How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong?

[PratchettFan]

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

If you are going to talk about procreation, then macro is all that matters. Whether you or I procreate makes no difference, so long as enough people do it to continue the species. If micro mattered, then every female would be attracted to every male, and vice versa.

Your suggestion about breeding does not hold up. If the population becomes so dense children are dying from starvation, then passing on genes becomes irrelevant. Further, homosexuality would be a trait handed down making the percentage drop until it simply died out entirely. That is clearly not the case.

The micro is what creates the macro. You forget that the rest of the species lack our awareness, and thus any concept of the macro.

Your point is homosexuality is a programmed limiter to a species population growth, my response is that if natural selection is true, the limiter must be tied to something else, something not as desirable in a population under some outside stress.

Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it could be a spontaneous common mutation is a genetic code, something that doesn't have to be passed down.

Or it can be nurture instead, rendering the genetic aspect of this conversation moot, but still making it something of a biological liability in general.

No, my point is that there are multiple possible explanations and we have no idea which, if any, are correct. But that it is natural really should not be up for debate, at least from a biological point of view.

Why not? If we are discussing purely biological concepts, without a moral component, why is there such a need to consider homosexuality "Right"? Again, my near-sightedness is wrong biologically, as was my social awkwardness growing up, when it comes to the cold hard logic of species and DNA propagation.

If this is a concern over giving people an in to go after homosexuality from a moral standpoint, I have news for you, telling them its biologically "right" even if that was the case, isn't going to sway them.

I never said it was right. You said it was wrong. I said it just is. You are applying a moral term to a biological issue. Now, you might argue that a near sighted person is less likely to survive in the wild, but humans pretty much don't live in the wild and it is not a big problem for us. However, the only thing you have presented about homosexuality is that two people of the same sex can't procreate. But homosexuals procreate all the time. Just not with each other. So again, not a problem.

 

[martybegan]

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

If you are going to talk about procreation, then macro is all that matters. Whether you or I procreate makes no difference, so long as enough people do it to continue the species. If micro mattered, then every female would be attracted to every male, and vice versa.

Your suggestion about breeding does not hold up. If the population becomes so dense children are dying from starvation, then passing on genes becomes irrelevant. Further, homosexuality would be a trait handed down making the percentage drop until it simply died out entirely. That is clearly not the case.

The micro is what creates the macro. You forget that the rest of the species lack our awareness, and thus any concept of the macro.

Your point is homosexuality is a programmed limiter to a species population growth, my response is that if natural selection is true, the limiter must be tied to something else, something not as desirable in a population under some outside stress.

Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it could be a spontaneous common mutation is a genetic code, something that doesn't have to be passed down.

Or it can be nurture instead, rendering the genetic aspect of this conversation moot, but still making it something of a biological liability in general.

No, my point is that there are multiple possible explanations and we have no idea which, if any, are correct. But that it is natural really should not be up for debate, at least from a biological point of view.

Why not? If we are discussing purely biological concepts, without a moral component, why is there such a need to consider homosexuality "Right"? Again, my near-sightedness is wrong biologically, as was my social awkwardness growing up, when it comes to the cold hard logic of species and DNA propagation.

If this is a concern over giving people an in to go after homosexuality from a moral standpoint, I have news for you, telling them its biologically "right" even if that was the case, isn't going to sway them.

I never said it was right. You said it was wrong. I said it just is. You are applying a moral term to a biological issue. Now, you might argue that a near sighted person is less likely to survive in the wild, but humans pretty much don't live in the wild and it is not a big problem for us. However, the only thing you have presented about homosexuality is that two people of the same sex can't procreate. But homosexuals procreate all the time. Just not with each other. So again, not a problem.

What I am saying is that homosexual desires are a detriment to the continuation of a species, and to the continuation of a specific genetic line. People with glasses can procreate too, but without our current technology they would be less likely to do so, either via competitions for mates, or even surviving to reproductive maturity.

Right and wrong may be moral terms, but the point is from a propagation purpose, Homosexual desires do not make any sense. In that connotation they are "wrong" or at least not normal.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you are going to talk about procreation, then macro is all that matters. Whether you or I procreate makes no difference, so long as enough people do it to continue the species. If micro mattered, then every female would be attracted to every male, and vice versa.

