Homosexuality and religious.

[Sheldon]

Why would it have ever been considered a mental disorder?

Ignorance and bigotry. Luckily much of the world is moving away from such pointless and harmful prejudices, but religions are a barrier, as they tend to reinforce the harmful and facile idea of absolute morality, that ties adherents to pernicious doctrine and dogma.

 

[Sheldon]

No, because there were always an ample number of heterosexuals having sex in order to produce enough babies.

So you now admit it is risible nonsense to claim homosexuality is a threat to the survival of the human race?

Only you appeared to agree with his claim when he made it...

 

[Sheldon]

So what? People want to do a lot of things, but that does not mean they have to do them.

Like clinging doggedly to archaic prejudices within religions for example. The difference here is that while that is a choice people make, which is demonstrably pernicious, being gay is neither a choice or harmful in any practical way.

 

[Sheldon]

Science does not deal with morality, that is within the purview of religion.

Strongly disagree, science deals in empirical facts, and thus may help us make informed decisions about whether behaviours may or may not be harmful.

Sadly as we've seen in this thread, religious bigotry stems from the harmful notion of moral absolutes, even though all anyone can offer in defence is the circular reasoning fallacy, that they believe a deity wants it this way, and they are happy to point out how closed minded they are about the claim, or 100% certain in other words, to the point of ignoring all evidence and facts and rational arguments that don't support the prejudice. That the prejudice is harmful to gay people is denied, but again this is simply dishonest evasion.

 

[Sheldon]

That is actually true of many homosexuals, why wouldn't it be? People are people and they love who they love. Love is not confined to heterosexuals.

Then why defend the idea its immoral or evil or that it should be purged?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you now admit it is risible nonsense to claim homosexuality is a threat to the survival of the human race?

No, I don't think homosexuality is a threat to the survival of the human race.
The world is already overpopulated.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why defend the idea its immoral or evil or that it should be purged?

I am not defending that.

 

[Sheldon]

I know a man who on another forum was with his male partner for 50 years and he was devastated when he got ill and passed on. He never really recovered from his loss, he was never the same after that.

Again since this amply demonstrates the harm homophobic prejudices can do, why do you not denounce such ideas?

How can you believe a loving deity would demand such harmful nonsense?

 

[Sheldon]

I am not defending that.

So you don't believe homosexuality is evil nor immoral now? Or that it is an unnatural sexual abberation, that should be purged?

Are you know saying your religion's prejudice against gay people is wrong or at least something you can't defend?

 

[Sheldon]

No, we don't have to change our views just to keep up with what is considered acceptable in modern society.

Maybe not, but actively discriminating against people may well see people prosecuted for it. Also since you know gay people are capable of loving each other just as straight people do, why wouldn't you change your views to reflect that.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
gay people can and do reproduce having heterosexual sex

Which word is tripping you up?

My stepson had three children with his wife, who later came out as gay,. Some gay people choose to have heterosexual sex to have children, are you really going to try and deny that fact?

 

[Sheldon]

That's what we do.

No it isn't, the doctrine involves homophobic hate speech, and multiple adherents have defended and even repeated it.

 

[Sheldon]

or dumb enough to connect what is not connected.

You think connecting sexual desire to sex is dumb? You're priceless fair play. Most people are smart enough to see they're synonymous.

 

[Sheldon]

Who is preoccupied? I never would have even been thinking about sex if this thread had not been started.

Did I mention you? Religions are preoccupied with it in an unhealthy way.

 

[Sheldon]

What is natural for animals is not natural for humans since humans are different from animals.

Since animals are part of nature, and human (animals) are part of nature, your claim is nonsensical. Lots of animals differ from each other, humans also share traits with close evolutionary relatives.

 

[samtonga43]

What is natural for animals is not natural for humans since humans are different from animals.

Tb, you have fallen for this logical fallacy, and you use it over and over again.
Do you not see that what is natural for animals is often also natural for humans?
You really are the most illogical person I have come across on any forum.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why are we the ones feeling compassion and empathy for these people that loved their religion, but because they were gay, they couldn't stay in it.

Good point. Lots of folks do indeed have compassion for everyone. I have compassion for bigots even, but it's from a deeper perspective, where all souls have the spark of the divine. From that POV, all we're doing here is attempting to remove ignorance, or provide a spark for that. But in the end, the eastern teachings insist that someone has to come to it on their own volition.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's go back and look at what I asked.
Trailblazer said: ↑
How can homosexual people produce children by having sex with each other?

That was a simple question. I just wanted to know how that was possible.

My question was unrelated to what sexual relationships are about, or whether all sexual relationships are about offspring. Clearly, all sexual relationships are not for the purpose of producing offspring.

Now do you understand?

No, I don't. If you understand the latter, there was no need to ask the question in the first place. It was a gratuitous attempt at still trying to put homosexual sex in a poorer light than, say, heterosexual sex using birth control.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why are we the ones feeling compassion and empathy for these people that loved their religion, but because they were gay, they couldn't stay in it.

Because religious believers are compassionate -- with caveats. We can be compassionate without, since we have no gods to obey.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because religious believers are compassionate -- with caveats. We can be compassionate without, since we have no gods to obey.

Yet, that hits culture, sociology and psychology. But yes.