Music Banter - The problems with homosexuality

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - The problems with homosexuality (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/50644-problems-homosexuality.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop (Post 1101060)

This bothers me. Why is it that Liberals always assume those on the other side of a particular issue are ignorant? As though all that needs to happen is some well reasoned argument be made, and then the opposing opinion will vanish like wooden huts in the path of an atomic blast.

Homophobia is ignorance at it's finest =) Don't try to justify it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey (Post 1101194)

The Bible does advocate, indeed order, capital punishment for (male) homosexuality.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

The Bible also says this about women who are not virgins.
"A marriage should be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed." - Dueteromony 22:13-21

All this is, is people forcing their religious views onto others. No one can argue otherwise. All you have to do is look how *******s in the US prevent homosexual from marrying in various states. You'll have conservatives try to justify their ignorance until they're blue in the face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop (Post 1101210)

It depends on how you'd define "homophobia". Is denying homosexuals the right to marry homophobic? If so, then you are sadly missing out, because there is no shortage of logical secular arguments in this order (link)...

Opposition to homosexuality is part of a broader Conservative reaction to the "sexual revolution" of the 60s. As homosexuals can't breed, it's flashpoint between two very different views on the point and purpose of sexual relationships - that is, whether the primary purpose of these relationships is pleasure or reproduction. Does this clarify things for you?

So should we deny marriage to straight couples who can not reproduce? Flawed arguement. keep trying.

Quote:

So should we deny marriage to straight couples who can not reproduce? Flawed arguement. keep trying.

From the link I provided earlier:

Quote:

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Yawn, another poorly defended slippery slope argument. You can find hundreds of articles arguing in the other direction. I stopped taking the author seriously after the following passage:

Quote:

The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes.

Since when has repruduction been the only purpose of a modern sexual relationship? If you ask me, we could do with a few more gay couples to not procreate. That population isn't going to go down any other way, unless of course we do follow the bible and kill all the sodomisers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop (Post 1101216)

From the link I provided earlier:

Extending the marriage ban to people over 60 is not impractical at all. And who said that marriage's sole purpose is to function as formal institution for biological breeding? Why would such a thing even be necessary? If people, regardless of sexual orientation or other circumstances, feel that a formalisation of their relationship will make them happier, who are you or anyone else to deny them that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop (Post 1101216)

From the link I provided earlier:

Hmmmmmmm also lets not forget lesbians can be artificial inseminated. No logical arguement against homosexuality. All it boils down to is ignorance and stupidity.

If you think about it, using artificial methods a lesbian couple could theroretically be twice as productive at reproduction than a hetero couple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mykonos (Post 1101227)

If we were to follow the bible word for word we pretty much would kill most of man kind.

Well hey, that's why I don't listen to the Bible! Discrimination is bad kids, and don't let any 2000 year old book tell you otherwise.