Your suggestion about breeding does not hold up. If the population becomes so dense children are dying from starvation, then passing on genes becomes irrelevant. Further, homosexuality would be a trait handed down making the percentage drop until it simply died out entirely. That is clearly not the case.

The micro is what creates the macro. You forget that the rest of the species lack our awareness, and thus any concept of the macro.

Your point is homosexuality is a programmed limiter to a species population growth, my response is that if natural selection is true, the limiter must be tied to something else, something not as desirable in a population under some outside stress.

Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it could be a spontaneous common mutation is a genetic code, something that doesn't have to be passed down.

Or it can be nurture instead, rendering the genetic aspect of this conversation moot, but still making it something of a biological liability in general.

No, my point is that there are multiple possible explanations and we have no idea which, if any, are correct. But that it is natural really should not be up for debate, at least from a biological point of view.

Why not? If we are discussing purely biological concepts, without a moral component, why is there such a need to consider homosexuality "Right"? Again, my near-sightedness is wrong biologically, as was my social awkwardness growing up, when it comes to the cold hard logic of species and DNA propagation.

If this is a concern over giving people an in to go after homosexuality from a moral standpoint, I have news for you, telling them its biologically "right" even if that was the case, isn't going to sway them.

I never said it was right. You said it was wrong. I said it just is. You are applying a moral term to a biological issue. Now, you might argue that a near sighted person is less likely to survive in the wild, but humans pretty much don't live in the wild and it is not a big problem for us. However, the only thing you have presented about homosexuality is that two people of the same sex can't procreate. But homosexuals procreate all the time. Just not with each other. So again, not a problem.

What I am saying is that homosexual desires are a detriment to the continuation of a species, and to the continuation of a specific genetic line. People with glasses can procreate too, but without our current technology they would be less likely to do so, either via competitions for mates, or even surviving to reproductive maturity.

Right and wrong may be moral terms, but the point is from a propagation purpose, Homosexual desires do not make any sense. In that connotation they are "wrong" or at least not normal.

I know what you are saying. I am saying it really doesn't stand up.

 

[martybegan]

The micro is what creates the macro. You forget that the rest of the species lack our awareness, and thus any concept of the macro.

Your point is homosexuality is a programmed limiter to a species population growth, my response is that if natural selection is true, the limiter must be tied to something else, something not as desirable in a population under some outside stress.

Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it could be a spontaneous common mutation is a genetic code, something that doesn't have to be passed down.

Or it can be nurture instead, rendering the genetic aspect of this conversation moot, but still making it something of a biological liability in general.

No, my point is that there are multiple possible explanations and we have no idea which, if any, are correct. But that it is natural really should not be up for debate, at least from a biological point of view.

Why not? If we are discussing purely biological concepts, without a moral component, why is there such a need to consider homosexuality "Right"? Again, my near-sightedness is wrong biologically, as was my social awkwardness growing up, when it comes to the cold hard logic of species and DNA propagation.

If this is a concern over giving people an in to go after homosexuality from a moral standpoint, I have news for you, telling them its biologically "right" even if that was the case, isn't going to sway them.

I never said it was right. You said it was wrong. I said it just is. You are applying a moral term to a biological issue. Now, you might argue that a near sighted person is less likely to survive in the wild, but humans pretty much don't live in the wild and it is not a big problem for us. However, the only thing you have presented about homosexuality is that two people of the same sex can't procreate. But homosexuals procreate all the time. Just not with each other. So again, not a problem.

What I am saying is that homosexual desires are a detriment to the continuation of a species, and to the continuation of a specific genetic line. People with glasses can procreate too, but without our current technology they would be less likely to do so, either via competitions for mates, or even surviving to reproductive maturity.

Right and wrong may be moral terms, but the point is from a propagation purpose, Homosexual desires do not make any sense. In that connotation they are "wrong" or at least not normal.

I know what you are saying. I am saying it really doesn't stand up.

How does it not "Stand up"? Is this because you don't want it to be the case, or you have a viable alternative explanation? Again, morality has no part in this, its all about biology and the mechanisms used to propagate both a species and a DNA line.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, my point is that there are multiple possible explanations and we have no idea which, if any, are correct. But that it is natural really should not be up for debate, at least from a biological point of view.

Why not? If we are discussing purely biological concepts, without a moral component, why is there such a need to consider homosexuality "Right"? Again, my near-sightedness is wrong biologically, as was my social awkwardness growing up, when it comes to the cold hard logic of species and DNA propagation.

