Posters who oppose homosexuality, what position fits you best? (Boxer, Jesus, carry)

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by gibbsnm

Wow. I really hope you are extremely young, because that is a very juvenile and immature comment.

Seems pretty mild to me. I hope he is young.

[Supine]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Who cares about the "why" of homosexuality?

A lot of people do. Just as a lot of heterosexuals and homosexuals seem to be interested in what women find attractive in men or what men find attractive in women. However, feminism has attempted to reeducate, indoctrinate, children and adult males in what they ought find attractive in women (note: they offer no such reeducation for gay children--not even for what boys boys should like or what girls girls should like).

As long as it is consenting adults...

Bonobos mothers are known to have with their male children up until their male offspring are about 6 years old, then it becomes taboo among the bonobos. Basically, bonbos practice incest and pedophilia. The bonobos also practice homosexuality. Bonobo females also are near nymphomaniacs and have sex with even the most "looser" males.

So, you don't mind the homosexuality practiced by bonobos but you do take issue with the pedophilia some of them practice?

Age-phobia is okay but homo-phobia is wrong? Based exactly on what?

This is where the philosophers and theologians really enter the picture.

...why should we be treated any differently than a heterosexual that happens to like skinny blondes with big boobs?

So, it sounds like you take issue with men that are attracted to "skinny blonds with big boobs"? Most feminist would subscribe that such men require reeducation, a new indoctrination, that their attractions can be altered, and that it's the duty of women and society to teach these men the moral error of their superficial and unhealthy attraction to skinny blond women with big boobs. (Of course, if girls like other girls like this it is perfectly fine and morally good--refer back to the article praising the "studs" were men dressed as such would be berated as "dirt bags" etc.).

Humans reproduce through sexual intercourse. This also remains a mystery (not only homosexuality is investigated for a "why"?) because it is expensive in terms of energy allocation. Reproduction would be less costly if humans were all true hermaphrodites. The primary hypothesis that seems to be favored today as the best going explanation, is that two different sexes, allows for greater genetic diversity through "recombination." Genetic recombination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But essentially, the guy having sex with the skinny blond with big boobs can impregnate her and produce offspring. And this brings us partially to the point of "survival of the fittest" that atheists and those into "scientism" Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia so often like to speak about.

Survival of the fittest is not a concept of brutes necessarily punching people out, or rich men in Mercedes getting all the money and women. Not per se. "Fitness" in biological terms refers to two things"

1. The number of offspring a person produces.

2. The mean average of genetic traits in a population.

So, we can say a the Prophet Mohammad if he produced offspring was more "fit" than Jesus who produced no offspring. In the science of biology a "dead beat dad" that has offspring by 4 different women and provides no assistance in any way to any of them, is considered more "fit" than Pope Francis in Rome who (so far as we know) has sired no children.

Therefore, your man and the skinny blond with big boobs if the produce one or more offspring with each other are in Darwinian evolutionary terms, "more fit" than the two lesbian women that form a couple and have sex with each other.

The whole Theory of Biological Evolution revolves around reproduction, birth, progeny. Sex is an important matter. Some atheist like Richard Dawkins are "gene-centric" and in Dawkins' words we humans are nothing but "lumbering robots" for our genes that use us as a means to spread themselves into immortality.

Not every atheist has a gene-centric view though. Some atheist scientists take real issue with some of Richard Dawkins views. Others fall and praise him at his feet as if he was God Almighty.

He is a brilliant man though. I don't think one can deny that. But even brilliant men can be wrong on one or more things. Einstein himself was not always right.

American citizens have the right to be treated equally under the law, and have all the same legal protections as anyone else who is not harming another person.

I agree. I don't think anyone in this thread has been calling for making homosexuality illegal. And there are gay clubs that function as such openly. Gay parades. Homosexuality is not hunted down and policed like cocaine and heroin addiction.

As for gay marriage that's not necessarily a Civil Rights issue in my view. For one, technically, no one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying (if marriage means two people of the opposite sex), many have, and produced children, and divorced later after "coming out of the closet."

No one is outlawing gays and lesbians from dating or cohabiting either.

Why would one choose to be homosexual? Why would one choose to be a pedophile? Neither one does. Neither seems to be a choice. But that does not mean none of them cannot through a long process learn to appreciate men in suits rather than women studs looking like 16 year old boys etc.

But I'm of the mind that if a person wants to stay gay or lesbian than no one should harass them about it. And if one is gay or lesbian and wants to change by seeking psychological help than that is the person's prerogative and right. Likewise, no one should harass them for that.

