Is Homosexuality is "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature"?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

killface

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2001
1,416
0
0


<< When two gays or two lesbians have sexual relations naturally and one gets pregnant and has a baby, you, sir, will have a Nobel Prize. >>


That's exactly my point. They don't have to. We would have no retarded kids or kids with down syndrome or any deadly genetic disease because they sure as hell don't have any kids. Recessive genes don't die out. Each and every one of us have them.
 

Kilgor

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
3,292
0
0


<< Homophobia in my opinion is very unnatural >>



Homo
: any of a genus (Homo) of primate mammals that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species

Phobic
1 a : having an intolerance or aversion for <photophobic> <Anglophobic> b : exhibiting a phobia for <claustrophobic>
2 : lacking affinity for <hydrophobic>

The word Homophobic is very unnatural, sounds like you?re scared of all primates not just the flashy effeminate ones. :D
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0


<<

<< When two gays or two lesbians have sexual relations naturally and one gets pregnant and has a baby, you, sir, will have a Nobel Prize. >>


That's exactly my point. They don't have to. We would have no retarded kids or kids with down syndrome or any deadly genetic disease because they sure as hell don't have any kids. Recessive genes don't die out. Each and every one of us have them.
>>

My point: it ain't natural. It ain't how nature intended it to be.

nik
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0


<< Makes me wonder: what do those people who think that homosexuality is a mere 'sickness', or a 'sin' think about the countless homosexuals who were slaughtered during the time of Nazi Germany? Was it a good, or bad thing? Were those homosexuals less 'Human' because of their sexual preference?

To be honest, I see very little difference between the way homosexuals were regarded by many Nazis and the views expressed by certain people in this thread.
>>



Makes me wonder: what do you, who thinks that religion is a mere 'sickness', or a 'delusion' think about the countless Catholics who were slaughtered during the time of Nazi Germany? Was it a good, or bad thing? Were those Catholics less 'Human' because of their religious preference?

To be honest, I see very little difference between the way Catholics were regarded by many Nazis and the views expressed by certain people in this thread.

Ah the hypocrisy...


vi_edit:



<< I guess I firmly believe that there is distinct difference between not having homosexual desires, and not acting on homosexual desires. When asked if there is a choice whether or not to act on a desire I will completely agree that it is indeed a choice. BUT - I do not agree that in a large majority of homosexuals it is a choice to have sexual feelings for someone of the opposite sex. >>


I agree - well said.
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Is homosexuality "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature? What exactly does that mean, before the liberals get all enraged... Is it natural? Can procreation come about as the product of a homosexual union?

I just think that the problem with society is that they like to justify the changing of morals and ethics as times change and as trends change. If they are rooted properly, moral and ethical judgements should never change. Your beliefs and moral character, for good or for bad, define who you are. If they change constantly, you're just a fake and a wannabe.

I pose this question again... Why do most people who consider homosexuality okay, not consider incest okay, that is, if both people are above a reasonable age of consent?
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
Busmaster:



<< I just think that the problem with society is that they like to justify the changing of morals and ethics as times change and as trends change. If they are rooted properly, moral and ethical judgements should never change. Your beliefs and moral character, for good or for bad, define who you are. If they change constantly, you're just a fake and a wannabe.
>>



I think, religious or not, that everyone has and should have a personal sense of morality.

Morality != Religion.

I have some Atheist friends who are the most moral people I know - they won't steal "even if no one gets hurt", they won't discriminate, won't hurt others...

Edited cuz I copied and pasted the wrong part of your post - but the above is also why I think incest should be considered wrong. :)

 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0


<< Busmaster:



<< I pose this question again... Why do most people who consider homosexuality okay, not consider incest okay, that is, if both people are above a reasonable age of consent? >>



Because I think, religious or not, that everyone has and should have a personal sense of morality.

Morality != Religion.

I have some Atheist friends who are the most moral people I know - they won't steal "even if no one gets hurt", they won't discriminate, won't hurt others...
>>


Yes... and why would incest be immoral and and homosexuality be moral?

I don't deny that morality != religion... I also believe that you have an equal chance of finding highly moral athiests as you will in devout religous followers...

