winepusher wrote:FinalEnigma wrote:I gathered that. What my question was, was why you are against homosexual marriage and adoption. could you please reiterate this or link me to where you said it before?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=60
FinalEnigma wrote:I don't see how this is relevant. you claimed that homosexual sex was unnatural. unless you wish to claim the the actions of animals in nature is also unnatural, then homosexual intercourse is clearly quite natural.
It is absolutly relevant as you wrote
"actually homosexual sex certainly is NOT unnatural. there are plenty of animals which have homosexual sex, and animals are quite natural." From what I can tell, you are trying to justify homosexual intercourse by citing instances of homosexual intercourse from other animals species, were you not? I attempted to refute this by citing instances of animal behavior that are considered "unnatural" to humans, such as the courting process. So your analogy to other animals engaging in forms of homosexual intercourse as an attempt to justify human gay intercourse is inconsistent. Now, to prove my point. We see no benefit or purpose from homosexual intercourse. Heterosexual sex does serve a purpose, to procreate.
First of all, I was not trying to 'justify' homosexual sex - it doesn't need it. I am merely pointing out that your statement that homosexual sex is unnatural is factually incorrect.
further, there is nothing about the human courtship process that is wildly different from those in the animal kingdom, so I don't understand the connection there. we dress up and show ourselves off? animals do it too. we sing to them? animals do that, too. we bring them pretty things? animals also do that. we fight over mates as animals do as well, just not generally as openly as animals.
second, to claim that homosexual sex serves no purpose is incorrect. there are many health benefits(physical, emotional, and mental) to sex, whatever genders are involved. it relieves tension, help you bond with your mate, reduces stress levels and thus blood pressure, for men it helps prevent prostate cancer, etc.
in addition, to claim that 'homosexual sex serves no procreational purposes, therefore it's wrong and/or should be outlawed' is an invalid approach and clearly an excuse, unless you are also a proponent of outlawing all birth control, not allowing sterile people to get married, and outlawing sex for women over...say...45, or while they are pregnant. A well as oral sex, anal sex, and all sexual positions which are less likely to result in pregnancy.
regarding the adoption, I would like to quote another member who went unanswered in the other thread on what I consider to be an essential point.
homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals to raise healthy and successful children. there are tens of thousands of children that go un-adopted every year, and allowing homosexuals to adopt would help to ease this burden, banning homosexuals from adopting for the sole reason of their sexual orientation is discrimination in violation of one's constitutional rights.
allowing homosexual to adopt would give homes and a loving family to children who otherwise would not have such things. I see this as very good, and certainly healthy for the children. since there has been no evidence that the sexual orientation of parents affects their children, I see no reason to disallow homosexual adoption.
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.
