[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


No. Being right handed or left handed doesn't realyl change a thing.

So as soon as your point is factually refuted, you brand it meaningless?  Interesting.

Originally posted by TrashMan
Being gay is actually rather "unnatural" (as in - not good for your species as a whole despite it accurring in nature. Mutations/defecta are common in nature...but animals with those usually die rather fast..

Actually, there's a significant percentage of homosexuality recorded in nature; natural selection indicates this cannot be a negative trait as it would likely be bred out, nor can it be attributed to random mutation due to the high odds of the same mutation occuring across a large population in such high numbers.

I think it was Black Wolf (one of the wolfs', anyways) that pointed out the survival advantages of homosexuality.

Originally posted by TrashMan


A not must be taken to differ between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour. Is it a sin?

Well, actually being gay? If it's genetic then no. If it's not, then probably.
But while anyone can have distinct urges he doesn't have to follow them - the best thing about a humn mind. Any normal man will turn after a goiod looking woman and will of course be tempted to "try her on for size".
buthe can simply say no. So can gay pople.
 so there is a difference between feeling such an attraction and actually indulging in it.

I'm not sure what your point is.  

The Christian (or otherwise) definition of a 'sin' - which itself varies across and within the religion itself - isn't relevant to applying the rights and wrongs of homosexuality on terms of human rights across the whole of society.

Originally posted by TrashMan


So was canibalism considered normal in some societies. Do you propose we accpet it as normal in our own society?

you'll find I already mentioned the issue of consensual behaviour and provative damage; it's highly unlikely you would find someone who was mentally sound (able to consent) and willing to be eaten.

So it's not a relevant comparison IMHO.

Originally posted by TrashMan


The whole issue here is is there any damage? How do you come to the conclusion that there is none and that they are functioning propoerly?
"It's not damaged, it's just different." Is it?

Yes.  Unless you care to define a factually supported, neutral damage caused to the individual or others.

Originally posted by TrashMan

You seem to define damages as only something that harms oneself of other individuals. So what? If i have a bening tumor that won't kill me or hamper me I am not damaged/sick?

Possibly.  A benign tumor, whilst not cancerous, can still grow and cause damage to surrounding organs.  13,000 people die from benign tumors in the US each year; hence benign tumors are often excised because of this possible harm.  This is a factually documented possible harm, of course; i.e. known damage and risk.

I think you misunderstood the meaning of 'benign tumor'.

Originally posted by TrashMan

Think about it this way - the basic function of a bilogical life is to grow and reproduce. homosexuals feel no atraction for the opposite sex, thus they are hampered when it comes to reproducing (it's not as easy for them as normal people).

They're still perfectly capable of the biological act, however.  Full set of testes, capable of erection & ejaculation, etc (and obviously also for the female equivalent).  And whether it be by a one-off consensual act or modern technology such as IV fertilisation, there's no biological bar to it, nor any lack of parental instinct.  The primary barrier is societal acceptance in this latter regard.

Although if the basic function of life is reproduction, then that would surely make marriage and monogamy wrong from a biological perspective, as it narrows the prospective gene pool for for offspring.

[Kazan]

to be more precise there is some survival advantage of bisexualism: allows for harmonious functioning of larger family groups - this would allow for genes that cause homosexualism to exist as well because, as we all know, homosexuals will occassionally copulate hetereosexually when they feel pressured to do so: as well as the fact that the genetics that encourage bisexualism can be the same ones that encourage homosexualism.

[Rictor]

I think that what he's getting at is that an individual is responsible for his behaviour not only as it applies to himself, but also as it applies to society, since society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. If a certain behaviour is neutral or desireable to the individual, but harmful to the society, then the social effects trump personal liberties. Many people have taken this stance in one form or another, from fascists to most leftists and in fact everyone exlcuding a small group of libertrarians. The question then becomes, is homosexuality harmful to society as a whole, and if so to what degree. As I understand it, the arguement is that if it is tolerated, that's one step away from it being encouraged. And if it is encouraged, it will eventually become widespread, and then there will be a problem.

[Kazan]

the idea that "if it is encourage, it will eventually become widespread" when applied to homosexuality is laughable.

you cannot "catch teh ghey"

Furthermore if something does demonstrable harm to another person then it does demonstrable harm to society.  Homosexuality doesn't do harm to anyone, therefore it doesn't do harm to society.

[Rictor]

I'm not saying I agreed, I just said that's the way I saw the arguement. Though if you take the approach that homosexuality is to some degree natural, then it being acceptable will likely result in it becoming more widespread. For example, if bestiality becoming socially acceptable, do you think that the number of people engaged in the practice would go up over a number of years? I think it works the same for most social issues, not specifically homosexuality.

[aldo_14]

Albeit, there's an issue of whether increasing societal tolerance at the moment has led to an increase in homosexuality or - as I think is more likely - an increase in the willingness of people to acknowledge their sexuality without fear of (as much) prejudice.

So you'd expect the number of openly gay people (that is, people who are honest about their sexuality and don't try to hide it) to increase, anyways.

