Sexual identity is basically a social construct, heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are still sex, justifiable and appealing to the participants on the basis of pleasure. For those that agree against the 'unnatural" lesbian sex, have to face the contradiction that Nature rewards the act with pleasure.

As far as societies go, sex is given a subjective definition and some societies not only tolerate homosexuality, but also allot some social function to it.

Like the Christians do, espousing some sort of absolute rule about sex is unrealistic. Besides, christianity stands for cultural references of the past century.

Kay 17: Sexual identity is basically a social construct, heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are still sex, justifiable and appealing to the participants on the basis of pleasure. For those that agree against the 'unnatural" lesbian sex, have to face the contradiction that Nature rewards the act with pleasure.

As far as societies go, sex is given a subjective definition and some societies not only tolerate homosexuality, but also allot some social function to it.

That's really it in a nutshell. In addition, the presence of same-gender-attracted individuals may have provided some not-yet-understood social benefit to early human societies which increased overall survival rates for humans. "Survival of the fittest" behaviors are sometimes not very obvious at first inspection.

My other post was hidden.

wiegraf:
They don't do it just for fun you know? Read up on bonobos and how they use sex to negotiate, bond, etc. Read up on elephants and dolphins as well. But even if they did, these are animals, they have no reasoning abilities per se. They aren't going around thinking "maybe I should be gay today", they are for the most part purely instinctive beings. They cannot make a conscious choice to be gay, yet they are. So this does not qualify as natural? Homosexuality is abundant in nature, that makes it normal in nature

Lol, abundant in nature? Some animals engage in homosexual acts but that doesn't make it abundant.
Again, I got this from your link:

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species. Homosexual behavior is best known from social species. According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity

Also, mental problems can be found in animals, so their engaging in homosexual behaviour could be a sign of a mental disorder.

Logicboy03:


Brain enema with another foolish question again

C'mon, what's foolish bout reminding you of your incompetence to judge or identify rationality?

Can any one of you give me clue of why a Woman and a Man were created in the first place?

Smartie gurl: Can any one of you give me clue of why a Woman and a Man were created in the first place?

Most ppl don't share that judeo-Christian foundation with you here. So not a common axiom/base

Logicboy03:
Wrong, simple google will tell you that you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#In_law_and_forensic_psychology
A pedophile is a hebefile and the fact remains that majority of pedophiles go for teenagers rather than infants

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100424112013AAIihrN The easiest one. Go educate yourself.

Kay 17: Sexual identity is basically a social construct, heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are still sex, justifiable and appealing to the participants on the basis of pleasure. For those that agree against the 'unnatural" lesbian sex, have to face the contradiction that Nature rewards the act with pleasure.

As far as societies go, sex is given a subjective definition and some societies not only tolerate homosexuality, but also allot some social function to it.

Like the Christians do, espousing some sort of absolute rule about sex is unrealistic. Besides, christianity stands for cultural references of the past century.

This more or else sums a lot of what I've been saying, plus some. Frankly, I feel bad I couldn't put it as succinctly.

Random: I was thinking about this. I remember romans/greeks had some jobs where they actively searched out homosexuals for the positions. That's downright discrimination! I didn't get the job. Why? Cause I'm not gay?! I suppose it's sort of similar (but not the same) to how in some eastern societies being a masseuse is reserved for the blind. Note I say similar, not the same.

fellis: My other post was hidden.

Lol, abundant in nature? Some animals engage in homosexual acts but that doesn't make it abundant.
Again, I got this from your link:

Also, mental problems can be found in animals, so their engaging in homosexual behaviour could be a sign of a mental disorder.

Bot got your post?

Is homosexual behavior a sign of mental disorder in humans? Wow. They don't like having the same sort of s.ex you do, therefore they are mentally ill? Like said above, some guys enjoy eating water melons (that kind), others don't. Which group are mentally ill?




Edit: not to mention what sort of baseless leap is that? You just make a connection out of the blue and now it's somehow a fact?

^See full original post here.
https://www.nairaland.com/1102007/what-should-done-gay-lesbian/3#12957772

fellis:

Lol, abundant in nature? Some animals engage in homosexual acts but that doesn't make it abundant.

Again, I got this from your link:

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species. Homosexual behavior is best known from social species. According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity


Also, mental problems can be found in animals, so their engaging in homosexual behaviour could be a sign of a mental illness.

Erm, yes, can you contrast what you've bolded out (the last bit), to what I've bolded out (the rest)? You're also aware that we are a social species, yes?

