How is Homosexuality Wrong, by Reasoning?

[Ender]

This article is trash and I can not overly denounce it publicly. It does not follow science nor the Church teachings. The article encourages bigotry and uses bigoted action to bait the very subject

One of the most significant points in this article was the rejection of the claim that homosexuality is a genetic condition, like red hair. Despite the search for a genetic cause, none has been found, so, while conceivably it could be true, it is nonetheless wrong to assume that it is. Moreover, based on certain studies, it seems very unlikely that it is true. I was struck by the one study which showed that a girl with a lesbian sister had a 6% chance of becoming lesbian herself but her likelihood of becoming a lesbian was 30% if the mother was lesbian. Given that sisters are much more genetically similar than mothers and daughters, there is no genetic explanation for this result.

As far as the science is concerned, this article was right on.

Ender

 

[buffalo]

One of the most significant points in this article was the rejection of the claim that homosexuality is a genetic condition, like red hair. Despite the search for a genetic cause, none has been found, so, while conceivably it could be true, it is nonetheless wrong to assume that it is. Moreover, based on certain studies, it seems very unlikely that it is true. I was struck by the one study which showed that a girl with a lesbian sister had a 6% chance of becoming lesbian herself but her likelihood of becoming a lesbian was 30% if the mother was lesbian. Given that sisters are much more genetically similar than mothers and daughters, there is no genetic explanation for this result.

As far as the science is concerned, this article was right on.

Ender

The article clearly exposes the design of the gay agenda. Make it a civil rights issue. Make orientation a civil rights issue. Then the behavior is protected.

 

[porthos11]

The post is void of principle

Yes, meaning the action is not in itself immoral

I’m not convinced. It’s vile and goes against everything nature intended. Not even a woman’s behind is designed to receive a man’s front.

Are you defending the gay lifestyle?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m not convinced. It’s vile and goes against everything nature intended. Not even a woman’s behind is designed to receive a man’s front.

Are you defending the gay lifestyle?

Neither has to be present for SSA or homosexual relations, so again why make such statements?

The article clearly exposes the design of the gay agenda. Make it a civil rights issue. Make orientation a civil rights issue. Then the behavior is protected.

Actually no, the article exposes the thoughts of the author which are predisposed. I always love it when xxxx hater speaks on behalf of the xxxx group. It means they fear the speach of the xxxx group. Would you care to guess why?

One of the most significant points in this article was the rejection of the claim that homosexuality is a genetic condition, like red hair. Despite the search for a genetic cause, none has been found, so, while conceivably it could be true, it is nonetheless wrong to assume that it is. Moreover, based on certain studies, it seems very unlikely that it is true. I was struck by the one study which showed that a girl with a lesbian sister had a 6% chance of becoming lesbian herself but her likelihood of becoming a lesbian was 30% if the mother was lesbian. Given that sisters are much more genetically similar than mothers and daughters, there is no genetic explanation for this result.

As far as the science is concerned, this article was right on.

Ender

The article is poorly written it is known as “sophistry” it is void of science. Your comment tough interesting should be hid from scrutiny, otherwise it will not survive.

 

[Ender]

The article is poorly written it is known as “sophistry” it is void of science. Your comment tough interesting should be hid from scrutiny, otherwise it will not survive.

Then I encourage you to scrutinize it and point out the flaws. Simply denouncing the article is not the same as presenting an argument supporting your claims. “It’s bad” is not an argument. If you think the science is in error then identify a specific point and say why you think it is wrong.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Then I encourage you to scrutinize it and point out the flaws. Simply denouncing the article is not the same as presenting an argument supporting your claims. “It’s bad” is not an argument. If you think the science is in error then identify a specific point and say why you think it is wrong.

Ender

Is that not you saying you will not defend the argument?

 

[Ender]

Is that not you saying you will not defend the argument?

You have repeatedly said the argument is flawed; I don’t see it that way. I’ll be happy to discuss any part of it you like but you will first have to make a specific allegation. Exactly what part of the article is unscientific or poorly argued?

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You have repeatedly said the argument is flawed; I don’t see it that way. I’ll be happy to discuss any part of it you like but you will first have to make a specific allegation. Exactly what part of the article is unscientific or poorly argued?

Ender

Could you name the author’s sources which back up his many claims?
Could you name the opponent’s sources to back those claims?
Could you name the opponents?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If homosexuality is so natural, try this experiment. Put all the gay women on one island, and all the gay men on another. See how long they last. That alone will tell you how natural it is.
Deacon Ed B

 

[truagape]

If homosexuality is so natural, try this experiment. Put all the gay women on one island, and all the gay men on another. See how long they last. That alone will tell you how natural it is.
Deacon Ed B

You’re a Deacon, right?

