• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is homosexuality wrong?

I still do not get the sense that XenonII is putting us on. Having been exposed to the joys of hate-mongering for many years, I tend to believe I can recognize certain patterns quite readily.

If I'm wrong and he is just simply producing a parody, he's doing it very well IMHO.

And of course if I do happen to receive any bonus gifts from JREF in the near future, as a result of anything I may have posted in this thread, I might have to buy a gift of appreciation for XenonII. I was thinking of a JREF Pigasus thong, or something else that would be just as hot as the flames of where I'm going.
 
To act on same sex attraction disorder (SSAD) is an immoral choice. It is always wrong. Do not call it "gay". That is homosexual propaganda. There is nothing gay about the homosexual lifestyle. Oh and btw, society does not discriminate against those that live the homosexual lifestyle. They have the same rights as any other citizen, including the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals.

Let's just assume, entirely for the sake of argument, that you are right about homosexuality having no genetic component. Further, let's assume that people choose to be attracted to people of the same sex.

How does that lead to the conclusion that homosexuality "is always wrong?" Is that because the Bible says so? The Bible says rabbits are an abomination, and so are lobsters, vegetable gardens, and cheeseburgers, but wholesale genocide, rape, and slavery are perfectly fine, according to the Bible. Do you really consider the Bible to be a perfect moral guide?
 
homosexuality is not ethically wrong, but, and please feel free to correct me, isn't it evolutionarily speaking wrong? It doesn't provide anything in terms of reproductive success and thus from a biological perspective seems kind of pointless. Am I wrong in this assertion? Are there homosexual animals out there such as gay dogs and cats? And if so, do their genes ever get passed on? If they do, does that imply that homosexuality is a genetic trait? As you can see I have alot of questions about this and any help is appreciated, but I mainly want to know if it is wrong in terms of biological evolution..
 
It's called adulturey and it's one of the 10 commandments. Thou Shalt NOT Commit Adulturey!!! The Bible definition of adulturey is not the watered down, secular, spit in the Lord's face definiton of adulturey either. The proper Biblical definition of adulturey is ANY pre-marital or extra-marital sexual activity! That includes the demon posessed homosexual lifestyle.

Now I call homosexuality "sexual activity" rather than sex. Why? Because queers do not engage in sex! Sex is an act performed by biological organisms in order to procreate offspring to further the species. This is not what "gays" do. What the homos do is take great pleasure in inserting their penises into each others rectums, and then spend the rest of their time indulging in a relentless propaganda campaign to try and brainwash the rest of us into believing that what they are doing is engaging in "sex".
Argument is so easy when you change all the definitions, isn't it?
Btw, I found Jesus for REAL and he was living inside my heart!
Sure as hell not in your brain.
 
homosexuality is not ethically wrong, but, and please feel free to correct me, isn't it evolutionarily speaking wrong? It doesn't provide anything in terms of reproductive success and thus from a biological perspective seems kind of pointless. Am I wrong in this assertion? Are there homosexual animals out there such as gay dogs and cats? And if so, do their genes ever get passed on? If they do, does that imply that homosexuality is a genetic trait? As you can see I have alot of questions about this and any help is appreciated, but I mainly want to know if it is wrong in terms of biological evolution..

Nope, because organisms don't need to reproduce themselves to pass on their genes, they can aid in the reproduction of their relatives. That's altruism, in the biological sense. Having to devote less time to raising your own children means you help your family who are genetically similar to yourself. It's a small investment, in humans, but nets a large return. Altruism's an explanation for colonial insects, why else would they have evolved to have thousands of non-reproducing organisms helping just one reproduce?

Besides, homosexuality doesn't have to have a direct benefit to persist. As long as it isn't a net detriment to reproduction, and there are plenty of people who are gay who have children anyhow, it's not going to be selected against.
 
homosexuality is not ethically wrong, but, and please feel free to correct me, isn't it evolutionarily speaking wrong? It doesn't provide anything in terms of reproductive success and thus from a biological perspective seems kind of pointless. Am I wrong in this assertion? Are there homosexual animals out there such as gay dogs and cats? And if so, do their genes ever get passed on? If they do, does that imply that homosexuality is a genetic trait? As you can see I have alot of questions about this and any help is appreciated, but I mainly want to know if it is wrong in terms of biological evolution..

The thing is, a small minority of "defects" in evolution usually isn't easily weeded out, and is small enough to not significantly affect breeding patterns. For that matter, homosexual "acts" are extremely prevalent in the animal kingdom, although it's a long way from calling them actually gay (though Xenon would say they're homosexual anyways).