In the bit you bolded, he is saying that it is not common to find completely homosexual animals. This is a no-brainer, animals cannot reason and are programmed to mate, so of course they'll engage in heterosexual activities. And like I said, homosexual activity is not just only pleasurable to them, it also reinforces social bonds, etc (regardless of how icky that may sound, ugh). For crying out loud they say it's a 'nearly universal phenomenon'.

As for the mental illness bit, see my previous post.

fellis:
This is the definition of natural:


nat·u·ral [náchərəl, náchrəl]
adjective

1. conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature


Now what is the normal course of nature?
It is for organisms or species to develop and improve traits that ensure that they do not die off or go extinct. That is why the carnivores have canines, that is why the hover-fly has mimicry, that is why chameleons and geckos change their colors and that is why male and female sëx organs which aid reproduction, were developed. Since the beginning of life, living things have consistently developed traits that aid their survival, not their extinction.
When I used the word 'natural' I am not talking about every single thing that goes on in the animal kingdom, I am referring to the aspects of nature that follow the course which nature has set for living things and that course is for these living things to CONTINUE to exist, not for them to die off.
Only heterosexuality is normal, homosexuality isn't. What purpose does homosexuality serve? What is to be gained form it?
Gay men usually end up with anal incontinence after some time due to the gaysex they have.
Anal incontinence.
Because the human anus is not adapted for sëx, unlike the vägina that is very elastic and can retain it's prior shape after sëx and even after childbirth.

http://www.dictionary.com/d/?q=natural&o=0&l=dir

1. of, existing in, or formed by nature


www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

a : being in accordance with or determined by
nature
b : having or constituting a classification based
on features existing in nature


Again, homosexuality occurs in nature abundantly, even if not exclusively. It is NATURAL. And you assume there is no purpose it, I've already told you there are, even in other species. Look up bonobos, and note that bonobos and chimps are our closest relatives. As has already been said by @kay, nature has made it pleasurable for some, why? Also, note as well, nature favors populations with varieties. The larger the gene pool, the better. The more diverse the population, the more likely it would survive threats. This applies socially as well.

What you view through your goggles as defects are viewed very positively by others. In fact, you could say some of these 'defects' would be objectively positive. Or are you saying homosexuals don't contribute to the world?

As for but.t hurt, yes I've noticed as well how heterosexual sex is completely harmless. Really? Heck with bu.tt sex at least you needed worry about unwanted pregnancies. And of course heteros never engage in but.t se.x as well

fellis:
Nobody is using any trick here. Everything wrong with gays. How can a person want to carry out an action that causes them irrepairable bodily harm and still think that they are normal?

See above

fellis:
What do you mean by it's very likely?
What makes it VERY likely?
Other species have their own adaptive behaviours that are different from the mammals in the Wiki link. Those mammals in my link carry out infanticide because that is the adaptive behaviour that suits their species, not these other species that you speak of.

What makes it very likely is that other similar species don't engage in it yet they do just fine.

My obvious point here being not every 'natural' thing is helpful/good. We also have nice good brains to help us filter the bits of nature that really aren't necessary without waiting for natural selection to weed them out. Meh

fellis:
Your reasoning capacity/abilities are different from those of animals.
You do not understand how animals think so stop trying to see thing from their point of view.

They, for the most part, don't think. Their behavior is instinctive, just like when they engage in teh gay se.x. So, if you cannot see from their point of view, how can you tell they're wrong to engage in teh gay or that they are mentally ill? I fail to see how this bit helps your case

fellis:
Natural= following course of nature = developing traits that ensure survival = reproduction and multiplication ≠ homosexuality ≠ traits that lead to a destroyed anus.

And teh gay is the greatest blight on survival, completely against the course of nature. Absolutely nothing gained from it except destroyed but.ts. So says fellis. Bu.tts that aren't even yours no less...

Smartie gurl: Can any one of you give me clue of why a Woman and a Man were created in the first place?

who created man and woman?yahweh?the same yahweh that create a frigging tree of good and evil which was apparently needed by nobody?the same yahweh that created nine planets out of which 8 are apparently useless?the same yahweh who manufactures deformed children?the same yahweh who created an everlasting furnace to burn his creation who he claims to love?think again

homosexuals are persons who have a right to association which is recognized by almost every charter of the UN.its disheartening that some religious groupsh ave made it their goal to continually condemn and repress these people.its also good to know that the fight for their freedom is slowly been won.malawi has finally repealed its anti-gay law.liberia is on the way to doing same and nigeria will eventually follow suit

wiegraf:

Age of consent in much of the world is ~14. But this case, even if legal, has to be taken in the context of the guy's age, he would obviously classify as a predator. You go out of your way to stress they both consent, and I'm assuming her earlier sexual experience were with peers, not predators. In which case I'm obviously looking at her parents/guardians. You've deliberately presented a case that is not clear cut. Use prebuscent teen versus old man, sexual experience or not, consent or not, then I can give you a straight answer; she's simply far too young to know what she's doing, and the repercussions to both her physical and mental health could be disastrous.

