How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong?

[Syriusly]

k[/MEDIA]

Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Who does it harm?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Well....that is such an irrelevant argument to same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective.
This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

And so what?

Without debating the merits of your argument- even if what you say were true- so what?

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective.
This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

And so what?

Without debating the merits of your argument- even if what you say were true- so what?

From a society standpoint, So what" is a perfectly good answer. Again my issue is simply that biologically homosexual urges are a detriment to the continuation of a species as a whole, and more importantly to the DNA line of the individual.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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..

Which might be an issue if that was possible- which there is no evidence that it is.

If 100% of the population decided to use birth control for the rest of their lives, we would die out in a generation also.

Hardly a strong argument about why contraceptives are 'wrong'.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Well thanks for your biblical point of view.

 

[Syriusly]

Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Marriage is considered a religious thing. If homosexuals want to marry they ought to find a religion that tolerates homosexuality.

Not in the United States.

Marriage is primarily a civil 'thing'- the law doesn't care whether the couple marrying is Christian or Muslim or atheists- the marriage is still exactly the same.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective.
This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

And so what?

Without debating the merits of your argument- even if what you say were true- so what?

From a society standpoint, So what" is a perfectly good answer. Again my issue is simply that biologically homosexual urges are a detriment to the continuation of a species as a whole, and more importantly to the DNA line of the individual.

Maybe.

First of all- the DNA line of the individual is immaterial to the species. There are entire species where the individual never reproduces. Nor do any of us have any obligation to the species to reproduce.

Secondly at this point in time- homosexuals can pass on their DNA just fine- so there is no 'harm' to the species that way.

 

[danielpalos]

Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Practicing the abomination of hypocrisy is worse in modern Information Age times; yet, we have no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

 

[PratchettFan]

Marriage is not a religious thing. It is a legal contract under the control of the state. You can have all of the church weddings you like, but if you don't have a state issued license you get no legal benefits from it. A couple married by a justice of the peace is just as married as a couple married by a priest. The priest marries you under the authority of the state. Without that authority, that marriage has no standing of any kind.

The gound for marriage is religion. Whether it is at the church or at the city hall, it is still grounded in religion.

As to being something biological, that means nothing. Smoking marijuana may have medicinal benefits, but it still is dangerous.

No. It isn't. The ground for marriage is the law. You can consider getting a driver's license a religious rite if that pleases you, but that does not make it any less legal. I've been married for 40 years, which makes me very married indeed. No priest ever came near my wedding.

The fact that it is biological is everything, it just doesn't support your particular prejudices.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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..

Which might be an issue if that was possible- which there is no evidence that it is.

If 100% of the population decided to use birth control for the rest of their lives, we would die out in a generation also.

Hardly a strong argument about why contraceptives are 'wrong'.

That would be wrong biologically, considering the goal of biological organisms is to procreate.

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective.
This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

And so what?

Without debating the merits of your argument- even if what you say were true- so what?

From a society standpoint, So what" is a perfectly good answer. Again my issue is simply that biologically homosexual urges are a detriment to the continuation of a species as a whole, and more importantly to the DNA line of the individual.

Maybe.

First of all- the DNA line of the individual is immaterial to the species. There are entire species where the individual never reproduces. Nor do any of us have any obligation to the species to reproduce.

Secondly at this point in time- homosexuals can pass on their DNA just fine- so there is no 'harm' to the species that way.

It's detrimental to the DNA line in question, and considering there is no real hive mind in existence, individual organisms don't have any concept of a grand scheme to promote the entire species, they promote their own DNA line, and the species benefits as a side bonus.

Yes, due to technology in part, and the fact that nothing is absolute. That doesn't change the fact that homosexual desire is an impediment to sucessfully passing on your DNA.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective.
This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

And so what?

Without debating the merits of your argument- even if what you say were true- so what?

From a society standpoint, So what" is a perfectly good answer. Again my issue is simply that biologically homosexual urges are a detriment to the continuation of a species as a whole, and more importantly to the DNA line of the individual.

Maybe.

First of all- the DNA line of the individual is immaterial to the species. There are entire species where the individual never reproduces. Nor do any of us have any obligation to the species to reproduce.

Secondly at this point in time- homosexuals can pass on their DNA just fine- so there is no 'harm' to the species that way.

It's detrimental to the DNA line in question, and considering there is no real hive mind in existence, individual organisms don't have any concept of a grand scheme to promote the entire species, they promote their own DNA line, and the species benefits as a side bonus.

Yes, due to technology in part, and the fact that nothing is absolute. That doesn't change the fact that homosexual desire is an impediment to sucessfully passing on your DNA.

It is no impediment at all anymore.

Historically, homosexuals were usually pressured by society to have children- women of course normally had no voice in the matter. Men were obligated to father some children in most cases.

Now?

No impediment at all.

Less of an impediment than contraception is.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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..

Which might be an issue if that was possible- which there is no evidence that it is.

If 100% of the population decided to use birth control for the rest of their lives, we would die out in a generation also.

Hardly a strong argument about why contraceptives are 'wrong'.

That would be wrong biologically, considering the goal of biological organisms is to procreate.

Again- hardly an argument about why contraceptives are 'wrong'.

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective.
This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

And so what?

Without debating the merits of your argument- even if what you say were true- so what?

From a society standpoint, So what" is a perfectly good answer. Again my issue is simply that biologically homosexual urges are a detriment to the continuation of a species as a whole, and more importantly to the DNA line of the individual.

Maybe.

First of all- the DNA line of the individual is immaterial to the species. There are entire species where the individual never reproduces. Nor do any of us have any obligation to the species to reproduce.

Secondly at this point in time- homosexuals can pass on their DNA just fine- so there is no 'harm' to the species that way.

