Without Religion, would homosexuals be more accepted? (1 Viewer)

[rounder]

Yes but the world doesnt, what we are brought up with we should use simple. How would that be wrong? everyone is accountable for whatever they do, religiously or not. Everyone have their free choice and are in control of what they do so blaming twin brother for being gay is the cheap way to justify being homosexual.

It was a hypothetical example to show that it's a bad argument to say homsexuality is wrong because procreation would not be possible if everyone was homosexual.

That's where you are wrong. Not everyone is held accountable for their actions because it's not a matter of personal choice. There are so many factors beyond our control, things like where we happen to come from, where we were raised, who our parents are.

For example, imagine two parents who aren't very smart conceive a child who isn't very bright. If this child cannot do well in school despite trying his best. Who should we blame then? No one ever said reality is perfect, but it is what it is and we should simply accept it. It makes life easier.


The fact is, genetics play a huge role in determining a child's intelligence, so yes, they are held accountable if their child is a moron. If you don't like that, fine, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

Of course biological factors play a role in someone being a homosexual. You think folks are going to want to become gay with half of the population denouncing homosexuality and looking down upon it?

You have to be quite the moron to think that somebody would just turn gay overnight as a personal choice. It's silly.

 

[rounder]

How about ones sociological factors?

Sure it's a combination of both biological and sociological factors. And even if homosexuality were purely a matter of choice, there is no good reason to say it's immoral. Blaming someone for being homosexual is no different than blaming someone for liking one movie but not the other. It's a matter of personal choice. No one is forced to be anything they don't want to be. And as long as they are not being immoral or causing any harm to society, I don't see why homosexuality should be seen as a problem.

 

[PhRoZeN]

It was a hypothetical example to show that it's a bad argument to say homsexuality is wrong because procreation would not be possible if everyone was homosexual.

That's where you are wrong. Not everyone is held accountable for their actions because it's not a matter of personal choice. There are so many factors beyond our control, things like where we happen to come from, where we were raised, who our parents are.

For example, imagine two parents who aren't very smart conceive a child who isn't very bright. If this child cannot do well in school despite trying his best. Who should we blame then? No one ever said reality is perfect, but it is what it is and we should simply accept it. It makes life easier.


The fact is, genetics play a huge role in determining a child's intelligence, so yes, they are held accountable if their child is a moron. If you don't like that, fine, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Its not all genetics, its the sociological aspects you should consider. The hypothetical example doesnt proove the fact that pro-creation would not happen. Twisted logic.

My argument was that if and if everyone was homosexual then no pro-creation would happen.

You are justifying this that homosexual is genetic so what you are trying to say is that its out of our control? If this 'genetic disease' becomes widespread, id let you hypothetically think where this is leading...

 

[Bjerknes]

My argument was that if and if everyone was homosexual then no pro-creation would happen.

Which is an inane argument to begin with.

 

[Enron]

I think this subject is way over the head of about 75% of the forum members here.

 

[Bjerknes]

Hey guys, wanna know something interesting? If everyone wasn't born with arms or legs, nobody would be able to walk !!! Cool, huh?

 

[rounder]

Its not all genetics, its the sociological aspects you should consider. The hypothetical example doesnt proove the fact that pro-creation would not happen. Twisted logic.

My argument was that if and if everyone was homosexual then no pro-creation would happen.

You are justifying this that homosexual is genetic so what you are trying to say is that its out of our control? If this 'genetic disease' becomes widespread, id let you hypothetically think where this is leading...

No, you're saying that as a matter of personal choice, it's wrong to be gay because we would be extinct if everyone was homosexual. I'm saying that if all men were sterile, or better yet, if all men chose to abstain from sex for spiritual reasons, then this, as a matter of personal choice would be considered wrong.

There is no twisted logic here. It's simple logic really.

Genetic disease? wow.

I'll tell you what I hypothetically think. I hypothetically think that since we are intelligent beings and have invented various methods for conception such as artificial insemination. Woman can pro-create as much as they like, civilization would survive without the need for men and women to be in physical contact with each other because of their 'genetic disease'. Hypothetically ofcourse.

 

[Enron]

Subjects to steer clear of in the forums:

-homosexuals
-religion
-long division
-spelling and grammar
-science

 

[PhRoZeN]

Arms and legs? Im talking about pro-creation here, the sheer existence of people its how you came out. When we still have both arms and legs then I believe we should make use of it and not act like you got some gentic socio-bio disease whereby you want to stick use your arm to walk and legs to punch.

