuals, our society would cease to exist." Okay. That is true. It is an argument called the Universalizability Argument. That is everyone does it, it would lead to this conclusion and therefore be bad. However, this argument is weak because, like its name, must be applied universally. For example, is EVERYONE were a catholic priest or nun, there would be no society either. Just because we need some people to reproduce, doesn't mean we need everyone to reproduce. Just because we need some people to be doctors, doesn't mean we need everyone to be doctors. If everyone was a doctor, there would be no garbage collectors or auto mechanics, etc. Why is the priesthood an acceptable measure of genetic suicide, but homosexuality is not?

The Universalizability Argument still does not address why the behavior is bad. For example, if we say, “Well, if some people play golf, than everyone will want to play golf.” Ok…but that still doesn’t explain why playing golf is bad.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Cathym112's post
18-12-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 02:17 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(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.

Just want to say this was a brilliantly written post. Nice!

“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
18-12-2013, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2013 02:57 PM by Momsurroundedbyboys.)
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.

I shouldn't have any more kids...so I suppose I'm included -- since I now serve no purpose except for telling you to....
Shoo fly!


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
18-12-2013, 02:50 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
Oh POE-lease... Is that the best you got?
Get back in your bottle.
[Image: BigPoe.jpg]

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like grizzlysnake's post
18-12-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
The best argument for homosexuality is that straight men are not threatened by gay guys, (even though they prolly *should* be Tongue ) and they let their fun girl friends/wives go out with us.
(there's a Evolutionary argument in there SPJTJ. Maybe ask one of your kids to 'splain it.) Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-12-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: Repudiating Homosexuality Is Wrong Because Why?
(18-12-2013 02:09 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  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.

This is what happens when a theist tries to win a secular argument while appealing to their theistic sensibilities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: