"Homosexuality only really differs with pedophilia in the object of attraction" And the fact that it's between two consenting adults, rather than a child who cannot legally give consent and an adult...
'Both are mental diseases.' Yeah, and where is your evidence? Most psychologists would say otherwise, but if you think you know better than the experts with the qualifications and tests....
Come back when you actually know what you're talking about.
Its not a few, its 5-10% of the population. While overpopulation is a problem in developing countries, developed countries face the opposite problem. Our growth is slowing down and will eventually turn negative like it has already in some communities. Humans should not be allowed to determine who they breed with, it should be a government decision with genes being the deciding factor. In future, it's quite possible that there will be a minimum child policy to make people have children. Other places might see population bottlenecks causing more genetic mayhem. A state of Social Darwinism is what is Ideal for such a situation.
Are you seriously trying to convince people that overpopulation isn't a problem? Lemme lay some numbers down for ya: Approximately 8.3 million people live in New York. Over Half a million people live in Seattle. More than 2.5 million in Chicago. Over 7 BILLION people in the world right now. How many of them are homosexuals? Anywhere from 3 to 8 per cent. At the absolute most, that's only a little bit over five million. Only five million, at the absolute most. So, if approximately 5 million people don't have children, then that means we lose 5 million people in population. And we still have over 6 billion left. Close to 6.7 billion. At the most conservative estimate of 3 per cent, that's only a little over 2 million people. Not even enough to fill up Chicago. That's right. If all the homosexuals in the world moved into one city, they wouldn't even fill up a large city. OUR GROWTH IS ONLY SLOWING DOWN BECAUSE WE HAVE REACHED THE EARTH'S CARRYING CAPACITY. OUR SPECIES HAS HARDLY GROWN BECAUSE WE'RE DRAINING THE EARTH OF NATURAL RESOURCES. THAT ISN'T GAY PEOPLE'S FAULTS THAT WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF FOOD. The reason that developed countries like the US and Canada aren't growing as fast is that we can't really support more people. Consider the "S Graph". It starts off ramping incredibly fast, but then slows down and then flattens. (http://ibguides.Com/images/5.3.1.Png)
This demonstrates population growth. Humans aren't special, we behave like any other animal. Once we pass the "transition phase", and move into the "plateau phase", population growth decreases rapidly because we can't support many more people.
Ya dun got mathed.
Very well done, Tuft64.
"Our growth is slowing down and will eventually turn negative like it has already in some communities."
Uhh, no. There are no examples in the modern world of underpopulation being a genuine problem. As stated above, our growth is slowing down because we simply cannot support much more people than we already do, at least with our current economic circumstances. Our current global economy is barely keeping up with supporting 7 billion people as is; if anything, *more* people should stop having children.
"Humans should not be allowed to determine who they breed with, it should be a government decision with genes being the deciding factor. In future, it's quite possible that there will be a minimum child policy to make people have children."
Yes, and I'm sure that would go down just great for anyone with a sense of dignity or knowledge of basic human rights. I can't imagine why anyone would find that oppressive, inhumane and totalitarian. Not to mention an insane violation of basic human rights and totally nonsensical to anyone who understands how basic human psychology works. That is a flat out stupid and horrendous idea.
"Other places might see population bottlenecks causing more genetic mayhem. A state of Social Darwinism is what is Ideal for such a situation."
So what? Move some of the current population to those areas to introduce fresh genes, if it really is that bad. And as far as I'm aware, 7 billion people cannot be logically said to be a 'population bottleneck' under any circumstances. That's an objectively very big number; we do not *need* any more people. There's a reason China has it's 'One Child Policy'; 1.4 billion people is just way too many. If that number keeps climbing, the country will economically fall apart. If the world population gets too much bigger than it already is, the world will pretty much start to wreck itself, economically and likely socially as well. As well, Social Darwinism is at a big cross-roads with international law and basic human rights, in the situation being discussed here. You cannot force people to breed with specific other people, who they likely do not even know and do not want to have intercourse with, just because they are a good genetic match, nor can you force people to get pregnant and have children if they don't want to. Again, that is a flat out stupid and horrific idea.
I'm not trying to say that it's gay peoples fault, I'm saying that it's possible that the always conscious part of our brain is noticing the steep increase in numbers, so it tells the rest of the body to no longer be attracted to the opposite sex, so that way they won't reproduce.