But yes, this case is still disturbing obviously because of the 40 year old dude. If with her peer I would have to let them go, with a stern warning

We'll finish this later... I didn't even get to finish my work damit

Some parts of the world have no age of consent and will sanction marriages between a 50yr old and a 7yr old. The reason I presented this case is because you seem to be of the opinion that "there is no 'harm' done therefore it is alright". I want to put it to you that in the same sense, there is equally no "harm" done in sex between an overaged man and an underaged child since they will both be enjoying themselves.

If you grew up in a country like Qatar (or even in some remote Nigerian villages) where there is no such thing as age of consent, you would probably see nothing wrong with 9 yr old girls marrying mature men because it would be the norm. These little girls usually grow up to be very capable wives and mothers and have happily always lived that way until the those "evil christian missionaries" came with their civilization.

I hold that there are such practices that are in themselves objectively morally evil. I hold that all sex outside marriage is immoral in whatever form it takes (where marriage by definition is the union between one man and one woman). Sex and consequently marriage has a purpose outside itself which is to birth and raise offspring. It is God's gift to us that sex is pleasurable. The pleasure of sex is not it's purpose but it's byproduct.

If we argue from a genetic point of view (and the reason I am going this route is because that is what you believe to be the grounds for morality), then we will agree that the aim of lust and sexual pleasure is so that man can procreate therefore this means that the only time lust would be appropriate is when it is directed at a mate capable of reproducing and prolonging the survival of the species. The homosexual, the object-sexual, the zoophile e.t.c. do not have their lust directed at something capable of creating offspring. They are into sex solely for the pleasure derived from it and not for the purpose of sex which is reproduction.

I put it to you that zoophiles, homosexuals and object-sexuals will not exist if we had somehow 'evolved' in such a way that there was no pleasure from sex but rather it was one of those necessary bodily activities like excretion (a very possible outcome in evolution).

I am very convinced that the homosexual lifestyle is not in any way genetic (for starters, how will the gene be passed on?). It is a behaviour driven entirely by lust and an unusual kind of lust for that matter. It is even more logical to argue that criminal tendencies are genetic. The argument that some people are homosexual from birth is nothing more than propaganda. (It even makes more sense to argue that some people are pedophiles from birth). If -and this is very unlikely - anyone is born homosexual at all, it would have absolutely nothing to do with genetics and more likely be something more like a birth defect.

My argument on the most likely cause of homosexual behaviour is that a child is somehow exposed to it at a young age before he forms any real notions of what his sexuality is. Same-sex prisons and boarding schools are notorious for being the kind of places where homosexual sex thrives even amongst people that would outside that environment, define themselves as heterosexual.

Now my theory (though not cast in stone at this time) is that if a child is exposed to homosexual acts before he ascertains his sexual identity, he is likely to see it as the norm of sexual behaviour and consequently becomes attracted to members of the same sex. At this point, his lust has sufficiently become misdirected. I dare say the same goes for animal attraction as weird as it may sound.

The above has been a write-up to show that the whole argument of being "born that way" is utter rubbish. At best homosexuality is a sexual preference much like how some people prefer blondes over brunettes, or fat over slim and in some other extreme cases; horses over humans, or chairs over tables, or children over adults. Elevating a mere sexual preference to an "identity" is a cheap propaganda trick to enable activists to claim victim status.
I hold that it is totally silly to oppress someone just because of his/her sexual preferences (It would be stupid to persecute brunette-lovers for instance) and I hold that it is equally very silly for someone to define himself by his sexual preference (for instance someone going about describing himself as a brunette-lover, filling it in forms and forming entire communities based on his preference for brunettes I find to be utterly stupid)

Now as much as I hold that it is silly to define oneself by his/her sexual preferences, I also hold that certain sexual preferences are sinful and immoral. such as preferring prostitutes over ones wife/husband, preferring little children over one's wife/husband, preferring persons of the same gender or animals e.t.c. In fact all sex outside marriage is sin.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex in itself but certain types of sex are immoral i.e. when sex is no longer the sacred communion between a husband and wife but is used solely for carnal pleasure or at the expense of another person, it is immoral. In much the same way that there is nothing wrong with speech in itself but certain kinds of speech are immoral e.g. Any speech that falls outside truth or when speech is used in certain ways such that it is hateful and abusive for instance, it becomes immoral.