But listen closely as this might be hard to follow... I don't believe thats right though. As a Christian I believe Christians should emphasize and become a model of morality for others to see and/or follow. Then again, I believe very few of us are, and I would not dare to put myself in that category either.
 

Kilgor

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
3,292
0
0


<< I pose this question again... Why do most people who consider homosexuality okay, not consider incest okay, that is, if both people are above a reasonable age of consent? >>



Well you could say that since homosexuals can't naturally conceive and have defective children would be one reason. Personally I think that there is no difference between incest and homosexuality if the participants are above the age of consent. Having sex with one of your own gender is no more or less deviant than having sex with one of your family. Just because society accepts one more than the other doesn?t make either right.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0


<<

<< I pose this question again... Why do most people who consider homosexuality okay, not consider incest okay, that is, if both people are above a reasonable age of consent? >>



Well you could say that since homosexuals can't naturally conceive and have defective children would be one reason. Personally I think that there is no difference between incest and homosexuality if the participants are above the age of consent. Having sex with one of your own gender is no more or less deviant than having sex with one of your family. Just because society accepts one more than the other doesn?t make either right.
>>


Society accepted neither 30 some years ago.................wonder what will be accepted in another 30 some years.................
rolleye.gif
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
busmaster:

Sorry, I used the wrong quote in my previous reply - hope it makes more sense now.

Anyway - I agree that Christians should be the highest examples... I can think of no more amazing example in recent history than Mother Theresa.

Basically, the doing away with morals is part of the absurdification of humanity. I am very scientific, but not too the point of absurdity. You see, you can actually prove something false in math by reaching an absurdity - this is a key concept of Euclidian Geometry and Lobechefskian Geometry too.

The reduction of humanity to the absurd can therefore be regarded as a falsity. What reduces humanity to the absurd? Well, if we contradict "I think therefore I am", I think we've hit an absurdity.

The reduction of thought to pure chemistry... This is a biggie - that we don't actually think for ourselves, "thought" is just a series of uncontrollable chemical reactions in the reactor known as the brain. The reactions are pre-determined and controlled by the laws of chemistry and genetics - we simply "mimic" a "consiousness" in a form of delusion as these chemical reactions take place - we can't change or control the reactions, as there is no other part of the brain than the reactions themselves. The reactions follow neural pathways set by experience and memory, like circuits edged into a board. Some scientists have found that the area of the brain responsible for decisions does not actually become active until AFTER we act - therefore our sense of control is nothing more than a justification of past events.

I think the region of the brain we notice decisions in only acts after we decide because we don't really make decisions there. - we make them somewhere we cannot yet measure, detect, or observe - in our awareness. Call it a soul, call it a form of energy -whatever.

Take away that awareness and we are simply delusional, helpless masses of uncontrolled chemical reactions. We do not "think". We are absurd.

Reduction to absurdity is tempting because it removes all responsibility, guilt, and moral "bonds" - we answer to no one, and nothing - we feel like we are free in our helplessness.

But we become absurd.

If we have an "awareness" that we can actually control - and use to control ourselves - then suddenly morals become possible... nay - we get into a whole mess of personal responsibility and morality that many people cannot stand.

No - its safer to believe that our entire universe is limited to our 5 senses. We are perfect observers of a purely physical realm - there is nothing else, we are not responsible, we are not in control. Control is frightening.. control means we are responsible.

Well - we are in control of ourselves and we ARE responsible - to each other, to ourselves, and to the planet. And if there is a God - to it as well.


 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,942
264
126
<<Naturally speaking, us straight guys should be happy for the decreased competition.>>

If that was only true. Some of the most beautiful women I've met are homosexual. From that standpoint, it sucks for the menfolk. :)

The other myth is that "homosexuals don't change their colors". Homosexual men have been counselled back to heterosexual. Likewise, some are bisexual.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
The other myth is that "homosexuals don't change their colors". Homosexual men have been counselled back to heterosexual. Likewise, some are bisexual.

huh? the only study i saw that supports that involved a pool of ultra religious homosexuals that didn't want to be homosexual. and even then not all could "convert". the ones that did are probably bi in the first place or just in denial, faith does that. not a great study.
 

