Other than religious, what reason is there to ban homosexuality?

Scroll to see replies

you've been given proof but you choose to ignore it so you remain ignorant and still tell the lie to yourself.

as I said fail

No I haven't been shown proof. I guarantee you havent even read it either. IF THAT WAS PROOF, IT WOULD BE IN EVERY MEDICAL BOOK AND EVERY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL AND EVERY NEWS STATION AND EVERY LIBRARY AND EVERY AND ANY TYPE OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL.

Reply 341

Majourdawarf1

I agree. Most religions are ******** and just want to take advantage of the law and say 'God told me to do it' or some crap like that.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with gay couples. I think it's quite cute, although not one myself.

Reply 342

whitetack

Original post by lordoftheties

Well **** sherlock, you've got me there havent you. Thats been said many a time, and been answered many a time.

but not this time, i see

Reply 343

BaconandSauce

Original post by lordoftheties

I see the proof around me in my friends and family members who are gay

Not one made the choice just like the gay Muslims I know non of them choose to be gay.

But as you are not getting shout I can see no matter what proof you are given your belief in your god will override the evidence

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 344

ivybridge

Original post by lordoftheties

No, because that isn't the way the world works. Science develops and progresses by putting forward a hypothesis and allowing it to be falsified. In this case, the evidence strongly concludes that homosexuality is unlikely to be a choice and is not a mental defect. That does not mean they know for sure what it is exactly.

Reply 345

WhisperingTide

Original post by lordoftheties

That's not how science works. At all.
There is no absolute proof, but there is very good evidence.
The evidence for it being genetic is stronger, more abundant and more conclusive than the evidence for it being otherwise.

Many species have homosexual members. It is, by very definition of the word, natural. Furthermore, if it is observed as a predisposition in other species, it is very likely genetic.

Reply 346

lordoftheties

Love how this was supposed to be a thread about reasons other than religion, but islamaphobia from one member prevailed enough to flop the thread...are y'all are just a buncha h8ers

Reply 347

ivybridge

Original post by lordoftheties

Love how this was supposed to be a thread about reasons other than religion, but islamaphobia from one member prevailed enough to flop the thread...are y'all are just a buncha h8ers

No, I'm sorry, my best friend is a Muslim and I stand up for intolerance towards Muslims but you've behaved like an obnoxious idiot. You have the audacity to call us haters when you have hated on an entire minority group because of your beliefs about clouds and floating spirits within them. Grow up and practice what you preach.

Reply 348

lordoftheties

Original post by WhisperingTide

smh your ignorance amazes me. If that evidence was so strong, it wouldve been published in every academic journal etc. But its not, so it will stay there on that site rotting away.

Reply 349

Rorschach II

Original post by lordoftheties

Being Muslim is natural according to Islam; everyone is born a Muslim, hence why converts are said to 'revert' back to the religion. Besides that, out of respect to you, I'd certainly stop doing those things that aren't compulsory when around your siblings etc, but I wouldn't stop praying even if around them - and I cant imagine a situation where I would be praying around them. The argument that being gay is a genetic case is preposterous, its been used a gazillion times by a gazillion pro-gays, but when you ask for proof they somehow riggle out of it. Simply put, if its genetic, point me to the gene that holds it.

This gets beyond boring debating this.
Well, here we go...

1a) Being religious is not natural, because being religious requires human interference / intervention.
1b) Homosexuality is natural, because homosexuality occurs without human interference / invention.
This is further supported by the fact that other animals have displayed homosexual tendencies without human interference like pollution, splicing, deforestation and so on and so forth.
1b) Why do you appeal to nature? (i.e. why do you think natural is better and unnatural or artificial is worse?)
1c) Why the hypocrisy? As you appeal to nature, if you don't believe cannibalism and rape can be good, and charitable work and hospitals are bad, you're hypocritical.

2a) There isn't an argument that being gay is genetic; there is an argument that being gay has a genetic factor. The problem with the "gay gene" so often used in the media, is that it's reducing sexual orientation to one factor. And do you really think the spectrum-like quality of sexual orientation would only have one factor? Where would all the variation come from? It's an unlikely scenario I believe.
There is also reason to believe there are prenatal epigenetic factors. And just because someone is born with it doesn't necessarily mean it's genetic, for this reason.
2b) Xq28 is one of the two chromosome bands which is significantly linked to male homosexuality. (I'm certain there is another, but I can't remember it.)