My position on the case of the homosexual is the same as my position on the liar, thief, fornicator, idolater, drunkard e.t.c. It is:

Love them, Preach to them and Pray for them that God will convict them of their sins and bring them to the knowledge of Christ.

^^
Also I don't like the "born this way" argument forward by gay activists, presenting it as a genetic disposition rather than a wilful act. However, given the knowledge we know about genetics, and how minute behaviour and physical structure is influemced by the genes. Such as a genius or the colour blind man. It is open and reasonable to believe some people who find their same sex sexual attractive are influenced genetically.

^^^Mr-Anony....now dat u've said all dat...what can u now say about hermaphrodites(trannies or whatever it is they call em)....mind u they were born dat way....i personally know som1 like dat...she's a girl in every sense...looks like a girl(breasts, pretty face, figure 8 n all), behaves like a girl of cos...but hey...she's got a johnny inbtw her legs...n yes she's in2 both girls n boys...aint dat a case of genetic makeup affecting her sexuality...

tony_runo: ^^^Mr-Anony....now dat u've said all dat...what can u now say about hermaphrodites(trannies or whatever it is they call em)....mind u they were born dat way....i personally know som1 like dat...she's a girl in every sense...looks like a girl(breasts, pretty face, figure 8 n all), behaves like a girl of cos...but hey...she's got a johnny inbtw her legs...n yes she's in2 both girls n boys...aint dat a case of genetic makeup affecting her sexuality...

That's a very good question and this is how I will answer it:

First of all, being a hermaphrodite is not a genetic issue but more like a birth defect caused by and imbalance of testesterone during the gestation period of the foetus so that it develops double genitalia.

If the lady in question is a true hermaphrodite, and note that I used the word "true hermaphrodite" because usually, hermaphrodites cannot produce both spermatozoa and eggs - in fact there are no known cases of any such human beings - not to say that your friend is not such a special case. For the purpose of simplicity, we will assume that your friend is a true hermaphrodite.

Now the bible does not say anything about hermaphrodites but the bible talks about marriage and my argument and what the bible stands on is the sacredness of marriage therefore if your friend is truly both male and female, she may get married to one person and have sexual intercourse with that person only. Anything outside that is sin. She may be attracted to both boys and girls, but she can only be married to one partner and be faithful to him (or her).

ijawkid:

I know its not my business what people do in privacy or in there bedrooms,but that wouldn't stop me from saying the truth.....

And that truth is what you've been ruNning away from....atheism has made it so hard for you to open your mouth to condemn the act of homosexuality.......

Now I would ask you again:::::...

Why won't you wanna try having sex with another man??is it disgusting ??after all its normal and nÀtural acÇording to you and your Çohorts_______

Oh I forgot...maybe you weren't born that way......rubbish!!!!.....

Logicboy condemn the ""act"" ............

That's all I want from you..........

Deep down you know gays are disgusting,the practice is also disgusting but because you would do anything to rubbish religion and the scriptures you would rather be on the side of gays.....

Nobody is planning to kill or persecute them,we are just spewing the truth about the ""act""......

the truth?what exactly is the truth?the truth in the time of abraham was that a wife could give her husband her maid for procreation and there was nothing wrong with it.it wasnt even a sin since jacob even did same on 2 occasions and they are the supposed beloved of god.

the truth in the time of moses was that a man could slaughter another and still be sent by god to liberate "his people".the truth in the time of david was that it was alright to skin 500 phillistines simply because you father-in-law to be had a crave for the foreskin of humans.heck,yahweh even helped david accomplish the feat.the truth in the time of joshua was that all was fair in war.heck,yahweh even made the sun stand still so the isrealites could complete their massacre of men,women,children,infants and even animals.the truth in the time of today is that all the above named persons in cluding yahweh would have been hurled before a war crimes tribunal for attempting such massacre.abraham would be on the run for crimes of bigamy.

need i say more?truths change.infact there are no truths.only acceptable practices of the time.the truth in the 16th century was that it was alright to capture slaves and haul them to sugar plantations to serve as beast of burden.the truth in the 20th century was that women had absolutely no rights whatsoever.the truth of thuis age and time should be that everyone should be free to be who they are without fear of prejudices been acted upon.yesterday's lies are now the truths of today.the truths of today will become tommorow's innuendo

Mr_Anony:
That's a very good question and this is how I will answer it:

First of all, being a hermaphrodite is not a genetic issue but more like a birth defect caused by and imbalance of testesterone during the gestation period of the foetus so that it develops double genitalia.