Spike

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,770
1
81
I must say that I am actually proud of the people posting in this thread. for the most part it has been civil and everyone seems to know how to speak their mind clearly (well, almost everyone ;) )

My personal feelings on the matter are that homosexuality is a sin. I am a Chrisitian and so try to live my life by Biblical standards (though I do fall short many times) and according to those standards, homosexuality is wrong. Now, I do need to clarify. As stated before in this thread, I can only really consider a fellow Christian who is gay to be sinning, anyone else cannot be held to the rules I follow as they have not chosen to. The way it works is that by becoming a Christian, you "agree" to follow the rules or be held accountable if you don't, and thats where my stance comes from.

now back to the topic at hand... I do disagree with the Judges comments, but not his decision. If the mother left the kids then she does not deserve custody, it would be the same if the father left, I would say he does not deserve custody. Like others have said, the judge should have refrained from pressing his religious beliefs and opinions on the world (or at least those concerned with this case) Being a Christian is a choice everyone has to make, they cannot be forced into it and like I said earlier, if they choose no, then they cannot be held accountable to Biblical standards and law, only to the law of the country in which they live.

As for why people "choose" to be gay or don't choose at all, I have no idea. I have been praying about it alot and talking to some of my homosexual friends to see why they made the choice or didn't make the choice as the case may be. So far it has led to some good insight, but nothing conclusive yet.

Again, I really am impressed with you all, this thread looks so much better then alot of the threads I see in some of the tech forums on AT, there people seem to rip into each-other for asking a question that has only been asked once before. No, I am not speaking from experience... really, I'm not.... :)
 

Maleficus

Diamond Member
May 2, 2001
7,682
0
0
I just thought I'd say i am completely disgusted with this thread thus far and cannot read any more ( stopped mid third page 50 replies a page)

I am sick of seeing Elledan disreguard what any religious person has to say simply because he doesnt believe in god ( apparently) while at the same time criticizing others for being closed-minded

I am also sick of seeing MindStorms posts with the term "Bible-Thumper" everywhere. You would be pretty upset and flame the crap outta me if i labeled you a term like that and you would also get mad if i called someone a lovely human or queer yet it is ok to call people who use the bible as a source a bible-thumper.

good job hypocrites

now to not be one-sided even though i do side with the likes of FFMCobalt and Texmaster i must say that there is no room for people to come in here and just say whatever and i also think it was wrong of Texmaster to compare Elledan to the likes of Stalin & Hitler even though Elledan's statement of

<< A more permanent solution would be to remove people like you from the face of the earth >>

Was completely innappropriate and VERY uncool

People with the mindset that they are permanently right have no place in this thread or these forums or in any form of discussion period

Note on the hypocrit statement im sure someone will be quick to point out my malice in other threads and provide examples of my hypocracy (i prolly have some in this post too) i know i am a hypocrit so dont bother.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
I am sick of seeing Elledan disreguard what any religious person has to say simply because he doesnt believe in god ( apparently) while at the same time criticizing others for being closed-minded


ugh your sick of him pointing out that reasons such as it is a sin or its against god aren't very good arguements? that he asks religious people to come up with the full reasoning behind their positions? aww, sorry to hurt your brain:p

your position is that your sick of the thread because its blasphemous! oh no! the church is always right! the world is flat and we are the center of the universe right?



Yes... and why would incest be immoral and and homosexuality be moral?


i'm sorry, you can't think of a rational reason why?
 

Maleficus

Diamond Member
May 2, 2001
7,682
0
0
I didnt know that religious beliefs and ideals that have been around for thousands of years werent creditable resources...
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0


<< I am sick of seeing Elledan disreguard what any religious person has to say simply because he doesnt believe in god ( apparently) while at the same time criticizing others for being closed-minded


ugh your sick of him pointing out that reasons such as it is a sin or its against god aren't very good arguements? that he asks religious people to come up with the full reasoning behind their positions? aww, sorry to hurt your brain:p

your position is that your sick of the thread because its blasphemous! oh no! the church is always right! the world is flat and we are the center of the universe right?



