Why can't we simply be bi-sexual creatures? There is no rule in nature that we must live and reproduce by necessity, and even so, maybe our species evolved differently.


An attraction that fades, from what I've seen, with bad experiences that come with the opposite sex. I'm not using that as a blanket statement; it's truth that people I've known from different walks of life have actually "chosen" to be gay.[/quote]

False witness/anecdotal fallacy.


You can't disprove a negative. Stop assuming it's a choice just because of your personal (witness) account.


You have no clue what you're talking about.

Do you think homosexuals are kidding? They're as serious as anyone else, stop tagging it as a immaturity.


Shutup about sinners, we all are. We're not all homosexuals.


Since you have no door into the mind of that infant/authority to know what is (no one knows what is) than you cannot make that claim.

Technically, the minute after that infant is born, it is exposed to influence and detaches from this "inherent" purity. Young children are highly influenced and far from "pure"

Asexual reproduction is completely natural...

Our species isn't, what does that have to do with attraction? Maybe we're such a progressive and open-minded species that we allow the barrier to be broken.

Our attractions are primordial and different for each of us independantly.

A disperse from one sex is easily an example of a bi-sexual or a person whom is attracted to one sex, yet is unsure of which one it is. Experimentation.

Can you validate this, likely is an empty adverb in evidence.

What?

__________________

I'm back from the caves blastin' back at yo ass

Asking us for anecdotal evidence doesn't make yours valid.
You think genes don't affect one's personality and mental development? And are you qualified to say "Chances are, they can't check their DNA for answers"?
Totally.
That's an appeal to nature fallacy. Something occurring in nature has nothing to do with its morality. You can't look at something that occurs in nature and make a value judgment, because nature lacks a moral sense; it's amoral. But I'll bite. Is this unnatural as well? Also, quit talking out of your ass.

__________________

Because he's an asshole.

Why can't we simply be bi-sexual creatures? There is no rule in nature that we must live and reproduce by necessity, and even so, maybe our species evolved differently.

-All that's provided here is another question that deviates from the subject. There is no rule against living and reproducing, either.


You can't disprove a negative. Stop assuming it's a choice just because of your personal (witness) account.

-They are actually several accounts, and I'm sure there are countless more around the globe. Which is why I mentioned "different walks of life." Extremely different, mind you. These people didn't decide this together, and they all had their own story.

Do you think homosexuals are kidding? They're as serious as anyone else, stop tagging it as a immaturity.

-I'm not.


Shutup about sinners, we all are. We're not all homosexuals.

-That's something I never said or insinuated. I introduced a completely different idea unrelated to sexuality for purposes of explaining human nature. You can disregard it if you wish.


Since you have no door into the mind of that infant/authority to know what is (no one knows what is) than you cannot make that claim.

Technically, the minute after that infant is born, it is exposed to influence and detaches from this "inherent" purity. Young children are highly influenced and far from "pure"

-Perhaps you can explain the possibility of a set of code in the human genome that would denote homosexuality. I don't really expect it though, since, for however long humanity's been about, I can safely assume that humanity is around today due to sexual reproduction. Can homosexuality be sustained on its own?

Asexual reproduction is completely natural...

-In humans? Our subject is human beings, not animals or plants...

Can you validate this, likely is an empty adverb in evidence.

-Basically, is there any natural form of attraction between members of the same sex? Physical, complimentary, and involuntary. And I ask again, how could homosexuality sustain itself?

What?

-Our human genome is what it is.

From davobrosia: Asking us for anecdotal evidence doesn't make yours valid.

-Anything to the contrary, though? That would help sustain the debate rather than disregard it. But if it is to be disregarded, then we lose the idea of there being any inherent cause/possibility of homosexuality, and go nowhere.

You think genes don't affect one's personality and mental development? And are you qualified to say "Chances are, they can't check their DNA for answers"?

-I ask you, per what is natural for human sustenance, how exactly homosexuality itself is natural.

-Your link on a child's murder is not really relevant to explaining much, to be honest. Not only are they not fully grown and incapable of mature, in-depth decision making, but other factors may have led to that specific incident. The vast majority of children do not grow with involuntary inclinations to kill. Also, children are not responsible for humanity's problems as a whole, and therefore cannot be accounted for.

