Thread: Homosexuality

It's a means of control. All sources of pleasure outside church festivals are strictly prohibited.

Sex is a very powerful form of pleasure. The Catholic church clearly recognise it is important (they would quickly die out otherwise), but it's meant to be the bare minimum, and never for pleasure, only for child raising.

and sex without the possibility of creating life is sinful.

That's not an understanding, that's a statement of belief. We know what Catholics believe, and restating what is already known is useless.

I'd be interested in your rationalisation though. Why is it 'sinful'?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I'd be interested in your rationalisation though. Why is it 'sinful'?

Hmm...

Personally (outside of what the Catholic church says), I believe that the survival of any species depends upon reproduction. Obviously, then, sex is important. Each member of a species has an obligation to ensure our species' survival by producing a succeeding generation and seeing that it survives. Going further, I believe that each person has an obligation to see that his specific family line continues on (this can also be traced back to keeping the gene pool large for the species).

For example, if half of the remaining gorilla population decided to stop reproducing, then we would say they were driving their species to extinction. And while some might say that the human race has surpassed this need to reproduce, what would happen if everyone in the world felt the same way? The human population would diminish, lessening our species' power over the rest of nature and possibly exposing it more to such things as worldwide pandemics.

So, to betray your family and your species by willfully failing to reproduce is 'sinful'.

Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by alphabet55

Hmm...

Personally (outside of what the Catholic church says), I believe that the survival of any species depends upon reproduction. Obviously, then, sex is important. Each member of a species has an obligation to ensure our species' survival by producing a succeeding generation and seeing that it survives. Going further, I believe that each person has an obligation to see that his specific family line continues on (this can also be traced back to keeping the gene pool large for the species).

For example, if half of the remaining gorilla population decided to stop reproducing, then we would say they were driving their species to extinction. And while some might say that the human race has surpassed this need to reproduce, what would happen if everyone in the world felt the same way? The human population would diminish, lessening our species' power over the rest of nature and possibly exposing it more to such things as worldwide pandemics.

So, to betray your family and your species by willfully failing to reproduce is 'sinful'.

Does that make sense?

Makes sense, but I don't agree with it.

The human race has long surpassed the need to reproduce, and we are seeing some of the detrimental effects of over-population. I'm also afraid that your argument pertaining to humans and the "power over nature" does not hold water. Increasing technological advances will give us more power than ever before. Also, it is through overpopulation that we see an increase in pandemics and disease. More people living in close quarters = less sanitation = more disease = rapid transition of said disease. Not pretty.

I also really don't care much for the bit about "betraying one's family" or "continuing the family line." What if I don't want children?

Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't work at all.

A) Sex has a powerful social role. It isn't just for the purpose of reproduction, as evidenced by the powerful role it plays in human societies and those of other 'higher' animals, such as other Apes and Dolphins.

To deny this and proclaim it wrong - as the Catholic church does - is disgusting, frankly.

B) If we reproduced at every single opportunity we would end up with an unsustainable population and mass starvation and misery.

If you're against artificial contraception, you'll get the natural version instead. I think having a stable population is far more preferable to creating untold misery, but that's something the Catholic church has little problem with.

C) If this was actually the reason then instead of labelling sex as sinful, it would be targeting the fact that not having children is 'sinful'. Just because one has sex for pleasure, or to share a bond with the person they love or whatever, it doesn't stop them from raising children.

D) This also completely ignores genetic diseases, as well as STDs. Is failing to reproduce immoral then? Is it wrong to refrain from bringing a child in to the world if they will suffer terribly?


This justification is weak and easily refuted. Sex is sinful. Drugs are sinful. Enjoying food is sinful. As I said, it's about control and to give the church power over its members by monopolising the sources of pleasure as best possible.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Makes sense, but I don't agree with it.

The human race has long surpassed the need to reproduce, and we are seeing some of the detrimental effects of over-population. I'm also afraid that your argument pertaining to humans and the "power over nature" does not hold water. Increasing technological advances will give us more power than ever before. Also, it is through overpopulation that we see an increase in pandemics and disease. More people living in close quarters = less sanitation = more disease = rapid transition of said disease. Not pretty.

