Post by RabbitDrive on Jul 14, 2009 10:28:02 GMT
Really? The dissect-a-post reply? Ah, well, I'll play along.
I'm sorry if this isn't how you normally do it, but it's just how I've always done it with long posts.
Firstly, I am sure most of the points have been noted, but I don't like going in circles, so I just throw my entire argument to make sure no one uses excuses previously debunked.
However, if you'd read the thread you would have known which excuses had been debunked, but each to their own.
I don't like quoting, but you need to explain this a little better. The female mates with the male, has the baby, and have a relationship as it were another female? A relationship with whom? The male or another female? Are you saying that it had a relationship with a male as though it was a female? But we never established that the females had relationships with one another.
That aside, are there other species that practice homosexuality? Or is this the only example you can give? I'm not asking for loads of examples -- just proof that this isn't the only species (or one out of four).
I will do a bit of research on homosexuality in animals. The problem I have with this is that I've never heard of or witnessed this myself, and I've lived around a lot of animals. I've never even heard this from an adult homosexual or atheist, so I question your sources. But maybe I'm just ignorant (It seems you've all ready decided this in your mind, though.).
That aside, are there other species that practice homosexuality? Or is this the only example you can give? I'm not asking for loads of examples -- just proof that this isn't the only species (or one out of four).
I will do a bit of research on homosexuality in animals. The problem I have with this is that I've never heard of or witnessed this myself, and I've lived around a lot of animals. I've never even heard this from an adult homosexual or atheist, so I question your sources. But maybe I'm just ignorant (It seems you've all ready decided this in your mind, though.).
I apologise, I didn't explain this very well the first time around. I meant that women mate with other men, then instead of staying in a relationship with a male, they then go and find another female and the two females keep control of the child, allowing the male to mate again, meaning no shortage of population. It's simple adaptation. I did find an article somewhere and if you'll give me chance I'll try and dig it up. I saved it, so I'll have it stored on the computer somewhere.
Did you actually read my post, or just quote each paragraph and then reply? You completely left out the next sentence:
The last bit of the first paragraph was to explain that homosexuality was a choice -- not some kind of mental disorder or disease (I've heard that excuse before.).
The last bit of the first paragraph was to explain that homosexuality was a choice -- not some kind of mental disorder or disease (I've heard that excuse before.).
Ah, right. I understand what you're getting out now. (I shall say that I wrote this in the early hours of the morning before I went to sleep - I probably should have waited until my brain was actually in gear.)
Though, I have to disagree. Whilst it's most definitely not a mental disorder or a disease, it's still not a choice. When you fall in love with someone, you don't choose to fall in love with someone. The chemicals react in your brain causing the feeling of euphoria. It just happens that sometimes this can happen to people of the same sex. All it is is love.
Well of course the human race would die out. If no one reproduced because every human practiced homosexuality, then the next generation would never exist. Even if there were a few humans here and there, they'd still be homosexual, so they too would be unable to reproduce. I don't think stem cell research would help -- there wouldn't be anyone to research it once the current researchers died.
But you're still suggesting that this would happen. The fact of the matter is that the levels of homosexuality have never actually reached over 10% of the population, and we should in fact be worrying more about overpopulation than underpopulation.
I said I didn't read it "completely," but that doesn't mean I read nothing. Did you really assume that I read nothing, let alone your last post? You know what assuming does.
But when did religion suddenly need an argument against homosexuality? It's wrong, and unnatural. Anyone can see that, though not all want or bother to. The Bible wasn't written for the purpose of arguing with atheists over homosexuality or any other kind of stupidity. It never does explain why God exists, yet that doesn't mean that He doesn't.
But when did religion suddenly need an argument against homosexuality? It's wrong, and unnatural. Anyone can see that, though not all want or bother to. The Bible wasn't written for the purpose of arguing with atheists over homosexuality or any other kind of stupidity. It never does explain why God exists, yet that doesn't mean that He doesn't.
It doesn't mean he does, but we shall save that for another argument as the existence of a God is not what the subject is about. For the purpose of this thread, I will now hypothetically allow the idea of God's existence if that would somehow make you happy. If religion doesn't need an argument against homosexuality, then stop stating it like it does have an argument. Until I see hard evidence I refuse to believe that it's wrong or unnatural.
No, Mr ADD. I'm saying that for an atheist, perhaps parts of the Bible aren't correct in condemning it, but what if all of the currently known Bible isn't necessarily divine? Then if there is a God who had the Bible written, He isn't necessarily unjust, as the Bible may have some kind of embellishment or faulty translation. The probability of this, however, is highly illogical, and I usually reserve this possibility for atheists.
It's one of the reasons I refuse to accept the bible as a source of information. There are so many places where it could be written down incorrectly and the fact that it could quite possibly just be bullshit anyway. It also means that I dismiss what it has to say about homosexuality.
So, I take it you're really into atheism then?
De Facto Atheist actually.
I don't feel that I should answer for EI on the boundaries that it's between you two, but should neither of you actually mind, I will.