It's detrimental to the DNA line in question, and considering there is no real hive mind in existence, individual organisms don't have any concept of a grand scheme to promote the entire species, they promote their own DNA line, and the species benefits as a side bonus.

Yes, due to technology in part, and the fact that nothing is absolute. That doesn't change the fact that homosexual desire is an impediment to sucessfully passing on your DNA.

It is no impediment at all anymore.

Historically, homosexuals were usually pressured by society to have children- women of course normally had no voice in the matter. Men were obligated to father some children in most cases.

Now?

No impediment at all.

Less of an impediment than contraception is.

So you are saying that having a lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex has zero impact on your chance of having progeny?

 

[martybegan]

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.

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..

Which might be an issue if that was possible- which there is no evidence that it is.

If 100% of the population decided to use birth control for the rest of their lives, we would die out in a generation also.

Hardly a strong argument about why contraceptives are 'wrong'.

That would be wrong biologically, considering the goal of biological organisms is to procreate.

Again- hardly an argument about why contraceptives are 'wrong'.

Again, you are confusing morality with biology. Contraception prevents fertilization, which prevents having offspring, and having offspring is the goal of having a sex drive in the first place.

 

[Syriusly]

And so what?

Without debating the merits of your argument- even if what you say were true- so what?

From a society standpoint, So what" is a perfectly good answer. Again my issue is simply that biologically homosexual urges are a detriment to the continuation of a species as a whole, and more importantly to the DNA line of the individual.

Maybe.

First of all- the DNA line of the individual is immaterial to the species. There are entire species where the individual never reproduces. Nor do any of us have any obligation to the species to reproduce.

Secondly at this point in time- homosexuals can pass on their DNA just fine- so there is no 'harm' to the species that way.

It's detrimental to the DNA line in question, and considering there is no real hive mind in existence, individual organisms don't have any concept of a grand scheme to promote the entire species, they promote their own DNA line, and the species benefits as a side bonus.

Yes, due to technology in part, and the fact that nothing is absolute. That doesn't change the fact that homosexual desire is an impediment to sucessfully passing on your DNA.

It is no impediment at all anymore.

Historically, homosexuals were usually pressured by society to have children- women of course normally had no voice in the matter. Men were obligated to father some children in most cases.

Now?

No impediment at all.

Less of an impediment than contraception is.

So you are saying that having a lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex has zero impact on your chance of having progeny?

Well I am a heterosexual who has a child but I am saying that any person who is fertile can pass their DNA on in various ways.

A homosexual man could theoretically sire dozens or hundreds of children just by being an anonymous sperm donor, let alone

 

[martybegan]

From a society standpoint, So what" is a perfectly good answer. Again my issue is simply that biologically homosexual urges are a detriment to the continuation of a species as a whole, and more importantly to the DNA line of the individual.

Maybe.

First of all- the DNA line of the individual is immaterial to the species. There are entire species where the individual never reproduces. Nor do any of us have any obligation to the species to reproduce.

Secondly at this point in time- homosexuals can pass on their DNA just fine- so there is no 'harm' to the species that way.

It's detrimental to the DNA line in question, and considering there is no real hive mind in existence, individual organisms don't have any concept of a grand scheme to promote the entire species, they promote their own DNA line, and the species benefits as a side bonus.

Yes, due to technology in part, and the fact that nothing is absolute. That doesn't change the fact that homosexual desire is an impediment to sucessfully passing on your DNA.

It is no impediment at all anymore.

Historically, homosexuals were usually pressured by society to have children- women of course normally had no voice in the matter. Men were obligated to father some children in most cases.

Now?

No impediment at all.

Less of an impediment than contraception is.

So you are saying that having a lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex has zero impact on your chance of having progeny?

Well I am a heterosexual who has a child but I am saying that any person who is fertile can pass their DNA on in various ways.

A homosexual man could theoretically sire dozens or hundreds of children just by being an anonymous sperm donor, let alone

yes he could, but doesn't a lack of desire to have sex with a woman inhibit this, in any way?

remove technology and sentience, just go on pure biology.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe.

First of all- the DNA line of the individual is immaterial to the species. There are entire species where the individual never reproduces. Nor do any of us have any obligation to the species to reproduce.

Secondly at this point in time- homosexuals can pass on their DNA just fine- so there is no 'harm' to the species that way.

It's detrimental to the DNA line in question, and considering there is no real hive mind in existence, individual organisms don't have any concept of a grand scheme to promote the entire species, they promote their own DNA line, and the species benefits as a side bonus.

Yes, due to technology in part, and the fact that nothing is absolute. That doesn't change the fact that homosexual desire is an impediment to sucessfully passing on your DNA.

It is no impediment at all anymore.

Historically, homosexuals were usually pressured by society to have children- women of course normally had no voice in the matter. Men were obligated to father some children in most cases.

Now?

No impediment at all.

Less of an impediment than contraception is.

So you are saying that having a lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex has zero impact on your chance of having progeny?

Well I am a heterosexual who has a child but I am saying that any person who is fertile can pass their DNA on in various ways.

A homosexual man could theoretically sire dozens or hundreds of children just by being an anonymous sperm donor, let alone

yes he could, but doesn't a lack of desire to have sex with a woman inhibit this, in any way?

remove technology and sentience, just go on pure biology.

Why ignore reality?

Why would lack of desire to have sex inhibit a man from donating sperm?

The reality is now that no lesbian, or gay man, is prevented from passing along their genetic material to offspring.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Homosexuality can only be wrong. When it becomes something normal, then soon enough, for example, beating up someone because one is angry becomes normal. The law will have to make it legal.

Marriage is considered a religious thing. If homosexuals want to marry they ought to find a religion that tolerates homosexuality.

I agreed with you up until the final sentence. What homosexuals ought to do is acknowledge the Word of God is the truth and REPENT.