Why would god create over 1500 bisexual/gay species if he hates homosexuality?

Anyone? Seems sorta strange to me. "I'm gonna make a bunch of totally gay and bisexual animals and cause them to have lots of crazy gay sex. Humans, don't you do any of this gay sex stuff cuz it's evil and unnatural!"

 

Nice source. We'll just take your word for it.

Another atheist struggles with evidenced based argumentation. What a shock.

 

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

This link has been posted several times by myself and others.

The only reason to say "Nice source. We'll just take your word for it", is because you just feel like being a troll.

And as usual, I see this poster cannot make any rational arguments. Instead, he just lashes out at Atheists for no reason whatsoever. Its the typical hypocritical post. Accusing atheists with a not having a "evidenced based argumentation", yet his post is not fact base in anyway shape or form and is full of hate based and irrational rants against Atheists.

 

Nice lack of basic knowledge. Another Christian struggles with common information.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-72574.html

I suggest you catch up on some reading.

 

Do yo know what that points to? Homosexuality being a choice. Because these animals are driven by sexual desire to perform mating rituals, yet for some reason .. these gay animals still mate with their heterosexual partners and reproduce.

How do I know this? Because I have don my research, and the documented cases of homosexuality in animals are almost universally grown out of ... its like college expiramentation.

Therefore we should legalize gay marriage, because animals, who cannot control their sexuality do it when they are sexually immature.

Did you know that rape is also prevelent in the animal kingdom? Should we force rape victims to marry their attackers as well? As the animal kingdom is now our model for morality?

 

Yep, and thoise 'homosexual' animals almost all grow up up to become heterosexual mates. Therfore we should use animals as our moral role model? By the way, the first one there, the whales? Yeah, they travel in pods, are closely linked genetically ... and what you are advocating is incesentuous gay sex ... ick!

OK, many species of higher mammals will also kill the cubs when the dominant males move in, inbucing the females to heat. Ergo, we should legalize infanticide.

Rape is quite prevelent in the animal kingdom, ergo we should legalize the forced marriage of victims to their attackers.

Parasites are legion. THerefore, we should legalize stealing.

Beavers build dams. Therefore we should legalize trespassing and the building of shelters without building code.

Many speciies actually attack and kill others of their own speciesbeing highly territiorial. So we should legalize muder - at least between males.

Additionally, the animal kingdom is based on the rule of the survival of the fittest, so we should adopt, as a minimum, Spartan Rules when dealing with less then desireable babies. We should also abandon our judicial concepts of equal justice, and change them to ensure that the strongest are given the best chances and ban breeding from those... deemed unworthy. Eugenics anyone?

No, I have clearly done no research and this fascinating modern age we live in we live in, it always a wonderful thing to start out a debate with the assumption that everyone else is an uneducated twit.

So it good to se more cultishly enshrined arrogance and a mioptic highly selected view of nature being made into a case ... not for tolerance of homosexuality - but the advocacy of gay marrige. All aimed at your arguement mind you.

Now, I am sure I have deliberately misquoted something, am probably lying, am a martyar or something ... or just a troll. Well, take your pick atheists, its usually how these things go. Just remember how you voted.

 

What an ignorant statement to make.

I will point to at least 2 of he animal that are on this list of species that lack the fundamental item needed to make a choice: A brain. Yes, crabs and worms do not have a brain, yet they have been observed in homosexual behavior.

Talk about making wild claims with out producing one link to back up your assertion. Please provide any and all evidence to the contrary.

So since humans have strange habits, like taking a dump on a toilet, does that mean all animals should? Of-course not. Just because some animals have some strange habits, that doesn’t mean we should pick up their habits and vice verse. However, when 1500 share similar characteristics, lie homosexuality, then that shows there is a genetic component to it.

 

Here you hgo stoney - chew on this for a while - and yes, you are still on iggy. Just find it interesting that you are showing up again to debate someone who already knows what you are saying and doesn't care.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/son-of-two-moms-defends-regnerus-study-on-same-sex-parenting/

One of your own, well former anyway, disagrees with you. Take it up with him.

 

The problem here is, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. It's only immoral to some people because a book says it should be, without offering up the slightest reasoning on why that should be.

That would make sense if we were talking about legalizing homosexuality itself and if murder wasn't already illegal for other reasons. Since we're not, since the conversation is about getting rid of arbitrary and discriminatory marriage laws, this point you made is not relevant.

The beginning of this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the conclusion it reaches.

rrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaccccccccchhhhhhhiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg............

rrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaccccccccchhhhhhhiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg............

Legalizing murder has a destabilizing effect on society and directly conflicts with the laws that we're set up our nation under. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage do neither of these things. In fact, our laws, if we actually followed them from time to time, should not be restricting same-sex marriage at all.

Welcome to the Republican party. That's why we vote against them.

I wouldn't have thought of martyr till I read this last paragraph.

 

Last I checked God had no problem with animals "srewing around" and not getting married either. THAT"S BECAUSE THEY ARE ANIMALS.

