Is it wrong to be gay?

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

You don't. Maybe the animal dies a little inside each time, or maybe it's all it looks forward to each day upon waking up. I don't know if assuming the worst is the best way of thinking about it.

We aren't supposed to assume anything about that, really.
And why is this thread about bestiality, now?

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

You don't. Maybe the animal dies a little inside each time, or maybe it's all it looks forward to each day upon waking up. I don't know if assuming the worst is the best way of thinking about it.

My point is that you can't tell one way or the other. You have to assume the extremities when evaluating any law -- by not doing so you allow for loopholes. Law is a thorough thing -- you can't just ignore worst case scenario. It must be accounted for (especially since, in this case, I'd argue it's a very likely scenario).

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

I just said it has to be possible to create a system of laws that allows interspecies love while keeping interspecies rape illegal. I refuse to believe it isn't possible, though I will readily admit the odds are astronomically against it ever happening. I don't actually care that much, not being into that sort of stuff. I just think it's a shame that the few people out there who are in love with another species have to put up with it.

I don't think applying the same mindset we use for human relations to human-animal relations makes sense. The inability to communicate thoughts between species requires thinking differently.

Diseaseses, I don't really know anything about. I haven't really done a ton of research on this, seeing as how I don't care a ton about it, so I'm probably gonna go google this up or something.

EDIT: Yeah there's a wikipedia article on zoophilia and health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

I don't think we're arguing different things -- you're making an assumption that is incompatible with the law. Again, you can say that a human may have a love for an animal, but expressing love sexually is something that an animal can't possibly consent to or give an opinion about. Even abused animals can't say anything about their abuse. Animal communication is not even remotely the same as human communication because, simply put, we're different animals. Consensual sex is something that requires a higher level communication that animals aren't compatible with. You can't just "ignore" worst-case scenario and build a law around it. You have to assume worst case scenario and make sure the law accounts for it.

[devonin]

The next time I have to clean this thread up, everyone who has had posts deleted all three times (And you know who you are) will be banned. If you can't make reasonable contributions to the discussion, DO NOT POST.

[mhss1992]

I felt like bumping this thread...

Originally Posted by PhaeL v2

If the post was to me, okay, I will make my arguments, even if they're still ignorant:

1 - Either you believe cientific or religious theory, humans, and all the animals, were meant to be with the opposite gender.

2 - No matter how much years will pass, gay couples will always suffer prejudice. Just let the things be at their normal "way".

3 - I, personally, don't think a gay couple is a good thing to see.


But let me clear you one thing: I'm not homophobic. I have gay friends too, just like Carlos, and it has nothing to do with me, it's just my opinion. If they're happy like that, let them be happy. I won't interfere.

You are being contradictory.

1. If you believe in religion: People have the right to choose their religion. That clearly doesn't give them the right to discriminate gay people, since they didn't choose their sexual orientation. And, if you believe in science... Why do you think homosexuals even exist? How can it be "anti-natural" if it's not even their choice?

2. The only reason you say that is because you're not gay and you don't even try to imagine how gay people suffer everyday due to prejudice.

3. And you say you're not homophobic... Why, exactly? Just because people around you told you it's wrong since you were born?

[PhaeL v2]

Wow, that was quite a bump.

But ok, here we go:

Originally Posted by mhss1992

How can it be "anti-natural" if it's not even their choice?

So, you're telling me homosexuals are what they are because "random" purposes, it's not their choices...


Seriously, I really don't get what you're trying to say.

[mhss1992]

I added things to my last post.

Originally Posted by PhaeL v2

Wow, that was quite a bump.

But ok, here we go:




So, you're telling me homosexuals are what they are because "random" purposes, it's not their choices...


Seriously, I really don't get what you're trying to say.

I'm saying that people complain that homosexuality is against the nature, but that doesn't make any sense. There are other animals besides humans that also have homosexual couples.
And I never used the word "random".

[PhaeL v2]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

1. If you believe in religion: People have the right to choose their religion. That clearly doesn't give them the right to discriminate gay people, since they didn't choose their sexual orientation. And, if you believe in science... Why do you think homosexuals even exist? How can it be "anti-natural" if it's not even their choice?

2. The only reason you say that is because you're not gay and you don't even try to imagine how gay people suffer everyday due to prejudice.

