The Homosexuality Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Duke
- 9,138 comments
- 454,021 views
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,852
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
MÜLE_9242;8001182
Stigma, yes (in the Christian Western world). Going to hell for it alone, not so much.
Even when stigmatised its never been even close to the carry over from the OT that homosexuality has among the same group. I simply find it absurd that the only logic (and its an inconsistent one at that) that I have seen put forward for the reason why its a sin (and this is not just from GT Planet) is that it was good for ensuring the population of an Iron age tribe.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
It should be noted that most monotheistic religions that frown upon homosexuality also frown upon premarital heterosexual sex. Similarly, heterosexual sexual activity without the intent of procreation was also a sin. In fact, Onan was put to death by God himself for it.
As there was no homosexual marriage, or even a recorded mention of it as a concept at the time, it is not inconsistent to view homosexual activity as sinful, it was sexual activity outside of marriage and without the goal of procreation.
The religious rule on homosexuality, when it originated, is/was consistent. Nowadays people pick and choose, which is why I haven't claimed a denomination in about ten years.
Does consistency make it reasonable and logical? No. But then Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season and refered to those who ate figs negatively. But then there is not the discrepancy that has been claimed either (at least not in the origins). Pulling out (or using a condom) is just as bad as being gay, arguably worse since God didn't wait for other humans to find out and kill you.
Genesis 38:8-10
As there was no homosexual marriage, or even a recorded mention of it as a concept at the time, it is not inconsistent to view homosexual activity as sinful, it was sexual activity outside of marriage and without the goal of procreation.
The religious rule on homosexuality, when it originated, is/was consistent. Nowadays people pick and choose, which is why I haven't claimed a denomination in about ten years.
Does consistency make it reasonable and logical? No. But then Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season and refered to those who ate figs negatively. But then there is not the discrepancy that has been claimed either (at least not in the origins). Pulling out (or using a condom) is just as bad as being gay, arguably worse since God didn't wait for other humans to find out and kill you.
- 2,151
- Germany
- x_XNyordiaX_x
Yeah, and the funny thing is? It's useless. Pulling out is useless, and it shows how outdated that text really is. (Some random information on the side
)
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Yeah, and the funny thing is? It's useless. Pulling out is useless, and it shows how outdated that text really is. (Some random information on the side
It was the only form of birth control (aside from abstinence) in existence at the time. From a statistical standpoint, it was very effective.
And we are talking about texts originally written on either stone or some early form of Egyptian paper about a time when the cultures described were barely more than tribes living in mud huts. They thought fire was a pretty impressive piece of technology.
All that said, I am sure there are plenty of teens and college-aged males who will say it wasn't useless. It works at preventing pregnancy far more than full insemination. Does it take just one? Yes. Does just one have a good chance at success? No. We produce millions per go for a reason.
That doesn't mean I am saying it is safe sex, it just severely hurts your odds if you are trying to get pregnant.
- 359
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 1,481
- Keele
- Leicht92
There's a straight guy in that video? Musta missed it..
Hahahaha...it's funny that a lot of people commented that he is gay (the guy on the left) but still in the closet
- 687
Danny
I'm willing to bet 99% of people who use that bit of Leviticus to justify their pathetic, narrow minded homophobia will quite happily eat shellfish...
- 6,985
- United States
Yeah true the Bible does say that... But it still doesn't give anyone the right to force or tell someone how to live their life. To even say "your living the wrong way" is to Judge which the Bible also says "thou shall not judge" which this is the hypocritical mind set that a lot of Christians have when it comes to this topic. Not all but some.Danny
ScouserInExile
True. I get you. That's why i have torn myself away from churches. It just seems hypocritical to me. Someone who quotes the bible all the time and starts to try to change someone else's life, disown them, hate on them, look down on them ect (even though the Bible says "thou shall not judge " in the ten commandments and doing so just because the Bible says within scripture "man laying with another man is a abomination". I don't no which one is worse.
I mean let's people live how they want.
fitftw
(Banned)
- 1,642
- Rave2Grave
All anti-homosexuals and religious people should read this:
"Humans, like all creatures, have urges which lead to reproduction. Our biological urge is to have sex, not to make babies. Our “instinct to breed” is the same as a squirrel’s instinct to plant trees: the urge is to store food, trees are a natural result. If sex is an urge to procreate, then hunger’s an urge to defecate.
