Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2644 replies to this topic

#31    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,070 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010

Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:55 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:



That is exactly the point, you seem to be able to justify our sexuality in terms that are in fact acceptable to society, hence all those different positive points, but they all are genetic imperatives that supplement the principle one, reproduction.

Put another way, love is the excuse your brain and hormones give you to reproduce. This is science at its most basic level. All our drives, thoughts and ideas revolving around sexuality are justifications for the basic imperative of reproduction.

We have divorced sex from reproduction artificially, but our bodies continue to function in the same way they always did.
So we have divorced food from reproduction aswell. Why don't you give up those burgers and live on alge. It's very easy to cultivate and it had everything you need. Homosexual people have not divorced anything. They are simply following their chemistry exactly how they were evolved to do. As I have shown you sexuality has many other functions for a positive happy life other than just babies.

Television and Internet forum posting has nothing to do with reproduction either, we should find the genes that send us down thus useless pastime and change them so we can better focus our energies on our children. Don't you see how silly it is.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#32    Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Heaven Is A Halfpipe

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2013

Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:59 PM

I've never personally found the homosexuality of others to be a problem to my life. When we start altering genetics, where do we stop? Do we change skin colour and point out that black people used to be slaves to white people and therefore white people are superior? Seems like a slippery slope to me...

If you believe in God, you have to believe that he/she also created homosexuality for whatever reason. It's right there in the animal kingdom. Don't tell me Satan is leading the poor animals into temptation too...

You can go the distance, you can run the mile and you can walk straight through HELL with a smile.

My UM Credentials: http://www.unexplain...5


#33    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:01 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 02 June 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Yea it is a little scary.  The small people are disappearing, as are those with the Downs Syndrome and the deaf and the blind.  Soon gays will also disappear.  So will fat people and skinny people and people with this or that "deformity."  

Often these groups are sub-cultures with a complex of things to offer over and above the thing we notice.  Theatre of the blind, for example.

Diversity is part of what makes us human. I think it's pretty dangerous to mess with genetics because it'll just lead to a world with 'perfect people' that'll all be uniform with llittle individuality or personality.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#34    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,797 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:03 PM

It is not a sin  only in the eyes of the religious. But funny how we have had the kick racism out of football campaigns, but nobody wants to start one about kick homophobia out of football, which would be very appropriate  considering the 2022 world cup has been given to Qatar and they made it quite clear what their views are on homosexuality.
Amazing how one minutes its a sin, but as soon as money is involved people shut their mouths.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#35    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,669 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:04 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 02 June 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

I dunno but to me the word "aberration" carries a negative connotation and is a loaded word that therefore should be avoided in objective discussion of topics like this.  Criminal behavior is "aberrant"  The roots are "abnormal" and "errant."  Not words that add anything to this topic.

If one wants to emphasize the minority nature of the behavior (which I suppose is a statistical given, but one wonders as to the deep reality), then use "minority."  However, I don't see where whether it is minority or not is relevant to its legal or moral status.

It is relevant when you consider biology and genetics. Aberrant means to "depart from the accepted standard".

As such that means that there is such a thing as an accepted standard and within nature, that is heterosexuality.

Is this a moral judgment? NO, it is being purely factual using language that is purely factual. But if you want I can use "minority", although minority does NOT mean departing from an accepted standard, which is the point here.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#36    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,004 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:05 PM

Islam is about 50 years behind Christianity on this and 500 years behind on most everything else.


#37    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,669 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:11 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 02 June 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

I consoder that to be the big reason why we shouldn't find the cause of homosexuality, because people like you would suggest finding a cure to it.

Gay people alive today would not want the cure, but religious people that believed it was a sin would and would likely lobby to make the cure mandatory.

So in fact you fear the idea that it can become considered a disease purely from a sociological and biological perspective?

Religion would have nothing to do with it at all, if it was ever found to be alterable using gene therapy as has already been mentioned, you would not want the cure?

Quote

Where would it end? Once we start meddling with genetics in such a way what would next be considered a mutation? Hair colour/ Eye colour? Blood type? Cognitive ability? Where would it end?

Surprise surprise, it is already being done, eugenics is the future whether we accept it now or not, and I hate the concept so I' am not one that is defending it.

Quote

it seems to be a problem, mostly beccause religious people make it a problem. it shouldn't be a problem though.

Is that so?

So why did Communist Russia and Hitlers Third Reich have it in for homosexuals?

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#38    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:17 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

So in fact you fear the idea that it can become considered a disease purely from a sociological and biological perspective?

