Are gay/lesbian immoral ?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
Of course Gays and Lesbians are guilty of immoral acts, all human beings are at some time. However it is not because of their sexual orientation that they are guilty of immoral infractions, neither is the homosexual act immoral.
loving/lusting/cohabiting with members of the same sex is easily a right. Why is this? Because no one has any god damned right to step in and stop it.
loving/lusting/cohabiting with members of the same sex is easily a right. Why is this? Because no one has any god damned right to step in and stop it.
Last edited:
what could possibly be immoral about it? someone please come up with a reason and then i'll consider it cause as of now i fail to see what's wrong with it.
Saint,
Unnatural for whom? For a heterosexual, yes, but not for the homosexual.
You have a right to your religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all adopt them.
AIDS is not caused by a sexual act between two homosexual men. If this were correct then only and all homosexual men would have AIDS.
I see your disgust of gay men, but what are your thoughts on lesbians, is that wrong as well?
Unnatural for whom? For a heterosexual, yes, but not for the homosexual.
You have a right to your religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all adopt them.
AIDS is not caused by a sexual act between two homosexual men. If this were correct then only and all homosexual men would have AIDS.
I see your disgust of gay men, but what are your thoughts on lesbians, is that wrong as well?
Last edited:
Originally posted by Saint
i think it is unnatural, man shall love woman, marry and have sex, this is orthodox religious teaching, because this is the Foundation of Holy Family.
man penetrates man is ugly, unnatural, unhealthy, causes diseases like AIDS etc............ [/QU
Saint.. its ok to feel disqusted by some things but its not ok to critisize and think of those people as unnatural and unhealthy, because u have never been in their shoes....it may be disgusting and unnatural for u but its the most natural and beautiful way of expression to them. Now...if u only speak accordingly to what "god" says....i dont remember reading in the holy books anything about " homosexuals are sinful just because of their homosexual acts". Saint...you have to phase it that this kind of idea that homosexuals are unnatural and sinful comes from us - "modern" society - because it is highly patriarchal. Men feel threatened because of homosexuals and thus in order to "keep their manhood" or because they are themselves homosexuals and they dont want to admit it they condemn other homosexuals.
btw...aids is not only between homosexuals and homosexual acts themselves dont produce aids...
It is no secret that sex is great and very enjoyable, but what are the limits of this enjoyment. If I enjoy another female and we are both agreeing to love one another, then am I doing something wrong? I don't think so.... How about pull my husband or other friend at work into a threesome..could be slightly morally problematic., but very doable and could be nice. But maybe the attention of others turn me on and I like to do it infront of a camera, so is porn moral? So many variations to sex to spice it up, but what are the limits?
I say, as long as you are not hurting anyone else or imposing your way on anybody else, it's okay. So no demanding to be recognized in the military or requesting civil unions and demanding tax breaks, ect....As far as the bedroom is concerned or in that matter whatever spot you prefer, then knock yourself out, just don't invite us to peak, approve, or even recognize that you exist.....
I say, as long as you are not hurting anyone else or imposing your way on anybody else, it's okay. So no demanding to be recognized in the military or requesting civil unions and demanding tax breaks, ect....As far as the bedroom is concerned or in that matter whatever spot you prefer, then knock yourself out, just don't invite us to peak, approve, or even recognize that you exist.....
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
To The Saint:
Gays and lesbians do not need the approval of the religious, they just need to be left alone.
According to Biological Exuberance written By biologist Bruce Bagemihl Phd:
"Many people continue to believe that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature, and use this belief to justify their opinions about human homosexuality.
In fact, not only has homosexual behavior of various types been scientifically documented in hundreds of animal species worldwide. Same-sex pair-bonding and co-parenting are found in Grizzly Bears and Barn Owls, and homosexual courtship and sexual activity in several species of Salmon.
I wrote Biological Exuberance to expose and challenge the limitations of the "nature vs. nurture" debate. Too many times, evidence of homosexuality in animals is used to support the idea that homosexuality is entirely biologically determined, genetically controlled, or otherwise fixed at (or before) birth -- and more broadly, to argue for its "naturalness" in people. In the process, the complexities and nuances of sexual orientation and gender -- in both animals and humans -- are overlooked.
This book shows how social, environmental, cultural, geographic, and individual factors also come into play in the expression of homosexuality in animals. In other words, both "nurture" and "nature" are relevant, even in a nonhuman context. If nothing more, then, I want readers to understand that it is overly simplistic to equate homosexuality in animals with its "naturalness" or automatic "acceptability" in people.
Finally, Biological Exuberance is about far more than animal (homo)sexuality -- it presents a new vision of the world and our position in it. Much of the discourse on animal homosexuality -- both scientific and popular -- has floundered in attempts to find an "explanation" for the phenomenon or fit it into traditional theories of evolution. I suggest in this book that such attempts, while useful up to a point, are ultimately misguided. What is needed is not yet another simplistic "answer", but an expanded concept of what is possible."
Maybe this will help broaden your view on sexuality in nature so you can get on with your religion and stop worrying about the 'morality' of others.
Gays and lesbians do not need the approval of the religious, they just need to be left alone.
According to Biological Exuberance written By biologist Bruce Bagemihl Phd:
"Many people continue to believe that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature, and use this belief to justify their opinions about human homosexuality.
In fact, not only has homosexual behavior of various types been scientifically documented in hundreds of animal species worldwide. Same-sex pair-bonding and co-parenting are found in Grizzly Bears and Barn Owls, and homosexual courtship and sexual activity in several species of Salmon.
I wrote Biological Exuberance to expose and challenge the limitations of the "nature vs. nurture" debate. Too many times, evidence of homosexuality in animals is used to support the idea that homosexuality is entirely biologically determined, genetically controlled, or otherwise fixed at (or before) birth -- and more broadly, to argue for its "naturalness" in people. In the process, the complexities and nuances of sexual orientation and gender -- in both animals and humans -- are overlooked.
This book shows how social, environmental, cultural, geographic, and individual factors also come into play in the expression of homosexuality in animals. In other words, both "nurture" and "nature" are relevant, even in a nonhuman context. If nothing more, then, I want readers to understand that it is overly simplistic to equate homosexuality in animals with its "naturalness" or automatic "acceptability" in people.
Finally, Biological Exuberance is about far more than animal (homo)sexuality -- it presents a new vision of the world and our position in it. Much of the discourse on animal homosexuality -- both scientific and popular -- has floundered in attempts to find an "explanation" for the phenomenon or fit it into traditional theories of evolution. I suggest in this book that such attempts, while useful up to a point, are ultimately misguided. What is needed is not yet another simplistic "answer", but an expanded concept of what is possible."
Maybe this will help broaden your view on sexuality in nature so you can get on with your religion and stop worrying about the 'morality' of others.
I personally find that it can be a beautiful act. It seems quite natural to me, I don't find that it's any more unhealthy than any other form of sex.
Oh and for those of you who apparently still believe in spontaneous generation: That's not how disease works! Neither Anal, nor any other kind of sex can cause any disease, sex merely provides a convenient method for transmission of diseases which one partner must have already contracted. In other words, two healthy people, be they heterosexual or homosexual, can have all the sex the like, and so long as neither of them has any disease to begin with, and they only have sex with each other (or other uninfected individuals) then there is no chance that either of them will become sick as a result of their sexual behavior. Honestly, you people should go take a grade school biology class or something, did you honestly not learn anything about pathology in your education?
Are you the same Flores that has been posting here all along? What happend to homosexuals and other sexual deviants being "walking biological warfare labs" or whatever you called them?
Well, I'd agree with you here if Homosexuality were only some sort of kinky sex thing, but that's far from what it is. Homosexuality is not just about people getting off on having sex with members of the same gender, but about actually having long lasting meaningful relationships with these people. Our relationships are as valid as those of a heterosexual, the government exists to cater to social needs, It already provides marriage to heterosexuals, which provides legal benefits befitting of the nature of the relationship. All homosexuals are asking for are those same benefits, as we already engage in the same sort of relationship which warrants the same legal protection.