3. And you say you're not homophobic... Why, exactly? Just because people around you told you it's wrong since you were born?

1. Religion: Cristians, Jewishs, Muslims, Hinduists don't accept homossexuality among them, AS FAR AS I KNOW. Maybe I'm wrong.
I'll talk about science, wait for it

2. No, I'm not saying that because I'm not gay, and I know they suffer too muhc prejudice nowadays, but there always will be people that think it's wrong. Some people just don't open their minds, it's a fact.

3. I'm not homophobic because, as I stated in that post, I have gay friends. I think it's wrong, I have my reasons, my thoughts, but I just respect them. And it's not contradictory.


Now science:

Originally Posted by mhss1992

I'm saying that people complain that homosexuality is against the nature, but that doesn't make any sense.

When I said "against the nature", I said exactly this: HOMOSSEXUAL COUPLES DON'T PROCREATE. That's what I meant with "against the nature laws", I stated this over 9000 times before this post.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by PhaeL v2

1. Religion: Cristians, Jewishs, Muslims, Hinduists don't accept homossexuality among them, AS FAR AS I KNOW. Maybe I'm wrong.
I'll talk about science, wait for it

2. No, I'm not saying that because I'm not gay, and I know they suffer too muhc prejudice nowadays, but there always will be people that think it's wrong. Some people just don't open their minds, it's a fact.

3. I'm not homophobic because, as I stated in that post, I have gay friends. I think it's wrong, I have my reasons, my thoughts, but I just respect them. And it's not contradictory.


Now science:



When I said "against the nature", I said exactly this: HOMOSSEXUAL COUPLES DON'T PROCREATE. That's what I meant with "against the nature laws", I stated this over 9000 times before this post.

1. When did I say that they accept homosexuality? I said that they don't have the right not to accept. I'm trying to say that, since we must accept their religion, their choices, they must also accept the gay people's condition.

2. Then, why did you say "Just let the things be at their normal "way"."? That clearly showed that you don't care. People can change. You don't see many racists nowadays.

3. It's not a matter of choice, how can it possibly be wrong?

Science: Nature never said anything about non-procreation being wrong. Humans said that. And there will always be more people who want to procreate, so that's not really a problem. Actually, controlling the populational growth is a very useful thing.

[PhaeL v2]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

1. When did I say that they accept homosexuality? I said that they don't have the right not to accept. I'm trying to say that, since we must accept their religion, their choices, they must also accept the gay people's condition.

2. Then, why did you say "Just let the things be at their normal "way"."? That clearly showed that you don't care. People can change. You don't see many racists nowadays.

3. It's not a matter of choice, how can it possibly be wrong?

Science: Nature never said anything about non-procreation being wrong. Humans said that. And there will always be more people who want to procreate, so that's not really a problem. Actually, controlling the populational growth is a very useful thing.

1. It's against their god's laws, that's why they don't accept.
2. Yes, you're right.
3. My point of view of "wrong" is related to the "against nature's laws" thing.
4. It's not like it's wrong, it's just the way it have to be. We, and the other animals, are keeping the evolution for thousands of years, again, that's the "against nature's laws" thing.



Also, after all, I have to admit you debate very well.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by PhaeL v2

1. It's against their god's laws, that's why they don't accept.

Homosexuality is not against the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were the only laws directly attributed to God himself. People assume everything else in the Bible is the word of God, but in reality, it was all written by Man.

And if you'll take the entire Bible as entirely comprised of the Word of God (apparently working indirectly by... stealing the writers' free will?), then you better be willing to kill sinners. Yeah. And keep slaves. And everything else in the Bible that sucks.

3. My point of view of "wrong" is related to the "against nature's laws" thing.

Homosexuality is not against nature. It's against procreation, but not everything in life is toward procreation, especially when one considers how our higher intellect allows us to have goals apart from "have babies".

I mean, nature is to have progeny with the best mate we can. But that's not how we choose mates. We choose a mate based not on who would give us the best offspring, but who we have the best peer bonding with.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Homosexuality is not against nature. It's against procreation, but not everything in life is toward procreation, especially when one considers how our higher intellect allows us to have goals apart from "have babies".

.

+967889478

The purpose of life is not just generating more life.

