|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:18 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:19, 21 May 2014.
|
Homosexuals CAN reproduce, a genetic tendency to homosexuality would not indicate they are incapable of having sex with the opposite gender. And all genetic tendencies are not beneficial, if you have a family line with lots of people who have diabetes for example, you are more likely to be diabetic. The evolutionary process would be, if diabetes reduces the chance of survival dramatically, that line of people would be extinct in the long run. But the conditions may turn a seemingly disadvantage into an advantage sometimes, for example people with a certain type of anemia were immune to the plague. Just like that (and totally speculating on a hypothetical basis) a tendency to homosexuality may result in you surviving a disease that spreads through intercourse with the opposite sex.
Also, you first claim that homosexuality is not a natural tendency and then you claim it was common before Christianity. Why was it common before Christianity, if a tendency does not exist at all? And why would it exist now, or whenever, at all? Why would homosexuals CHOOSE to be so, when it most likely means problems with their family, hatred from conservative masses and in some countries, even being persecuted by the law? I'm not even mentioning that they'd have to suppress their desire for the opposite sex all the time for no reason at all.
Edit: Damn, JJ beat me to it 
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:18 AM |
|
|
I will answer to the first post with an analogy.
I can say now that my favourite fruits are peaches. At the time of my birth not me, my parents or anyone else knew that; that is something I discovered myself; was it due to the fact of how I was raised or did society influence it in any way? No, it is just a preference. Can someone make me like another fruit better? No. Can I make other people prefer peaches to their favourite fruit? No. Do I have anything to criticise about people who prefer other fruits? No. Should they have something against my preference? No. Does this preference affect people around us? No.
So as long as it is a free world, people should discover their own preferences and not be judged for it.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:32 AM |
|
|
JJ said:
We have also gay behavior with ANIMALS; is there any reason for ANIMALS to CHOOSE being gay?
This is also something that refutes Xerox's claim, not just the religious one. Since animals, even the relatively intelligent ones such as higher mammals can't have a social construct as abstract as heteronormativity, if heterosexuality/homosexuality were not separate genders, all of them would be bisexual. But homosexuality in higher mammals is not observed in that pattern.
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:48 AM |
|
|
Animals have sex within the same gender for totally different reasons:
first that comes to mind is to eliminate reproductive tensions/ frustrations (male lions cannot jerk off); not saying that people would do the same if they couldn't but then again not all people in prisons are gay and still some of them have sexual intercourse with the same gender while some stick to the "manual" side of things.
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:48 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 10:49, 21 May 2014.
|
Show me that genetic tendency artu. There is none. All tendencies are socially constructed. Didn't Xerox say he really wanted traditional family with a wife and kids? He failed, so he turned gay. Someone, iirc, CONVINCED him he was gay, where's the genetic tendency here?
artu said:
Also, you first claim that homosexuality is not a natural tendency and then you claim it was common before Christianity. Why was it common before Christianity, if a tendency does not exist at all?
Because women were viewed as inferior. They were objects for men. Something that again only Christianity changed. Read some history for Allah's sake.
JollyJoker said:
We have also gay behavior with ANIMALS; is there any reason for ANIMALS to CHOOSE being gay?
Just going to bother with this since it's so frequently used as an argument. The rest don't lit a candle. Animals don't practice homosexuality at the exclusion of heterosexuality, unlike humans. That means they're bisexual. Their instinct is not reproduction, but rather fukcing. So it is not a matter of choice for them to begging with, they don't chose being gay over being straight, they just want pleasure.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:06 AM |
|
|
Yes, the 2000 year-old gender equality and women rights presented by Christianity is the first thing you learn when you pick up history books. Also verses like "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" are from the works of Vergilius.
In a herd of Gorillas, some have homosexual tendencies and some don't. The ones who have it may also have intercourse with the opposite sex (just as I told you) but they are not all bisexual, I even vaguely remember Corribus giving a percentage about sheep to Elodin on another thread, it was something like 10 percent...
