This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality - Genetic
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's not a cause, that's a motivation. Unless you're implying that humans have no control over their instincts/actions/attractions.But what you are referring to is homosexual sex.
Homosexual sex occurs when two homosexual individuals love eachother, and want to express that love physically. Homosexual sex can be defined as unnatural.
Homosexuality, however, which is distinct from homosexual sex, is natural, as it arises from nature.
Homosexuality is more than just attraction. It's a whole behavioral pattern. Sodomy is the part of that which is done by free choice.
To say that people have believed for the last thousand years that "attraction" (whether to the same or opposite sex) is a choice is silly.
The issue is the act itself.
That is the choice. That is what people 1000 years ago and people today are referring to when they speak of a choice.
If you're going to jump in and start arguing against me, make sure you understand the issue.
Post by
Kristopher
If that still raises the question "Why is it wrong" can you please tell me what "it" is?Why is homosexuality wrong?
Its not, at least to me. To a lot of other people it is though.If homosexuality has a natural cause, it is natural. End of story.
I'm going to be very very blunt here, so kids please cover your eyes....
.
.
.
.
What is God's name is the "natural cause" of sticking one's penis in someone else's anus?
I don't know, but seeing as some women like it too from their male partners.....
Haha.
And what Skeeran said, Love does not always involve the act of sex.
Where did I say love is wrong? The attraction isn't the issue.
What is the issue then?
I see.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
That's not a cause, that's a motivation. Unless you're implying that humans have no control over their instincts/actions/attractions.But what you are referring to is homosexual sex.
Homosexual sex occurs when two homosexual individuals love eachother, and want to express that love physically. Homosexual sex can be defined as unnatural.
Homosexuality, however, which is distinct from homosexual sex, is natural, as it arises from nature.
Homosexuality is more than just attraction. It's a whole behavioral pattern. Sodomy is the part of that which is done by free choice.
To say that people have believed for the last thousand years that "attraction" (whether to the same or opposite sex) is a choice is silly.
The issue is the act itself.
That is the choice. That is what people 1000 years ago and people today are referring to when they speak of a choice.
If you're going to jump in and start arguing against me, make sure you understand the issue.Why do you care about the act?
there are 5 definitions of natural. You picked the chemical one, which doesn't apply here.On Dictionary.com, there are 31 definitions.
The first one is the one I linked, and it is hardly limited to chemicals. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial):
a natural bridge.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What is the issue then?
Homosexual acts, sodomy, call it what you will.
I'm attracted to my sister, emotionally, intellectually, even physically. I love her. There is nothing wrong with that. However there is something wrong (unnatural) about incest. The issue is not, and has never been, attraction.
What is God's name is the "natural cause" of sticking one's penis in someone else's anus?
Pleasure. Feels good man. You're missing out. Oral too.
Lots of animals
have sex purely for pleasure.
I think you're a little shaky on what a cause is. A cause =/= a motivation.
Why do you care about the act?
Why do you? You obviously do, or you wouldn't be defending it.
Silly questions get silly questions in reply.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Why do you? You obviously do, or you wouldn't be defending it.
Silly questions get silly questions in reply.I believe that people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as no one gets hurt.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why do you? You obviously do, or you wouldn't be defending it.
Silly questions get silly questions in reply.I believe that people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as no one gets hurt.
I believe people ARE free to do whatever they want within their nature, but that some of those things are wrong.
Happy?
However there is something wrong (unnatural) about incest
And here's the fallacy again.
unnatural != wrong.
And where is there an equal sign in my quote? I'm using both because there are two different groups of people in the discussion, those that believe in right and wrong, and those that don't. For those that do, wrong is the correct term to use for incest. For those who don't, unnatural is the correct term. You're the one imagining them being equal. I never said such a thing.
Doing ANYTHING aside from surviving and reproducing is not natural. Is it wrong?
See, there you go equating natural and wrong. It's you doing it, not me.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Incest is wrong primarily because it can cause horribly mutated children.That's actually not entirely accurate. Odds are greater that children born of incest will be born with birth defects, but not by too much.
The genetic dangers of incest only exists if there is a history of genetic disease in the family. Even then it has to be extremely recent (siblings) or ongoing. Use this as an example: Asterisks indicate a carrier, primes indicated someone with no history. We'll use the average incidence of Tay Sachs carriers in the U.S. population (1 in 300) as a baseline for people with no histories. Quotes indicate an affected individual. Pluses indicate siblings.
M*--F*
|
F+"F"+M+F----M`
| |
|============F
|
?
In this case, the product of incest (shown by the double line) of an uncle and niece. The chance of their child having the genetic disease their mutual grandfather carried? .00055% or about 1 in 1800. Worse than the average population (1 in 360,000), markedly but not terrible. If we change the grandmother to unknown history and remove the affected child, the numbers become even more forgiving.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
is much more common, by comparison, but attracts far less outcry, thanks to our cultural fear of incest.
I believe people ARE free to do whatever they want within their nature, but that some of those things are wrong.
Happy?Why is homosexuality wrong, if no one is hurt by it?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I believe people ARE free to do whatever they want within their nature, but that some of those things are wrong.
Happy?Why is homosexuality wrong, if no one is hurt by it?
Why is something wrong only if it hurts another?
You're trying to attack a philosophical foundation, but you're not really going at it correctly.
Post by
Skreeran
I believe people ARE free to do whatever they want within their nature, but that some of those things are wrong.
Happy?Why is homosexuality wrong, if no one is hurt by it?
Why is something wrong only if it hurts another?
You're trying to attack a philosophical foundation, but you're not really going at it correctly.What makes homosexuality wrong? Tell me that.
Besides "it just is."
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What makes homosexuality wrong? Tell me that.
Besides "it just is."
Do I really need to
repeat myself
?
Secondly, I personally take offense at it because it's the perversion of an act that transcends mere bodily interaction. But that has nothing to do with anything that has been said so far in this thread.
...
And, thus enters the "I'm right, your wrong" argument.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.