Religious people!Would you send your children to a gay to straight conversion teraphy

But this is a thriller of a thread!
Could you quite possibly explain how your own human body indicates your judgement over your peers? Does your body shiver when you see a homosexual? Because that would just make you seem more camp...

You are a stubborn flower aren't you?

What has the chance of fertility or spread of HIV have to do with it being right or wrong?

I've answered for your claims in the previous post and, as expected, you ignored them because you couldn't answer the questions.

Let's change the question then:

Being religious is wrong because a) there is no proof of a God being out there (akin to your own claim about the gay gene, from an irrelevant study mind you), b) most religious people are not educated and c) religious people are more likely to kill others because of their beliefs.

How fair does that sound? Do you like your pathetic argument being used for you yourself?

We both know the answer.

If something spreads HIV which is untreatable it is bad because it causes major suffering.
You have a pathetic God argument: God is an alien in a way because he is outside of earth e.g: in the universe somewhere. To deny the existence of God is to deny the existence of aliens which is silly- water on Mars and bacteria on certain planets- bacteria are aliens to you know?- If on a different planet!!! Also God is not disproved yet so we cannot conclude God doesn't exist.
Your stubborn too. btw.

@*Stefan*
What were you answers to the other post? I want to know because I want to see if I could answer.

1. A penis is supposed to go into a vagina not an anus.
2. Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally.
3. Homosexuals have the most HIV and are at most risk for catching
4. Even though animals may practice homosexuality, that doesn't make it right for humans!

She obviously bases her opinion on religion, and as such we cannot exclude this topic.
(Note: I do not have anything against religious people and I still consider myself part of the Christian family. The argument is only used to reflect her own)

Yes the thought of homosexuals does make me shiver, and despite all our difference everyone does have similar body- we all have sexual organs.

I will look at the first page, but in response to the URL, it is interesting but 1- its not exactly a scientific article (something on pubmed was what I was looking for, or a similar scholar article) as the ads suggest.
2- the article itself says research will still be conducted to see if the gene is present in hetrosexuals. So no facts are present.


SECOND :
In regards to the HIV debate, youre right, hetrosexuals have it, HOWEVER, only those who have had multiple sexual partners, which in my opinion, (no offence to anyone again) I think shouldnt exactly be done.

-snip-

You cannot use animal behaviour to prove a point about humans. Sorry but dogs urinate to mark their territory, a human doing that would be put in an insane asylum.

Well scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as 100% (which is why humans need belief and hope in my opinion) so you are right in a sense, but we can get pretty damn close. So although HIV on its own isnt enough, it can be used to back up our opinion, (because of the whole mucuos thing) but coupled with other pieces of evidence, such as evolution, our conclusion is not a silly one.

I read the articles, so far, all of them only have hypotheses, while I presented scientific facts, so I still stand by my opinion.

Dogs choose to love their owners or not, they are alot more related than you think. Penguins huddle for warmth, a human trait. Sheep follow the leader, (sadly sometimes a human trait). Insects move in order, a human trait. All animals posess human traits and almost all mammals choose their actions (if not all). Yet that does not mean we should copy them or use them as role models, sources of inspiration, fine, but saying homosexuality is ok because bonobos do it is not. They also happen to bare their teeth in anger, we shouldn't do that.
And since they do it, it is probably beneficial for them, but that does not mean it applies to us, unless you suggest we slide on our bellies and catch fish with our mouths.

How can it be irrelevant, its science.

But you ignored my question.

Trust me when I tell you I am more than willing to be convinced that homosexuality is ok, just give me proof.

Ebola is involunatry. It is not the persons fault. Mucuos lining the rectum is thinner than in the vagina was my scientific fact.
And please please make no assumptions about my beliefs, I never said HIV is divine punishment, never said it wasn't. I am presenting statistics, and making a personal opinion, thats all.

@*Stefan*
Also I am african, and live in africa, so do not presume that I have not seen ebola, and never has my logic said that people who have ebola are at fault.

1. So, what about the myriads of heterosexual couples engaging in such activities? Are they "objectively" wrong? Who gave you the authority to call something wrong on behalf of everyone else?
2. So, heterosexual couples which do not want to reproduce are unnatural? Heterosexual couples which cannot reproduce are unnatural? Why is "natural" relevant here?
3. What a false dichotomy. It does not make it "objectively" wrong. This is such a silly generalisation. I would have accepted that if the stats were 100% - not even close. Too many factors come in here to reach that silly conclusion.
4. Again, the mentality of a hardcore religious person. Before, you said that it is unnatural. Now, you say that it being natural (since it is found in animals as well) is irrelevant. Do you note the hypocrisy here? Are you only going to use the "natural" argument when it suits your needs?

All in all, all you offered is what religious people call "arguments" based on subjective morality. Case dismissed.

honest answer; is that, yes, because how can a gay son carry on my bloodline, he needs to reproduce that is the most important thing for me

From a Christian: the word "natural" is so often mis-used in this debate, in my opinion. I do think that homosexuality is a sin - and my plain reason for that is that I believe from the evidence, explanations and its effect on my own life that the Bible is the Word of God. However, in a sinful world, homosexuality is natural (although imperfect if you understand the distinction). I mean, come on, some people are NATURALLY allured that way. Comes down to definition and it's so vague.

As for the topic question, I wouldn't, no. Having same-sex attraction is something that is a wrong part of human nature, but trying to change a person to become straight is DEFINITELY NOT the right way forward to deal with it. Cleaning the person in ANY sin before the transforming work of salvation is not the way the Bible teaches. Don't get me wrong - we can say what's right and what's wrong. But Jesus came for the sick and not for the well. (Luke 5:31)

From a Christian: the word "natural" is so often mis-used in this debate, in my opinion. I do think that homosexuality is a sin - and my plain reason for that is that I believe from the evidence, explanations and its effect on my own life that the Bible is the Word of God. However, in a sinful world, homosexuality is natural (although imperfect if you understand the distinction). I mean, come on, some people are NATURALLY allured that way. Comes down to definition and it's so vague.

As for the topic question, I wouldn't, no. Having same-sex attraction is something that is a wrong part of human nature, but trying to change a person to become straight is DEFINITELY NOT the right way forward to deal with it. Cleaning the person in ANY sin before the transforming work of salvation is not the way the Bible teaches. Don't get me wrong - we can say what's right and what's wrong. But Jesus came for the sick and not for the well. (Luke 5:31)