If the lady in question is a true hermaphrodite, and note that I used the word "true hermaphrodite" because usually, hermaphrodites cannot produce both spermatozoa and eggs - in fact there are no known cases of any such human beings - not to say that your friend is not such a special case. For the purpose of simplicity, we will assume that your friend is a true hermaphrodite.

Now the bible does not say anything about hermaphrodites but the bible talks about marriage and my argument and what the bible stands on is the sacredness of marriage therefore if your friend is truly both male and female, she may get married to one person and have sexual intercourse with that person only. Anything outside that is sin. She may be attracted to both boys and girls, but she can only be married to one partner and be faithful to him (or her).

seriously?this is your response?am disapointed

Mr_Anony:

Some parts of the world have no age of consent and will sanction marriages between a 50yr old and a 7yr old. The reason I presented this case is because you seem to be of the opinion that "there is no 'harm' done therefore it is alright". I want to put it to you that in the same sense, there is equally no "harm" done in sex between an overaged man and an underaged child since they will both be enjoying themselves.

If you grew up in a country like Qatar (or even in some remote Nigerian villages) where there is no such thing as age of consent, you would probably see nothing wrong with 9 yr old girls marrying mature men because it would be the norm. These little girls usually grow up to be very capable wives and mothers and have happily always lived that way until the those "evil christians" came with their civilization.

I hold that there are such practices that are in themselves objectively morally evil. I hold that all sex outside marriage is immoral in whatever form it takes (where marriage by definition is the union between one man and one woman). Sex and consequently marriage has a purpose outside itself which is to birth and raise offspring. It is God's gift to us that sex is pleasurable. The pleasure of sex is not it's purpose but it's byproduct.

If we argue from a genetic point of view (and the reason I am going this route is because that is what you believe to be the grounds for morality), then we will agree that the aim of lust and sexual pleasure is so that man can procreate therefore this means that the only time lust would be appropriate is when it is directed at a mate capable of reproducing and prolonging the survival of the species. The homosexual, the object-sexual, the zoophile e.t.c. do not have their lust directed at something capable of creating offspring. They are into sex solely for the pleasure derived from it and not for the purpose of sex which is reproduction.

I put it to you that zoophiles, homosexuals and object-sexuals will not exist if we had somehow 'evolved' in such a way that there was no pleasure from sex but rather it was one of those necessary bodily activities like excretion (a very possible outcome in evolution).

I am very convinced that the homosexual lifestyle is not in any way genetic (for starters, how will the gene be passed on?). It is a behaviour driven entirely by lust and an unusual kind of lust for that matter. It is even more logical to argue that criminal tendencies are genetic. The argument that some people are homosexual from birth is nothing more than propaganda. (It even makes more sense to argue that some people are pedophiles from birth). If -and this is very unlikely - anyone is born homosexual at all, it would have absolutely nothing to do with genetics and more likely be something more like a birth defect.

My argument on the most likely cause of homosexual behaviour is that a child is somehow exposed to it at a young age before he forms any real notions of what his sexuality is. Same-sex prisons and boarding schools are notorious for being the kind of places where homosexual sex thrives even amongst people that would outside that environment, define themselves as heterosexual.

Now my theory (though not cast in stone at this time) is that if a child is exposed to homosexual acts before he ascertains his sexual identity, he is likely to see it as the norm of sexual behaviour and consequently becomes attracted to members of the same sex. At this point, his lust has sufficiently become misdirected. I dare say the same goes for animal attraction as weird as it may sound.

