Evidence for God from Science

Murray wrote:
I might be misreading this but are you saying that 7 billion people in the world are gay?

No out of the billions of people there are if a minority of them are gay then it poses no threat to the goal of passing on humanities DNA, in fact it might even help that particular goal.

kmr wrote:I agree with all of that, but my "naturalist" friends have brought up these things with me so many times that I feel there is no way I can show them a naturalist example of why homosexuality is wrong... even with the aids thing, they found a way around believing that too.

Yes i have a friend who also bypasses the notion of aids because she said heterosexual sex can get it too it has just a lower chance. But seriously the nature and shape of our body says it all, homosexual sex is wrong. But one card people do flesh out is the "Love" card in order to defend homosexual sex ~ in the sense of " are you going to deny them love?"

In my opinion, you can choose who you want to love ultimately. I think the modern concept of love is way too caught up in that fluffy feeling called infatuation rather than the real concept of love.

CeT-To wrote:

kmr wrote:I agree with all of that, but my "naturalist" friends have brought up these things with me so many times that I feel there is no way I can show them a naturalist example of why homosexuality is wrong... even with the aids thing, they found a way around believing that too.

Yes i have a friend who also bypasses the notion of aids because she said heterosexual sex can get it too it has just a lower chance. But seriously the nature and shape of our body says it all, homosexual sex is wrong. But one card people do flesh out is the "Love" card in order to defend homosexual sex ~ in the sense of " are you going to deny them love?"

In my opinion, you can choose who you want to love ultimately. I think the modern concept of love is way too caught up in that fluffy feeling called infatuation rather than the real concept of love.

I had a bit of an "ah-hah!" moment reading that. Love is a choice, its what makes it love and not some fantastical emotion that is ultimately completely biological. And, because you -choose- to love, you can -choose- not to have homosexual love. Heh... I'll have to think about this some more but its really interesting. I've always really appreciated the view of love as a choice, so its a direct contradiction tot he standard stuff you hear defending homosexuality as you pointed out.

Also, kmr, if you are looking for a 'naturalistic' approach to why homosexuality is wrong, there are a few, but I wouldn't personally try to argue moral issues for the sake of argument with a pure naturalist because morality as a philosophical idea just breaks down when you pursue naturalism to its logical conclusions anyway. One thing, though, that seems to be a natural contradiction to homosexuality is the 'naturalist doctrine' of survival of the fittest. An island of homosexuals and an island of heterosexuals are going to have some seriously different destinies.

Glad you liked my post Marcus Yes i think when one chooses to love another THAT in itself is an act of love while the other modern concept does not have this. The concept of love in Christianity is much much grander and un-superficial than the modern pseudo- love.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

CeT-To wrote:

kmr wrote:I agree with all of that, but my "naturalist" friends have brought up these things with me so many times that I feel there is no way I can show them a naturalist example of why homosexuality is wrong... even with the aids thing, they found a way around believing that too.

Yes i have a friend who also bypasses the notion of aids because she said heterosexual sex can get it too it has just a lower chance. But seriously the nature and shape of our body says it all, homosexual sex is wrong. But one card people do flesh out is the "Love" card in order to defend homosexual sex ~ in the sense of " are you going to deny them love?"

In my opinion, you can choose who you want to love ultimately. I think the modern concept of love is way too caught up in that fluffy feeling called infatuation rather than the real concept of love.

I had a bit of an "ah-hah!" moment reading that. Love is a choice, its what makes it love and not some fantastical emotion that is ultimately completely biological. And, because you -choose- to love, you can -choose- not to have homosexual love. Heh... I'll have to think about this some more but its really interesting. I've always really appreciated the view of love as a choice, so its a direct contradiction tot he standard stuff you hear defending homosexuality as you pointed out.

Also, kmr, if you are looking for a 'naturalistic' approach to why homosexuality is wrong, there are a few, but I wouldn't personally try to argue moral issues for the sake of argument with a pure naturalist because morality as a philosophical idea just breaks down when you pursue naturalism to its logical conclusions anyway. One thing, though, that seems to be a natural contradiction to homosexuality is the 'naturalist doctrine' of survival of the fittest. An island of homosexuals and an island of heterosexuals are going to have some seriously different destinies.

Again, they would arge back that they cannot help what gender they are attracted to, to love. They can choose between a man and a man I guess would be their counter.

Murray wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

CeT-To wrote:

kmr wrote:I agree with all of that, but my "naturalist" friends have brought up these things with me so many times that I feel there is no way I can show them a naturalist example of why homosexuality is wrong... even with the aids thing, they found a way around believing that too.

Yes i have a friend who also bypasses the notion of aids because she said heterosexual sex can get it too it has just a lower chance. But seriously the nature and shape of our body says it all, homosexual sex is wrong. But one card people do flesh out is the "Love" card in order to defend homosexual sex ~ in the sense of " are you going to deny them love?"

In my opinion, you can choose who you want to love ultimately. I think the modern concept of love is way too caught up in that fluffy feeling called infatuation rather than the real concept of love.

I had a bit of an "ah-hah!" moment reading that. Love is a choice, its what makes it love and not some fantastical emotion that is ultimately completely biological. And, because you -choose- to love, you can -choose- not to have homosexual love. Heh... I'll have to think about this some more but its really interesting. I've always really appreciated the view of love as a choice, so its a direct contradiction tot he standard stuff you hear defending homosexuality as you pointed out.

Also, kmr, if you are looking for a 'naturalistic' approach to why homosexuality is wrong, there are a few, but I wouldn't personally try to argue moral issues for the sake of argument with a pure naturalist because morality as a philosophical idea just breaks down when you pursue naturalism to its logical conclusions anyway. One thing, though, that seems to be a natural contradiction to homosexuality is the 'naturalist doctrine' of survival of the fittest. An island of homosexuals and an island of heterosexuals are going to have some seriously different destinies.

Again, they would arge back that they cannot help what gender they are attracted to, to love. They can choose between a man and a man I guess would be their counter.

But thats because its a problem ... if the body portrays a reality of its nature yet the mind goes in its way to harm the body by not doing what is good to it then it's a problem in the mind. My point is that its a problem and by that i mean self destructive. Christianity calls that the state of sin. Everyone has problems, there are people who triumph over them. Another thing, attraction is not love.

^

I was referring to the gender they are attracted to love. meaning they are attracted to men, so they could eventually find love with men because thats why they are attracted to, sorry for the confusion , I should be more clear when I write.

I urge anyone interested in this subject to checkout this website: http://exodusinternational.org/

There is a lot of info there that pertains specifically to what we are discussing here. Their FAQ section has some answers to questions discussed here.

For the record, my posting of the website doesn't mean I agree with or promote ExodusInternational. It only means that I believe people can read the website, and come to their own conclusions whether or not what they say is correct. I just posted it as a reference tool, because they deal with the issues we are discussing here. I just wanted to make that clear, because I have been accused of agreeing completely with a person or group before, just because I agree with something specifically on their website. Before this discussion, I haven't looked at ExodusInternational's website, and have no affiliation with them whatsoever.

RickD wrote:I urge anyone interested in this subject to checkout this website: http://exodusinternational.org/

There is a lot of info there that pertains specifically to what we are discussing here. Their FAQ section has some great info.

My issue with them is that they easily could just could have been bisexual or just bicurious and then exodus makes it seem like they were "hard core" gays that went straight because of them.

Murray wrote:

RickD wrote:I urge anyone interested in this subject to checkout this website: http://exodusinternational.org/

There is a lot of info there that pertains specifically to what we are discussing here. Their FAQ section has some great info.

My issue with them is that they easily could just could have been bisexual or just bicurious and then exodus makes it seem like they were "hard core" gays that went straight because of them.

I edited my post at the same time Murray wad posting this.

Murray wrote:

RickD wrote:I urge anyone interested in this subject to checkout this website: http://exodusinternational.org/

There is a lot of info there that pertains specifically to what we are discussing here. Their FAQ section has some great info.

My issue with them is that they easily could just could have been bisexual or just bicurious and then exodus makes it seem like they were "hard core" gays that went straight because of them.

It could be, Murray. I personally don't know any "ex homosexuals" that have come out of the homosexual lifestyle. Their website does give where they stand on a lot of issues, such as same sex marriage, homosexual love, etc.

Murray wrote:^

I was referring to the gender they are attracted to love. meaning they are attracted to men, so they could eventually find love with men because thats why they are attracted to, sorry for the confusion , I should be more clear when I write.

I have to ask in what way are they attracted to men? sexually? because if they are thats bad for the body and if they proceed with this then they are both hurting eachother hence it isnt an act of love but rather it is letting your destructive passions take over.

CeT-To wrote:

Murray wrote:^

I was referring to the gender they are attracted to love. meaning they are attracted to men, so they could eventually find love with men because thats why they are attracted to, sorry for the confusion , I should be more clear when I write.

I have to ask in what way are they attracted to men? sexually? because if they are thats bad for the body and if they proceed with this then they are both hurting eachother hence it isnt an act of love ( thus not love) but rather it is letting your destructive passions take over.

Why are men attracted to commit the same act of sodomy on women may I ask?

Again, the recurring assumption seems to be that love only exists between straight couples and that homosexuals only feel infatuated toward each other. But what is the evidence for this? To me, it's completely circular.

Love is a choice, its what makes it love and not some fantastical emotion that is ultimately completely biological. And, because you -choose- to love, you can -choose- not to have homosexual love.

Is love a choice? I know I wouldn't be able to fall deeply in love with someone completely at will. And even if it was a choice, that does not mean you have a choice of which gender you are attracted to.

Murray wrote:

CeT-To wrote:

Murray wrote:^

I was referring to the gender they are attracted to love. meaning they are attracted to men, so they could eventually find love with men because thats why they are attracted to, sorry for the confusion , I should be more clear when I write.

I have to ask in what way are they attracted to men? sexually? because if they are thats bad for the body and if they proceed with this then they are both hurting eachother hence it isnt an act of love ( thus not love) but rather it is letting your destructive passions take over.

Why are men attracted to commit the same act of sodomy on women may I ask?

Because there is something wrong in their mind ( cough sin cough). I don't get what you are trying to get with this question, Murray?