Immorality of Homosexuality

So . . .when you state: What do you mean?Is lust greater than or less than homosexuality? Is lust equal to homosexuality? Is lust an increasing magnitude or of a decreasing magnitude of homosexuality? How about the reverse?The first rule of good writing (in arguments, at any rate)--use a clear style. Do not obfusticate your writing, do not confuse your audience. Unless, of course, your goal is to confuse the audience.However, confusing the audience is precisely what you did. Instead of going on to explain how you were going to quantify homosexuality into lust, you go on to explain how lust is immoral. You follow with a tirade about how gays aren't born gay. Neither paragraph clarifies how you are quantifying homosexuality into lust. The rest of your post doesn't.In fact, the rest of your post (aside from possibly stating that homosexuality and lust are equal) doesn't really deal with quantifying anything.You are qualifying homosexuality as lust. Not quantifying. There is such a thing as using the right word, not just any word. You have opted for the latter, and continue because no "college" professor has corrected you.Have you taken a writing course in college?

I don't know how many gay friends you have, but mine get bashed all the time. Seriously, they must get really tired of being heckled. I used to heckle them more than I do now. Anyways, the convenient excuse is the one relating to the biochemistry of homosexuality. Clearly subterfuge to promote anti-gay bashing, although not entirely opposed to the idea that genetics can play a role, I seriously question the relation. You build them up, to smash them down. Here's a gem I don't get to use often: "Where's the evidence?" You see nuggin, if you understood anything about science you would understand that we just can't trust people without scientific evidence. If some homo says he was "born gay" then why should I believe him? I find it ridiculous that evolutionists will jump on the gay wagon, when gay people don't want anyone to think they're weird, without the proper skepticism. What the hell has happened? Having ass sex, IS NOT INHERITED. Now I'm no scientist by society's standards but this is obvious. Being attracted to a member of the opposite sex could be genetic, maybe...a big MAYBE, but what does this have to do with ass sex?

---

The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker.
Voltaire (1694-1778)

No, he isn't.
I certainly don't have sex with the idea of creating little versions of me (or my girlfriend). We do it because it is pleasureable. It does bring us closer. Reproduction is not an after-thought though. We actively try to avoid it. Mayhaps your missing the contrast?
Bonoboes have sex year round. Humans have sex year round.
The animals that only have sex for reproduction have a specific time in which they do. Now then, think about when most of them are in heat. They are in heat when the gestation time would put the birth of their offspring in a time when resources were plentiful. You think it's coincidence that most animal births are in spring to summer (or wet season versus dry season)? When is it easier to raise offspring: when resources are plentiful or in the dead of winter when there is nothing but your own fat reserves?I was born in december, about 120 years after you. If I had been born in the Ice Age, I would have most likely been screwed. The resources just didn't exist in the winter season.What this suggests, is that humans, because they don't have a set time for breeding, have sex for pleasure, closeness, and intimacy. It does not suggest that we have sex for recreation purposes. Crash didn't. You did. By invoking the creator. We're dealing with evidence here, right? YOu have no evidence for the creator (beyond personal belief and a millenium old compendium that doesn't even have a single version) And yet, he has one, and answered based on his sexual preference. When you pointed him to bodybuilding women, he was disinterested. This means that it is men he finds attractive, especially the shoulders of men.Suppose you ask me what part of the body I like (with the idea of no sexual preference). I respond by saying "the breasts". You point me to fat men with flabby breasts. You follow by saying--do you like those? I will answer "no, I don't".
This would mean that I am potentially attracted to women.If you were trying to prove that I chose to be heterosexual, (or with the case of your friend, proving that he chose to be homosexual), you haven't. All you have done is to show that we like specific body parts on specific sexes.

Your absolutely right. wow. quantify will be stricken from this context in my vocabulary. Embarrassing since I once aspired to become a writer and took 3 classes in college on progressive writing.

Your lack of understanding isn't the issue here. We're talking about the morality of homosexuality, not whether or not it appeals to you personally.The issue I raised was: how do you distinguish between heterosexual acts that are not "productive" and homosexual acts that are not "productive"?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Funny. Genetic evidence actually supports the supposition that gays (at least some) are born that way, and thus, being gay is natural.Whereas the gay bashers require homosexuality to be unnatural.Nuggin is no basher of gays from what I'm aware of. Funny thing to say to an anthropologist. Good question. Why did you bring it up then? Seeing as how you did bring it up, I would hope you have some idea as to how it relates to your inane arguments. Is this your MO? Bringing up totally irrelevant points to your own arguments?