 

[PhRoZeN]

No, you're saying that as a matter of personal choice, it's wrong to be gay because we would be extinct if everyone was homosexual. I'm saying that if all men were sterile, or better yet, if all men chose to abstain from sex for spiritual reasons, then this, as a matter of personal choice would be considered wrong.

Being homo is also a personal choice. I see it that the sociological aspects have a bigger influence than genetic. But again this is debateble.

I'll tell you what I hypothetically think. I hypothetically think that since we are intelligent beings and have invented various methods for conception such as artificial insemination. Woman can pro-create as much as they like, civilization would survive without the need for men and women to be in physical contact with each other because of their 'genetic disease'. Hypothetically ofcourse.

Thats a good answer, and then we come to morals knowing who our father is, or knowing the fact that we got many brothers and sisters spread around the world. Sounds very moral to me.

 

[rounder]

Being homo is also a personal choice. I see it that the sociological aspects have a bigger influence than genetic. But again this is debateble.




Thats a good answer, and then we come to morals knowing who our father is, or knowing the fact that we got many brothers and sisters spread around the world. Sounds very moral to me.

Really? So single women who choose to conceive children by artificial insemination are all immoral? I hope you aren't serious.

 

[Bjerknes]

You can't argue with folks who think homosexuality is a personal choice. Just like a straight guy can't "choose" not to be aroused by a hot female, it's the same for a homosexual.

 

[Dragon]

Wait so homosexuality isn't a personal choice??

 

[rounder]

You can't argue with folks who think homosexuality is a personal choice. Just like a straight guy can't "choose" not to be aroused by a hot female, it's the same for a homosexual.

The problem is, these people seem to have already made up their mind, and no matter how many times you show them they are wrong they will consistently defend their claim with something even more ridiculous.

I would respect them more if they just came out and honestly admitted they think homosexuality is wrong because that's what they were taught.

 

[rounder]

Wait so homosexuality isn't a personal choice??

I can argue that most if not all the things you think you know are not a matter of personal choice. Look, we are not perfect objective beings that can make free personal choices as we please. We are affected by our enviroment, what we read, what our friends and family think,the media, and certainly genetics. The most important thing is to acknowledge that and when it comes to making our minds up about a particular subject, we should try and clear our heads from all the bias implanted in us by society and in Aristotle's words, 'follow the argument where it leads.'

 

[Dragon]

I can argue that most if not all the things you think you know are not a matter of personal choice. Look, we are not perfect objective beings that can make free personal choices as we please. We are affected by our enviroment, what we read, what our friends and family think,the media, and certainly genetics. The most important thing is to acknowledge that and when it comes to making our minds up about a particular subject, we should try and clear our heads from all the bias implanted in us by society and in Aristotle's words, 'follow the argument where it leads.'

So if I say I like the color red, that isn't a personal choice but the choice was affected by my family/friends/media?

 

[Zé Tahir]

This is always the argument against homosexuals, and it's simply idiotic. The difference here is that young children are not of age to consent to sex or propagating naked photos of themselves on the internet. Homosexuality is far less harmless, yet it's grouped together with pedophilia by homophobes.

You conveniently chose to ignore the latter part of my post and my other post in here.

The only difference between heterosexuals, homosexuals, necrophiliacs, and pedophiles is that heterosexuals and homosexuals have the convenience of being 'themselves' because they can find other consenting adults. There is no medical proof (yet) that people are born one way or another. The only issue with pedophiles and necrophiliacs is that they desire something immoral and illegal in nearly all societies, however if these people could control their desires then why not accept them into society? Why should they continue to be stigmatized? After all they might be born that way if you argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals are.

Kleptomaniacs are a medically recognized group and so long as their not stealing shit (which is considered wrong and illegal everywhere) no one hates them. Why hate on 'passive' if you will, pedophiles and necrophiliacs then?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

So if I say I like the color red, that isn't a personal choice but the choice was affected by my family/friends/media?

personal here is too vague, the discussion really boils down to nature vs nurture and to what extent they both interact in shaping preference and character, but i doubt our friend here seriously engaged homosexuals to understand them. It's all jumbled up generalizations and stereotypes.

 

[Enron]

Wait so homosexuality isn't a personal choice??

What kind of dudes do you party with Fabi?