Hyena females would use their pseudo penis on each other if no males were around to copulate. Hyena males will do the same thing. There's examples of mated "homosexual" animal couples in the animal kingdom. I think that their numbers are small enough to not really weed out their genetic strain.
 
Further, let's assume that people choose to be attracted to people of the same sex.

Sir, you raise an excellent point. Even were it true that I did choose to be a homo, it still would have no bearing on the obvious fact that sexual orientation is a morally and ethically neutral component of a personality.

I shall be attracted to whomever I find attractive, and nobody will be harmed by that fact. And I shall be intimate only with those who freely choose to participate and who are capable of giving informed consent.

Once, a very long time ago, when a previous lover committed suicide in our home and I had a very unpleasant encounter with a homophobic coroner, I sought out some mental health care because I was very, very upset.

A mental health care professional asked me what about people that don't like me because I am gay. Without hesitating I replied" If somebody has a problem with the fact that I am gay then they have a problem". That comment went over pretty well.
 
homosexuality is not ethically wrong, but, and please feel free to correct me, isn't it evolutionarily speaking wrong?

Not necessarily. There are plenty exampled of non-reproductive members of social structures in the animal kingdom regardless of their sexuality. So for social organisms it is not necessarily a negative trait.
It doesn't provide anything in terms of reproductive success and thus from a biological perspective seems kind of pointless. Am I wrong in this assertion?
Yes, if you help your species and even better your siblings survive genetically that can be just as helpful as having offspring
Are there homosexual animals out there such as gay dogs and cats?
There are many avian examples of homosexuals. There have been artificially influenced highly masculine lesbian mice for example.
And if so, do their genes ever get passed on?

In their siblings it is quite likely. But even if not just because it is not an evolutionary benefit does not mean it is a sufficient detriment to make them not a viable species.
If they do, does that imply that homosexuality is a genetic trait?
There does not seem to be a consensus on this. Also not all inheritable biological traits are genetic.
As you can see I have a lot of questions about this and any help is appreciated, but I mainly want to know if it is wrong in terms of biological evolution..


No it is not.
 
wow those were some quick and informative replies and is much appreciated. I never thought about it in terms of social animals and the effects of altruistic behaviors. So much for my "being gay goes against nature" remarks which are few and far between, but I never realized how misinformed they were. Thank again.
 
"They" were?
THEY were?
THEY were?

So, at last you came out of closet?

CONGRATS!


I never came out of the closet because I was never in it to begin with. I'm not one of THEM and how dare you insinuate otherwise! :eek: Homosexuals need to get back into the closet (where they belong) and padlock the door shut. Homosexuals were much more respected when they kept their sexual preferences to themselves rather than flaunting it like they do nowadays with their "gay" pride parades. Being a sexual deviant is nothing to be proud of! Normal people don't engage in sexual activity in public bathrooms but homosexuals do. They need to stop spreading their AIDS. The sin that dare not speak it’s name now won’t shut the hell up!
 
Last edited:
The thing is, a small minority of "defects" in evolution usually isn't easily weeded out, and is small enough to not significantly affect breeding patterns. For that matter, homosexual "acts" are extremely prevalent in the animal kingdom, although it's a long way from calling them actually gay (though Xenon would say they're homosexual anyways).

Hyena females would use their pseudo penis on each other if no males were around to copulate. Hyena males will do the same thing. There's examples of mated "homosexual" animal couples in the animal kingdom. I think that their numbers are small enough to not really weed out their genetic strain.

Yes, but if the animals are exclusively homosexual (which might not even be relevant. Among many animals, rape is common form of reproduction) they can still be valuable members of the pack, pride, or other social group. Even animals that don't have such close social bonds can still derive a benefit from homosexuality. Penguins have been observed to be homosexual and aside from mating penguins don't otherwise have strong social bonds, but penguins have been observed trying to abscond with unsupervised hatchlings in order to raise them as their own. If there is a small proportion of penguins who are gay, and who adopt hatchlings, then that's actually highly beneficial, mortality among penguins parents being what it is.
 
I have to wonder if Xenon is a wizard in the klan of klux. He seems to spout many of the same misinformation and beliefs as those people.
 
Homosexuality is a behavior. Homosexuality is not what someone is it's what someone does.

So here you repeat this falsehood yet again. There are specific meanings for words. When you change the meaning of a word to suit your convenience it has a dramatically negative effect on the worthiness of your argument, much like quoting the Bible.

Homosexuality does in fact refer to the attraction in romantic and sexual ways to members of the same gender. In the real world that is what the word means. Your private definitions for words might suit your preference for certain forms of bigotry, but they make your statements laughable to the rational people that rely on books called dictionaries for the definitions of words.

Merriam Webster is considered a reliable source for definitions of words by many people who make the Lifestyle Choice™ to live in the real world:
Merriam Webster said:
Main Entry:
1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation:
\ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1892
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
— ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual
 
wow those were some quick and informative replies and is much appreciated. I never thought about it in terms of social animals and the effects of altruistic behaviors. So much for my "being gay goes against nature" remarks which are few and far between, but I never realized how misinformed they were. Thank again.

Not a problem. Besides, I'm sure someone in this thread has mentioned how common homosexuality is among animals by now.
 
wow those were some quick and informative replies and is much appreciated. I never thought about it in terms of social animals and the effects of altruistic behaviors. So much for my "being gay goes against nature" remarks which are few and far between, but I never realized how misinformed they were. Thank again.

Oh, another thing. Example: The dolphins in Shark Valley, in Australia, tend to segregate by sex. Females tend to avoid the males, who harass and rape them, and the males tend to go about in small groups where they harass and rape the younger males in (to risk anthropomorphizing) a mix of gratification and fraternity hazing. It's all perfectly "natural."
 
...JR: This thread already has answered and elaborated on a whole heap of questions and criticisms on homosexuality. It's a long read, but an informative one, and I encourage you to try to read it through. You should learn a lot. I am:).

Oh, and for the record, XenonII's last few posts have all but convinced me he is indeed a troll.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's called adulturey and it's one of the 10 commandments.
OK, that one got shot down. Try again.

Sex is an act performed by biological organisms in order to procreate offspring to further the species.
Humans are not the only species to engage in sex for recreational purposes rather than procreational purposes. Just out of curiosity, what would you call that? Is that 'extramarital sexual activity' or 'adultery', too? If I had a wife, and had sex with her for pleasure, it'd suddenly not be sex anymore?

This is not what "gays" do. What the homos do is take great pleasure in inserting their penises into each others rectums [...]
Gimme a break. So you're saying that when Good Christians have sex for procreation, they... don't take pleasure from it?

and then spend the rest of their time indulging in a relentless propaganda campaign to try and brainwash the rest of us into believing that what they are doing is engaging in "sex".
XenonII, I'm very sorry, but you don't get to redefine words at will. Words mean what they mean.

And as for the ridiculous 'OK, Catholics have done a lot of wrong, so let's try to say they're not Christians so we won't have to, shock and horror, acknowledge that Christians do something do things they shouldn't do'-babble, I direct you to the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

I'm also waiting for your empirically tested and peer reviewed evidence that God exists, that He hates homosexuals, that the homosexuals themselves are mentally ill, that demons exist, that demons can and do possess homosexuals, that Hell exists and is like the Hell portrayed by Christians, and that humans have souls, some of which are teleported there magically when their host bodies perish. Because until you prove these things are real, your statement that...

God exists and everything He says is true, and He hates homosexuality, and homosexuals have a mental illness and are possessed by demons who make them homosexual, and, upon dying, go to Hell, a place created by a deserted servant of God named Satan. If they engage in gay sex, they'll contract AIDS, a virus created by God to punish gays. To escape the fate of Hell, gays need to accept God as their saviour and repent. Hell is a place of eternal fire and suffering with no respite, still and forever ruled by Satan.

...carry as little weight as me saying that...

There exists a billionaire philanthropist named Hank, and everything he says is true, and he hates people who choose to write with their left hand, because people who do so are mentally ill and in some cases implanted with a microchip that encourages writing with the left hand. Unless the left-handed start writing with their right hand, and kiss Hank's ass, they'll first come down sick with schizophrenia, which is actually a terror weapon created by Hank to punish the left-handed, and then be deported to the underwater city of Skrift, where a slave colony has been set up by Martin, who once was Hank's right hand and has since deserted and set up shop there, and now rule the city. In Skrift, the left-handed will be forced to live forever by means of ultra-modern technology, and will be forever hideously tortured by Martin's minions.

Neither has a shred of evidence, neither makes any sense, neither has anything to do with whether or not the activity is moral.

A little PS to XenonII:
And yes, while I'm all but assured you're not serious about your bigotry, I'm carrying on as this thread has developed into an excellent source of pro-gay arguments. It's turned into a long, informative read, if not terribly mentally fatiguing for some due to your fervent bashing of just about everything modern and civilized. Thank you for advancing gays' rights. Maybe we'll see you encouraging us to write on and advance some other modern left-wing idea in the future:).

 
Last edited:
Normal people don't engage in sexual activity in public bathrooms but homosexuals do.
Have you ever been out to a club or a bar? Plenty of non homosexuals are more than willing to engage in sexual activity in public bathrooms.
 

Back
Top Bottom