Jump to content

Homosexuals

Lkr

By Lkr,
in The Big Issues [Real Life]

 Share
99 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alessandro17
Alessandro17
Posted
Posted
Aless you keep on saying that {censored} people can have children, so thus it's not bad for society, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that many homosexuals have hetero sex to make children..... they're homosexual..... they don't like people of the opposite sex... so why would they have sex with them?

 

I believed this was quite clear by now. Study ancient Greece: homosexuality was "better", sex between a man and a woman was done in order to have children.

 

 

Yeah, Alessandro17, I get the feeling you really like those monkeys ;)

 

Yes I do :D

 

As I have said many times, they could be a great example for mankind:

 

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/bonobo/bonobo.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest h2a
Guest h2a
Posted
Posted

This argument is phrased different ways, from the cliche (e.g. "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve") to the vulgar (e.g. various comments about "plumbing"). The argument is the same: Our bodies were designed to interact in a certain way, so we shouldn't use them in any other way.

 

It's certainly true that our bodies were designed with heterosexuality in mind; that's how new human beings come into the world. I don't think anyone can deny that heterosexual sex is the way our bodies were built to function.

 

Our ears and mouths were designed so we could communicate - we listen, and we talk. Every culture on earth communicates this way. But some people are deaf, maybe because they were born that way or maybe because of something that happened to them. Either way, they can't communicate the way the rest of us do, so they have to improvise with what they have. Most deaf people today use sign language to communicate, and even though that's not what our hands were designed for, it gets the job done. None of us would call that "wrong"

 

The argument that "you shouldn't do that because that wasn't the way we're designed" is really more of an excuse than a real argument. If anything becomes wrong just because it wasn't part of the original design or creation, we'd have to condemn wheelchairs, makeup, open-heart surgery, bicycles, acrobatics, pre-packaged foods... well, you get the idea.

 

As far as the "sex is for pro-creation arguement--

Sex is for other purposes as well; it forms a bond between people and is a marital responsibility. Procreation is only one part of the reason for sex, and many couples have sex on a regular basis without ever conceiving (sometimes by choice; other times not).

 

Couples are allowed to have sex even when they know they are infertile, and fertile couples can deliberately plan their sexual encounters at times they know they will not conceive (known as "natural family planning"), as long as they don't use condoms or other so-called "artificial" means of birth control. Why should sex by an infertile couple be considered "open to procreation" when sex with a spermicide isn't? Is Natural Family Planning considered acceptable only because it is less reliable? (If condoms were less reliable, would they be acceptable?) Is there really anything "open to procreation" about a couple who know they are infertile because of physical deformities, age, medical conditions, previous surgery, or any other reason?

 

If you're going to use this argument, you'd have to condemn sterile heterosexual relationships just as strongly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
killbot1000
killbot1000
Posted
Posted
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say homosexuality is wrong or right by any means, I'm just saying that it most likely would not benefit evolution of the human race. When strict homosexuality is practiced by two people, their genes aren't passed on. End of story.

That is it. ^

 

 

One word...Technology! Adopted or not, parents are parents. The fact that we share blood with our parents is actually quite UNIMPORTANT. It is literally the least important part of being a parent (but most people confuse it with the most important part) which is that you actually do a good job raising your child (empathy, critical thinking, compassion, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
killbot1000
killbot1000
Posted
Posted
"normal", you mean like little timmy the kid who is "special"? lol

 

Its normal enough, and it happens a lot more than people think. Also, it used to happen A LOT more than it does now because it used to be socially encouraged rather than scorned (not that I think that's good either, it should be a non-issue altogether).

 

Normal Enough...

 

Timmy isn't "special" enough to actually be called special. He might be special in his own "special" way but that doesn't mean he's ACTUALLY special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietOC
QuietOC
Posted
Posted

We should recognize that masculinity and feminity are social contructs. The site that Alessandro17 linked to that discussed the behaviorial differences between bonobos and chimpanzis partially illustrates (and confusses) this with these genetic relatives of humans. Anthropology shows us that our modern western culture is not typical.

 

I am not surprised that there are genetic indicators for people who are predominately attracted to their own sex, but it is a mistake to see genetic determism apart from cultural determinism. The reality is that genetics do not operate alone in the area of human activity. Our genes determine part of our individualness, but not the sum total of it. Our evironment (culture) partly determines us, and we are partly able to determine ourselves.

 

What attracts you sexually is both somewhat your own choice and somewhat handed to you. None of that really has much bearing on whether your current sexual condition is particularly good. I see no reason to embrace human homosexuality as good in itself, but there is every reason for supporting homosexuals. It is also possible to address the environmental factors that are involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mifki
mifki
Posted
Posted

Just because it happens a {censored} load doesnt mean its normal. Im not saying that homosexuals are freaks, im just saying that you cant call them "normal". People with red hair on the other hand, are freaks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alessandro17
Alessandro17
Posted
Posted
Just because it happens a {censored} load doesnt mean its normal. Im not saying that homosexuals are freaks, im just saying that you cant call them "normal".

 

Your strong prejudice could suggest that you have homosexual desires yourself :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mifki
mifki
Posted
Posted

It isnt prejudice alessandro, its just illogical to call something so illogical normal. but then again you have to be able to define what normal is.

 

btw, how did you know about my strong urges? i thought they were a secret :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mebster
Mebster
Posted
Posted
You're just saying that because I'm ginger ;)

 

;)

Mate, your homosexual and ginger? Damn you must have got bullied a lot in school :P

 

Isn't this like the 7th 70th homosexual topic in Real Life?

 

 

EDIT: You're right MoC ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
(MoC)
(MoC)
Posted
Posted
Mate, your homosexual and ginger? Damn you must have got bullied a lot in school ;)

 

Isn't this like the 7th homosexual topic in Real Life?

 

I don't know maybe like higher than that ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alessandro17
Alessandro17
Posted
Posted
The only purpose I can see is that it gives pleasure.... again, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

On the contrary, it is very common to fall in love with persons of the same gender when you are a kid or a teen. Sex comes only after, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
killbot1000
killbot1000
Posted
Posted
Looking at this from a purely "nature" view..... homosexuality makes no sense. The only purpose I can see is that it gives pleasure.... again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Dude, from a purely "nature" view PLENTY OF THINGS WE DO MAKES NO SENSE:Videogames, Humor, drugs/alcohol, Computers, Reading books, going to a dance party, etc.The list goes on forever. This point of trying to say that from a "nature" standpoint homosexuality "makes no sense", what does it even mean? Do you even know what you're talking about?This point has been brought up about 4 times by now, somebody comes out here and says "oh but from a nature standpoint (whatever that means) homosexuality doesn't make any sense" and somebody is always quick to step in and say "oh but ________ _________ and _________ aren't natural either (including monogamy)" and then after that we get no reply except "yeah...but from a nature standpoint homosexuality doesn't make any sense"Would some of you guys please just be honest and just say that you don't like homosexuals simply for the fact that they ARE homosexuals, instead of practicing prejudice while at the same time trying to pretend like you are tolerant.You and many others just don't get it, many of us have tried to explain this logically and reasonably, but it obviously falls on deaf ears.
On the contrary, it is very common to fall in love with persons of the same gender when you are a kid or a teen. Sex comes only after, if at all.
On the contrary, it is very common to fall in love with persons when you are a kid or teen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AbsoFokinlutely
AbsoFokinlutely
Posted
Posted

Right. Surely it doesn't matter what makes somebody happy so long as it doesn't harm somebody else, and homosexuality harms nobody, so there's no cause to make anything of it, it's just a characteristic like any other that should not be fussed over

 

 

 

....^ :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...