Well I was born and raised in the United States, and am currently living there right now, and as far as I can tell sex is indeed a fundamental legal right. In fact, if you didn't have your head up your ass you might even realize that the supreme court ruled on exactly that not less than one month ago. Look up Lawrence and Garner Vs. Texas. Or better than that, Read the god damned constitution, you ignoramus.
Pay special attention to the ninth amendment.
Maybe pay this sad little thread a visit: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=26135
I don't know what kind of communist dictatorship you live in, sir, but here in the States people are entitled to basic fundamental liberties.
So as long as gays/lesbians do not seek the same rights as you have, then all is cool? I'm not sure I understand why you feel heterosexuals should have special rights. Why shouldn't gays/lesbians have the very same rights?
And I fully agree with Mystech, a homosexual relationship can be just as loving and committed as a heterosexual one. To think otherwise is ignorance.
Sex is no more a right then driving or going to the bathroom. It is not a right in itself, but relies on your right to freedom and happines.
The 9th ammendment doesn't say everything not enumerated in the Consitiution is a right. It just says that it isn't all inclusive. There is nothing to say that this right is 'retained of the people', as others are 'retaining the right' to try and stop your actions.
In short, no... it is not a fundemental right.
The 9th ammendment doesn't say everything not enumerated in the Consitiution is a right. It just says that it isn't all inclusive. There is nothing to say that this right is 'retained of the people', as others are 'retaining the right' to try and stop your actions.
In short, no... it is not a fundemental right.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
To Persol who wrote: Sex is no more a right then driving or going to the bathroom. It is not a right in itself, but relies on your right to freedom and happines.
So from what you are saying the human species needs permission to shit, eat, fuck and procreate?
So from what you are saying the human species needs permission to shit, eat, fuck and procreate?
Well I'm glad for everyone's sake that the Supreme Court disagrees with you on this. You do understand that what you are saying here is that a third party can have the authority to tell a consenting pair of adults that no they can in fact NOT be sexually intimate with one another.
Tell me, where is the source of that authority?
Originally posted by Mystech
Well I'm glad for everyone's sake that the Supreme Court disagrees with you on this.
You have the right to privacy, you have the right to freedom, you have the right to happiness. Due to these rights, homosexual sex is not prohibited... that doesn't make it a right.
The whole Lawrence and Garner Vs. Texas case is based on privacy rights and equal protection... it does not go as far as to make sex a right.
Once again: just because no one is allowed/supposed to stop an action, doesn't make that action a right.
You do understand that what you are saying here is that a third party can have the authority to tell a consenting pair of adults that no they can in fact NOT be sexually intimate with one another.
You are missing my point. That is not a fundemental right either. According to your logic everything not prohibited is a right. Telling a consenting pair of adults that they can not have sex is not prohibited, so must be a right? No. It is not prohobited... that is all. It is still to be decided if it is a right. And even then, it is still not a 'fundemental' right... but an abstracted one.
Well I'm glad for everyone's sake that the Supreme Court disagrees with you on this.
You have the right to privacy, you have the right to freedom, you have the right to happiness. Due to these rights, homosexual sex is not prohibited... that doesn't make it a right.
The whole Lawrence and Garner Vs. Texas case is based on privacy rights and equal protection... it does not go as far as to make sex a right.
Once again: just because no one is allowed/supposed to stop an action, doesn't make that action a right.
You do understand that what you are saying here is that a third party can have the authority to tell a consenting pair of adults that no they can in fact NOT be sexually intimate with one another.
You are missing my point. That is not a fundemental right either. According to your logic everything not prohibited is a right. Telling a consenting pair of adults that they can not have sex is not prohibited, so must be a right? No. It is not prohobited... that is all. It is still to be decided if it is a right. And even then, it is still not a 'fundemental' right... but an abstracted one.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
According to my Websters dictionary one of the definitions of a 'right' is: A power, privilege, etc. belonging to one by law, nature etc.
So yea sex is a fundamental right for the human species. I don't find anything abstract about sex.
So yea sex is a fundamental right for the human species. I don't find anything abstract about sex.
- Status