I also really don't care much for the bit about "betraying one's family" or "continuing the family line." What if I don't want children?

I see things differently. In my opinion, we've beaten overpopulation with technology (i.e. New York City). A larger population creates more ideas, which creates more technology, which allows for a larger population through advances in food production and medicine. Earthly constraints, too, can be beat by space travel, terraforming, etc. In other words, we may have mastered the Earth, but we haven't mastered the universe, so we still need to be growing as a species.

As for "betraying one's family"... I'm very interested in genealogy, so I think seeing the extended family trees has influenced my thinking. The longevity and history behind a family makes it seem like a shame to let it end just because its current generation does not want any children. (I know that this belief is a little odd.)

And Photolysis, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. You see sex as a social function, and I see it as a biological function. Although I fail to see how STDs would be a problem if every relationship was monogamous. Also, choosing not to bring a child into the world because they would suffer terribly is wrong. After all, people like Stephen Hawking, Beethoven, etc. have contributed immensely to the human race.

Originally Posted by alphabet55

I see things differently. In my opinion, we've beaten overpopulation with technology (i.e. New York City).

Seriously? Pollution, global warming, social inequality, corruption, violence... You are seriously telling me those problems aren't caused by overpopulation?

We're wasting all resources. Just like a species does before becoming extinct, or like a cancer does before killing a person.

Social inequality, corruption, and violence were all problems for humanity thousands of years ago and have nothing to do with overpopulation (although one could argue that they are made worse by more numbers, they are not directly a result of overpopulation). Pollution can be fixed by current technologies like filtration, purification, and recycling. Most companies/countries are just too cheap or lazy to do them. Global warming (which I don't believe man really has a major part in) can also be fixed by technology if we really wanted it to be. I've read about large 'air traps' which would filter excess carbon out of the air. And the technologies we have to combat pollution and (if you insist) manmade global warming do exist and are only improving with time.

Originally Posted by alphabet55

Hmm...

Personally (outside of what the Catholic church says), I believe that the survival of any species depends upon reproduction. Obviously, then, sex is important. Each member of a species has an obligation to ensure our species' survival by producing a succeeding generation and seeing that it survives. Going further, I believe that each person has an obligation to see that his specific family line continues on (this can also be traced back to keeping the gene pool large for the species).

For example, if half of the remaining gorilla population decided to stop reproducing, then we would say they were driving their species to extinction. And while some might say that the human race has surpassed this need to reproduce, what would happen if everyone in the world felt the same way? The human population would diminish, lessening our species' power over the rest of nature and possibly exposing it more to such things as worldwide pandemics.

So, to betray your family and your species by willfully failing to reproduce is 'sinful'.

Does that make sense?

Oh no... WHAT HAVE I DONE???

I have BETRAYED MY SPECIES!!!!

DUN DUN DUN DUN

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alas, I am barren!




Alphabet55...

EVERY SINGLE THING YOU SAID IN THAT POST WAS BULLSHIT!!! Yeah, you know what you're right! We will go extinct unless more people reproduce. After all there's only like SEVEN BILLION people left! I guess we'll all fuckin DIE at this rate.

What else did you say? Risk of pandemics? For fuck's sake man! Are you like five!?

And for the last time I have to explain it to this retarded crotch mutilation of an argument. What if everyone made that decision? NOT EVERYBODY WILL MAKE THAT DECISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN?????????

"Oh honey I'm sorry we're going extinct we forgot to have children!"

????????????????????????????????????????????

I hear this argument from breeders ALL THE CHUFFING TIME. Well if EVERYONE were like that there'd be no one left blahdi blahdi blah drivvel drivvel drivvel fucks. Yeah, NO SHIT. WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

People who think that's a valid argument should probably be classified as sub-human because it's almost impossible to find that within the IQ range of homo sapiens. You scientifically CAN'T be that stupid! You would have to have delusional mental problems to actually believe what you are saying.

