Homosexuality counter argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter NP151
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnnyjones said:
The point of the “island” is to only put homosexuals in isolation for example purposes to show that alone, they can not survive. You keep missing that concept. Stick with the OP question.

If you get “kill all nongay offspring” out of what I wrote you are not only interjecting your own bizzare ideas but making a horrible, reaching statement about this Christian CAF member. Your view that straight men are some kind of wild creatures that are forced to make it with another man when the urge strikes is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
You had just stated that nearly all the offspring would be heterosexual, in order to have a homosexual only island what else would you do with them? Unlike several people here I had it as a question to get clarification instead of assuming that was your opion.

I did not state that all men were like that, nor most or even many, I said some men given a long time would do it.
Arizona_Mike said:
Chimpanzees hunt down and murder members of their own species.

blogs.nature.com/news/2010/06/homicide_chimpanzee_turf_wars_1.html

And occasionally, they try to do the same to our species, as with the researcher who was just dragged off and mauled.

Sodomy and other homosexual acts actually is what is being discussed, as without the sexual component, there would be nothing wrong with an intense friendship felt for a member of the same sex.

We could also make the secular argument that sexual acts are unnatural if they require supporting paraphernalia. You shouldn’t have to make a trip to the drugstore to buy lubricant, condoms, dental dams, diaphragms, oral contraceptives, abortifacients, or whatever else is required to float your boat, to prevent a particular sex act from being excruciatingly painful, to prevent a life, to prevent the transmission of disease, or to arouse interest. If so, maybe you should reconsider doing it or with whom you are doing it.
Click to expand...
How do you know they aren’t doing it to enforce laws and that the researcher wasn’t trespassing on the chimp’s property?

See the problem is that many gays view the intense friendship as a part of their attraction, they feel like they love the person and that is a result of their attraction. Many people here feel it is completely separate.
sw85 said:
I can agree that “kill all nongay offspring” is indeed a terribly ungenerous reading of what you were saying and that anyone who genuinely believes that’s what you were saying probably has a terribly difficult time making sense of the world. On the other hand, while “straight men are some kind of wild creatures that are forced to make it with another man when the urge strikes is unfortunate” is a regrettably extreme way of putting it, it’s not entirely inaccurate.

The entire idea of fixed and determinate “sexual orientation” is pretty much a fabrication. It makes it very hard to speak about the world in meaningful ways. For instance, somewhere else on CAF right now is a thread about a “gay” man who is married, has several kids, and has a robust sex life with his wife. Now in what world is it meaningful to talk about this man being “gay”? What does that even mean?

In truth, there is remarkable plasticity in the heuristics men use to identify sexual partners. This is why you get, for instance, profoundly “heterosexual” gang bangers (i.e., big dudes with a harem of lovers and lots of babies) going to prison and then instantly reverting to anally raping men, having never exhibited a male preference at any point before then. Same thing happens to a lesser extent with sailors, except where the culture is very strongly ordered against this sort of behavior. It’s a pretty well known phenomenon, this kind of “opportunistic homosexuality.” The only reason we can fit it into the homo/hetero distinction is because it’s so protean it can accommodate virtually any oddity.
Click to expand...
That guy isn’t sexually attracted to his wife, but he loves her very dearly, he views sex with his wife as a form of intimacy. It’s remarkable what you can get the brain to do depending on how you phrase it.

For sexual release it is fascinating to the lengths which some men will go for it.
 
bri89 said:
Homosexuality is not self-defeating, if that were so, than why does it still exist after thousands of years, Probably because it’s more of a development than an innate quality. I 've known people who have married, reproduced, and later in life realized they were also capable of being attracted to the same sex. I’ve known people who thought they were exclusively homosexual and then decided they were bisexual. **All this confusion of labeling is caused by the erroneous belief that there are fixed sexual orientations and sexuality is classifiable. ** Some writer said, “there are no heterosexual or homosexual persons, only heterosexual/homosexual ACTS”. Arguing for or against the “innateness” of homosexuality as a sexual predilection is not as important as addresssing it’s place and permanence in the scope of human sexuality. Bear in mind we can not prove the innateness of heterosexuality either, we only know that this is the procreative kind of sexuality and so we enshrine it.
Click to expand...
Please explain this to homosexuals that want eveyone to believe that sexual attraction is fixed and not changeable.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Cystic fibrosis is extremely self defeating and yet it still refuses to go away.
You don’t need gene splicing, currently they are working on extracting genetic material from sperm to replace the genetic material in eggs and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Cystic Fibrosis is an inherited disease that usually ends in death through no fault of those affected.
 
bri89 said:
Cystic fibrosis is extremely self defeating and yet it still refuses to go away.

My point is that even if you were to isolate “homosexuals” on an island you still wouldn’t weed out homosexuality because there are formerly “heterosexual” people who are now practicing “homosexuals” and vice versa. Furthermore there are bisexuals as well.
Click to expand...
Rampant problem isn’t it as you believe.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Homicide is found in nature. But we don’t say that people are born homicidal.

Thievery is found in nature. But we don’t say people are born to thieve.

Alcoholism is found in nature. But we don’t say people are born to be alcoholic.