And why would Xerox give up on his dream of a traditional family at the age of 19 and spend the rest of his life sleeping with people he doesn't want to? And does not being able to establish a family means you cant sleep with women anymore?
Can you get even one thing right...
watcher83 said:
Animals have sex within the same gender for totally different reasons:
first that comes to mind is to eliminate reproductive tensions/ frustrations (male lions cannot jerk off); not saying that people would do the same if they couldn't but then again not all people in prisons are gay and still some of them have sexual intercourse with the same gender while some stick to the "manual" side of things.
This is also ONE OF THE reasons. But if there was NO heterosexuality, would that be the case?
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:07 AM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 11:16, 21 May 2014.
|
artu said:
Well, being raised as a Catholic has something to do with heteronormativity. I mean, I'm not suggesting that all Catholics think exactly the same about the subject but if someone specifically defines her upbringing as Catholic, it is quite reasonable to assume her parents probably didn't support the idea that being gay was perfectly acceptable and as normal as being heterosexual.
Well, as much as I hate to quote older posts I'm going to tell you something about Catholics.
The common myth is that the Catholic curch condemns the very notion of homosexuality, but if you actually read the Cathechism you'll see that the only thing that is condemned is homosexual sex.
I may hear you say that will go against your freedom but we straight don't get any more freedom. Homosexual sex is a sin of Lust but also Fornication (unmarried sex) Adultery, Pedophilia, Bestiality and Sodomy.
I'm taking into account what St.Paul said and how it is used as an argument of Homophobia in Catholicism:
Quote:
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,
men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
It may seem a contradiction, the fact that I say that it isn't against the homosexual in itself, but it says indecent acts, the very act of lust which as I said is condemned. Mostly it's the broad interpretation that was given to this passage that led to the idea of intolerance. The homosexuals that are condemned are the ones that openly commit to sin and can't control themselves, but that also happens to straight people who in life weren't capable of controlling themselves.
Also, even if you are married you can't have sex at your leisure, because it's still Lust, the only situation in which it's allowed to do that is to procreate, that's the reason the Catholic Curch allows marriage only to a couple made by a man and a woman.
Now, unless suddenly homosexuals start to have uteruses (how do you spell that?), according to the Church they must live in continence, and can't marry, but if you are one and live by this rule you are pretty much safe.
Before you spew anything about Catholic being homophobes read something about their doctrine, because homosexuals are affected as much as straight people, the real culprit for this mess is, as always, the people and their ignorant superstitions.
But can we blame them? Those were times in which it was required to have as many kids as possible and having someone who wouldn't procreate would be a big brake to families that required more children.
Addendum::
artu said:
Yes, the 2000 year-old gender equality and women rights presented by Christianity is the first thing you learn when you pick up history books. Also verses like "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" are from the works of Vergilius.
You forgot "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it" that immediately follows and then "So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.".
SECOND EDIT:: I fell into sarcasm, removed the part about Vergilius
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:19 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:23, 21 May 2014.
|
Neraus, we had a very similar discussion with someone else (cant remember who now) and this argument is not new to me, I am aware of it.
But the thing is, I think it is too far a stretch and interpretation and it is not different then the new Pope saying atheists can go to heaven, too. It is a PR move motivated by the spirit of our times, rather than an objective interpretation of a text. When you look at the practices, history and pre-modern theological approach of all Abrahamic religions, they condemn homosexuality. Of course, people will find many many ways to interpret their religion as our moral values change through time, but when you are not religious, you feel no need to apply to these new readings which are usually just pushing it too far.
Quote:
You forgot "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it" that immediately follows and then "So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.".
That doesn't indicate equality, it indicates affection, which is not something unique to Christianity. Equality of genders is quite a modern concept and in no reasonable way, it can be started out with Christianity. Women couldn't even own land or vote only 150 years ago.