Religion would have nothing to do with it at all, if it was ever found to be alterable using gene therapy as has already been mentioned, you would not want the cure?

I fear that it could be considered a disease and as treated as such absolutely yes. Do you not?

Religion would serve as motivation for finding a 'cure'. It's religous groups that consider it to be a disease now.

I would not want a'cure'. I would fight against it. Before we attempted to 'cure' gay people... by force. I have no desire to see that happening again. No way. Not in my lifetime.

Quote

Surprise surprise, it is already being done, eugenics is the future whether we accept it now or not, and I hate the concept so I' am not one that is defending it.

It sounds like you are to me.

Quote

Is that so?

So why did Communist Russia and Hitlers Third Reich have it in for homosexuals?

They had it in for anyone that wa against them. The reich had ideas on 'genetic perfection' which meant anyone outside that was conidered aberrant worthy of destruction. (I alway found it odd that their idea of perfection was blonde hair etc and Hitler himself well...)

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#39    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,774 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:18 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

In my view it is an important part of the answer. If it is genetics at play and we can isolate the mutation, then we can alter it in the future and eliminate it. But the question would remain, would people then want the cure, so to speak?

We seem to want to cure many different types of genetic mutation that causes problems of one kind of another, can we classify this separately because of the emotional issues attached to the subject?

Is homosexuality a problem at all?

It seems to be.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7457641

Homosexuality is considered a normal sexual variance.




#40    darkmoonlady

darkmoonlady

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:19 PM

I want to ask at what point does what someone does in their life (aside from harming others and or breaking the law) belong between them and their god (or beliefs or non beliefs) and not up for anyone else's judgment?


“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance …or change... logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the worlds vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious maniac, it’s ALL on purpose” – Stephen King, The Stand

#41    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,774 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:23 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

It is relevant when you consider biology and genetics. Aberrant means to "depart from the accepted standard".

As such that means that there is such a thing as an accepted standard and within nature, that is heterosexuality.

Is this a moral judgment? NO, it is being purely factual using language that is purely factual. But if you want I can use "minority", although minority does NOT mean departing from an accepted standard, which is the point here.

Jor el, this is current data on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation

The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated—various studies point to different, even conflicting positions—but research suggests that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation.[1][2] Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are more popular,[1] and biological factors may involve a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[3] These factors, which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation, include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.




#42    Jessem

Jessem

    Future Husband

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,451 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2009

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:24 PM

My take is that it's all of the above and more. People see Homosexuality as many things, but only you individually can interpret it for yourself. Am I going to tell someone they can't love a person? Do I have the right to tell someone its wrong to love someone of the same sex? Is ok for someone to tell you how to live your life and to also explain that if it's not done the way they explain it then your going to completely burn? I just had a deep conversation about this with a friend, and TBH I personally believe it's about accepting something your not familiar with, and then supporting someone because you love them. It comes right down to looking back at yourself really...

The secret of life is'nt trying to figure out the secret, its about living it.

#43    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 3,932 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:26 PM

I think condemning people for their harmless behavior is a sin. Some, I suppose, gain satisfaction from deciding some population of society are sinners, and therefore should be excluded from their exclusive club and tortured for eternity. I consider this a rather harsh punishment for anyone. This attitude is expected of vicious dictators, of course, but it worries me that this stance exists in the general population.

I think this is a rather extremest attitude and egomaniacle, which I consider a mental health issue.  I consider these kinds of extremists to be much more dangerous to society than homosexuals.

I consider sexuality to be biological in nature, and therefore condemning people for the structure of their genes amounts to eugenics, which any rational person understands is vile and despicable in any form.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
My credentials: http://www.unexplain...ic=87935&st=225

#44    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,070 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:35 PM

View PostJor-el, on 02 June 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:



It is relevant when you consider biology and genetics. Aberrant means to "depart from the accepted standard".

As such that means that there is such a thing as an accepted standard and within nature, that is heterosexuality.

Is this a moral judgment? NO, it is being purely factual using language that is purely factual. But if you want I can use "minority", although minority does NOT mean departing from an accepted standard, which is the point here.
I hate burst that bit my friend but if homosexuality was not accepted by nature it would not exist not in humans or fish. The only thing that  does not accept homosexuality are dwindling groups of people.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#45    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,070 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:37 PM

If we are going to be messing with genes, I think isolating genetic propensities for intolerance would be a better fix and solve a lot more of humanities problems.

What do  you say? Imagine everyone getting along with each others differences.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-