It is a commonly performed act by many animals to the extent that one should not be shocked that some humans are homosexual. You should be shocked if there were none to be honest.
Last edited:
Christianity and Creationism - some clarification
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
It is a commonly performed act by many animals to the extent that one should not be shocked that some humans are homosexual. You should be shocked if there were none to be honest.
Indeed, but I find it amusing being told I have to repent & ask for forgiveness for sinning against a god that does not feature among the things I believe exists.
It's quite insulting telling somebody they have committed a "sin" (act that violates a known moral rule) when they have no idea who they are - It's also quite rude to speak to somebody like one "knows something" when it's impossible to know anything about a concept which can't even be basically demonstrated either way.
But let's not run away with this, just because the concept of deity can't be disproved - that means nothing.
Santa, Elfs, Goblins & Bigfoot can't be disproved either - infact, all fictional characters & made up stories "can't be disproved".
While I agree "lack of evidence" is not "evidence of lacking" - it does make it rational to doubt the concept until evidence is presented (which It never will be, become apparently all the gods went on permanent vacation around the time we were able to record events reliably - coincidence that is.)
Well, true, and I don't buy that this sort of evangelism works, so I'm with you on that one. Ditto the point about it being a bit blunt to call someone a sinner when you don't even know them. Not because it's not true, per se, but because you're seriously overstepping your bounds.
It's also important to understand the difference between being intolerant of bigotry & just being intolerant of others.
"If person A harms nobody, indoctrinates nobody & causes no harm - I have no problem with them - they can believe/worship or do whatever they want."
That's my attitude - I only have a problem when Person A starts trying to impose on person B, or discriminate against person C.
A religious point of view is usually different.
"If person A harms nobody, indoctrinates nobody & causes no harm - I have no problem with them - they can believe/worship or do whatever they want - unless either my book says it's evil, or my preacher says it's evil - then I do have a problem with that they do (even if objectively nobody is hurt)."
I can see why theists tend to try to distort this point, it's easier to misrepresent the other persons arguments than defend a organisation which has elements of sexism & homophobia at the core.
It's the same old trick as pretending it requires "the same kind of faith" to be an atheist - a futile attempt to misrepresent the other side (due to obviously feeling at a disadvantage for only having the faith card to use in an argument).
For the record, I don't "believe god doesn't exist" - god simply does not feature amongst the things I believe/know exists - exactly the same as the Loch-Ness Monster (Which at least does not require the suspension of our laws of physics to exist).
"If person A harms nobody, indoctrinates nobody & causes no harm - I have no problem with them - they can believe/worship or do whatever they want."
That's my attitude - I only have a problem when Person A starts trying to impose on person B, or discriminate against person C.
A religious point of view is usually different.
"If person A harms nobody, indoctrinates nobody & causes no harm - I have no problem with them - they can believe/worship or do whatever they want - unless either my book says it's evil, or my preacher says it's evil - then I do have a problem with that they do (even if objectively nobody is hurt)."
I can see why theists tend to try to distort this point, it's easier to misrepresent the other persons arguments than defend a organisation which has elements of sexism & homophobia at the core.
It's the same old trick as pretending it requires "the same kind of faith" to be an atheist - a futile attempt to misrepresent the other side (due to obviously feeling at a disadvantage for only having the faith card to use in an argument).
For the record, I don't "believe god doesn't exist" - god simply does not feature amongst the things I believe/know exists - exactly the same as the Loch-Ness Monster (Which at least does not require the suspension of our laws of physics to exist).
You might like to think that but your posts suggest otherwise. Your attitude seems to me to be Person A comes from a group that I believe causes indoctrination or harm therefore Person A must be causing harm as they belong to that group therefore I have a problem with them.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,587
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
That wasn't the question I asked though. I asked if it was normal.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,587
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Homosexuality is a disorder, in that it is a deviation from the normal. I did state that previously - I apologise if I was ambiguous.
If my son or daughter turned out to be gay I would love them unconditionally. What a silly question - how do you think I would feel?
Well I thought that would be clear but if not then yes it is "normal" ie not deviant, not wrong, etc
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,587
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I think I would share this viewpoint as well.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,587
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Well we have to differ on that. Male-female attraction and sexual contact for the purpose of reproduction is the norm throughout creatures who reproduce sexually. While some animals have been observed to engage in same sex physical contact I don't believe any expert on the topic would class it as the norm. I am open to being proved wrong on that topic.
For some further clarification on this, I have pretty much the same opinion on homosexual sex as I do on heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Some might think that makes me a heterophobe as well.
Well if you mean the most prevalent preference then that is one definition but by using the word disorder you removed the definition away from a statistical definition towards something completely different and a great deal more insidious.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,587
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Homosexuality isn't normal. Let us take anal sex as one part of that. (I am aware that not all homosexuals engage in anal sex)
The anus is situated at the end of the digestive tract and it's purpose is to control the passing of faeces. That is it's normal purpose. That is how it has evolved to function. Inserting a penis into the anus for the purposes of sexual gratification is not it's normal use. I am aware that man is not the only creature to engage in this practice but it is not the norm.
I am not suggesting for one second that all homosexuals are the spawn of Lucifer and who eat small boys. Let's put things into perspective here.
I don't think we are going to agree on this but to suggest that what I say is in some way insidious is just scaremongering.
And we are going even further off topic.
Actually we are going back on topic. Using your example we have a part of the body that was effectively used for one purpose now being used for another. That is how we evolve. Strange that - something used for both elimination and sexual gratification ...
As a relatively common behavioural trait does that not put it within the boundaries of 'normal' behaviour? I don't really see the relevance of it being 'normal' or 'common' anyway - what you we actually 'debating' is whether it is wrong or immoral (which has little to do with it being normal or common).
Such behaviour can be explained (in tandem with environmental factors) as a phenotype exhibited from a particular selection of multiple gene alleles, that commonly exists in heterosexual humans and would otherwise give a phenotype that encourages reproductive success if it were not for that particular combination of alleles (of which there are probably many combinations from hundreds of thousands of alleles). A large chunk of these gene alleles possibly exists on the Y chromosome, which would help explain why there are more gay men than woman.
This genetic explanation goes quite a long way to explain why a gay behavioural phenotype continues to exist throughout history. If the gene alleles that were partially responsible for homosexuality were not somewhat advantageous to heterosexual humans, then there would be no (or little) prevalence of these genes in society today as they would have probably been eliminated by genetic drift if neutral to heterosexuals or taken themselves out of the gene pool due to poor reproductive success.
In other words, out of the possibly thousands of genes that will influence a gay genetic phenotype, the vast majority of allele combinations of those genes would influence a more sexually successful heterosexual phenotype - preserving those genes in the gene pool.
I also find your anal sex example a bit odd, it's a pretty common activity amongst heterosexual couples too. Even if the anus hadn't historically evolved that way, it now has another use. Just because something isn't a primary function doesn't make it an evolutionary anomaly to enjoy anal sex!
So because Peter was a man every priest thereafter has to be a man...suffice to say I am not really following that argument and neither are many other Christian denominations.
Yes I do because women are excluded from the higher offices amongst the Church and from the decision making that guides the Catholic Church.
Education should be self explanatory, for contraception it is quiet simple really. Without contraception a woman has two choices, make babies or not have sex. With contraception they can choose to control their lives much more without havint to have the sexual lottery that is conception.
Pretty much yes. Non harmful sexual contact between consenting adults. Your later post as to why you think homosexuality isn't normal is somewhat telling as you make the mistake of equating homosexuality as only anal sex. I assume you are also of the opinion that all other forms of sex other than penetration is wrong and unnatural too? If not, why not?
I would still suggests that saying "They are not normal" is discriminatory. I would also point out that your views are not really what matter here, what matters is the views and actions of the Catholic Church. The views and actions of the Catholic church show they are discriminatory against homosexuals.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,587
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Pretty much - and if you are talking about schismatics then I am naturally not going to agree with them.
Well, according to Catholic teaching that is guided and bound by God.
You see this is where I guessed you were going to go and where we must agree to differ. Personally I find your view on this to be sexist. The last time I checked you needed a man and a woman to procreate - not just a woman. This idea that a woman needs to be in control of her own body does women no good. I don't believe in sex outside of marriage and as such I believe conception and childbirth should affect both a man AND a woman.
First off there are lots of sexual activities that are non harmful and can occur between consenting adults. Coprophillia is one of them. By your logic that is also normal.
I also didn't equate homosexuality as only anal sex. I even made a point of clarifying that in my post. Did you read it properly?
Well the views on this I have proffered are pretty much the official Catholic Church position. They are not discriminatory and neither is the Church.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,587
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
This did spring from me giving the official Catholic Church position on homosexuality. The Church does view that it is a disorder. I was clarifying exactly what was mean by that.
Well I think the usage of that word is to denote something more than just merely chaotic and something more akin to a medical definition and that is no coincidence. I suspect it's used with that very intention.
I see, I wasn't intending to 'have a go', but I think it is silly of the church to openly label something so common as a disorder.
So all racism is caused by religion? As is the majority of Sexism, Homophobia and Paedophilia?
Let's see, Racism is not the preserve of Religion, in fact most of those people who fought the civil rights movements were associated with or supported by their Churches and Faiths.
Sexism, again is not the preserve of religion, it is in fact a universal cultural problem, you need not be religious to be sexist.
Homophobia and Paedophilia, likewise, it is again not the preserve of religion and many churches actively campaign and join demonstrations against such acts.
Can religious people be all these things......of course.......can non-religious people be all these things....of course......the only difference is how they justify their actions. Religion, like all political or philosophical ideologies can be used to justify all manner of things, good or otherwise.
No, you not. You are simply trying to be as offensive as you can without crossing the line set by the Dons.....
Last edited: