Consider 2 men engaged in a sexual act to its natural end for each of them. The act emits their gametes. That is quite central to the nature of the act. They “exchange” genetic material. Does something seem amiss when you realize both are men? It does not appear to be a coherent evolutionary outcome, does it? As Prodigal says - why can’t they have kids? Do you think we just need more evolution?
That sex is useful for one thing doesn’t mean it isn’t useful for other things. Co-opting of traits is common throughout biology.niceatheist:
Consider 2 men engaged in a sexual act to its natural end for each of them. The act emits their gametes. That is quite central to the nature of the act. They “exchange” genetic material. Does something seem amiss when you realize both are men? It does not appear to be a coherent evolutionary outcome, does it? As Prodigal says - why can’t they have kids? Do you think we just need more evolution?
This sounds dangerously like a reducto ad absurdum.niceatheist:
Ahh, yes, some animals eat their young so why can’t we?
I don’t know, and neither do you. I’m merely pointing out that same-sex sexual encounters in the natural world happen, and there appear to be social reasons, at least as far as bonobos go, for why such encounters may occur. In other words, a classic case of a trait (sexual reproduction) that has been co-opted by that particular species for a non-procreative purpose, but a purpose that still as a positive behavior for bonobo tribes; literally a “make love not war” kind of peacemaking.
I’m sure you wish it were.
Then don’t assume its truth
Therefore it must be good and appropriate for human? Right, that follows.
And why not. Human social behaviors are pretty similar to the other great apes, and very similar to Bonobos. Bonobos are the “lovin’ ape”, generally much more peaceful than P. troglodytes (the common chimpanzee), though, mind you, the common chimp has some rather negative behaviors also exhibited in humans, like those tribal wars where a chimp tribe will invade a neighboring chimp tribe and literally slaughter them. You know, sort of like what the Israelites did to the Canaanites in Joshua.niceatheist:
Therefore it must be good and appropriate for human? Right, that follows.
You still don’t seem to be getting my objection. You conceded above, for the sake of argument, “suppose God exists”. And you said that, under that assumption, you still didn’t see why God would object to homosexual activity. My point is: if He didn’t object to it, then why would He make it fruitless? It’s like saying, “I have nothing against gay people, but here, let me make them barren.”
And all of this presupposes that God feels as Biblical writers suggest He does Since other aspects of His creation use sex non-procreatively, and in fact use same-sex encounters in just that fashion, I would surmise that clearly God has no problem with same-sex encounters, at least in some circumstances, raising the question as to why, if non-procreative and homosexual acts serve a purpose for creatures as closely related to us as Bonobo chimps, why is H. sapiens, with shares a great deal of its behavioral patterns with Bonobos, decreed to only have sex that can lead to procreation (or at least some reasonable facsimile thereof, since there’s no prohibition against sterile people having sexual relations).niceatheist:
You still don’t seem to be getting my objection. You conceded above, for the sake of argument, “suppose God exists”. And you said that, under that assumption, you still didn’t see why God would object to homosexual activity. My point is: if He didn’t object to it, then why would He make it fruitless? It’s like saying, “I have nothing against gay people, but here, let me make them barren.”
So I’m just arguing for a conditional: if God exists, then God either is trying to indicate to us that homosexual activity is wrong or God hates gay people.
Then you must also surmise that God would have no problem with humans emulating any other animal
What is a partner? Do you mean a sexual relationship? Catholics hold the view that sexual relations belong in marriage, and that marriage is the sexual relationship of man+woman.
Peoples lives are not “up for discussion”. SSM is up for discussion because marriage is a publicly proclaimed institution. We ought to agree what it means.
What people “do in bed” is by and large a private matter, best kept that way. Marriage is a public matter and redefining its meaning has considerable impact as people become obligated to contribute to SSM ceremonies (eg. as service providers) and children are subjected to an expanded breadth of “sex education”.
None at all. But it has become quite commonplace for those favouring SSM to label those who do not “haters”.
Preaching hate?? Is it preaching hate to say that marriage is only between one man and woman like Christ said? Is it hateful to explain to someone that they are sinning and to try and prevent them from going to hell and having eternal punishment? Are you saying we shouldn’t care about the soul of humans and allow them to go on a destructive path so that way they are happy? Homosexual acts are a sin. It doesn’t do anyone good if we accept these acts which could send someone to hell.
It is going to come across as hateful to some. Even though such a statement attributes this as the view of Christ it will be viewed as the personal view of the speaker. It might also be lumped in with the many other things that were said to make people with sasmesex attraction unlikeed and hated.
Well I hope it doesn’t make people who are same sex attracted disliked and hated. I after all am same sex attracted, but I doubt that would mean anything. They’d probably still label me as a “homophobe” which doesn’t make sense
I’m not sure how it could be said without sounding hateful to some. We live in a world in which there are hateful statements that are often communicated in very subtle statements and I don’t know how it would be separated from those.