Once you've disqualified the religious angle, the only possible answer is "it's unnatural", which is demonstrably no answer at all. That said, since evangelicals tend to believe that all morals come from God and that God thinks precisely the way they do, it's pretty difficult to come up with a non-religious argument of any nature, let alone a coherent one.
Farewell Poopsmith
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Shhhhhhhh.......if you pull out the obvious big gun now and entirely end the discussion , then other people can't have fun pointing out all the other inanities in the "gay sex is unnatural thing" . I'd add a few but I'm busy doing other unnatural , thus immoral stuff.
You would think. But they've already heard it 100 times and just stick their fingers in their ears and drum their heels on the floor while screening wordlessly to drown it out.
madviking
north american scum
Religion isn't natural.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Mango Elephant
Deity
My prostate would beg to differ.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Can we just let GhostWriter present his views? I'd rather we actually addressed them for what they are, rather than dismiss them out of hand. If we have any confidence in our own views, we shouldn't need to.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The simple answer is that I don't actually know why God determined that homosexual sex is a sin. He just did. Obviously, as a Christian, I'm going to follow what God says, and encourage other people to do so, regardless of how much it actually makes sense to me.
As for why I THINK its not allowed, I believe God designed sex for a very specific purpose, and he created male and female to come together in that role. I believe that the sex act was naturally created by God to exist in a marital relationship (I should point out that if its NOT in a marital relationship, its still wrong even if the genders are opposite.)
I believe God never designed sex to be between two people of the same gender, and in fact believe such a thing is a perversion of what God initially intended for sex to be.
As for the state, I certainly believe it should not enforce my views on sex. However, I am not going to support the state actually and actively endorsing a lifestyle I disagree with.
Now, the difference between a civil union seems miniscule on the surface, especially if its a civil union no matter the gender or a marriage no matter the gender, but the difference is very real. Civil Union simply states, and limits, the benefits to the legal realm. It makes no moral judgment as to the social or spiritual validity of the union. Marriage does. This point happens to be very important to me. Almost like how I'm OK with certain drugs being legal, but would never want to see the government encourage people to use drugs.
As for why I THINK its not allowed, I believe God designed sex for a very specific purpose, and he created male and female to come together in that role. I believe that the sex act was naturally created by God to exist in a marital relationship (I should point out that if its NOT in a marital relationship, its still wrong even if the genders are opposite.)
I believe God never designed sex to be between two people of the same gender, and in fact believe such a thing is a perversion of what God initially intended for sex to be.
As for the state, I certainly believe it should not enforce my views on sex. However, I am not going to support the state actually and actively endorsing a lifestyle I disagree with.
Now, the difference between a civil union seems miniscule on the surface, especially if its a civil union no matter the gender or a marriage no matter the gender, but the difference is very real. Civil Union simply states, and limits, the benefits to the legal realm. It makes no moral judgment as to the social or spiritual validity of the union. Marriage does. This point happens to be very important to me. Almost like how I'm OK with certain drugs being legal, but would never want to see the government encourage people to use drugs.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
How are they being dismissed out of hand ? Issue....gay sex is immoral , justification....it is unnatural . Subsequently debunked .
Awaiting next justification .
If the tone is dismissive , well heh considering this debunking has happened a squillion times , I'd say this reaction is , dare I say it , natural .
Huayna Capac357
Deity
So you support civil unions then?
EDIT: Do you also therefore believe that heterosexual non-procreative sex between married partners is sinful?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Then why do you care how the discussion develops one way or the other? If there's nothing novel to be said, then you can just ignore us, and if there is, then it's better to let it be said. So, that in mind...
The obvious response to this is to ask why deviating from the use of a body-part in a manner other than that its particular function (for purposes of argument, we'll set aside the question of an intelligent designer, and simply assume a secular teleology) makes something immoral. Furthermore, I would ask whether this immorality consists simply in any deviation from intended function, or whether it consists specifically in some action which is actually contrary to that function, and, if the latter, how the contrary is distinguish for the merely unintended.
I would also ask if this logic applies exclusively to those things we receive from nature, or to anything that can be understood, in a teleological framework, as having a specific function. Is it an immoral act against an author, for example, to use his book as kindling? If not, then why not?
I've said it many a time. My audience is the lurker. The person only watching the conversation that might be swayed by the wrong argument, if that argument is not countered on a regular basis.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
And you really think that a lurker will be more convinced by snarling hostility than by working through this reasonably? I thought you were supposed to be a liberal.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Well when you edit out "awaiting next justification" from my post it would indeed imply that I should ignore the discussion.
So with "that in mind", I'm "awaiting next justification" , so "let it be said"
GhostWriter15 said:
So does that mean that you view Gods as intrusive actors in evolution? If that's the case then you'd agree that Gods took an interest in sex 1,200,000,000 years ago when sexual reproduction first arose.
What are your views about how the Almighties handle species that have something other than a binary gender system? Is it just an accident of history that primates have a binary system, or something else?
How do you account for the legions of human societies that don't pair-bond? Do you chalk that up to simple achristianity? Or do you find those cases to be the proof of the pudding? I'm sure you're aware that monogamous pair-bonding in humans is the exception, not the rule. This has been confirmed through multiple lines of inquiry: Anthropology, genetics, sociology, comparative sociology, and so on and so forth.
If you believe that gods designed sex for a specific purpose, do you also believe that it is immoral to engage in the sex act when the female is not in estrus?
If so, how do you explain the fact that female Homo sapiens are nearly unique among primates in that estrus is hidden not just from males (there is no prominent genital display of receptivity) but also hidden from the females themselves? Steven Pinker has collected some intriguing ideas about how this may have evolved, but the verdict is unclear. What do you think about this? Are the gods just fking with us? If so, then why aren't they fking with all the other primates as well?
EDIT: Wow! Loads of questions here!! I hope you have the time to address them, as I think they're key to understanding your position.
GhostWriter16
Deity
First question: I thought I'd made that clear, but yes.
Second question: No, because sex is designed for two married people to come together, its not NECESSARILY to have kids, even though that is a valid additional reason to have sex.
I don't know that the immorality can be determined without assuming an intelligent designer. Other than some sort of glib "Sex with women is so much better" response
(Note: that's not my answer
)If the book is worth reading, yes
I never claimed I was a nice guy.
No you aren't
Considering I don't believe in macroevolution, I don't see how ANY of those questions are aplicable.
madviking
north american scum
If you believe in microevolution, you pretty much also have to belief in macroevolution.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't see why that follows....
