Pastor's solution to the gay problem

[K1052]

I guess things are (yet again) different on that side of the pond.

There is still a social stigma here with respect to same sex attraction among men, regardless of stated orientation. Arguably it's socially more difficult to be bisexual as an American male than it is to be gay. The reverse is generally true of women here.

Mostly the problem comes from us clinging to the concept that sexuality is binary. You're either one or the other, even though the research points to it being a broad continuum.

 

[HAL9000]

There is still a social stigma here with respect to same sex attraction among men, regardless of stated orientation. Arguably it's socially more difficult to be bisexual as an American male than it is to be gay. The reverse is generally true of women here.

Mostly the problem comes from us clinging to the concept that sexuality is binary. You're either one or the other, even though the research points to it being a broad continuum.

That's bizzare to me, because while the UK is not 100% homo-friendly, the homophobia or slight unease about it is limited to the elderly (pretty much) you can walk into a bar in London, go up to a random guy and start chatting him up (as a guy) without him being offended or discomforted, at least in my experience....

 

[alzan]

No those things are not assocaited with a gay lifestyle. I don't believe a man should be romantically involved with a another man or woman with a woman. That should be plain enough. And whether God inspired or nature intended, man was designed to be with the opposite sex.

Men and women were designed to be with each other for procreative purposes. At least until parthenogenesis is a reality.

They were also designed to be with partners who fulfill each others needs, regardless of biological imperatives.

Your beliefs are not required or desired for either situation.

 

[classy]

Does that mean you don't have oral sex? If a woman offers you point blank refuse because it's not "as nature intended"

Its not the sex act.....

And nature or God, whether you like it or not, designed males and females to be together. Because truth be told, we don't exist any other way.

 

[fskimospy]

Its not the sex act.....

And nature or God, whether you like it or not, designed males and females to be together. Because truth be told, we don't exist any other way.

Again though, your argument relies upon procreative action. It seems to me that nonprocreative sex would be just as offensive to nature as gay sex.

 

[K1052]

Its not the sex act.....

And nature or God, whether you like it or not, designed males and females to be together. Because truth be told, we don't exist any other way.

Since we do not yet understand most of the biological mechanisms behind sexuality categorically stating that nature does not intend it is entirely baseless.

 

[classy]

Again though, your argument relies upon procreative action. It seems to me that nonprocreative sex would be just as offensive to nature as gay sex.

Huh, procreation purposes? A penis is made for a vagina.........and that is what defines male and female. The human body itself defines that a male should be with a female even for sexual pleasure.

Look you can argue all damn day about gay equal rights, but to somehow just pretend that all of humanity and the entire earth's genetic make up doesn't clearly say males should be with females is completely retarded.

 

[HAL9000]

Its not the sex act.....

And nature or God, whether you like it or not, designed males and females to be together. Because truth be told, we don't exist any other way.

How do you know that? What absolute knowledge do you have that I don't that allows you to decree absolutely that "Men and women are to be together"

 

[Craig234]

Classy just is willfully ignorant abou how sexual orientation works. He refuses to get a clue that some are wired differently than others.

 

[classy]

Since we do not yet understand most of the biological mechanisms behind sexuality categorically stating that nature does not intend it is entirely baseless.

Really? So 95% of all life whether human or animal relationships, is rooted in males being with females is baseless? Next you'll be telling nature never intended us to drink water, despite the fact we are 75% water and need it just to live.

 

[classy]

How do you know that? What absolute knowledge do you have that I don't that allows you to decree absolutely that "Men and women are to be together"

Just the fact you are here..................

 

[HAL9000]

Really? So 95% of all life whether human or animal relationships, is rooted in males being with females is baseless? Next you'll be telling nature never intended us to drink water, despite the fact we are 75% water and need it just to live.

That doesn't mean that the 5% is wrong, it means they are improbable.

Also don't know where you're getting these statistics.

 

[HAL9000]

Just the fact you are here..................

What?

So you're saying because my parents are straight is absolute unquestionable knowledge about the nature of all human kind and that our existence must only co-align with another humans if they are of the opposite gender?

Error 404, logic not found.

 

[classy]

Classy just is willfully ignorant abou how sexual orientation works. He refuses to get a clue that some are wired differently than others.