This makes my eyes bleed, because if these subhumans do exist, THEY'RE HAVING ALL THE CHILDREN!!!!!! They, if anyone, will POISON the gene pool! Not that genetics makes that much difference with modern education and rationality conditioning, but there's your own argument against you.

The reason I'm so angry is because I am pretty sure you DO NOT believe the things you are saying. It's either because you've been taught it as a common response by the rest of the rabbits Catholics, or it's a last resort of your ego to justify having a small village for your litter.

And finally, to completely shit on anything you hope this has to do with homosexuality, I guess if we shouldn't let gays love each other because they don't shit out other organisms then we should do the same with infertile couples? Fuck you! Go and shag your siblings if you take this seriously.

I swear, nobody put me anywhere near that IDOL who calls himself the pope because I would do things to him so gruesome I would have to kill myself, because I couldn't live with knowing I had that much evil inside of me.

That is all.

Idolfan, marry me.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Idolfan, marry me.

Epic

More compulsion...

Originally Posted by alphabet55

(No celibate marriages, lol.)

I'm glad you find overpopulation funny (RESOURCES).

Originally Posted by alphabet55

Sex without pleasure (rape, etc.) is sinful.

Asexuals can't get married. Oh, wait... I suppose that's why they become priests?

Originally Posted by alphabet55

sex without the possibility of creating life is sinful.

Just like owning a gun and not fuckin killing someone with it is sinful.

Originally Posted by alphabet55

and other things like masturbation (duh) are sinful.

And wet dreams.

Originally Posted by alphabet55

I don't expect this to convince anyone.

Originally Posted by alphabet55

I figured that I could at least explain my understanding of why Roman Catholics see homosexual acts as wrong.

I hope you then in turn understand that the Vatican is the great whore of Babylon.

You are a gold mine!

This is not an ad hominem attack, merely a statement of fact. Your posts are some of my greatest motivations for shagging as many men as possible. It could possibly be second to the hatred displayed against homosexuals. I do not believe you show hatred, but your 'arguments' are simply of equal magnitude in their encouragement. If you keep posting in this thread you might turn me into a suicide bummer! I have enough problems dealing with my screwed up sexuality as it is without someone trying to chuffin kill me.

Originally Posted by alphabet55

So, to betray your family and your species by willfully failing to reproduce is 'sinful'.

Originally Posted by alphabet55

willfully

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

Just sayin...

Originally Posted by Supernova

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

Catholics tend to choose, but personally I prefer randomisers.

Idolfan, I'm so appreciative of your intelligent and level-headed responses to my posts.

Originally Posted by alphabet55

Idolfan, I'm so appreciative of your intelligent and level-headed responses to my posts.

I should hope so, because I actually refuted your points in them.

I live in a country ruled by church, I dare to say. So, I have a lot a Christian friends. Every single one of them is a hypocritical Christian. It is as if they have two personalities - theoretical and realistic.
Marriage is sacred, homosexuality is a sin, they state firmly.
Yet, in reality, no one of them is married, but they all had sex (all sorts of 'unnatural' sex, may I add); and they would never consider or treat a gay friend as a sinner! Hell, they would talk about love problems instead, giving advice!
(and this are just 2 drops in an ocean of hypocrisy)

All they have to say about it is: "Well, we're all sinners." I mean, you follow this religion, could you at least give it a try NOT being a sinner, whatever that means to you?!

You're obeying these rules, these rules that place limits on love, providing blind arguments such as 'marriage is sacred', without even questioning WHY marriage is so sacred? Why is that PAID piece of paper more sacred than unsigned love? How can homosexual couples influence all people to turn gay? Is 'nature' perhaps feeling threatened??

Sexuality is not a matter of choice. Where are your hearts and reason to call it a sin? Sure, you say, it's not a sin until they practice it. What does that even mean? They should marry someone of the opposite sex, make babies and live in a frustrating lie? Do any of those two spouses deserve that? Or should they be alone and miserable if they wish for love? Is that somehow helping reproduction?

Or should we all start treating each other with respect, and start questioning our inherited traditions and rules with opened eyes?