If this is a concern over giving people an in to go after homosexuality from a moral standpoint, I have news for you, telling them its biologically "right" even if that was the case, isn't going to sway them.

I never said it was right. You said it was wrong. I said it just is. You are applying a moral term to a biological issue. Now, you might argue that a near sighted person is less likely to survive in the wild, but humans pretty much don't live in the wild and it is not a big problem for us. However, the only thing you have presented about homosexuality is that two people of the same sex can't procreate. But homosexuals procreate all the time. Just not with each other. So again, not a problem.

What I am saying is that homosexual desires are a detriment to the continuation of a species, and to the continuation of a specific genetic line. People with glasses can procreate too, but without our current technology they would be less likely to do so, either via competitions for mates, or even surviving to reproductive maturity.

Right and wrong may be moral terms, but the point is from a propagation purpose, Homosexual desires do not make any sense. In that connotation they are "wrong" or at least not normal.

I know what you are saying. I am saying it really doesn't stand up.

How does it not "Stand up"? Is this because you don't want it to be the case, or you have a viable alternative explanation? Again, morality has no part in this, its all about biology and the mechanisms used to propagate both a species and a DNA line.

It does not stand up because you provide nothing to support it except surmise. I provided you with other theories just as plausible. It's not even a theory - just an untested hypothesis.

 

[rcfieldz]

Some may say homosexuals are persons under the influence of satanic entities or spirits. Being possessed by the Devil is one belief.

 

[PratchettFan]

Some may say homosexuals are persons under the influence of satanic entities or spirits. Being possessed by the Devil is one belief.

And they would be wrong.

 

[rcfieldz]

Some may say homosexuals are persons under the influence of satanic entities or spirits. Being possessed by the Devil is one belief.

And they would be wrong.

Ah a non-believer. Just horny queers right.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Queers have killed 660,000 Americans by spreading AIDS while infecting two million others (nearly all people of color) who'll probably die of the disease, and they spread STD's at a rate anywhere from 4X to 15X that of any other American demographic. Oh those poor little innocent queers. They don't hurt anybody with their gross irresponsibility and self-indulgence. Give me a break! And while you're doing that, go pay a visit to the CDC. Guess which demographic in the US is spreading AIDS faster than any other...again? WHITE QUEERS. Real shocker, huh? NOT.

on a side note

it may turn out that the hiv virus

may hold the cure to cancer

 

[rcfieldz]

Queers have killed 660,000 Americans by spreading AIDS while infecting two million others (nearly all people of color) who'll probably die of the disease, and they spread STD's at a rate anywhere from 4X to 15X that of any other American demographic. Oh those poor little innocent queers. They don't hurt anybody with their gross irresponsibility and self-indulgence. Give me a break! And while you're doing that, go pay a visit to the CDC. Guess which demographic in the US is spreading AIDS faster than any other...again? WHITE QUEERS. Real shocker, huh? NOT.

on a side note

it may turn out that the hiv virus

may hold the cure to cancer

Well next to Ebola it's been the deadliest epidemic in 40 years there abouts.

 

[PratchettFan]

Some may say homosexuals are persons under the influence of satanic entities or spirits. Being possessed by the Devil is one belief.

And they would be wrong.

Ah a non-believer. Just horny queers right.

Dude, I'm not the guy with an avatar of a guy in tights and a crotch bulge.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Queers have killed 660,000 Americans by spreading AIDS while infecting two million others (nearly all people of color) who'll probably die of the disease, and they spread STD's at a rate anywhere from 4X to 15X that of any other American demographic. Oh those poor little innocent queers. They don't hurt anybody with their gross irresponsibility and self-indulgence. Give me a break! And while you're doing that, go pay a visit to the CDC. Guess which demographic in the US is spreading AIDS faster than any other...again? WHITE QUEERS. Real shocker, huh? NOT.

on a side note

it may turn out that the hiv virus

may hold the cure to cancer

Well next to Ebola it's been the deadliest epidemic in 40 years there abouts.

true

however it is about to change the course of history in the cure for cancers

plus a whole host of other retooled viruses

 

[rcfieldz]

Until the next mutated virus arises and the folks who are funded to find a cure rack their brains and test tubes for the next cure. By the way has AIDS been cured? And no one will be talking about it till the folks whose lives are currently being extended with a cocktail of medicines start kicking the bucket. There are probably lots of folks dying from related diseases that are not even discussed in public forums because there is no money to explore all avenues for treatment.