Its not me getting a clue, its you the ones who needs the clue. I am not the one running around telling little boys to be a mommy during playtime at school. I am not the one running around pushing a genderless upbringing for kids. I am not the one running around applauding parents, taking their 11 year old boy and transitioning him to be a female at the damn age of 11.

Don't even get me started...........

This pastor is completely wrong for what he did, but it still doesn't make it right.

 

[K1052]

Really? So 95% of all life whether human or animal relationships, is rooted in males being with females is baseless? Next you'll be telling nature never intended us to drink water, despite the fact we are 75% water and need it just to live.

Your Red Herring is showing.

There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is a necessarily undesirable trait inside a population given it's occurrence at low percentages of the total population.

You can go ahead and stand on your religious ground but stay away from nature/science.

 

[HAL9000]

Its not me getting a clue, its you the ones who needs the clue. I am not the one running around telling little boys to be a mommy during playtime at school.

Neither am I, but what's the problem? Are you also of the opinion that women should stay in the kitchen?

I am not the one running around pushing a genderless upbringing for kids.

Neither am I

I am not the one running around applauding parents, taking their 11 year old boy and transitioning him to be a female at the damn age of 11.

Neither am I

If you think any of the above has anything to do with gay marriage you need to look into it in more detail.

 

[zsdersw]

Don't even get me started...........

Why? It's much more fun when you showcase your ignorance on this issue.

 

[classy]

That doesn't mean that the 5% is wrong, it means they are improbable.

Also don't know where you're getting these statistics.

LOL, he said statistics.....................

And whether or not someone is wrong, to me is of little concern. Folks want to hedge on every short coming they see in others as some justification for being gay and its just weak IMO.

 

[HAL9000]

LOL, he said statistics.....................

And whether or not someone is wrong, to me is of little concern. Folks want to hedge on every short coming they see in others as some justification for being gay and its just weak IMO.

WTF does that mean?

Who needs to justify being gay?! That's like saying you need to justify being tall "Oh sorry guys, turns out I'm tall because my parents fed me too much spinach"

 

[classy]

Your Red Herring is showing.

There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is a necessarily undesirable trait inside a population given it's occurrence at low percentages of the total population.

You can go ahead and stand on your religious ground but stay away from nature/science.

You just reiterrated my point. Given its low occurance should be proof enough that while it may not should be considered an undesirable trait, clearly nature never intended it to be a trait from the beginning.

I amnot getting into the whole religous stuff, because at this point its pointless.

 

[classy]

WTF does that mean?

Who needs to justify being gay?! That's like saying you need to justify being tall "Oh sorry guys, turns out I'm tall because my parents fed me too much spinach"

Its is a classic line for the gay marriage. Well hetero marriage fails at 60%, so how much more damage can allowing gays to marry do to the sanctity of marriage. You hear that argument all the time.

 

[K1052]

You just reiterrated my point. Given its low occurance should be proof enough that while it may not should be considered an undesirable trait, clearly nature never intended it to be a trait from the beginning.

I amnot getting into the whole religous stuff, because at this point its pointless.

Your statement contradicts itself and attempts (badly) to draw the same flawed conclusion that no data exists to support in the first place.

 

[HAL9000]

Its is a classic line for the gay marriage. Well hetero marriage fails at 60%, so how much more damage can allowing gays to marry do to the sanctity of marriage. You hear that argument all the time.

I don't, so you are referencing things that I have no clue what you are talking about, and bringing in subjects completely unrelated to the discussion we are having, I thought we were talking about why you thought homosexuality was wrong, not the "justification that people use to explain why they are gay" or other such bollocks.

 

[classy]

Your statement contradicts itself and attempts (badly) to draw the same flawed conclusion that no data exists to support in the first place.

I have 6 billion damn people on this rock. Not one breathes without the male gene being brought into contact with the female gene. How much more data do you need?

 

[zsdersw]

You just reiterrated my point. Given its low occurance should be proof enough that while it may not should be considered an undesirable trait, clearly nature never intended it to be a trait from the beginning.

How, exactly, do you know what nature does and does not "intend"? How can that be measured and quantified?

Relative scarcity in a society does not suggest, much less prove, that such scarcity is a sign that nature didn't "intend" it to be there. There are specialized roles for minorities in any biological society; roles that evolution has maintained.