• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

My take on same-sex attraction

C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
shmogie said:
Perhaps, but I couldn't care less. Tell me, how are homosexuals "opposed" ?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you overlooked this:
shmogie said:
You give many opinions, your opinions are not facts.
Click to expand...

columbus said:
That happens a lot in this conversation.
Your opinion is that God cares about and disapproves of homosex.

But that's just an opinion. No facts to back it up with, more substantial than various interpretations of ancient writings.
Tom
Click to expand...

Feel free to elaborate.
Tom
 
Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
shmogie said:
Well, Darwins understanding of why there is sex is still spot on as far as evolutionists are concerned.

I agree with them.
Click to expand...

Sex organs are for three reasons, not just one:

A. continuing life
B. pleasure
C. urine discharge

Darwin must have been castrated and didn't understand B above.
 
Last edited:
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Rival said:
Because much animal behaviour is vile. Humans have a moral compass and animals don't, which is the difference.
Click to expand...
You actually don't know this for a fact, and it is very likely not as true as you'd like it to be. Many animals behave exactly as if they have a moral compass. Vampire bats share with others who did not manage to feed and might suffer badly as a result, and yet they show great reluctance to share with other bats who have themselves not shared when they might have. Chimpanzees recognize favouritism when they see it, and react with outrage.

You might stop to consider this: emotions are algorithms -- we feel what we do because its important to our survival. The fact that human algorithms are more complex than other animals' does not qualitatively differentiate us from them.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Jonathan Bailey said:
Most people "appear heterosexual" on the surface. Ask yourself how many of those people have ever had a same-sex thought, fantasy or arousal over their lifetime. Many people lie to cover up homosexuality or bisexuality. Nobody ever covers up heterosexual feelings or thoughts.

I have heard that "most homosexuals wished they weren't". Is this because of the bad ways society treats homosexuals or has treated homosexuals in the past? Do black people loathe their own skin color because of the bad history behind the way people of color have been treated?

Before homosexuals and bisexuals can expect others to accept them the way they are, they have to first accept themselves the way they are. You can't begin to love others or accept love from others unless you first love yourself.

Nobody says to themselves "I choose to be attracted to the same sex and so I am". Nobody says to themselves "I choose to be attracted to the opposite sex and so I am". Nobody says to themselves "I choose to be attracted to both sexes and so I am". Nobody says to themselves "I choose to be attracted to no sex and so I am". Sexual orientation or attraction is not voluntary.

The biggest gay-bashers are homosexual underneath.


Biologists have witnessed at least 1,500 animal species' engaging in same-sex intercourse.

95% of all giraffe matings in the wild are male on male.

Besides biology there is psychology which is the human motivator for sexual attraction.

Nobody should feel ashamed about their sexual attraction. Nobody should be made to feel ashamed about their sexual attraction. A man should not be made to feel bad about being excited about penises. A woman should not be made to feel worthless about being excited about breasts.
Click to expand...

I have not read every post on this thread so someone may have already mentioned the Kinsey Scale. If so then please ignore what i write here.

Inthe late 1940s Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and Clyde Martin developed a simple set of question test to better ascertain your sexual orientation. It is known as the Kinsey scale test.

Its had considerable criticism, mostly about it being to basic, i.e. breaking a complex subject into a very simple test, or the limited number of test subjects (around 8000)...
... But it works and in 60 and tens of thousands of tests the initial findings don't deviate much from the initial results.

I.e just over 14% of people are completely heterosexual and around the same number are completely homosexual. The remainder are variously between the 2 extremes

1280px-Kinsey_Scale.svg.png


You can take an "unofficial" test here
Kinsey Scale Test
 
Rival

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
You actually don't know this for a fact, and it is very likely not as true as you'd like it to be. Many animals behave exactly as if they have a moral compass. Vampire bats share with others who did not manage to feed and might suffer badly as a result, and yet they show great reluctance to share with other bats who have themselves not shared when they might have. Chimpanzees recognize favouritism when they see it, and react with outrage.

You might stop to consider this: emotions are algorithms -- we feel what we do because its important to our survival. The fact that human algorithms are more complex than other animals' does not qualitatively differentiate us from them.
Click to expand...
I'd see this more as pro-social and training behaviours that increase longevity, rather than anything resembling a philosophically thought out moral compass.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
shmogie said:
As long as no citizens rights are infringed, by an act, all else is irrelevant.

As in all other relations with people, avoid those you don't like and associate with those that you do like.,

Liberty for all means some will think and say things that others dislike. Tough.
Click to expand...
But you know, how people feel, or what they dislike, very often informs their behaviours. I think you know this as well as anyone does. Over the course of my life, as a gay man approaching 72, I've seem a lot of how those behaviours of people who "hate gays" take their toll. And the toll is often significant. You might try to remember that humans are a social species, and as such, belonging is extremely important. Being denied jobs, accommodation, being rejected by family, friends, church, acquaintances who have found out that one is gay can be utterly devastating. No, they didn't do something palpably illegal like stone you or wound you physically -- but the wounds are just as important.

Mostly, you know, gay rights is about trying to show the rest of the world how much LIKE them we are, rather than focus on how we are different. And that's something that a lot of folks just don't get.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
ChristineM said:
I have not read every post on this thread so someone may have already mentioned the Kinsey Scale. If so then please ignore what i write here.

Inthe late 1940s Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and Clyde Martin developed a simple set of question test to better ascertain your sexual orientation. It is known as the Kinsey scale test.

Its had considerable criticism, mostly about it being to basic, i.e. breaking a complex subject into a very simple test, or the limited number of test subjects (around 8000)...
... But it works and in 60 and tens of thousands of tests the initial findings don't deviate much from the initial results.

I.e just over 14% of people are completely heterosexual and around the same number are completely homosexual. The remainder are variously between the 2 extremes

View attachment 36096

You can take an "unofficial" test here
Kinsey Scale Test
Click to expand...
To be fair, there were problems with Kinsey's methodology, not the least of which is that the people that he sampled were not entirely random. Many were in "unusual" human societal situations: prisons, institutions (mental or otherwise). In general, he seems to be correct about orientation, but really, it seems that the numbers of exclusively homosexual persons is quite a bit lower than he thought -- much closer to about 2%, more or less.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Jonathan Bailey said:
Sex organs are for two reasons, not just one:

A. continuing life
B. pleasure

Darwin must have been castrated and didn't understand B above.
Click to expand...
It is all based in procreation for the survival of the species. The pleasure part is for the same goal. Without reproduction as the goal the pleasure would not exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top