 

[martybegan]

Why not? If we are discussing purely biological concepts, without a moral component, why is there such a need to consider homosexuality "Right"? Again, my near-sightedness is wrong biologically, as was my social awkwardness growing up, when it comes to the cold hard logic of species and DNA propagation.

If this is a concern over giving people an in to go after homosexuality from a moral standpoint, I have news for you, telling them its biologically "right" even if that was the case, isn't going to sway them.

I never said it was right. You said it was wrong. I said it just is. You are applying a moral term to a biological issue. Now, you might argue that a near sighted person is less likely to survive in the wild, but humans pretty much don't live in the wild and it is not a big problem for us. However, the only thing you have presented about homosexuality is that two people of the same sex can't procreate. But homosexuals procreate all the time. Just not with each other. So again, not a problem.

What I am saying is that homosexual desires are a detriment to the continuation of a species, and to the continuation of a specific genetic line. People with glasses can procreate too, but without our current technology they would be less likely to do so, either via competitions for mates, or even surviving to reproductive maturity.

Right and wrong may be moral terms, but the point is from a propagation purpose, Homosexual desires do not make any sense. In that connotation they are "wrong" or at least not normal.

I know what you are saying. I am saying it really doesn't stand up.

How does it not "Stand up"? Is this because you don't want it to be the case, or you have a viable alternative explanation? Again, morality has no part in this, its all about biology and the mechanisms used to propagate both a species and a DNA line.

It does not stand up because you provide nothing to support it except surmise. I provided you with other theories just as plausible. It's not even a theory - just an untested hypothesis.

The support is in the fact that if a species suddenly went 100% homosexual, it would die out in a generation. Even a large portion of said population doing so would cause the population to dip below the replacement value needed for survival of the species.

If the object of an organism is to procreate, to continue its DNA to the next generation, homosexual desires are an impediment to this. This isn't making any moral judgments, its purely observations of fact.

 

[PratchettFan]

I never said it was right. You said it was wrong. I said it just is. You are applying a moral term to a biological issue. Now, you might argue that a near sighted person is less likely to survive in the wild, but humans pretty much don't live in the wild and it is not a big problem for us. However, the only thing you have presented about homosexuality is that two people of the same sex can't procreate. But homosexuals procreate all the time. Just not with each other. So again, not a problem.

What I am saying is that homosexual desires are a detriment to the continuation of a species, and to the continuation of a specific genetic line. People with glasses can procreate too, but without our current technology they would be less likely to do so, either via competitions for mates, or even surviving to reproductive maturity.

Right and wrong may be moral terms, but the point is from a propagation purpose, Homosexual desires do not make any sense. In that connotation they are "wrong" or at least not normal.

I know what you are saying. I am saying it really doesn't stand up.

How does it not "Stand up"? Is this because you don't want it to be the case, or you have a viable alternative explanation? Again, morality has no part in this, its all about biology and the mechanisms used to propagate both a species and a DNA line.

It does not stand up because you provide nothing to support it except surmise. I provided you with other theories just as plausible. It's not even a theory - just an untested hypothesis.

The support is in the fact that if a species suddenly went 100% homosexual, it would die out in a generation. Even a large portion of said population doing so would cause the population to dip below the replacement value needed for survival of the species.

If the object of an organism is to procreate, to continue its DNA to the next generation, homosexual desires are an impediment to this. This isn't making any moral judgments, its purely observations of fact.

You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.

 

[martybegan]

What I am saying is that homosexual desires are a detriment to the continuation of a species, and to the continuation of a specific genetic line. People with glasses can procreate too, but without our current technology they would be less likely to do so, either via competitions for mates, or even surviving to reproductive maturity.

Right and wrong may be moral terms, but the point is from a propagation purpose, Homosexual desires do not make any sense. In that connotation they are "wrong" or at least not normal.

I know what you are saying. I am saying it really doesn't stand up.

How does it not "Stand up"? Is this because you don't want it to be the case, or you have a viable alternative explanation? Again, morality has no part in this, its all about biology and the mechanisms used to propagate both a species and a DNA line.

It does not stand up because you provide nothing to support it except surmise. I provided you with other theories just as plausible. It's not even a theory - just an untested hypothesis.