Sodomy is found in nature. Are we now to believe that people are born to sodomize?
Click to expand...
Charlemagne, you are wrong. These people are doomed and born to do…

Homicide requires a choice
Thievery requires a choice
Alcoholism requires a choice
Sodomy requires a choice

Choice is found in Nature…
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
You had just stated that nearly all the offspring would be heterosexual, in order to have a homosexual only island what else would you do with them? Unlike several people here I had it as a question to get clarification instead of assuming that was your opion.

I did not state that all men were like that, nor most or even many, I said some men given a long time would do it.
.
Click to expand...
No. Reread post 117. This is what I said word for word>“Throw in one more huge variable and that is; all the children of these births are not likely to be all gay. And, the only way to preserve an all gay civilization, is to keep having gay children.”

All the children won’t be gay, that’s it. Why would they be? It’s right in front of your making revisionist statements.

If gay people are isolated on an island, I won’t do anything with them, why are you asking what I will do with them? In this example scenario both gay and straight children would be born. The gay children (of which there would be less based on current statistics) would grow up and repeat the non productive cycle. The hetero children would grow up seeking other heteros , and with the normal order of design, reproduce rapidly. The group that has the desire to reproduce more readily coupled with the larger percentage of heteros born would over time reduce the gay population and eventually remove it in a contained area.

However, if gay people held to being repulsed by sexual relations with the opposite sex as heteros do with the same sex (remember -thats the claim, equally powered sexual attraction) in about 8 decades you would have no people. The only way to extend homosexuality in a contained environment is for homosexuals to continually violate their supposed innateness, which is really not homosexuality if your able on a large scale to have “heterosexual sex”.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
You

That guy isn’t sexually attracted to his wife, but he loves her very dearly, he views sex with his wife as a form of intimacy. It’s remarkable what you can get the brain to do depending on how you phrase it.

For sexual release it is fascinating to the lengths which some men will go for it.
Click to expand...
How wonderful his wife must feel getting a “sexual release” from a man who isn’t sexually attracted to her, or her gender.
 
johnnyjones said:
No. Reread post 117. This is what I said word for word>“Throw in one more huge variable and that is; all the children of these births are not likely to be all gay. And, the only way to preserve an all gay civilization, is to keep having gay children.”

All the children won’t be gay, that’s it. Why would they be? It’s right in front of your making revisionist statements.

If gay people are isolated on an island, I won’t do anything with them, why are you asking what I will do with them? In this example scenario both gay and straight children would be born. The gay children (of which there would be less based on current statistics) would grow up and repeat the non productive cycle. The hetero children would grow up seeking other heteros , and with the normal order of design, reproduce rapidly. The group that has the desire to reproduce more readily coupled with the larger percentage of heteros born would over time reduce the gay population and eventually remove it in a contained area.

However, if gay people held to being repulsed by sexual relations with the opposite sex as heteros do with the same sex (remember -thats the claim, equally powered sexual attraction) in about 8 decades you would have no people. The only way to extend homosexuality in a contained environment is for homosexuals to continually violate their supposed innateness, which is really not homosexuality if your able on a large scale to have “heterosexual sex”.
Click to expand...
Homosexuals don’t tend to have homosexual children so it will naturally go down.
johnnyjones said:
How wonderful his wife must feel getting a “sexual release” from a man who isn’t sexually attracted to her, or her gender.
Click to expand...
Which is more important, love or sexual attraction?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Homosexuals don’t tend to have homosexual children so it will naturally go down.

Which is more important, love or sexual attraction?
Click to expand...
You may be right about the children, if I understand you correctly The question of influence on the child’s orientation could be an issue as well.

In marriage, I must filter that answer through the catholic church because it is a sacrament. When a gay man wants to marry a straight woman in the church, preventative measures are taken in the form of counseling for the disorder. It is important the man be attracted to the gender he is marrying to facilitate the love through sexual intimacy. As Catholics we must answer your posed question through a catholic eye.

Love over sexual attraction in marriage prevails, but love and gender attraction in marriage are equal. Otherwise the church would marry gay men “in love”.
 
PeterJohn said:
More important to who?
American politicians? Love.
Survival of human species? Sex.
Click to expand...
Well Mr. Weed is engaging in sex with his wife. Is sexual attraction more important than love or is it the other way around?
 
Love is always more important. Sex should be the way that licit love is expressed.

We have sex because we want to have children and love them, not toss them in a bucket near the abortionist’s table.
 
It is not just a matter of sexual attraction, it is a matter of gender attraction.
 
When a gay man wants to marry a straight woman in the church, preventative measures are taken in the form of counseling for the disorder. It is important the man be attracted to the gender he is marrying to facilitate the love through sexual intimacy. A man must be attracted to the opposite gender (women). If that was not a requirement, the church would not provide counseling or take preventative measures even though love may be claimed.
Love over sexual attraction in marriage prevails, but love minus the gender attraction is a barrier. Otherwise the church would marry gay men “in love”.
Dakota_Roberts said:
What exactly is “gender attraction” and why is it necessary?
Click to expand...
 
The consummation of platonic friendship between men and women might be that they simply live together and share their friendship as well as their belongings. This cannot be condemned by the Church so long as the relationship is platonic. The same applies to men living together or women living together. Love is love. But an attraction that is destined for sex without a blessing from God is immoral, whether between men and women or two people of the same sex. Their is no biblical blessing for sodomy, but their are numerous biblical condemnations of it.

Catholics who deny this are at war with their own faith. They have arrogantly substituted their own bias for the judgment of God and his Church both in the Old and New Testaments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top