Originally posted by Atlantis001
Why does that imply that humans are superior ? Personally, I never liked the thought that humans are different from the rest of the universe.
Ok, I maybe reading into what you say, if I have, I apologize. Try this: put the entire problem into a math equation, I would like to see what you would come up with.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, I maybe reading into what you say, if I have, I apologize. Try this: put the entire problem into a math equation, I would like to see what you would come up with.
Okay, let me try, I think your question was about this part of my post :
What needs to be proved is that homosexuality is natural. It has not been proved yet.
By that I only meant "homosexuality being natural" is not a scientific fact, and its not something already considered by science, as a fact. I don´t think my point of view imply that humans are superior. Here is what I´ve said:
Everything in nature exists for a purpose. Sex purpose is reproduction. Fishes don´t need sex to reproduce, because they live in the water, and it all happens externally to their organisms. Cells don´t need sex to reproduce, maybe because they are very simple organisms. So in these species sex doesn´t even exist.
I say the sex only purpose is reproduction. If we didn´t need it for reproduction, it will not exist, thats what Darwin´s theory tell. We will not have mouths if did not need it to eat, even eating for pleasure, after all people enjoy food. There is a mosquito that does not need to eat, as it lives just one day. As espected it doesn´t have a mouth. It could have a mouth just to eat for pleasure, but it does not have. There are many examples of animals that do not have "something", because they just don´t need it.
That does not make humans superior, that only states my point of view that homosexuality is not natural.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
That does not make humans superior, that only states my point of view that homosexuality is not natural.
Sexual pleasure is natural. This is a mechanism that insures that animals reproduce. Humans are not the only animals that display Homosexual behavior; in the wild. So are you saying that homosexuality is a perversion of this pleasure mechanism?
I say nothing exists without a reason, therefore homosexuality has a natural reason behind it and that is population control.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sexual pleasure is natural. This is a mechanism that insures that animals reproduce. Humans are not the only animals that display Homosexual behavior; in the wild. So are you saying that homosexuality is a perversion of this pleasure mechanism?I say nothing exists without a reason, therefore homosexuality has a natural reason behind it and that is population control.
I do not think pleasure is not natural, but as you said its purpose is reproduction. If its not for reproduction then there is no way it could be natural.
But if it is a perversion.... thats a good point. Perversion is a human concept, and a relative one. By the point of view of the church, I would say that it is indeed a perversion, and a sin. Personally, I think that the church is wrong in many things, so if it is a sin or not does not make it right or wrong in my opinion. I think homosexuality is a tool for pleasure created by humans, and a human necessity for them. If a person goal is to live a spiritual life, homosexuality does not help, not only homosexuality but any mundane things, like riches, lust, that sort of thing. I am not saying they are evil, but they are human limitations, and spirituality is about to be free of them. Thats what Buddhism says, and what Siddharta did in his life. Not only Buddhism but christianism says that too.
I don´t think homosexuality is wrong, but its just limitation when our goal is spiritual.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I do not think pleasure is not natural, but as you said its purpose is reproduction. If its not for reproduction then there is no way it could be natural.
But if it is a perversion.... thats a good point. Perversion is a human concept, and a relative one. By the point of view of the church, I would say that it is indeed a perversion, and a sin. Personally, I think that the church is wrong in many things, so if it is a sin or not does not make it right or wrong in my opinion. I think homosexuality is a tool for pleasure created by humans, and a human necessity for them. If a person goal is to live a spiritual life, homosexuality does not help, not only homosexuality but any mundane things, like riches, lust, that sort of thing. I am not saying they are evil, but they are human limitations, and spirituality is about to be free of them. Thats what Buddhism says, and what Siddharta did in his life. Not only Buddhism but christianism says that too.
I don´t think homosexuality is wrong, but its just limitation when our goal is spiritual.
Yes, I agree...
Buddhism teaches that attachment of any kind lead to suffering. Buddhism assumes that we all wish to be free of suffering, but if you want to suffer, that's fine, just don't hurt anyone else. If you wish to let go of all attachment, you will have less suffering. I think that is what you are getting at; but I think in the process of your judgement it will bring suffering to those who do have attachments and haven't free themselves. A Buddha will sacrifice his/her own lack of suffering to help free others from suffering. In other words, when you let go of all attachments, you gain an attachment to the freeing of others from suffering and the ego falls away.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I agree...Buddhism teaches that attachment of any kind lead to suffering. Buddhism assumes that we all wish to be free of suffering, but if you want to suffer, that's fine, just don't hurt anyone else. If you wish to let go of all attachment, you will have less suffering. I think that is what you are getting at; but I think in the process of your judgement it will bring suffering to those who do have attachments and haven't free themselves. A Buddha will sacrifice his/her own lack of suffering to help free others from suffering. In other words, when you let go of all attachments, you gain an attachment to the freeing of others from suffering and the ego falls away.
Yeah... I think I need to work more on thinking about the consequences that a judment will bring, even if its right.