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:27 AM |
|
|
I do not know what you mean with "if there was no heterosexuality"
but the way I see things is that reproduction is the way all living things move forward ( as oposed to becoming extinct).
With (let's call them) superior life forms, reproduction requires the participation of the 2 genres - male& female; and is generically called mating. This is an instinct of survival which makes all species be bound to this natural law. THIS is not being heterosexual.
When discussing humans and other more evolved beings, the mating activity has also shown that it brings pleasure/satisfaction etc
So mating is mating and sex has become something else, let's call it a pleasure that people seek to fulfill. Doing this with the opposite gender it's called heterosexuality while prefering to achieve this pleasure with the same gender is called homosexuality.
So, in conclusion MATING is an instinct while SEX is a pleasure which gives rise to preferences.
____________
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:29 AM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 11:33, 21 May 2014.
|
Was this argument already done!?
Damn i'm a noob, and can't recognize sarcasm.
But, doctrine is an extremely vast realm of discussion and I just wanted to clear a bit the fog about Catholics.
You just call that affection, but you need to love her as your flesh, and I doubt you would torture your own flesh.
The older equality of women was different, but Christianity gave a new level of rights to women compared to their contemporaries.
Romans/Greek/Persians/Hebrew allowed concubinate, divorcing your wife or even killing her for adultery. With Christians and their indissoluble marriage there was a change at least.
Now, I once found a study about this subject, if you want I can dig it up but since it's in Italian I'll have to translate it to you.
EDIT:: While I'm at it i'll post another of St.Paul statements
St.Paul said:
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
But let's not diverge too much from the topic at hand.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:44 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:51, 21 May 2014.
|
watcher83 said:
I do not know what you mean with "if there was no heterosexuality"
I'm referring to this.
Neraus said:
You just call that affection, but you need to love her as your flesh, and I doubt you would torture your own flesh.
The older equality of women was different, but Christianity gave a new level of rights to women compared to their contemporaries.
Not to torture someone is not exactly accepting her as an equal. Torturing your slaves can be banned, too. And I'm sure at some point it was, before slavery completely vanished.
I agree that if you take the story of Jesus (even if it is not historically accurate and when we skip the mythological part), it is a very humanitarian story. So, it probably caused many improvements about the way women were treated in many cases. "Let the first one without any sin throw the first stone" is a good example of that. But don't get carried away, "women not being seen as the inferior gender" is a whole different level.
Also, not every pre-Christian culture treated women like snow.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:57 AM |
|
|
Right. Still, simple question:
if it's all CHOICE - why isn't everyone being bi? And make no mistake - why would there even have been anti-gay laws and commandments in the first place or rules and regulations about how you have to be hetero, if it was all a choice. There is no either-or, isn't there?
So why would you even pick one over the other? Sounds somewhat silly, actually.
Even now - why would someone CHOOSE to be gay (only)? For a male at least (from my male perspective), "sorry, I don't do girls" sounds a lot sillier than, "I also do boys occasionally, mind you."
Come to think of it, for a girl it would seem to sound even sillier.
Why lose all those opportunities WILLINGLY?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 12:41 PM |
|
|
Is that rhetoric supposed to be an argument JJ?
@artu: Why did you dodge the most important part of my argument? WHERE IS THE GENETIC TENDENCY?
Also, in regards to equality, Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them."
Both created in the image of God. That means created equally. And it's in the first chapter of the first book in the Bible. Cherry pick that one. ALSO, in case you might get confused, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between EQUALITY and AUTHORITY. If you can't figure that out, I'm not willing to draw it for you.
watcher83 said:
So, in conclusion MATING is an instinct while SEX is a pleasure which gives rise to preferences.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 12:42 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:30, 21 May 2014.
|
Btw, Xerox, to clarify, you say:
Quote:
We're all more or less bisexual
Do you formulate that as, without any social construct, we are all simply bisexual
OR
do you mean, nobody is 100 percent gay or straight.