No. If sex in humans was for procreation, we would expect humans to have sex only when it would be fertile, like other mammals.Females in other species reject - often violently reject - the advances of males that try to mate with them when they're not in estrus. Human females, on the other hand, are known to have sex during all periods of their menstrual cycle, including the obviously non-fertile period.Obviously, they're doing so for pleasure, not out of a desire to reproduce. Right now? All at once? I doubt it, somehow. Well-designed to limit human reproduction to tolerable levels, assuming frequent human activity. I agree. Not well-designed for maximizing fecundity.If sex is for children, we should see maximized fecundity. Rather, we see a biological presumption of frequent sexual activity for pleasure and biological realities that restrict how often those activities result in offspring.That indicates that humans evolved to have sex for pleasure - for the sake of the act itself - and not primarily in order to reproduce. Sex for reproduction is very, very infrequent among humans, compared to sex for pleasure. Of course that's what it suggests. In species where sex is purely for reproduction, females give birth to many offspring at once and have the mammaries to feed that many offspring. They experience estrus - "going into heat."Human women don't "go into heat." They're constantly able to have sex. And their ovulation is concealed from them - it's "cryptic." In other species, individuals signal ovulation so that the males know to begin trying to mate with them.Human females have almost no idea when they're ovulating, unless they're making detailed examinations of vaginal mucus, temperature, and hormone levels. Observations that you need a medical lab to make. A human woman almost has to be "tricked" into getting pregnant, by her own body.Why would the female body be so resistant to getting pregnant if getting pregnant is the whole point? That doesn't make any sense. No, that's what Paul said to you. That he's into men, and not into women. He likes buff shoulders - but only on men.He proved you completely wrong about everything you thought was true about gay people, and you completely ignored him. What kind of friend are you, exactly? No, I don't. I'm into tits; I'm not attracted to fat guys.Which completely proves you wrong. I'm not attracted to just certain physical features. I'm attracted to those features when they're on the right sex - women, in my case. The breast-like curve of a fat man's man-boob isn't at all attractive to me.Which completely disproves the point you were trying to make. Explain how. Why would it be such a big deal that your girlfriend might "make a mistake", as you put it, by wearing jeans that don't flatter her? Such a big deal, in fact, that you would deliberately ignore her feelings and tell her what a fat ass she has?Why is it such a big deal that she might wear something unattractive? Because it would make you feel bad. It would make you look bad. So naturally, you have to hurt her feelings - because otherwise, she's about to hurt yours.Never mind that love is putting others first. You don't know what love is, because you're obsessed with your own feelings. You're a very selfish person, as far as I can tell. God forbid "your woman" walk out of the house in jeans that she thinks make her look good; you've got to let her know what a fat cow you think she is, "for her own good." No, it's for your own good - the only person's good you've ever bothered to think about, I'm sure.

quote:

---

Whoa, the evidence suggests the human body is a well designed machine for making complete healthy babies.

---

Actually, the female human body is not very well-designed for birthing babies.Not compared to most other mammals, that's for sure.

quote:

---

Your absolutely right. Embarrassing since I once aspired to become a writer and took 3 classes in college on progressive writing.

---

"Wow" is right, if you took that many writing classes in college, because you also substituted "your" when you should have used "you're" above.So...what, exactly, is progressive writing, if you don't mind me asking? I've never heard of it before.

This is almost too silly to comment on.So, according to your reliance on scientific evidence, when someone says, "I believe in God" or "I like cheese" you would not believe them.Excellent. I'm sure then, that you can provide EVIDENCE for every single statement of personal belief that you make on these boards henceforth.Back to the gay issue, in fact, there is evidence supporting the "born gay" hypothesis.Studies have shown a link between the number of old male siblings and incidents of homosexuality among males. That is to say, the more male children a woman produces, the more likely her later children are to be gay.Before you say this has something to do with growing up with lots of brothers, you should know that that was controlled for. There was no difference in the %s when dealing with children who were immediately given up for adoption and therefore had no exposure to the male siblings.The biochemical suggestion here is that the mothers exposure to testosterone during the pregnancy causes some sort of immuno response and the more exposres, the greater the response.This isn't to say that the first born male child couldnt be gay, nor is it to say that the 17th male child in a row couldn't be straight.However it does show that there is something happening to these children inutero which leads to the results.Care to offer a similiar study showing that homosexuals who claim to be born gay are in fact lying about it?

Damn double post!Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

No: it suggests that different people are different.Pop-psychological musings are pretty poor evidence for a theory.

Then if consent were really the indomitable factor, then why can't a son, of age, marry his mother, even if both parties are consenting? Answer: Consent does not determine the morality of something. Its one moral in a sea of morals.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Speak for yourself, Nem. I have been having the opinion for a while now that if a son is of certain age and can be prove to the rest of us that he has the ability to informed consent want to marry his mother, who also can demonstrate informed consent, then they ought to be able to get married.Call me a nutjob. I simply don't see any valid reason why I should have any right to tell these other adults what to do or not do with their personal lives as long as they don't hurt others.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Okay... You're a nutjob. In all seriousness though, society views it as immoral behavior. This isn't cultural bias either, as I've heard of no civilization where this practice has been accepted. (Not that the acceptance of something automatically makes it alright). People can do whatever they want in their private life. But it doesn't make it moral because its done so privately. Most murders and rapes are committed privately. But hey, if you want to smear peanut butter all over your boyfriend, while dousing yourself in squirrel urine, have your fill. But now you say that consent isn't the only catch-all moral standard, (that you use as an absolute way to test for the morality of something), but now you introduce pain too?I can then assume that masochism, even if the recipient and the giver are in agreement, is immoral?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias