From: drags111
@ Mixter: Homosexuality is not natural. Sleep is natural, what we sleep on isn't. Your argument makes no sense. If you use that logic then computers are part of nature. They aren't they are man made. Materials come from nature but are altered and gone through immense changes to get to the form they are now. A species whole goal is to survive, to reproduce, and to continue for generations. Anything that cannot reproduce is considered a non-living organism.
As far as your question to my religious outlooks: Yes I believe the bible is more fact than fiction, but not to the point of saying evolution doesn't exist. Of course it does and theres plenty of proof for it. However what most religions don't have are the doctrines that are held by the Mormon faith. With these cleared up versions of many books and teachings twisted by men overtime to their liking. In those are more truths about existence and God's workings. It's hard to explain what we believe to people who are anti-religious but if you would like to know just contact me on irc.
Thank you for disregarding all my other points (IVF, vegetarianism as the two main) and twisting my pointing out of our unnatural lifestyle to conform with your opinion. I really wasn't saying that computers were natural: I was saying they were unnatural.
You also missed my point about species: natural selection does not work at the level of a species. A species does not strive to survive, but individuals or genes do. For the "non-living", look down a spot at my list of people in addition to homosexuals who can't reproduce.
As far as the Mormon books go, I have no idea. However, I find it hard to believe that they would dismiss enough to make evolution a viable fact while treating the Holy Book as fact. Even if they do though, if they still include the discussion of homosexuality, then, as far as I know, it must be in the context of stoning them to death, which links up with far down yonder.
From: Tlachtli
Here's my 2 cents on the whole gay thing: gays will never be fully accepted because being gay isn't "right". Morals and religion be damned, being gay still completely defies nature's intentions and is therefore "wrong". I challenge anyone to come up with an argument saying that homosexuality complies with nature's reproductive intentions; humans cannot propagate unless one man and one woman are involved in the process. Smashing two sperm or two eggs together won't do a thing (except make a mess).
Of course no one can come up with an argument about compliance with reproduction because homosexuals can't. However, people are awfully fond of this crazy thing called contraception - should we ban it? After all, that doesn't comply with nature's reproductive intentions. How about people who can't "naturally" conceive - should they be forbidden from marriage since they can't make babies? What about people with cancer that results in their sexual organs being compromised? Should people with HIV/AIDS be allowed to conceive since it's "natural" even though their children would experience a very abnormal life?
Further on topic of "defying nature", there is homosexuality in animals (
wiki wiki) so does that mean it's only "defying nature" in humans and not everything else? Then there's harems and caste systems (worker ants etc) where there's large amounts of an animal that don't reproduce yet the species doesn't die out.
More importantly, in our complex lives, why is reproduction the goal? It's biologically wired into us, but so are animal instincts that we suppress to conform with our view of civilised. Why aren't we unnatural for those yet we are for being free with our choice of who we find attractive? Is it acceptable to "defy nature" and adopt children and raise them to be good, moral people?
On a meta note, marriage is a human construct - there's not "natural" about it. So, why is being "natural" a requirement for it?
In short, children shouldn't be taught to defy nature. We don't teach them to pollute water sources and we don't teach them arson.
If you think homosexuality is on par with polluting water sauces and arson, then you have serious issues with the comparison operators in your brain. I prefer vegetarianism as a comparative for homosexuality since both are "lifestyle choices" that go against nature, some people think they are stupid for being it and it doesn't affect other people much.
Do I gave a problem with people who are gay? No. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't have a problem with me.
Is it right to be gay? No. See above.
I would say calling them unnatural is saying you have a problem with them, but then again maybe that's not a "real" insult and I'm just overreacting,
Should Bert and Ernie be married? No. The petition was made by attention whores.
I would say "attention whore" requires something more than creating an online petition, especially considering the requirement for being an attention whore on the internet nowadays.
As for the whole Bible thing: I'm a God-fearing man, but I also think the Bible shouldn't be taken at face value. It's supposed to teach morals and life lessons, and some of the stories may be exaggerated and/or simply fabricated to make a point. Take the story of King Solomon and the two women arguing over the baby. Even if the baby isn't yours, no one would agree that cutting it in half is 'fair'; the story was exaggerated to demonstrate the senses of justice and problem solving people should have. Likewise, Jesus may or may not have been able to perform superhuman miracles; nonetheless, he is the role model that all should aspire to be like.
Jesus was pretty great: he told people to love and let live, yet the Old Testament tells you to stone gays to death, non-virgin wives, both people who sleep with animals AND the animals. So, as far as logic is concerned, you either accept the Old Testament and that homosexuality is wrong and bad, as well as sexism and bigotry and hundreds of other quirks, or you accept only the New Testament and that it is not your place to judge but to love. Also, Jesus kind of spent a lot of time with guys and not a lot of time with girls. Just saying.
@Mixter: With proper protein sources like legumes and nuts, a vegetarian/vegan diet is a perfectly viable way to live. In fact, most vegetarians/vegans are an order of magnitude more healthy than those of us who eat red meat regularly. Since you seem to think being a vegetarian/vegan defies nature, here's a thought experiment for you: Take two communities of equal size in similar locations. One is comprised of mixed-gender vegans (the 'straight vegans'), the other of a single gender eating a mixed diet (the 'regular gays'). Both can maintain their own food and water supplies without external influence. In 300 years' time, which will have survived? Spoiler alert, but the gay community dies out in the first generation due to an inability to reproduce; the vegans can live well on their diet and can reproduce.
Yes, people can live as vegetarians and yes people can live as homosexuals. I wasn't saying vegetarians would die off, simply that they defy nature. It's simple: they do. Natural selection and evolution has made us omnivores and they are being herbivores. Your thought experiment is also pointless for the reason that if you base "obeying nature" simply on surviving and reproducing, in which case it is "natural" to eat every even child that is born, that incest is natural, basically that anything that doesn't prevent producing the next generation is natural no matter how damaging or morally wrong it is.
On another point, how about discussing some of my other points I brought up? Is IVF "evil" and should be banned? After all, as I alluded to, we could end up with a population of people who struggle to conceive "naturally" and so would go extinct if something happened.
@ Mixter, pt.2: If the petitioned marriage was a heterosexual one, I'd have no problem at all. That is a union as nature, religion, and the law intended. Saying one thing is right, and that the opposite is wrong, does not make me a hypocrite; quite the opposite, it makes me someone who is forward with what he believes.
You missed the qualifier which was that it was a question to people who believed that marriage shouldn't be exposed to the children as they're too young or similar.