The above has been a write-up to show that the whole argument of being "born that way" is utter rubbish. At best homosexuality is a sexual preference much like how some people prefer blondes over brunettes, or fat over slim and in some other extreme cases; horses over humans, or chairs over tables, or children over adults. Elevating a mere sexual preference to an "identity" is a cheap propaganda trick to enable activists to claim victim status.
I hold that it is totally silly to oppress someone just because of his/her sexual preferences (It would be stupid to persecute brunette-lovers for instance) and I hold that it is equally very silly for someone to define himself by his sexual preference (for instance someone going about describing himself as a brunette-lover, filling it in forms and forming entire communities based on his preference for brunettes I find to be utterly stupid)

Now as much as I hold that it is silly to define oneself by his/her sexual preferences, I also hold that certain sexual preferences are sinful and immoral. such as preferring prostitutes over ones wife/husband, preferring little children over one's wife/husband, preferring persons of the same gender or animals e.t.c. In fact all sex outside marriage is sin.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex in itself but certain types of sex are immoral i.e. when sex is no longer the sacred communion between a husband and wife but is used solely for carnal pleasure or at the expense of another person, it is immoral. In much the same way that there is nothing wrong with speech in itself but certain kinds of speech are immoral e.g. Any speech that falls outside truth or when speech is used in certain ways such that it is hateful and abusive for instance, it becomes immoral.

My position on the case of the homosexual is the same as my position on the liar, thief, fornicator, idolater, drunkard e.t.c. It is:

Love them, Preach to them and Pray for them that God will convict them of their sins and bring them to the knowledge of Christ.

you wanna cast a stone,throw it at father abraham first.was he married to his wife's maid?was jacob married to leah and rachel's maids?in other words,these folks are "morally evil"

Delafruita: you wanna cast a stone,throw it at father abraham first.was he married to his wife's maid?was jacob married to leah and rachel's maids?in other words,these folks are "morally evil"

Weren't they?

Ihedinobi:

Weren't they?

You accept that the guys were morally evil?

Logicboy03:


You accept that the guys were morally evil?

Heck no! I'm questioning the "were they married?" part.

Ihedinobi:

Heck no! I'm questioning the "were they married?" part.

you have another definition for marriage?educate me

Delafruita: you have another definition for marriage?educate me

they were married

Delafruita: seriously?this is your response?am disapointed

I don't remember trying to impress you in the first place.

Delafruita: you wanna cast a stone,throw it at father abraham first.was he married to his wife's maid?was jacob married to leah and rachel's maids?in other words,these folks are "morally evil"

Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.
Genesis 16:3 (NKJV)

So she said, “Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, and she will bear a child on my knees, that I also may have children by her.” Then she gave him Bilhah her maid as wife, and Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son.
Genesis 30:3-5

When Leah saw that she had stopped bearing, she took Zilpah her maid and gave her to Jacob as wife. And Leah’s maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son.
Genesis 30:9-10

In the society where I live being gay isn't a crime and since all laws are made by men if you try anything againt them up here you will be committing a crime. By the way gays do not need any ones prayers because they are perfect human beings and prayer does NOT, has NEVER and will NEVER SOLVE any problem. . .

You have all made your points/views nd beliv me, i got ur reasons, buh watever be the case you all got to realise and understand that Gays/Lesbeins ar nt normal people nd wil never be. So if you ar there nd u are a gay/lesbien retrace ur step cuz you got it all wrong, u hav either been decievd or lured into the act. The earlier u change nd become a normal human the better for you.

Oh boy, na wa. Which kind style be dis. Abi na short story u dey write. I write some of the longer posts, but this one puts mine to shame

Mr_Anony:

Some parts of the world have no age of consent and will sanction marriages between a 50yr old and a 7yr old. The reason I presented this case is because you seem to be of the opinion that "there is no 'harm' done therefore it is alright". I want to put it to you that in the same sense, there is equally no "harm" done in sex between an overaged man and an underaged child since they will both be enjoying themselves.

Yes, no harm done and it is unambiguously all right. There is harm done obviously with any pre-pubescent. With young teens and their peers, the line is blurrier. Of course it should be discouraged till they're capable of being responsible for themselves, but it should not be officially persecuted.

Now, with predators, it should be persecuted, even in relationships where they might seem genuinely happy. Reason being, for now, with our current level of maturity, the odds are an adult would manipulate and abuse trust in order to get what he wanted. Like our good priests. We have to set limits to protect those without the experience to make choices which could have far reaching consequences from being manipulated, which the very vast majority of young teens are. Or simply protect them from being easily r.aped and abused, ie in the case of predators that are outright violent.

Mr_Anony:
If you grew up in a country like Qatar (or even in some remote Nigerian villages) where there is no such thing as age of consent, you would probably see nothing wrong with 9 yr old girls marrying mature men because it would be the norm. These little girls usually grow up to be very capable wives and mothers and have happily always lived that way until the those "evil christian missionaries" came with their civilization.