[Supine]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Do heterosexuals define themselves by a sexual act?

There are virgins that are homosexual, BTW.

Not to pick on you. But scholars have looked into this origin of the term homosexuality. As many of them note the term never comes up in ancient texts like those of the Bible.

It used to be "homosexuals" were not viewed as a separate "type" but merely people engaged in sinful sexual behavior. Therefore, male homosexuals were often referred to as sodomites. Derived from the story of the town of Sodom in the Bible I believe.

Supposedly, homosexuals are the one's that came up with the term "homosexual" through "identity politics" to denote themselves as something entirely separate from heterosexuals.

I'm not sure who came up with the term heterosexual but I would hazard a guess it was homosexuals or advocates of homosexuality that coined the term heterosexuality. I could be wrong on that though. It's just a hunch of mine.

Here are some links on "identity politics." The Stanford University link is one well used (as an academic reference source too) in philosophy departments at universities across the United States.

1. Identity politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Identity Politics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[jjrose]

heterosexual (adj.)
1892, in C.G. Craddock's translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," a hybrid; see hetero- + sexual. The noun is recorded from 1920, but not in common use until 1960s. Colloquial shortening hetero is attested from 1933.

Online Etymology Dictionary

homosexual (adj.)
1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from German homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Greek homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual.
"Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897]
Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Your "hunch" is incorrect.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers

There are a number of posters here who oppose homosexuality for one reason or another. I'm wondering which best describes their position.

1. Homosexuality is an illness. Affected individuals must be cured through prayer and/or other means. Any person experiencing same-sex attractions must recognize that they're sick and get help accordingly.

2. There is no such thing as sexual orientation. Homosexuals simply choose to ignore their natural state, (heterosexuality is the only thing that naturally exists), and pervert themselves with strange flesh.

3. People may experience same-sex attractions and may even have a homosexual orientation. However, actually practicing this behavior is sinful and affected individuals must either remain celibate or have relations within an opposite-sex framework.

4. Any others?

Also, a couple of other questions:

5. Do you believe that any experiencing same-sex attractions who truly repents of them, even assuming they occur again, is truly forgiven and can be made right with God, the church, or conservative society?

6. Do you believe that it is okay for people to remain single for their lives, or is it everybody's duty in conservative society to marry and have children?

Thanks for answering everyone.

It's not so much that I oppose homosexuality since a person is free think what they like and what they do in private is their business.

What I do oppose is the normalization of homosexuality and its promotion in the schools and elsewhere to children.

I'm far too driven by logic to accept that sex between members of the same sex is essentially the same and sex between a man and a woman the way nature intended.

As for what best describes my position, I'd have to say it's doggy-style.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by momonkey

It's not so much that I oppose homosexuality since a person is free think what they like and what they do in private is their business.

What I do oppose is the normalization of homosexuality and its promotion in the schools and elsewhere to children.

I'm far too driven by logic to accept that sex between members of the same sex is essentially the same and sex between a man and a woman the way nature intended.

As for what best describes my position, I'd have to say it's doggy-style.

How ironic...

[intelfan11315]

The gay part of guys does not bother me at all. I don't care about their sexual orientation. I do however despise the flamboyant, flaming aspect of gays. So yes, if you're gay and act like that, I don't hate you for being gay.. I hate you for being annoying as ****. That goes for straight guys who act like that too.

[Griffis]

I would like to know if anyone can share a "reason" they oppose same sex marriage or are disdainful of or disgusted by homosexuality that doesn't arise from hate, fear, ignorance, bigotry, or some combination of those things.

I seriously wonder if anyone can produce a single one.

Of course, there will be plenty who use The Bible to justify their feelings (and they are entitled to those feelings if they so wish) but I would like it if we could leave opposition on religious grounds out of it.

Just like to hear one good reason that isn't based on one of the things mentioned above.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by Taratova

Why do you define yourself with a sexual act? Aren't you more than your sexual attraction?

It's not homosexuals or friends of LGBT people who define anyone by a sexual act: it's those who oppose same sex marriage and are disdainful of homosexuality who do. The main "reason(s)" ever brought up in threads like these consist of:

"Ew!"

"God hates it!"

or

"Duh gays people can't make babies, so it will never be a marriage."

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by chad3

Most people who hate gay people are either gay themselves, or they had authoritarian parents.

Homophobe? You Hate Gays, Because You Are Gay, Yet Another Study Finds | The New Civil Rights Movement

Yes, that's right.

Everyone who believes homosexuality is a crime against nature is really a *** with ****** parents!