Originally Posted by Luanne

...and they would never consider or treat a gay friend as a sinner! Hell, they would talk about love problems instead, giving advice!
(and this are just 2 drops in an ocean of hypocrisy)

well, Jesus did dine with tax collectors and sinners...

Originally Posted by Supernova

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

Just sayin...

That is a question I have asked tons of times and seen asked tons of times, but I have YET to see a homophobe actually answer it. I'm not holding my breath for it to ever happen.

Usually when somebody pretends to answer the question, he talks about when he first hooked up with somebody of the opposite sex. FAIL. That is not the question. We want to know when you decided to PREFER the opposite sex. Well???????

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Oh no... WHAT HAVE I DONE???

I have BETRAYED MY SPECIES!!!!

DUN DUN DUN DUN

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alas, I am barren!

Alphabet55...

EVERY SINGLE THING YOU SAID IN THAT POST WAS BULLSHIT!!! Yeah, you know what you're right! We will go extinct unless more people reproduce. After all there's only like SEVEN BILLION people left! I guess we'll all fuckin DIE at this rate.

What else did you say? Risk of pandemics? For fuck's sake man! Are you like five!?

And for the last time I have to explain it to this retarded crotch mutilation of an argument. What if everyone made that decision? NOT EVERYBODY WILL MAKE THAT DECISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN?????????

"Oh honey I'm sorry we're going extinct we forgot to have children!"

????????????????????????????????????????????

I hear this argument from breeders ALL THE CHUFFING TIME. Well if EVERYONE were like that there'd be no one left blahdi blahdi blah drivvel drivvel drivvel fucks. Yeah, NO SHIT. WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

People who think that's a valid argument should probably be classified as sub-human because it's almost impossible to find that within the IQ range of homo sapiens. You scientifically CAN'T be that stupid! You would have to have delusional mental problems to actually believe what you are saying.

This makes my eyes bleed, because if these subhumans do exist, THEY'RE HAVING ALL THE CHILDREN!!!!!! They, if anyone, will POISON the gene pool! Not that genetics makes that much difference with modern education and rationality conditioning, but there's your own argument against you.

The reason I'm so angry is because I am pretty sure you DO NOT believe the things you are saying. It's either because you've been taught it as a common response by the rest of the rabbits Catholics, or it's a last resort of your ego to justify having a small village for your litter.

And finally, to completely shit on anything you hope this has to do with homosexuality, I guess if we shouldn't let gays love each other because they don't shit out other organisms then we should do the same with infertile couples? Fuck you! Go and shag your siblings if you take this seriously.

I swear, nobody put me anywhere near that IDOL who calls himself the pope because I would do things to him so gruesome I would have to kill myself, because I couldn't live with knowing I had that much evil inside of me.

That is all.

Idolfan, I can't believe the words are coming out of me mouth, but I agree with you. Well done, mate.

Originally Posted by Luanne

I live in a country ruled by church, I dare to say. So, I have a lot a Christian friends. Every single one of them is a hypocritical Christian. It is as if they have two personalities - theoretical and realistic.
Marriage is sacred, homosexuality is a sin, they state firmly.
Yet, in reality, no one of them is married, but they all had sex (all sorts of 'unnatural' sex, may I add); and they would never consider or treat a gay friend as a sinner! Hell, they would talk about love problems instead, giving advice!
(and this are just 2 drops in an ocean of hypocrisy)

All they have to say about it is: "Well, we're all sinners." I mean, you follow this religion, could you at least give it a try NOT being a sinner, whatever that means to you?!

You're obeying these rules, these rules that place limits on love, providing blind arguments such as 'marriage is sacred', without even questioning WHY marriage is so sacred? Why is that PAID piece of paper more sacred than unsigned love? How can homosexual couples influence all people to turn gay? Is 'nature' perhaps feeling threatened??

Sexuality is not a matter of choice. Where are your hearts and reason to call it a sin? Sure, you say, it's not a sin until they practice it. What does that even mean? They should marry someone of the opposite sex, make babies and live in a frustrating lie? Do any of those two spouses deserve that? Or should they be alone and miserable if they wish for love? Is that somehow helping reproduction?