Many also become capable slaves. Adopt some nice stockholm syndrome. Many don't become capable wives, etc.

And I'm atheist in nigeria. Do I strike you as one that simply accepts the norm?

Mr_Anony:
I hold that there are such practices that are in themselves objectively morally evil. I hold that all sex outside marriage is immoral in whatever form it takes (where marriage by definition is the union between one man and one woman). Sex and consequently marriage has a purpose outside itself which is to birth and raise offspring. It is God's gift to us that sex is pleasurable. The pleasure of sex is not it's purpose but it's byproduct.

There is no such thing as objective moral evil (maybe natural evil, but not moral). You even suggest as much the paragraph before this one by pointing out cultural differences.

I could get married for money. Or simply company, no need for kids. Or a variety of other reasons. Who are you to tell people their purpose for getting married?

And any, absolutely any argument built around your 'god' boils down to opinions, or "because I say so". I don't have to tell you this, at this point I'm not even sure if you're trolling. Mayhaps this is an xtian only thread in which case of course invoking 'god' would be justified, but the op didn't seem to indicate so. I could be wrong though, and she should explicitly say so. Else your unverifiable god told you something, just why should we non believers care?

Mr_Anony:
If we argue from a genetic point of view (and the reason I am going this route is because that is what you believe to be the grounds for morality), then we will agree that the aim of lust and sexual pleasure is so that man can procreate therefore this means that the only time lust would be appropriate is when it is directed at a mate capable of reproducing and prolonging the survival of the species. The homosexual, the object-sexual, the zoophile e.t.c. do not have their lust directed at something capable of creating offspring. They are into sex solely for the pleasure derived from it and not for the purpose of sex which is reproduction.

Assumptions as usual.

Again, homosexuality is abundant in nature. It reinforces social bonds, and may have other unknown benefits. Lust could be for that. And you're glaringly ignoring that we are conscious and intelligent, and not under any obligation to follow mother natures supposed plan. How it could have one is to me obviously a mystery, considering it doesn't have a will, unlike us.

Also, not using tools for their supposed purpose is now a crime? Wow

Mr_Anony:
I put it to you that zoophiles, homosexuals and object-sexuals will not exist if we had somehow 'evolved' in such a way that there was no pleasure from sex but rather it was one of those necessary bodily activities like excretion (a very possible outcome in evolution).

Maybe, so?

I could also speculate that if sex were not enjoyable, many members of our species would spend virtually no time with members of the opposite sex. Actually that would be likely considering our rank differences. Less motivation to get married and have kids. Here's a novel thought, mayhaps that's why sex is so pleasurable? It has to be that satisfying just to make us more tolerant of each other? We wouldn't even have evolved this way were it not for pleasurable sex by the way. I put it to you that we'd all be gay without pleasurable sex, and handle marriages more like what they really are under the facade, business transactions.

But all that aside, still; maybe, so?

Mr_Anony:
I am very convinced that the homosexual lifestyle is not in any way genetic (for starters, how will the gene be passed on?). It is a behaviour driven entirely by lust and an unusual kind of lust for that matter. It is even more logical to argue that criminal tendencies are genetic. The argument that some people are homosexual from birth is nothing more than propaganda. (It even makes more sense to argue that some people are pedophiles from birth). If -and this is very unlikely - anyone is born homosexual at all, it would have absolutely nothing to do with genetics and more likely be something more like a birth defect.

This doesn't make sense, at all. As far as personality is involved, it usually is nature vs nurture. A combination of both. You're born with a range of possibilities, nurture helps determine paths you ultimately take. Some with more limited ranges of options, others with not. As for the influence of genes, there is a correlation between intelligence and genes for instance. And empathy even (not so sure, i'll have to verify that). There are kids who from a very young age display traits more commonly associated with their opposite sex.

Seriously, do you think that in this environment for instance, where bigotry is astronomical, one would willingly choose to be gay? For what benefit?

And all these point to opinions and assumptions. If you intend to justify persecuting them from a non-religious perspective, I hope you have valid reasons

Mr_Anony:
My argument on the most likely cause of homosexual behaviour is that a child is somehow exposed to it at a young age before he forms any real notions of what his sexuality is. Same-sex prisons and boarding schools are notorious for being the kind of places where homosexual sex thrives even amongst people that would outside that environment, define themselves as heterosexual.