 

[Polaris]

If homosexuality is so natural, try this experiment. Put all the gay women on one island, and all the gay men on another. See how long they last. That alone will tell you how natural it is.
Deacon Ed B

So because the species dies out the act must be evil. So I guess we should abandon the idea of Nuns and Priests (latin rite)?

 

[jmcrae]

So because the species dies out the act must be evil. So I guess we should abandon the idea of Nuns and Priests (latin rite)?

Nuns and priests aren’t attempting to reproduce in a manner that they know ahead of time isn’t actually going to work.

 

[Ender]

Could you name the author’s sources which back up his many claims?
Could you name the opponent’s sources to back those claims?
Could you name the opponents?

The burden is not on me to do anything: the ball is in your court. You made allegations about how scientifically incorrect the article was, I’m still waiting for you to back up your charges with some specifics. It seems as though you have condemned the article because you don’t like the positions it presents but you have no rational argument with which to rebut its conclusions.

Ender

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So I guess we should abandon the idea of Nuns and Priests (latin rite)?

How in the world did you reach this conclusion??? Or is it just a stab at celibacy.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Holly3278]

I personally find that rather easy to answer. It is against the way God designed us. It goes against nature.

 

[coda]

I’m new here. Lately I’ve been finding myself in all sorts of religious debates, both online and in college, so I joined. One topic which has come up is homosexuality.

To make a long story short, one of my friends is asking for logical proof that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, he doesn’t want me to say it’s wrong “because the Bible says so.” He wants evidence. His main argument is “what’s wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs? Can’t they be left alone?”

I would really be able to give a good answer on this, but unfortunately I can’t think of one. Thanks in advance for any help!

Because it goes AGAINST reason…pretty logical huh?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

One of the most significant points in this article was the rejection of the claim that homosexuality is a genetic condition, like red hair. Despite the search for a genetic cause, none has been found, so, while conceivably it could be true, it is nonetheless wrong to assume that it is. Moreover, based on certain studies, it seems very unlikely that it is true. I was struck by the one study which showed that a girl with a lesbian sister had a 6% chance of becoming lesbian herself but her likelihood of becoming a lesbian was 30% if the mother was lesbian. Given that sisters are much more genetically similar than mothers and daughters, there is no genetic explanation for this result.

As far as the science is concerned, this article was right on.

Ender

The burden is not on me to do anything: the ball is in your court. You made allegations about how scientifically incorrect the article was, I’m still waiting for you to back up your charges with some specifics. It seems as though you have condemned the article because you don’t like the positions it presents but you have no rational argument with which to rebut its conclusions.

Ender

Could you name the author’s sources which back up his many claims?
Could you name the opponent’s sources to back those claims?
Could you name the opponents?

Is that not another way to say there are no sources or opponents in the article?

 

[Ender]

Is that not another way to say there are no sources or opponents in the article?

The article neither cites sources nor includes opposing arguments. There, are we done with this one? What I challenged was this statement that you made earlier:

“The article is poorly written it is known as “sophistry” it is void of science. Your comment tough interesting should be hid from scrutiny, otherwise it will not survive.”

I have challenged you to scrutinize his article and defend your claim that it is poorly written sophistry. You are clearly unprepared to do so. (You really should have at least tried; it turns out that my reference to a study of the incidence of lesbianism in families wasn’t in the article, it was from a different article referenced in a comment made by another reader.)

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The article neither cites sources nor includes opposing arguments. There, are we done with this one?

we were never started, so how could claim the article was “As far as the science is concerned, this article was right on.”-Post #60 and now it “neither cites sources”?

What I challenged was this statement that you made earlier:

“The article is poorly written it is known as “sophistry” it is void of science. Your comment tough interesting should be hid from scrutiny, otherwise it will not survive.”

I have challenged you to scrutinize his article and defend your claim that it is poorly written sophistry. You are clearly unprepared to do so.

not quite, the problem is two fold 1) I do not believe your challenge as genuine, 2) the challenge by definition is a waste of time (which is why I believe you made it)

(You really should have at least tried; it turns out that my reference to a study of the incidence of lesbianism in families wasn’t in the article, it was from a different article referenced in a comment made by another reader.)

Ender

that was known during the initial read

btw have you addressed internally the 6% problem with the lesbians?

 

[revelations]

This is an easy question, and it can be proved without bringing God into the equation (not out of disrespect, but usually the opponents of this argument dont belive in God to begin with).

The purpose of finding a mate is the pro-create period, no ifs ands or buts. Semen is designed to end up in one place, and any other use of it (whether by heterosexuals, homosexuals, or scientists) is illicit and highly against the natural law. What is the natural law? If a species is to survive it must reproduce.

See, easy!