I am not pro gay pride. I am pro love. And there ain't no love or concern coming from you.
it doesn't exist for a specific outcome it exits because of a specific outcomeHowever, that doesn't change the reason why the instinctual compulsion to do all of these things exists in the first place.
it doesn't exist for a specific outcome it exits because of a specific outcome
The difference being? On any practical basis, they are the same thing.
The difference being? On any practical basis, they are the same thing.
No they are not the same. They are polar opposites. I pursue the consumption of food because it relieves the pains of hunger not because I am driven instinctively to survive. The outcome is that I survive but it does not motivate my actions, the outcome is a consequential byproduct of my pursuit to the relief from the pains of hunger but it does not consciously drive my pursuit of food. I can however as a sentient being override my impulse and select my own desired outcome.
Again your perspective that sexual activity is ultimately motivated by some primitive instinct to procreate does not fit with why people pursue it today; in there currently evolved state of being. You are saying that sex exists for the sole purpose or procreation and that people seek it out based on that instinctive drive therefore any sexual act that is not rooted in this outcome and by your definition correct instinct of procreation is wrong but that does not fit with the reality of why today's humans pursue sexual interaction
I say that if that instinct exists on some subconscious level it is irrelevant to what motivates or drives people to seek out sexual pleasure today.
No they are not the same. They are polar opposites. I pursue the consumption of food because it relieves the pains of hunger not because I am driven instinctively to survive. The outcome is that I survive but it does not motivate my actions, the outcome is a consequential byproduct of my pursuit to the relief from the pains of hunger but it does not consciously drive my pursuit of food. I can however as a sentient being override my impulse and select my own desired outcome.
Again your perspective that sexual activity is ultimately motivated by some primitive instinct to procreate does not fit with why people pursue it today; in there currently evolved state of being. You are saying that sex exists for the sole purpose or procreation and that people seek it out based on that instinctive drive therefore any sexual act that is not rooted in this outcome and by your definition correct instinct of procreation is wrong but that does not fit with the reality of why today's humans pursue sexual interaction
I say that if that instinct exists on some subconscious level it is irrelevant to what motivates or drives people to seek out sexual pleasure today.
Did this about normal a few years ago, and decided it was time to try again. Was a fun and interesting thread at the time, so hopefully this will be as well. Two simple questions. Is Homosexuality "normal", and is homosexuality "natural"? If you would, please include your reasoning.
Poll will allow multiple choices, pick a choice for the "normal" question and for the "natural" question. Poll will be up in a couple minutes.
Guess it's ok for you guys to tell us, in so many words, to butt out, but not the reverse.
So like you said, it's a public forum. To which I repeat:
Gay sex is a sin and a perversion. Gays and all other sinners need to repent (Luke 13:3) or they're eternally screwed.
I am not pro gay pride. I am pro love. And there ain't no love or concern coming from you.
You can repeat this NONSENSE all you want. It's still nonsense all the same. IMO the only reason why anti-gay extremists hate homosexuality so much is because it's sex without the unwanted burden of reproduction. It isn't a "sin" any more than contraception, no matter what the extremists keep insisting.
"Love does not rejoice in iniquity." - I Corinthians 13
and, from Romans 13:
"Love does a neighbor no harm" (like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and / or eternal consequences).
The simple fact of the matter is that the instincts which compel human beings to indulge their sexuality in the first place only exist for one reason; procreation. They originated from that common purpose, and still work towards it even today.
Love thy neighbor as thy loves thyself. (Do not be a self righteous, condescending Bible thumper. Treat your fellow human beings with respect and decency.)
Today, that simple fact can actually be proved incorrect, for no other reason than that there are several measurable health benefits to sexual activity that have nothing to do with procreation.
For example, men who ejaculate every day have much lower chances of developing urinary tract infections than those who do so only rarely.
So you can make a case for procreation being the most important reason for the existence of sexual activity, but that's about as far as you can go.
As I said to Chromium earlier, this state of affairs is honestly neither here nor there as far as what we are discussing is concerned. It is simply one of the many downfalls of our imperfect biological nature.
Just because we can do something that is effectively pointless, doesn't mean that we should.
That is pretty much exactly how the social Left wants to treat it.
That's why we masturbate.
Absolute nonsense.
Hey - love speaks the truth about gay sex debauchery. And without repentance and salvation in Christ you'll wind up in a place where there is no love.
Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. As I said previously, I think the primary reason why anti-gay extremists hate homosexuality so much is because it allows for having sex without the unwanted burden of reproduction, the same reason why anti-contraception extremists hate birth control and want to restrict women's access to it.
Whether anti-gay or anti-contraception, the extremists seem to have the ridiculous belief that sex is only acceptable if the unwanted burden of reproduction is attached. Thankfully, it isn't up to YOU to decide that.
Nope, that's not it. It's because it's wrong - a sin, and sin- especially when it's defended and celebrated - brings the disfavor of God on men and nations.
What's this "we," you Onanist? I wear rubber gloves in the shower.
Yea one issue would be that twins share the same womb environment when developing.I think twin studies can help explain this. Sharing genes makes it more likely is all. Likewise, i'd think a clone of a hetero could turn out homo, if the womb environment triggered that.
The most common argument would be that it is both normal and natural:
i. Normal because it is found and accepted by many cultures in remote regions, around the world, and;
ii. Natural because it is found in many different species in nature.
Neither i nor ii imply that it is moral, however. Implying that either i or ii justifies homosexuality as an act is a large fallacy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?