Conversely, the athiest views us as mere animals, so what of killing a cow to eat verses a human being? Why is one OK and the other not? For the theist, the answer is obvious. We were made above the animals. I think that is why atheist dictators have few qualms about kiling mere beasts in the field known as humans.

 

1 - catholicnewsagency.com? Try and independent news agency that isn’t biased.

2 – the above link has NOTHING to do with this claim:

3 - Study: Kids of Lesbian Parents Are Well-Adjusted I'll trust WEBMD over a biased catholic site every time.

 

Is the ideal of humanity to live like animals? No, I dont think so and I am sure niether do any of you. The act of homosexual intercourse is prohibatted in our faith as is stealing, or adultry. Do we always agree with the rules no, but if you wish to participate in the Church you follow the rules. In this instance I do agree with the ruling becuase it is clearly prohibated in the scriptures. Also lets not forget you are commiting two sins when you have sex with some one of the same gender. You are also having sex out of wedlock. Both those things are not alowed and should be avoided if you wish to remain in communion with the Church.

Why did God create so many species that elect to have intercourse with the same sex I do not know. But he did not create those creatures in his image and he did not give them free will and choice. A base animal will act as a base animal. A human can choose how he acts and why he acts. Perhaps the homsexual leanings are a primal instinct that apears at times in man or perhaps those feelings are a test placed before us by satan. Either way a person can choose too not sucumb to those urges.

Now if you are not a part of the Church and do not follow the teachings of the scriptures than feel free not to adhere to these rules. For my fellow Christions out there I would say to them do not force your views into the laws of the land. There is no good reason to deny two people the ability to say they are married as long as the government does not force the Church to recognize the union or perform the ceromony. Also try to remember all sin can be forgiven, why focus on this one kind of sin? Why is homosexuality such a big deal while adultry is not? Where are all the people out there protesting adultry, theft, or sex out of wedlock? A little perspective may be in order and some kindness, understanding, and forgiveness. Oh and lets not forget love, that is the most important thing. Love thy neibor as thy self. A wise man once said that, perhaps some of us should look him up and read his book.

 

THe problem is that is not quite what we are saying. We are saying there is a difference between tolerance and advocacy. Two guys want to smoke each others polls? More power to them. Who cares? Their life.

However, gay marraige is something else entirely. We are asking the government, and by extension all of us tax payers, not to tolerate something - but to advocate it. That is what all the tax benefist, etc. are designed to do for HETEROSEXUAL marriage. Its designed to do it to encourage what we now SCIENTIFICALLY is, statistically the best way to raise chidlren and give them and our society the best chance of success. HETEROSEXUALK marriage, stable households with strong male and female households, are THE BEST environment for our kids. That is not to say that gay people are not often good people, but statistically, especially in such a highly sxualized environment, its not as good as HETEROSEXUAL marriage - so why pretend that it is?

Why advocate it like it is.

And here is my problem - we HAVE looked, but when the numbers come back and confirm that homosexial chisl rearing has significant challenges, we get a mighty roar form the homosexual community. The situation I am about to present you is just such a case. The situation revolves around Mark Regnerus, who conducted a study and found significant challenges, and is now being investigated because of the numerous complaints filed by ... you guessed it the homosexual community.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/son-of-two-moms-defends-regnerus-study-on-same-sex-parenting/

Now, THAT is support for Mr. Regnerus from a former gay man, raised by lesbian parents, who is saying to the gay community ... not so fast. Indeed, perhaps we should listen to guys like this rather than simply pretend they and their problems do not exist before we blindly advocate a policy? Perhaps?

Now, who is the martyar?

 

Crawdadr, you are one of the few christians I hav heard say this. If more like you, we would have less problems with religion.

 

Because the assumption that a heterosexual parent household is the best relies on ideal conditions being present, which is simply not going to be the case for many people. All family situations will be unique. And, those factors that make a heterosexual household in ideal conditions to be the allegedly best environment for child rearing can also be present in a same-sex marriage. We're talking about people here, and the one thing that we both can be certain of, coming from opposite sides of this argument like we do, is that there is an extremely large spectrum of variability when it comes to how people will behave. So when you say that a heterosexual household is the better place to raise a child, you're doing so under the assumption that a number of factors fall into place, which will be true of a percentage of households for sure, but not all.

So, lets assume for a moment that it is objective fact that a hetero household is the best environment for a child. What factors have to fall into place for that to be so? What prevents those factors from being present in a homosexual household?

Another thing to consider is this. You assume that a homosexual household(at least I assume you're assuming haha) is going to be a "highly sexualized environment". What prevents a hetero household from being that way? It seems to me there is almost a double standard here, where you're ignoring the much much larger amount of heterosexual households that may be highly sexualized simply because there are more heterosexuals. I think it's safe to assume that a highly sexualized environment is probably not a good environment for raising a child regardless of which orientation that sexualization follows. Plus, there is going to likely be more hetero sexualization simply because heterosexuality is more mainstream, more widespread, and does not suffer the social taboos that homosexuality does.

And one final thing on that. How do we even know that a homosexual household is automatically going to be more sexualized? With the divorce rate what it is for hetero marriage, it's safe to assume that a great deal of children are going to grow up in an environment where either their mother or father, or both, end up having multiple partners over time.