Yes... and why would incest be immoral and and homosexuality be moral?


i'm sorry, you can't think of a rational reason why?
>>


Look.............I'm definately not "religious" but, I see his point, why is it that those whom choose to side against a belief in any God are any more credible than those whom do????? I believe it is very clear that any arguement for either side is one which will not be positively proven, therefore neither can be positively disregarded. I think what Maleficus is trying to point out is that often times those whom blatently disregard any and all religious beliefs consider themselves more intelligent than those whom choose to believe. The one thing which is bothersome though, is that many times those whom choose not to have any belief whatsoever in religion are also many times very "closed minded" to any arguments put forth by those whom do!;) Until such a time as one, or the other can be positively 100% disproven or positively 100% proven, both sides should consider what the other has to say....................;)
 

Josephus

Senior member
Feb 11, 2002
205
0
0
I've been thinnking a bit about this today, not only the topic, but also the nature of the discourse. I believe that a fundamental
belief system that symbo;izes minorities as "evil" or "wrong" to the point of public humiliation is a crime against humanity, as well
as being repugnant to the Christian God.

It dosen't matter what the basis of your belif system is, if it is exclusive based on cultural differences (e.g. gay, black, female), it is
a system in need of reconsideration...
 

Maleficus

Diamond Member
May 2, 2001
7,682
0
0


<< your position is that your sick of the thread because its blasphemous! oh no! the church is always right! the world is flat and we are the center of the universe right? >>



misinterpret much?

that wasnt what i was saying at all.

ToBeMe is pretty much right

it doesnt hurt my brain, you dont need to insult me, believe it or not people who have a religion are capable of thinking too!

I never EVER said the church is always right either. I am not a BLIND believer. if the church told me to kill my whole family and carve the cross into everyones forehead i saw i wouldnt do it.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature

Is that so....I wonder who's being hurt?

What about the strain on the earth's resources brought about by overpopulation?

I used to also believe that homosexuality was not natural, but I've realized that everything we do can be defined as natural, because we do it. For what makes people gay, it seems that there are a number of random, combined factors in a child's upbringing, and perhaps also with some people being more biologically disposed to lean that way. Regardless, they are human...
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0

Look.............I'm definately not "religious" but, I see his point, why is it that those whom choose to side against a belief in any God are any more credible than those whom do????? I believe it is very clear that any arguement for either side is one which will not be positively proven, therefore neither can be positively disregarded. I think what Maleficus is trying to point out is that often times those whom blatently disregard any and all religious beliefs consider themselves more intelligent than those whom choose to believe. The one thing which is bothersome though, is that many times those whom choose not to have any belief whatsoever in religion are also many times very "closed minded" to any arguments put forth by those whom do! Until such a time as one, or the other can be positively 100% disproven or positively 100% proven, both sides should consider what the other has to say....................



its not the choosing to believe in god that is a problem. its what you base your arguement and beliefs upon. if you can't support your position with more then a position of faith then your position is very shaky. its like circular reasoning. its true, because it says its true.. blah blah.

you take an problem with an issue and see it as an attack on your entire religion. much like how an islamic fundamentalist see's womens rights as an attack on their entire belief system.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0


<<
Look.............I'm definately not "religious" but, I see his point, why is it that those whom choose to side against a belief in any God are any more credible than those whom do????? I believe it is very clear that any arguement for either side is one which will not be positively proven, therefore neither can be positively disregarded. I think what Maleficus is trying to point out is that often times those whom blatently disregard any and all religious beliefs consider themselves more intelligent than those whom choose to believe. The one thing which is bothersome though, is that many times those whom choose not to have any belief whatsoever in religion are also many times very "closed minded" to any arguments put forth by those whom do! Until such a time as one, or the other can be positively 100% disproven or positively 100% proven, both sides should consider what the other has to say....................



its not the choosing to believe in god that is a problem. its what you base your arguement and beliefs upon. if you can't support your position with more then a position of faith then your position is very shaky. its like circular reasoning. its true, because it says its true.. blah blah.

you take an problem with an issue and see it as an attack on your entire religion. much like how an islamic fundamentalist see's womens rights as an attack on their entire belief system.
>>