That's an appeal to nature fallacy. Something occurring in nature has nothing to do with its morality. You can't look at something that occurs in nature and make a value judgment, because nature lacks a moral sense; it's amoral. But I'll bite. Is this unnatural as well? Also, quit talking out of your ass.

-You're comparing an animal's judgment to a human's. While animals are capable of being tamed, they are still quite wild and have little to no capability of intellectual analysis on a wide variety of subjects as humans do. They follow a basic set of programming and do not expand on it, or think to create or do things other than what they are able to.

__________________

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...sexuality.html

I personally know twenty thousand homosexuals. They all say it wasn't a choice.

See why anecdotal evidence doesn't prove sh.t?
Then why did you bring it up? What is your last sentence insinuating?
What a clever way to disregard that homosexuality occurs in nature all the time. I thought it wasn't natural. You've said that it's bad because it's not natural. But here you just explained why nature doesn't have any bearing on something's moral value. Be moar consistent, k?
I do things I'm not able to do all the time
So they're...born...that way...oh dear.



You seem to be looking at what's "natural" for humans as something separate and elevated above what's natural for other creatures. We're animals too; we have DNA, we evolve, and we are subject to instinct just the same. Take humanity down from this pedestal you seem to be putting it on.

__________________

It doesn't deviate from anything talking attraction, here's an alternative, you're just pleading false dichotomy.

Yeah, sweet empty statement, provide evidence. Anecdotal fallacies are what they are, popularity means nothing.

Yup, sure. What don't you understand about anecdote?

Hmmm.

You insinuated it was some sort of immature/adolescent phase. You're belitting a sexual orientation as pre-mature experimenting.


Right.

Quit trying to worm your way out of context. You blatantly insinuated that homosexuality (which you are still labeling a choice) can be brought on by "sinners" swaying our beliefs and attractions or whatever the hell you meant.

That's why I said we're all sinners, obviously, we're not all gay. Deduction.


Haha, keep telling yourself that.


Since you have no door into the mind of that infant/authority to know what is (no one knows what is) than you cannot make that claim.

Technically, the minute after that infant is born, it is exposed to influence and detaches from this "inherent" purity. Young children are highly influenced and far from "pure"

Oh, hey quote who dodges my refute.

Your ignorance is amazing, that or denile.

Asexual reproduction is completely natural...

Did you read what I posted? Stop misquoting and leaving out things that I said.

Can you validate this, likely is an empty adverb in evidence.

I asked you to validate, not propose another question.

Ok...

You appeal to fallacy of too few alternatives like crazy. I'm not any medical doctor or biological scientist but I know for sure that knowledge is progress. Choosing a black and white alterative when in light of unsurity is intellectual laziness.

What do you not understand about morality being seperate from nature? Appeal to nature fallacy.

It was completely relevant dumbass.

That's his point...

You stated to look at a child to witness purity and innocence. Influence and sinner happens the moment you gain consciousness. Nothing is technically pure.

Nice job perpetuating Davo's argument.

What is your point, honestly.

Cannot be accounted for?!

You're the one bringing up children's quality of innocence and purity. Give me a break.

Now you're just talking out of your ass. You can't fully "tame" an animal, that's utterly rediculous, it's a self-working independent being.

Are you stupid, have you not seen the pidgeon trials? Pidgeons were observed to have fallen subject to superstition, above many other things.

Are you aware of the sophisticated teamwork and communication capable of dolphins, whales, lions, and so on? Not to mention that many animals exhibit closely related contemplative traits of our own.

__________________

I'm back from the caves blastin' back at yo ass

If God is all loving then why is there Hell? Same old stuff......

Although, I don't know what God you're talking about. Because the God I worship certainly doesn't hate anyone. :P

__________________

Lol, pretty much. :)

That's probably because the people who present these problems have yet to been presented with an adequate response...

__________________

Probably yeah.

__________________

Lol, pretty much. :)

No, it's really not. God creating someone to send them to hell is not the same. . .
As NiceGuy said, you haven't justified why God has a hell.
God shouldn't really care for what mere mortals think of him considering he's the ultimate and has no rival.

__________________