Original post by lordoftheties

Your argument is based entirely on homosexuality being genetic; which it isn't. Being black is genetic, besides, not one single point can be made to suggest being black is a problem.

It is a fairer statement to say homosexuality is genetic instead of non-genetic, albeit both are incorrect, because people are reducing it / simplifying.

Original post by ivybridge

Stronger arguments for homosexuality being genetic to a degree, than it not being.

*******s. You choose your religious affiliation.

I don't think the majority choose their religious affiliation, although there is a greater degree of choice.

Wouldn't it be STI instead of STD in the case of HIV more likely? I say this because HIV is very often symptom-less for many years, so I wouldn't really call it a disease, as opposed to AIDS. (Working on the premise that diseases are / have symptoms.)

(Sorry for my semantic nature coming to light. :tongue:

)

Edit #1: To clarify the infections are the pathogens (bad bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites) and the diseases are the symptoms, so if HIV lacks symptoms, I wouldn't call it an STD.

Edit #2: for many years*

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 350

ivybridge

Original post by lordoftheties

smh your ignorance amazes me. If that evidence was so strong, it wouldve been published in every academic journal etc. But its not, so it will stay there on that site rotting away.

You still aren't getting it and you have the nerve to call us ignorant; utterly hilarious.

Reply 351

ivybridge

Original post by XcitingStuart

I don't think the majority choose their religious affiliation, although there is a greater degree of choice.

I'm sorry, yes they do. They have the choice to remain in the religion they were born into. It's a set of beliefs. It isn't an innate disposition. If you mean that they were born into a religious family and had a religious upbringing, then fair enough but that does not remove their choice to remain or leave that faith. The two are completely incomparable as fair as the element of choice goes.

Reply 352

lordoftheties

Original post by ivybridge

Fortunately for you, you werent being targeted by that comment, as I hadnt experienced any hateful comments until now. I really dont see how Ive been an obnoxious idiot. I hadn't mentioned religion at all until someone pointed out that I was a memeber of the ISOC which they supposedly meant I hate gays?

Reply 353

ivybridge

Original post by lordoftheties

No. The Islamic ideology promotes the intolerance of homosexuals and your attitude to my sexual orientation gives the users you refer to, all the evidence they need to deduce that you are hateful, or possess harmful views, towards homosexual individuals.

Reply 354

Rorschach II

Original post by ivybridge

I disagree.

I hate to say the word, but a lot are "indoctrinated", I believe.
They didn't choose that; their environment did.

Although I believe it's largely not a choice, I said there's a greater element of choice.
Relative.

Reply 355

ActuallyIDo

Original post by lordoftheties

That is ridiculous. I agree, the religion does preach an intolerance for homosexuals, but in no way would I wish to harm someone for being homosexual; unless they imposed their beliefs on a family member. Being gay is not natural, you may be gay but deep down you know its not natural. I have in no way been offensive since I posted, but you seem to want to label me as such? Homosexuality IS disgusting, whether you like it or not. The action of thrusting ones penis into another mans anus would have been natural if the body could facilitate for it - but it cant.

Indeed, THIS may be considered offensive, just as the islamaphobia you show is, but as they say, the truth hurts.

You need to take several seats sweetie....

Homosexuality is seen throughout all of nature which, if your opinion is correct, why the **** do animals engage in it?
Animals do not have the same consciousness as we do as humans, most defiantly not deciding if they're gay or not. But honestly what this all boils down to if why tf are you complaining about homosexuality, is it affecting you?
NO....

Reply 356

ivybridge

Original post by XcitingStuart

And there is still an element of choice, an element we do not have as gay people.

Reply 357

lordoftheties

Original post by ActuallyIDo

The ignorance in this thread is simply astounding. An animal is much more easily influence than a human you buffoon. Just think on that.

Reply 358

Rorschach II

Original post by lordoftheties

1) Huff, so we've already established that being gay is natural, for it occurs without human interference or intervention.

2) Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, a sexual attraction, geared towards the same-sex.
Anal sex is a behaviour.
A portion of heterosexuals have anal sex, and not all homosexuals have anal sex; the lack of exclusivity makes anal sex not a homosexual act.
Sexual attraction =/= Behaviour.

3) You haven't considered female homosexuality.

4) Just a comment: I don't claim that anal sex isn't crude. Ironically those who partake in anal sex are really anal about the cleanliness. (See the pun? :tongue:

)

Reply 359

ActuallyIDo