Nobody is the martyr. And, I find it interesting that one study comes out that follows your position and automatically it's news and relevent, yet you don't give much credence to the many more studies that have found little to no difference. My opinion on this is that you're always going to have variability, in both homosexual and heterosexual households. There's always going to be degree of side-to-side variation. Some households will be better, some will be worse, because both depend on the same factor. The parents.

 

We are not argueing the eaches, we are argueing general trends. You cannot, indeed should not, make policy based on exceptions to trends rather than trends. That would be silly. Its akin to saying that, because some adoptions go bad, we should bar adoptions. Or, because some people can overcome pedophilia, would should restrict pedophiles from adopting children. THe eaches make no sense. What does is the aggregate.

And again, no one is saying that two men or two women cannot commit to one another, they cannot love one another, or even that there should be laws on the bookd that recognize these legitimate choices, and help make them more .... easy. However, there is a point were toleranec becomes advocacy, and what the numbers, rawe and objective point to, is a more troubling child rearing situation for same gender parents. As a minimum, policy should reflect that reality ... and we certainly should not ignore objective sceince because we fear the volumious homosexual community will scream bigot - that smacks to me as a form of McCarthyism, and grates against everything that I value.

Let's assume that we are government and our job is not to force people to change, but to set policy that fosters conditions wherein choices made reflect what is best overall. Again, not saying we should foster policy that advocated beating up or belittling homosexuals, but I am saying that not all things in sexuality are equal.

Nothing. BUt once again you are arguing the eaches. Random households, selected and evaluated, reveal a starkly sexualized environement in the homosexual community. Its not like I have never interacted with homosexuals before, its not like I have never been to gay bar or even been hit on by a gay guy. And the reality of the situation is, that having seen the community up close, that where a son or daughter to reveal to me that they were gay, I would have a pointed conversion with them, beginning with a reminder of how much I love them and that I respected their choice. Nevertheless, promiscuity is a HUGE problem in the gay community, and it is, Robertson's hyperbolye aside, the reason that AIDS hit the homosexual community so hard. Promiscuity is just as damaging to heterosexuals, but it is a particular problem in the homosexual community where random sex is ... almost religious in some cases.

That is why I draw the line shy of advocacy. Again, I realize that it penalizes some gay people who do not fit the mold, but there are plenty of penalized single people who simply choose to be that way, who are essentially barred from adoption based on the risks of the 'community at large' desiring children. They have paths to parenthood just like married couples, its just more difficult is all. Same goes for gay people. THey can indeed be commited partners, take vows in religious ceremonies, the only thing they lack now is a tax INCENTIVE that ADVIOCATES their choices.

Well, its that last step I think we should actually think about before we simply blindly start dumping money into a social expirament.

Once again, aggregate vs. the eaches. The science of statistics is what we use to make policy.

I find it interesting that you think this is the only study like this, are presenting none, ignoring hasbians and other former homosexuals, and what they have to say on the subject.

 

Bingo!
I've been "Neutral"ized many times on this forum, myself! Good to see I'm not the only one who sees past his tactics. But have compassion for him, as he's under the spell of an ancient belief system that says in it's texts that if he changes/improves his texts that bad things will happen. So he can't improve/change the belief system, just complain when people find out it's faults. I blame Jesus (the fear master!), and not Neutral, as such.

 

The biggest threat to religion is not atheism, but....the truth.

Clearly religion is not based on compassion, or else they obviously wouldn't have un-changeable texts that say to KILL innocent people who are simply minding their own business and not hurting anybody (expect maybe helping keep the world population explosion in check a little bit with their general low reproduction rates.)

 

Oh is another thin skinned atheist shocked that he was rebutted in a debate forum ... get that a lot with atheists, espcially the ones who think vaccuous comparisons to Al Qaeda are actually logical. Must be Jesus's fault?

Athtarded.

 

Agh, because anothe atheist driven by propogand ais making such a compelling, evidenced based case? Well shucks, I mean that wasn't just a tired propogandistic insult or anything? So, join the cult of atheism or we will insult you by making asses out of ourselves? Nice.

You are right, atheism is no threat to religion.

Do appreciate another atheist bringing such a adult and mature tone to the forum.

 

How many people have prayed to Jesus to end the War on Terror, which is the longest war in US history, with no end in sight? Millions, I'm sure. But the "compassionate" Jesus has just sat there, uncaring, unconcerned, probably laughing at us....he certainly has the ability to end it (or else why pray to him about other things, then)? Apparently he's too busy performing "acts of god" like killing 120,000 innocent people in the Aceh tsunami, or killing 30,000 innocent people (many children) in Japan's tsunami. He's so morally warped that he won't even give a WARNING effective enough to save tens of thousands of lives. Such priorities Jesus has. I used to be a Christian who prayed to that fear-monger, but then I outgrew fairy tales (Santa, Mother Goose, Jesus, etc.)

 

Thread does not meet guidelines for thread creation.

Shangrila
Site Moderator