Originally posted by clickclick
Your argument is that recreational sex is found in nature and im not disagreeing wit that.But as I have previously stated, the fact that reproductive organs can be used for other purposes does not detract from their original purpose. They are a necessity for reproduction and reproduction is about as big a part of nature as you will get. Its in this aspect that homosexuality clearly fails to meet acceptability. It leads to the death of a species when species are clearly designed and capable of reproduction. So how is that consistent with what nature dictates?
Homosexuals can not reproduce.
The fact that something can be used for recreational purposes is entirely besides the point here.
Interspecies sex would most certainly be an excersize of recreational sex. Something you swear is an act of nature. So regardless of how common that exact type of sex is, it would still qualify as sex for recreational purposes. Thus making it by your own argument, natural.
No, that is not my argument at all. No one is denying that the primary purpose of the genitals is for reproduction. However, you seem to be ingnoring the fact that reproduction is not the sole purpose of the genitals, and that human beings have sex for purposes other than procreation.
If using the genitals for acts other than procreation is unnatural, which is your basis for calling homosexuality unnatural, then recreational heterosexual sex, which is also not for procreation, is unnatural on this basis. You cannot have your cake and eat ie too; either all sexual acts involving the gentials outside of procreation are unnatural or they are not.
Ror your argument to even be valid, homosexuals would have sex with one another with the intention of reproducting; procreation however, is not the purpose of homosexual sex.
Furthermore, a sexual act being recreational does not necessarily qualify it as being natural. What qualifies a sexual act as being natural is whether or not it occurs in nature. Interspecies sex does not.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
What needs to be proved is that homosexuality is natural. It has not been proved yet.
Homosexuality occurs in nature; it is definitionally natural. 🙄
No, they arent. Thats why it takes a male and a female.a female gay is just as able to reproduce as straight female, by saying it is a natural process to reproduce, does that mean that single straight female that lives all alone and never gonna get laid is an unatural state to live.
Originally posted by clickclick
No, they arent. Thats why it takes a male and a female.
Hi clickclick
Let me show you the flaw in your argument. You seem to say that homosexuality is unnatural, and this thread asks if being gay is a sin. You have tided unnatural and sin together, as being equivalent. Well, driving a car is not natural, I know of no other animals that drive cars. Therefore, driving a car is a sin. If a person needs to go somewhere, he/she should walk, it's natural. Do you brush your teeth, use a phone, work on a computer...
I believe that saying something is unnatural is a cop-out, when a person speaks that kind of bullsh*t, it is the a reflection of the poison with in.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, that is not my argument at all. No one is denying that the primary purpose of the genitals is for reproduction. However, you seem to be ingnoring the fact that reproduction is not the sole purpose of the genitals, and that human beings have sex for purposes other than procreation.If using the genitals for acts other than procreation is unnatural, which is your basis for calling homosexuality unnatural, then recreational heterosexual sex, which is also not for procreation, is unnatural on this basis. You cannot have your cake and eat ie too; either all sexual acts involving the gentials outside of procreation are unnatural or they are not.
Ror your argument to even be valid, homosexuals would have sex with one another with the intention of reproducting; procreation however, is not the purpose of homosexual sex.
Furthermore, a sexual act being recreational does not necessarily qualify it as being natural. What qualifies a sexual act as being natural is whether or not it occurs in nature. Interspecies sex does not.
Its not matter if the sex is for recreation or not, it must have a purpose, homosexuality doesn´t have one, to say that something in nature happen without purpose, is against what science believes today, its denies Darwin´s theory. Why should fishes have legs, if they will never use them ?
Homosexuality occurs in nature; it is definitionally natural. 🙄
Sex must be enjoyable for reproduction to happen. But animals could satisfy their sexual impulses other ways not only by homosexuality, something that I already saw is sex happen with very young members of its own specie, thats what happens with puppy dogs on the streets.
What do you people think ? Would that be natural ?
My opinion is that those types of sex don´t have a purpose, there are not for reproduction. I not judging if they are right or wrong, remember that !
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Its not matter if the sex is for recreation or not, it must have a purpose, homosexuality doesn´t have one, to say that something in nature happen without purpose, is against what science believes today, its denies Darwin´s theory. Why should fishes have legs, if they will never use them ?Sex must be enjoyable for reproduction to happen. But animals could satisfy their sexual impulses other ways not only by homosexuality, something that I already saw is sex happen with very young members of its own specie, thats what happens with puppy dogs on the streets.
What do you people think ? Would that be natural ?My opinion is that those types of sex don´t have a purpose, there are not for reproduction. I not judging if they are right or wrong, remember that !
You have a good point.
I think "nature" is more complex then we can easily understand. We do what we do, and the reason is difficult to understand sometimes. This would be expected from a complex system. Because we don't know what the reason for something is, does not mean that it has no reason or that it has a reason.
Originally posted by ska57
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:27
The bible is just a book... Do you understand what the penalty is?
I think it's not having children; in a society that has a low number of people, not having a next generation is death to that society. Today we have over 6 billion people, there is no chance that homosexuality will cause this society to die out.