Flipper, Homosexuality existed before there were even 1 million humans in the world. In fact, it's been with us since the first true humans evolved. To prove this, there are other mammalt such as dolphins and giraffes, many of which whom are endangered that are capable of homosexuality.
@Humble_Theist99, pedophilia is different from homosexuality on the basis that homosexuals are consenting adults. That is completely different from childhood sexual abuse, or molestation. It's not really comparable.
@ AnthonyN how is it scientifically "unnatural"? Do you know how many species there are out there in the animal kingdom that express homosexuality? Also wtf is up with the whole "unnatural" debate? I don't see anyone complaining about air conditioners or blood transfusions.
@FractalFeels Infertile couples also can't reproduce, and neither can those who choose to be abstinent, like nuns. Is not reproducing in general wrong? Should infertile couples divorce...Is their marriage invalid?
@emeraldcross0012 The bible also suggests that rape victims should marry their rapists, should we always take the literal word of the Bible to define right and wrong?
Your definition is wrong by the way, homosexuality is same gender attraction - biological sex is merely XX XY - gender is self declared and just because a person may be FAAB or MAAB does not give them a particular gender all their life - who a person actually is can only be determined by them
Many animals have bisexual members.
"It's in the Bible"
The Bible is not a credible source at this point considering it said shaving is bad.
"Can't contribute anything to society"
I don't even know how to approach such stupidity.
All 18 of you Yessers, are ignorant and need to open your eyes.
"Homosexuality is the sexual behavior between two people of the same sex. It had nothing to do with attraction."
Clearly doesn't know what the actual definition of homosexuality is. The word defines the attraction; you can have sex with members of your own gender even if you aren't attracted to them. This does not make you a homosexual. Being attracted to your own gender makes you a homosexual, or possibly bisexual if you are also attracted to the opposite gender, whether or not you ever act on this attraction. In saying that 'Homosexuality is wrong', you are inherently creating a form of 'thought-crime' wherein certain 'types' (a ridiculous assertion in itself) of sexual/romantic attraction are 'wrong'.
Is a man a thief because he desires to steal?
Is a man a homosexual because he desires to have sex with other men?
In the same way, no.
But when a man steals, he becomes a thief. In the same way, when a man has sex with other men, he becomes a homosexual.
The bible condemns same-sex sexual behavior, not the orientation. Since sex is a choice, and homosexual sex is a form of sex, then homosexuality is a choice.
Sex is not a choice? What?
We're not talking about rape; we're talking about consenting sexual behavior between two humans. Most certainly a choice, and most certainly sinful outside of a biblical marriage.
Thievery is a crime that by definition infringes on the rights of others, and harms others. This is why thievery is wrong; desire has little-to-nothing to do with it. If a man does not desire to steal, and is indeed forced to by his economic circumstances, this is a somewhat different situation to a man stealing because he wants to, and most countries will take this into account. A man taking bread and water so that his family doesn't starve/dehydrate to death is not the same as a man stealing $500,000 from a bank.
"Is a man a homosexual because he desires to have sex with other men? In the same way, no."
That's not how it works. Sex is a choice, yes. So what? You can't 'choose' who you desire to have sex with. Sexual attraction and desire are not 'choices', and this is by definition what homosexuality is. You cannot 'condemn' homosexual sex acts without also condemning the sexual orientation that leads to wanting to have intercourse with a member of your own gender.
"Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. "It also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.""
I'm not asking about Wikipedia's definition or the Greek's of homosexuality. I am telling you what the bible says.
It doesn't matter to God who you desire to have sex with. It matters to God WHO you have sex with.
The fact that you see stealing as wrong and homosexuality as okay is irrelevant. Your opinion has nothing to do with what the Bible says. According to the Bible, homosexuality is an action, not a feeling.
I never said that sexual attraction is a choice. I only said that sexual behavior is a choice. And since homosexuality is sexual behavior, homosexuality is a choice.
Well, that doesn't really matter. Homosexuality *is* homosexual attraction, not 'just' homosexual sex acts, whether you like it or not. The sex acts related to this are an extension of this attraction, and indeed all of these same sex acts can easily be performed by heterosexual couples. And again, homosexual *attraction* is not a choice. This is ridiculous; on what grounds, bible excluded, is homosexuality immoral? 'Sin' is not the same thing as 'Immoral'. 'What God says' =/= 'What the bible says', =/= 'Morality'. All three are entirely different things.