Like you say, your argument. Proof, where? Another opinion. Homosexuality is not observed only in our species, you're claiming it's not natural, why? Because you say so? What of those who've never been near a boarding school or prison? What of boys raised primarily by women who go on to become straight? Or those raised in a macho environment, persistently be encouraged to become straight, yet become gay?

Mr_Anony:
Now my theory (though not cast in stone at this time) is that if a child is exposed to homosexual acts before he ascertains his sexual identity, he is likely to see it as the norm of sexual behaviour and consequently becomes attracted to members of the same sex. At this point, his lust has sufficiently become misdirected. I dare say the same goes for animal attraction as weird as it may sound.

It does sound weird, and it's 'your theory'. Backed up by weak logic and no evidence. Ignoring nature completely. You think all behavior is learned? Were you taught how to be happy or sad? You're now suggesting you're taught how to be sexually attracted to people. I suppose you, I, everyone could be taught to become primarilly gay then?

And animals, beings that are for the most part instinctive?

Mr_Anony:
The above has been a write-up to show that the whole argument of being "born that way" is utter rubbish. At best homosexuality is a sexual preference much like how some people prefer blondes over brunettes, or fat over slim and in some other extreme cases; horses over humans, or chairs over tables, or children over adults. Elevating a mere sexual preference to an "identity" is a cheap propaganda trick to enable activists to claim victim status.

Even if so, what in the world concerns you with someone else's preferences that do not harm you in any.single.way whatsoever?

Mr_Anony:
I hold that it is totally silly to oppress someone just because of his/her sexual preferences (It would be stupid to persecute brunette-lovers for instance) and I hold that it is equally very silly for someone to define himself by his sexual preference (for instance someone going about describing himself as a brunette-lover, filling it in forms and forming entire communities based on his preference for brunettes I find to be utterly stupid)

The second 'I hold', that's your opinion

Mr_Anony:
Now as much as I hold that it is silly to define oneself by his/her sexual preferences, I also hold that certain sexual preferences are sinful and immoral. such as preferring prostitutes over ones wife/husband, preferring little children over one's wife/husband, preferring persons of the same gender or animals e.t.c. In fact all sex outside marriage is sin.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex in itself but certain types of sex are immoral i.e. when sex is no longer the sacred communion between a husband and wife but is used solely for carnal pleasure or at the expense of another person, it is immoral. In much the same way that there is nothing wrong with speech in itself but certain kinds of speech are immoral e.g. Any speech that falls outside truth or when speech is used in certain ways such that it is hateful and abusive for instance, it becomes immoral.

Your moral standards. Opinion, after opinion, after opinion....

I'm not sure you get this: nobody outside your religion cares in the least about what you find sinful, at all. You cannot find a cogent reason to persecute homos that is not religious (and you have not, in any way), keep it in your church. Don't expect non xtians to consider sins, at all. You might as well consider killing me on saturday, as I'll be working then.

Mr_Anony:
My position on the case of the homosexual is the same as my position on the liar, thief, fornicator, idolater, drunkard e.t.c. It is:

Love them, Preach to them and Pray for them that God will convict them of their sins and bring them to the knowledge of Christ.

Opinion, opinion, opinion. Liar lies to you for some sort of gain which harms you in some sort of way, he has harmed you, and deserves some sort of punishment maybe. Thief obviously harming you. Drunkard, so long as he's not harming anyone, non of your business. Fornicator? Depends on the nature of their marriages. All parties involved happy with the arrangements? Open marriages? It doesn't harm you, it's non of your business. Yes, a woman has multiple spouses, or a man does, consenting adults all around? Non of your business (problem with this is the predators, like the 40 year old above. there's a tendency to force women into slavery in societies where this is the norm, so I wouldn't exactly say we should endorse it). Obviously, consenting adult homosexuals, not in any way your business.


Your arguments boil down to 'because I say so'. Assumption after assumption.
You're condescending towards people committing a sin in your books, not a crime. And you're equating them to criminals like liars and thieves.
In other cultures, homosexuals have been valued. They are wrong just because you say so? The productive, happy homosexuals in society deserve your pity because? Do you have anything they want?

Keep your holier than thou to yourself brah. Well, you're free to indulge actually, it's obviously not my place tell anyone what to do when they're not actively harming anyone. But your god commits genocide, you have no problem with that. Yet you have problems with consenting adults in a loving relationship because said god, whose existence hasn't been proven in any way, supposedly has issues with it? His ways are mysterious indeed.

Why should we care about sins, really?


Edited

wiegraf are you gay?

fellis: wiegraf are you gay?

Why do you want to know?