[Kazan]

beastiality isn't a good analogy for homosexuality - a 'beast' cannot consent

if it was a societal thing you wouldn't have found the only son of the english king being a homosexual in the middle ages

[Rictor]

That's not the point Kaz. I wasn't arguing consent, I was arguing social tolerance. I could have said tatoos, as another example, or piercings, or short skirts, or swearing or a million other things. The point is that once something becomes OK, it will in most cases become more widespread than before, and often universal. Obviously, the desire must exist in people, otherwise they wouldn't do it, but desire is one thing and practice is another. Now, whether the desire is inate or a result of the environment in which the person lives and develops is arguable, but the general arguement stands regardless.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
That's not the point Kaz. I wasn't arguing consent, I was arguing social tolerance. I could have said tatoos, as another example, or piercings, or short skirts, or swearing or a million other things. The point is that once something becomes OK, it will in most cases become more widespread than before, and often universal. Obviously, the desire must exist in people, otherwise they wouldn't do it, but desire is one thing and practice is another. Now, whether the desire is inate or a result of the environment in which the person lives and develops is arguable, but the general arguement stands regardless.

The problem with the analogy, I think, is that there are very good reasons - factual reasons (i.e. belief or opinion based) -  for the illegality of beastiality regardless of social tolerance or otherwise.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Kazan
wasn't intentional - i didn't hit the C hard enough

Don't give me those chitty excuses.

[Kazan]

lol sandy

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Can someone actually tell me what the biblical reason for homosexuality being 'wrong' is?

They're the only people left to persecute. Now that it's almost universally considered to be wrong to be racist, sexist, intolerant of other religions etc the only last remaining thing the fire and brimstone preachers can unite behind is having a go at the gays.

Funnily enough being gay is just about the most ignored sin in the bible. I can't think of any supposedly major sin that gets less attention. (Don't bother with Sodom and Gomorrah The crime there was all kinds of other wickedness including what appears to be wanting to have sex with angels against the angels wishes).

Although there are tons of rules about what to do with gays there isn't a single story where any of those laws are actually enforced anyway.

[Ford Prefect]

The crime there was all kinds of other wickedness including what appears to be wanting to have sex with angels against the angels wishes).

Oh baby....

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Hm.. While yes, I am addicted to God... you could say religion is an addiction

"A local boy kicked me in the butt last week,
I just smiled at him and I turned the other cheek.
I really don't care, in fact I wish him well,
coause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in hell!"

At the risk of stating a flame war, that just sounds like an excuse for not standing up for yourself.

[aldo_14]

Turning the other cheek is a nice enough philosphy with regards to provocation, but it's not really an appropriate action if you have any conviction of your beliefs and can actually handle them being challenged.

[Kazan]

Roanoke: eh... it's hubris and arrogance - but the concept behind it [only fighting when you must] is sound

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by Kazan
Roanoke: eh... it's hubris and arrogance - but the concept behind it [only fighting when you must] is sound

Well I do Karate so I know all about only fighting when it's absolutley necessary but if being kicked in the arse isn't provocation I dunno what is.

It also points to the other view of "trusting in god".
That really does my head in sometimes (though I obviously don't throw this in peoples faces). I mean, why trust in God ? Why not trust in yourself to make the right decisions, do the right thing, whatever ?

[Kazan]

Roanoke: because some people have an insatiable need for authoritarian control of their lives

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14
So as soon as your point is factually refuted, you brand it meaningless?  Interesting.

No. Nothing is refuted. Being left handed or right handed simply doesn't affect anything even remotely significant.

Actually, there's a significant percentage of homosexuality recorded in nature; natural selection indicates this cannot be a negative trait as it would likely be bred out, nor can it be attributed to random mutation due to the high odds of the same mutation occuring across a large population in such high numbers.

I think it was Black Wolf (one of the wolfs', anyways) that pointed out the survival advantages of homosexuality.

That's my point. Homosexuality appears in nature. It cannot be bread out since it's not an inherative trait.
Geneticdamage accures quite often thouhg.

On the oter hand, as some of you here said, animals don't have the emotional or especially mental complexity of us humans.
And homosexuality still appears by creatures with the brains the size of peas.
If it were the product of complex effects from our sorroundings (upbringing)  why would then animals be so affected too?

Yes.  Unless you care to define a factually supported, neutral damage caused to the individual or others.

So when a man is born with 6 fingers and it doesn't hamper him at least. you still wouldn't say it was mutation/genetic damaged - that he is "damaged" in some way?

They're still perfectly capable of the biological act, however.  Full set of testes, capable of erection & ejaculation, etc (and obviously also for the female equivalent).  And whether it be by a one-off consensual act or modern technology such as IV fertilisation, there's no biological bar to it, nor any lack of parental instinct.  The primary barrier is societal acceptance in this latter regard.

But they need a third party to facilitate it. I would call it a step backwards.

Although if the basic function of life is reproduction, then that would surely make marriage and monogamy wrong from a biological perspective, as it narrows the prospective gene pool for for offspring.

I don't know about that.. We humans are stunningly diverse yet we have been living motly monogamus for a long time.

besides a smalelr family ensures more focus and care on the offspring. and mroe resources spanetn on each offspring.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Roanoke

At the risk of stating a flame war, that just sounds like an excuse for not standing up for yourself.

LOL..that's just a verse from a comical song I was listening "Amnish Paradise" by Wierd Al Yankowhich.

I posted it sine I though it funny