OK......#1, what's with the "you" BS????? Find ANY post where I made any reference to any religious affiliation!;) I'm about as Agnostic as one can be and I definately do not subscribe to any religion. I believe more in science than anything!;)

That being said, you argument for basis can very easily be made in both directions! There's no irrefutable evidence of any claims made in this thread by those whom bash the "religious" for exactly the same thing! They used they "bible" in many of their basis for belief..........on the other hand, some of you used papers & studies written by people whom claim to know............both of these were written by whom?????? By men whom "claim" they know what they are talking about. Both are foulable and both are what people base their opinions upon so how is one any more correct than the other??? Are you saying that the claims made by present day holars are more irrefutable for just that reason????? I doubt that actually as we find more evidence all the time that claims and observations made centuries ago were correct....................not all.............but many! The same will hold true for claims made currently and the opinions formed by them!

You say that religious people take issue with something as an attack on their entire religion...............are you not doing the same by attacking religion for not being within your belief system?????;) I try to look at things from both sides, and to be perfectly honest, although the thought of an "all powerfull being" seems far fetched to me in many ways and the bible, as I eluded to many times seems to be no more than a series of writings done by men over a period of time, there is truth to be found in many of the words!;) I don't believe being "gay" is something that should make a person any less equal than another, and I can respect their ideals and lifestyle, but, IMHO it IS a genetic "flaw" because even from a scientific point of view, it is incorrect! Everything has, and serves a purpose. Many times the purpose is a simple as reproducing, in order for this to happen, certain laws, actions, and "hardware" are required to work together...................in the case of beings of the same sex being attracted, this can not work, therefore it can be considered a "flaw" in ones genetic code. Nearly every person has some type of "flaw" so this is not uncommon, but, it is still a flaw! Most of these "flaws" are studied to try to find a way to correct them, or at least have them not be continued in future generations.......................this one is not disimilar...........
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
OK......#1, what's with the "you" BS????? Find ANY post where I made any reference to any religious affiliation! I'm about as Agnostic as one can be and I definately do not subscribe to any religion. I believe more in science than anything!


big ego you have, i did'nt only mean you since i'm posting to a thread:p plus you came to the defense of some other guy.

You say that religious people take issue with something as an attack on their entire religion...............are you not doing the same by attacking religion for not being within your belief system????? I try to look at things from both sides, and to be perfectly honest, although the thought of an "all powerfull being" seems far fetched to me in many ways and the bible, as I eluded to many times seems to be no more than a series of writings done by men over a period of time, there is truth to be found in many of the words!

ugh, yea... i was originally posting about how theres always some guy basically saying you shouldn't have a blasphemous thread at all. my belief system is that i know how little i know, so i'll try not to judge others arbitrarily, especially when they don't hurt anyone. if someone thinks they know everything absolutely, sure i'll try to find out whats behind it.
 

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0


<< OK......#1, what's with the "you" BS????? Find ANY post where I made any reference to any religious affiliation! I'm about as Agnostic as one can be and I definately do not subscribe to any religion. I believe more in science than anything!
>>





<< big ego you have, i did'nt only mean you since i'm posting to a thread:p plus you came to the defense of some other guy. >>


It serves it's purpose!;) LOL!:) At any rate, I merely felt that the guy had been misinterpreted in his meaning and tried to clarify since when I posted, it appeared he had gone "offline". I just don't see how either side has any more viability than the other, but, as is so often the case, those whom do not choose to subscribe to any religion seem to simply dismiss those whom do believe in religion when there is actually no better case for either side!;)
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Optimus - not sure why or for what purpose that whole schpeel was for, but if your bottom line is that since to reason to the point of absurdity is pointless, we should therefore all assume full responsibility for our actions and thought processes, I wholely agree with you...

It is that point that I take one step further, and dismiss most (not all) cases of homosexuality as being of one's own choice and volition, and NOT, as some liberals would suggest... inherited and therefore unchangeable.

And to clarify, I have friends that are homosexual, and let the record show that I, and most people you may call homophobic - respect homosexuals one and the same, it is the choice and lifestyle I find repugnant - no different from incest.