The support is in the fact that if a species suddenly went 100% homosexual, it would die out in a generation. Even a large portion of said population doing so would cause the population to dip below the replacement value needed for survival of the species.

If the object of an organism is to procreate, to continue its DNA to the next generation, homosexual desires are an impediment to this. This isn't making any moral judgments, its purely observations of fact.

You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.

and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"

This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[PratchettFan]

I know what you are saying. I am saying it really doesn't stand up.

How does it not "Stand up"? Is this because you don't want it to be the case, or you have a viable alternative explanation? Again, morality has no part in this, its all about biology and the mechanisms used to propagate both a species and a DNA line.

It does not stand up because you provide nothing to support it except surmise. I provided you with other theories just as plausible. It's not even a theory - just an untested hypothesis.

The support is in the fact that if a species suddenly went 100% homosexual, it would die out in a generation. Even a large portion of said population doing so would cause the population to dip below the replacement value needed for survival of the species.

If the object of an organism is to procreate, to continue its DNA to the next generation, homosexual desires are an impediment to this. This isn't making any moral judgments, its purely observations of fact.

You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.

and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"

This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.

I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.

 

[onefour1]

1 Corinthians 11:11
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

The reason homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God is because God's purpose for mankind was that the man be joined together with the woman to multiply and replenish the earth.

Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Genesis 1:28
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

In the LDS faith we believe that man and woman can be joined together and spend eternity as husband and wife. They can eventually have spirit children like our Father in heaven. This we believe is one of the purposes of life and the will of God. Homosexuality is a perversion of the plan that God has prepared for us. For this reason it is considered an abomination.


Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:27
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[PratchettFan]

1 Corinthians 11:11
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

The reason homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God is because God's purpose for mankind was that the man be joined together with the woman to multiply and replenish the earth.

Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Genesis 1:28
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

In the LDS faith we believe that man and woman can be joined together and spend eternity as husband and wife. They can eventually have spirit children like our Father in heaven. This we believe is one of the purposes of life and the will of God. Homosexuality is a perversion of the plan that God has prepared for us. For this reason it is considered an abomination.


Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:27
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Irrelevant.

 

[martybegan]

How does it not "Stand up"? Is this because you don't want it to be the case, or you have a viable alternative explanation? Again, morality has no part in this, its all about biology and the mechanisms used to propagate both a species and a DNA line.

It does not stand up because you provide nothing to support it except surmise. I provided you with other theories just as plausible. It's not even a theory - just an untested hypothesis.

The support is in the fact that if a species suddenly went 100% homosexual, it would die out in a generation. Even a large portion of said population doing so would cause the population to dip below the replacement value needed for survival of the species.

If the object of an organism is to procreate, to continue its DNA to the next generation, homosexual desires are an impediment to this. This isn't making any moral judgments, its purely observations of fact.

You continue to provide surmise instead of evidence. An untested hypothesis is nothing but an untested hypothesis.

and your hypothesis that it is biologically normal is "just because I say so?"

This is a message board, not a sociology research journal.You are applying a higher standard to my opinion because you don't like it, nothing more, nothing less.

I can't have the standard "just because I say so" but you can? You are attempting to support an argument on the basis of science. If you want to do that, then you should use science and not unsupported opinion. If all you are doing is stating your opinion, that is fine. My opinion is your opinion is wrong. I need provide no evidence if you think you don't.

Lets go over the facts. Sexual organisms reproduce sexually, via two sexes, male and female. Since life wants to propagate itself (I don't think they have discovered a life form that through natural processes, seeks to eliminate itself) in behooves said organisms to have some mechanism that promotes sexual reproduction. That mechanism is an attraction between opposite sexes, thus promoting sexual intercourse, and thus promoting the continuation of the individuals DNA and the overall species. Removing sexual desire towards opposite sex partners inhibits sexual intercourse between said organisms, thus inhibiting promotion of the individuals DNA, and possibly the promotion of the entire species though lack of genetic diversity.

This is based on observation of how biology works, not morality, not supposition, but established observations. If you can find some persistent homosexual tendencies in other species that are NOT due to 1)lack of mating partners, and thus an outlet for sexual energy or 2) sexual imbalance where the sex of the organism actually changes, then I have established a logical chain of showing homosexual activity is not a biological norm.