What I mean is, if we make a quantification to simplify, if Male A has tendencies of 97 percent attraction to females and 3 percent to males (he once looked at a picture of a man and felt weird), Male B has 80 percent attraction to females and 20 percent to males (he goes experimental during college years etc etc), Male C has 50/50 attraction (a regular bisexual) and Male D has 90 percent attraction to males (gay as a rainbow),
do you still call all of these people would-be bisexuals without the social construct or do you think there is a threshold which substantiates your gender?
@Stevie
If you are going to dismiss almost 2000 years of inequality by something as opaque as "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them." which does not even mention equality, just to delude yourself into believing everything good on this Earth comes from your religion, go ahead. There are MATRIARCHAL societies that existed before Christianity.
I don't know what you mean by where is the genetic tendency, do you want me to draw you a picture of the homosexual gene?! If a natural tendency is concluded, it is the result our genes, just like our other natural tendencies. Our different traits are the result of the differences between our genes. Since Corribus said, he will link the most recent studies tomorrow, I think it's best to wait for his links, since he is the scientist and he will find the most reliable data. A little bit patience.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 12:45 PM |
|
|
I don't think past data can be used on this question unless that past data gets verified within some reasonable time period. What a 55 year old did during college may have no impact on his preferences today.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 01:46 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:43, 21 May 2014.
|
artu said:
If you are going to dismiss almost 2000 years of inequality by something as opaque as "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them." which does not even mention equality, just to delude yourself into believing everything good on this Earth comes from your religion, go ahead. There are MATRIARCHAL societies that existed before Christianity.
I don't know what you mean by where is the genetic tendency, do you want me to draw you a picture of the homosexual gene?! If a natural tendency is concluded, it is the result our genes, just like our other natural tendencies. Our different traits are the result of the differences between our genes. Since Corribus said, he will link the most recent studies tomorrow, I think it's best to wait for his links, since he is the scientist and he will find the most reliable data. A little bit patience.
So when it says they were made the same, the idea of equality is opaque, because they could have as well been created the same but inequal. Really! And I'm quoting Genesis, which was written before the new testament, and which took place FROM THE BEGINNING! Can you please tell me one matriarchal society that predates that? No you can't! So I suppose you'll just say the usual "I don't buy into your myths", right? It's your only choice to ignore the argument.
Oh, please do! If you can't can you at least point it to me? I'm sure there are a lot of gay sites which you visit and have tons of posters with it, right? Because unarguably the existence of the gay gene, which you are subtly implying, is a proven fact. Right? THERE IS NO ****ing GAY GENE. I can't say it better than that.
"Our different traits are the result of the differences between our genes." Such a load of crap. Is your personality encoded in your genes? But sexuality is? Stop kiddin yourself.
Mod Edit: Please do not bypass the language filters.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:15 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:44, 21 May 2014.
|
Quote:
THERE IS NO ****ING GAY GENE. I can't say it better than that.
No, you evidently can't.
Mod Edit: Edited for language.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:19 PM |
|
|
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:20 PM |
|
|
It was only fitting. And I warned you not to stir me on the subject.
Too many minds have been brainwashed by this stupid gay gene propaganda.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:25 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
"Our different traits are the result of the differences between our genes." Such a load of crap. Is your personality encoded in your genes? But sexuality is? Stop kiddin yourself.
If I might add, the presence of gay gene means that it must have been inherited from someone, but if you think about it being gay means you are less likely to reproduce since you may abstain from mating with a woman, so we can assume that not all who have this gene passed it on, we can also assume that not all of the children would result in having this gene, if we multiply this effect on all possible combinations that happened through history this gene would have probably vanished or exist in a really small part of the world's population.
Also,there could be the possibility of homosexuality as a result of a malfunctioning Y chromosome , but for a Y chromosome to be malfunctioning it would mean that gay people aren't normal, nor natural and would have genetic disorders making them even more of a pariah in a society where having trisomy-21 is seen as a damage.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