[xBBx Takedown]

Okay, tbh, there is nothing wrong with being gay. I have no problem with people being gay or lesbian. They choose that not me. If they want to be in a relationship with another girl or guy well that's just fine by me. Whatever makes them happy really shouldn't matter to other people. If you think being gay is gross that's fine but don't say it's ****ed up or anything.

[PhaeL v2]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Homosexuality is not against the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were the only laws directly attributed to God himself. People assume everything else in the Bible is the word of God, but in reality, it was all written by Man.

Because, for them, the Bible was "indirectly" written by God itself. And I mentioned other religions, not only Christianism. But, yeah, your point are right.





Also, we can keep talking about for an hour, a day, a month, an year, we'll never end this, although it's a kinda interesting topic.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by PhaeL v2

Because, for them, the Bible was "indirectly" written by God itself.

This is paradoxical, as Man is supposed to have freewill above the Christian god's own apparent omnipotence. If Man has freewill, a god could not act through them. If a god cannot control freewill, then he is not truly omnipotent.

Try telling a religious person that though. Hah! But look what I'm doing. I should be saying these things in the Religion/Science thread over in Chit Chat.

[Mollocephalus]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

The purpose of life is not just generating more life.

i'd go furter on saying there there is no purpose about life at all, as the only thing that makes life itself possible is the continuous interation of atoms and ultimately energy. at this point, life is a subresult of the tendency of complex atomic systems of finding the point of aequilibrium. proliferation of life has nothing to do with the reason why life exists and its supposed purpose, which is an erroneous human concept that has nothing to do with the universe mechanics.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

i'd go furter on saying there there is no purpose about life at all, as the only thing that makes life itself possible is the continuous interation of atoms and ultimately energy. at this point, life is a subresult of the tendency of complex atomic systems of finding the point of aequilibrium. proliferation of life has nothing to do with the reason why life exists and its supposed purpose, which is an erroneous human concept that has nothing to do with the universe mechanics.

Just because you can't see anything beyond the obvious. And you think that existence is limited by what you see.
Also, everything you said was completely unnecessary.

[Mollocephalus]

whatever purpose you may find in your life is fictional, and wouldn't make sense in a methodic analisys. anyone creates or most likely inheritates his/her life goals but that doesn't implicate that these goals are valid at an universal level. i'm pretty sure this is what you mean by "looking beyond the obvious" except the said obvious is -ooops- a phisical fact while the said beyond is the dream that anyone, to different degrees, creates to make reality look fancier.

anyways, going by these concepts, no, it's not wrong to be gay.

[Niala]

Two options:
1) If you're gay, date gay people.
2) If you're straight, then why the **** do you care about gay people so much that you insult them? It's not like gay people interfere in your life; just leave it be, you can hate it all you want, but it's not going to change **** all, so just stfu about it and live with it.

P.S. I'm religious (Christian) and have no problem with gay people whatsoever. Religion isn't an excuse to hate people for being who they are. "Nothing makes God happier than when two people, ANY TWO PEOPLE, come together in happiness." etc. etc. Book Chapter:Line. XP

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

whatever purpose you may find in your life is fictional, and wouldn't make sense in a methodic analisys. anyone creates or most likely inheritates his/her life goals but that doesn't implicate that these goals are valid at an universal level. i'm pretty sure this is what you mean by "looking beyond the obvious" except the said obvious is -ooops- a phisical fact while the said beyond is the dream that anyone, to different degrees, creates to make reality look fancier.

anyways, going by these concepts, no, it's not wrong to be gay.

Seriously, what you're saying makes no sense.
You only pointed that we are made of atoms and stuff. Nice.
That has absolutely nothing to do with life having a purpose or not. Methodic analysis doesn't negate the existence of a purpose, either.
And you say that the concept of "purpose" is a human creation. Well, science and every other concept are also human creations. Concepts don't come out of nowhere.

I really don't want to discuss that, now... But, believe me, I have thought a lot about this, I've had lots of thoughts and experiences, and I have enough good reasons to say that there is a purpose.

You don't have to believe in a purpose, but saying that there isn't one just because you can't see one, like you did, is just as dogmatic as believing in the bible or similar things without questioning.

[xThai]

I couldn't care less about gay people, I know a bunch of them except I'm not friends with any of them. I don't think it's wrong to be gay, but if I ever had a son/daughter that was gay/lesbian... It'd be extremely hard for me to accept them for who they were.