Culturally-induced desires can be so strong that they seem to be biological, but no evolutionary mechanism for an instinct to breed exists. Why do we stop breeding after we’ve had as many as we want? If the instinct is to reproduce, how are so many of us able to over ride it? There are too many who have never felt that urge: mutations don’t occur in this high a percentage of a population.
Looking to our evolutionary roots, imagine Homo erectus feeling the urge to create a new human. He then has to understand that a cavewoman is needed, sexual intercourse must be engaged in, and they will have to wait nine months.
Considering how often our species has the urge for sex, it’s likely human sexuality serves primarily a pair-bonding function rather than procreative. Human infants are vulnerable for so long that their survival, in prehistoric times, may have depended on a strong pair bond between parents. Bonobos, perhaps our closest biological relative, are reported to engage in sex for social reasons more than for reproductive reasons."
"Humans, like all creatures, have urges which lead to reproduction. Our biological urge is to have sex, not to make babies. Our “instinct to breed” is the same as a squirrel’s instinct to plant trees: the urge is to store food, trees are a natural result. If sex is an urge to procreate, then hunger’s an urge to defecate.
Culturally-induced desires can be so strong that they seem to be biological, but no evolutionary mechanism for an instinct to breed exists. Why do we stop breeding after we’ve had as many as we want? If the instinct is to reproduce, how are so many of us able to over ride it? There are too many who have never felt that urge: mutations don’t occur in this high a percentage of a population.
Looking to our evolutionary roots, imagine Homo erectus feeling the urge to create a new human. He then has to understand that a cavewoman is needed, sexual intercourse must be engaged in, and they will have to wait nine months.
Considering how often our species has the urge for sex, it’s likely human sexuality serves primarily a pair-bonding function rather than procreative. Human infants are vulnerable for so long that their survival, in prehistoric times, may have depended on a strong pair bond between parents. Bonobos, perhaps our closest biological relative, are reported to engage in sex for social reasons more than for reproductive reasons."
fitftw
(Banned)
- 1,642
- Rave2Grave
"Infanticide is a common practice in most mammals. Male lions use infanticide to get rid of offspring in a newly acquired pride that are not genetically related to the male coalition. Solitary males are also capable of killing the offspring of an encountered pride. Female lions have also been observed to kill cubs from a rival pride, but they would never kill cubs from their own pride. The dead offspring are sometimes consumed as an energy source and other times they are simply just eradicated for the sake of it. Older cubs and sub-adults have a better chance of being able to escape incoming infanticidal males than younger cubs."
The lions are probably offended that the lioness had sex with another lion. It has nothing to do with reproductive urges. It's like when you break up with a girl, you get rid of everything that reminds you of her.
Last edited:
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 2,542
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
You're kidding, right? If not, then please provide a source.
That too, nothing like a nice cub's stew.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Lots of animals kill and eat their children or the children of others of the same species as routine matter when food is scarce, for territoriality, for competition etc. . Humans tend not to.
Which is more natural?
Picking and choosing examples that suit your cause is convenient but not really relevant.
That too, nothing like a nice cub's stew.
I'd go for the Cubhouse Sandwich myself..little less gamey...
fitftw
(Banned)
- 1,642
- Rave2Grave
Early humans most likely killed and ate the children of others. How could we ever know? And don't forget abortions. We certainly kill our own young. Didn't China have a one-child-only law for a while? I fully expect something like that to become more widespread soon, or else we're in serious trouble.
- 2,542
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
Nock off with the 'bro' attitude. Thank you.
Do you really think you need a subject (human/animal) to be able to speak to come to a decent conclusion for their behavior? You can learn a lot from observation alone. But I'll grant that one can never be 100% sure, so yes, there is speculation involved. It is quite accepted though that the reason that male lions kill a rival's cubs when having taken over its pride, is to bring the pride's females back in heat, so the male can mate with them. Eating the cubs is not common though.
I didn't find a very good source, but this one reflects my thoughts on the subject: clicky
- 167
- California
- evil-G-nius
well thats dumb. Can you just cleverly edit it then? My point was valid, I was not vulgar...I thought everyone here was an adult and we could have a discussion of such a nature. I wasnt trying to offend anyone but since the bible was quoted it is kindd of implied that "G" would be entered into conversation at some point 
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,852
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
well thats dumb. Can you just cleverly edit it then? My point was valid, I was not vulgar...I thought everyone here was an adult and we could have a discussion of such a nature. I wasnt trying to offend anyone but since the bible was quoted it is kindd of implied that "G" would be entered into conversation at some point
Not because God.
Because you were unable to post without using a derogatory term, you want an adult conversation, then post like one.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