Or should we all start treating each other with respect, and start questioning our inherited traditions and rules with opened eyes?

And a big to you, too. I couldn't have stated it better myself. And in my experience, the religious are some of the most hypocritical people on the planet. And yes, keeping sexual urges bottled up tends to create odd perversions in society (the "unnatural" sex you mentioned above). It isn't healthy at all.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is a question I have asked tons of times and seen asked tons of times, but I have YET to see a homophobe actually answer it. I'm not holding my breath for it to ever happen.

Usually when somebody pretends to answer the question, he talks about when he first hooked up with somebody of the opposite sex. FAIL. That is not the question. We want to know when you decided to PREFER the opposite sex. Well???????

I, too, would like to see someone answer this. Let me put it another way: if you honestly think being gay is a choice, sit down and think of a member of the same sex. Someone attractive, by whatever definition you hold. Are you sexually attracted to this person? Most would say "no." Point made. If you happened to say "yes," then you may wish to get your ass out of the closet.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I, too, would like to see someone answer this. Let me put it another way: if you honestly think being gay is a choice, sit down and think of a member of the same sex. Someone attractive, by whatever definition you hold. Are you sexually attracted to this person? Most would say "no." Point made. If you happened to say "yes," then you may wish to get your ass out of the closet.

I say YESSSSSSSS!!

Jokes aside, good point.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I, too, would like to see someone answer this. Let me put it another way: if you honestly think being gay is a choice, sit down and think of a member of the same sex. Someone attractive, by whatever definition you hold. Are you sexually attracted to this person? Most would say "no." Point made. If you happened to say "yes," then you may wish to get your ass out of the closet.

I find it very hard to get my head around this. It's clear for most people whether or not they are gay or straight, but I for example didn't discover I had any homosexuality in me until last year.

But, for reasons that are too deep for me to be bothered explaining, I really think that it MUST have been in me all along, because it's far more than just a 'perversion'. It's an entire emotional complex. I'd simply rather love a boy.

Put it this way: I can appreciate the sexual features of both genders, however when I was only attracted to girls, my fantasies were strange. Unless there was someone I fancied (and in that case only ever physically), I would only have complex and 'sci-fi' fantasies about girls. When I started watching porn I practically stopped fantasising altogether. But then, when I did start looking at boys I began having more and more deep emotional fantasies. With girls, there was never any love involved.

I think that perhaps the people who think that being gay is a choice, say it because THEY can appreciate both sexes, like I can. Is there a clearer reason? They simply deny their homosexual side for all conveniency. And then, when someone comes along who honestly just doesn't get along with women, they act all confused because they assume that you can only really be emotionally attracted to women. This goes a way to explain why religious preachers appear to think that homosexuality is just lust. Well, I can testify, it's not! It's literally >90% emotional for me.

That's my take on it. Unadmitted bisexuality. In a world where everyone's too ashamed to talk about it, people will make common assumptions. So, these people (not necessarily religious either) 'agree' that it is a choice, but without actually having a good long chat with each other about it!!!!

Christians never seem willing to talk to me. I expressed my precise opinion and feelings in previous post, and hoped you (Christians) would comment on it!

Wow, its a shame this topic has deteriorated to the point of name-calling and mud-slinging. It actually had the potential to be an interesting, intelligent debate.

I think the point that a lot of people here are missing is that there is a big difference between accepting something and approving of something.

I had a Christian upbringing, but I am a fairly liberal Christian. I have friends who are gay, straight, Muslim and Hindu. I don't necessarily approve of everything that they believe and practice, but I accept that they are how thay are for a reason. In the same way, I'm sure that my friends of other religions don't approve of what I believe, but they accept it because diversity should be celebrated. Also, it would be a ridiculous reason to end a friendship.

Same goes for sexual orientation. I absolutely do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, because it contradicts my religion and beliefs. However, I accept that some people who are close to me are gay.

Tolerance, people... remember the old saying "Live and let live"...

^ (queer)