And? -- FawnDoo's Cavalcade of Whimsy

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:29:24 04/12/03 Sat
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: And?
In reply to: WarCore 's message, "When I showed forth my point" on 20:31:31 04/11/03 Fri

Ergo, homosexuals can't reproduce, so the action in itself is contrary to the natural progression of procreation--its unnatural.

That's only presuming that all couples want to reproduce. Which they don't.

Don't ignore the fact of the impossibility of homosexual reproduction and the progression of genetic information by pointing out the bollocks of fellatio. Homosexuality in all its activities will never result in procreation and Heterosexuality in all its activities can result in procreation. Scientifically this is a reason why Christians may consider homosexual love-making to be wrong.

No. Scientifically, that is a reason why homosexual intercourse can be considered incapable of reproduction.

How does that make gay love wrong? Is procreation a requirement of love?

That would be purely observing love as a biological function of procreation, which is complete bollocks because:

First of all love and sex/reproduction are NOT the same thing. Sex can be used as an act of expressing love, but it is not love itself. There are many forms of love that does not involve sex/reproduction, such as the love between friends, family etc. To say that a relationship that does not produce offspring is inherently wrong is to make a direct link between procreation and love. And let's not forget that there are many straight couples in the world who choose not to have children. Some couples are incapable of having children due to infertility. As I mentioned before, a lot of people procreate without ever being in love with the person that they procreated with. Last year I worked at Mount Druitt, which is a very impoverished part of Western Sydney and is generally populated by people of a very low socioeconomic and educational standing. In other words, 'white trash.' It was not uncommon for kids in this area to have several half-siblings... one of my pupils hates her mother because all of her siblings were fathered by different men, reflecting her mother's loose sexual morals. It was not uncommon for some kids to simply not know who their biological father was because their mother may have been sleeping with that many men around the time of their conception.

Why should a straight couple's love be more valid simply because they have the option of procreation? Shouldn't love be classified by other qualities such as compassion, caring, selflessness etc.?

This leads me to my second point -- love is something much more than procreation. As a straight man, I don't walk around looking at girls and thinking, "gee, she's got some good genes. I'd sure like to procreate with her and have offspring!" -- at least, not straight off the ball. I tend to meet girls, form a basic friendship. Get to know them. And if the chemistry is right -- that is, if our caring for each other is greater than at the level of ordinary friendship -- then we start seeing each other more etc etc. I've personally never been engaged, but if I were, I'd imagine that it would be a result of a relationship that had advanced to the level where we'd want to spend the rest of our lives together. Perhaps before or after that point we would discuss the possibility of having children. But the fact is, we would have fallen in love with each other long before we had children.

I once had a girlfriend who never wants to have kids. Now I'd personally like to have children one day -- and I'd like to think that IF her and I had managed to stay together long enough to the point that we got married, we would have to discuss some kind of compromise regarding children. Now that's not to say that our disagreement on having kids would necessarily drive us apart -- after all, I fell in love with her persona, not with her reproductive organs (although that's not to say that I don't have a personal fondness for that region of the female body -- but that's more of an issue of lust rather than love, ehehehe). I'd like to think that we would have come to some kind of compromise -- like maybe adoption (that way she wouldn't have to endure pregnancy and childbirth but I'd still be able to raise a kid). But the fact is that I fell in love with her long before any issues of having/raising kids came along -- and although it's something that's in the back of my mind, it's not something that I would use to dictate a relationship. Otherwise, one of the first questions I could ask a girl would be, "so... are you fertile?"

I don't see much fundamental difference between a straight couple that doesn't want to or isn't able to have children and a gay couple, being able to validate their love.

If two people truly care deeply for one another - especially at the level that they would want to be with each other forever, then how is that not love? Some gay couples do choose to adopt children and pass their love onto another generation, just like a straight couple. Okay, so those kids don't hold their parents' genetic information. Big deal. How is that different from a child being adopted by a straight couple?

Taking it a step further to the Biblical account of creation, homosexuality goes against the order that was set up in the Bible of Man and Woman, thus being unnatural to the order. Theologically, another reason why Christian's consider homosexual love-making to be wrong.

That's hardly a logical reason.

I agree with what Chibi-Bat-Bat said. Christians tend to give two typical answers as to why homosexual love is wrong, and it's usually:

(1) Because it's unnatural and they can't reproduce. I counter this with the argument that reproduction and love are not the same thing and the fact that many straight couples out there cannot reproduce.

(2) Because it's against God's Law. Sorry, but God's Law is not acceptable in an academic argument IMO. Unlike scientific law, God's Law has no real logical/rational backing. It is merely the rules and opinions of one institution. You cannot argue that something is wrong just because a certain group of people believe it to be wrong without having a logical/rational justification to back it up.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Logic and religion -- Perceptor II, 21:45:13 04/12/03 Sat
- declaring reason -- Goktimus Prime, 02:36:08 04/13/03 Sun
  - Perceptor has a point. -- WarCore, 03:35:07 04/13/03 Sun
  - My ONLY commentary on this thread -- Icon, 13:53:38 04/15/03 Tue