Once again, if you are a Christian, then you define homosexuality as God does - by behavior. If you are a Christian, then you believe in the bible, as well as all of the parts where God speaks.
So the bible contains much of what the Hebrew god says.
Whether you like it or not, the bible condemns homosexual behavior, not orientation.
Not necessarily; most Christians I know do still actually use dictionaries as oppsoed to archaic religious definitions. And in the real world, homosexuality is defined by attraction, not sex acts. I'm assuming that you also assume that heterosexuality is only defined by sex acts, and not attraction? By this definition, people who have not yet have sex have no sexuality to speak of, which is ridiculous. And, of course, why should we take the bible as actually containing meaningful statements made by God? It is much more likely that it is a man-made document.
This is a form of circular logic:
The bible is factual. The bible is factual because God wrote/inspired the bible. We know that God wrote/inspired the bible because the bible says so. We can trust the fact that the bible says this because the bible is factual. Loop back around to start. This is a meaningless argument.
The Catholic Church says that marriage is between male and female, a bride and groom much like Jesus Christ and the Church. The Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ several times in the bible. The Church is also referred to as a she. Not a he, nor it. Therefore same sex marriage is not right.
True; the Catholic church does not regulate or legislate either morality or the law. Religion/God is not the same thing as morality. What the bible or 'the church' (there are several hundred different versions of both, need I remind you, all of which state they are the only 'right one') says has nothing at all to do with whether or not something is 'wrong'.
Do you also agree with the Spartan practice of leaving deformed babies in the wilderness to die? Don't bring out the argument that it's against evolution unless you think we should kill all premature babies, deformed people, anyone with a mental handicap, or anything else that would cause them to struggle in an environment without structure or society.
Did you know that in ancient Greece, it was believed that, in the begging, Zeus split every man in half and so he had to spend his whole life searching for his "other half"? (not to sound sexist but) women were mainly just there for the purpose of making new babies. Homosexuality wasn't just accepted, it was the norm.
It depends on the definition of "wrong" I suppose. From a logical, humane point of view - there is nothing at all wrong with it...It's found in many species and gay people have just as much right to a happy and fulfilled existence as 'normal' people (I hate using that word, but it's for effect). From a dogmatic, religious point of view, it's a terrible sin they all cry. All the while being gluttonous at their local fast food restaurant and giving into lust by wolf-whistling the unsuspecting blonde walking by. The hypocrisy is disturbing.
To those who say it is a disease--
It is, from a psychiatric standpoint, a mental disorder. This does not, in ANY way, mean it is wrong or bad. All this means is the brain of one who is homosexual differs from what the psychiatric community considers a "normal" brain. Homosexuality is a "disease" in the same way ADHD is a disease. The brain of an individual with ADHD does not function in the same way a "normal" brain does, but people with ADHD are not "bad" or "wrong". In fact, the most acclaimed physicist of all time, Albert Einstein, is considered to have had ADHD.
"To those who say it is a disease-- It is, from a psychiatric standpoint, a mental disorder. This does not, in ANY way, mean it is wrong or bad. All this means is the brain of one who is homosexual differs from what the psychiatric community considers a "normal" brain. Homosexuality is a "disease" in the same way ADHD is a disease. The brain of an individual with ADHD does not function in the same way a "normal" brain does, but people with ADHD are not "bad" or "wrong". In fact, the most acclaimed physicist of all time, Albert Einstein, is considered to have had ADHD."
That's.... Actually not true. To be classed as a psychological disorder, a given form of psychological phenomena must, in itself (ie. Not as a result of bullying or other strictly unrelated social issues) result in genuine psychological distress and/or significant inability to cope with everyday life or reality. Homosexuality literally does not meet any of the points required to be categorized as a psychological disorder. There isn't really anything wrong with the rest of your point, but it's still false equivalence to say that homosexuality is or could be called a psychological or mental disorder, or compare it to such.
Please continue to pretend like you know the will of the being who created the universe. Your books are old and outdated and easily misinterpreted. You're all just slaves to fear! The ability to reproduce has nothing to do with purpose! The man who's words you follow would be ashamed of our inability to understand and love all of creation.
I think that homosexuality is okay, but I just think there needs to be more education on the dangers of anal sex. Homosexuality doesn't mean anal sex. Males could experiment with their sexuality together in many different safe ways, like jerking each other off, doing oral, or lubricated penetration between their shaven thighs.