Eagel4Jesus

This is for you evolutionists out there. This is why atheists/evolutionists should not agree with homosexuality.

If you believe that we were just evolved from lower forms of life, the whole point of your existence is to make children and continue your species. If I am incorrect, please answer the point of life for all atheists that believe they evolved from less complex organisms. So if the whole point of life is to make babies (to be less scientific) then homosexuals disrupt the normal cycle of life. And therefore, atheists/evolutionists should not agree or accept homosexuality.

Any problems with my logic?

Matt

Mech Bliss

Yes, as the theory of evolution is scientific, not philosophical. Your equating evolutionists with atheists exclusively is not accurate either. Furthermore, homosexuals may disrupt the normal cycle of life as you say, but since homosexuality is natural, it's just a fact of life to be accepted. That homosexuals cannot reproduce is no justification for it to be considered unacceptable. Sorry, but that's one of the more ridiculous things I've heard trying to justify some ethical stance with respect to homosexuality based upon a scientific theory.

Eagel4Jesus

My point was that it is natural to produce offspring, and therefore homosexuality would not be natural.

Matt

Mech Bliss

Then your point is baseless because homosexuality is also natural.

I don't see anything about reproduction there. Reproduction is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether something is natural or not. Furthermore, it is possible for homosexuals to reproduce--just not homosexual couples with each other.

Your argument would make all infertile people unnatural as well, and thus, justifiably unacceptable to "atheists/evolutionists" simply because they cannot produce offspring. However, infertility is something that is natural as well although it does not result in the ability to naturally produce offspring.

Eagel4Jesus

Well, to me infertile people are natural...I'm a Christian so I know they are natural (there was scripture that stated such).

I do not believe homosexuality has been proven to be natural, while I myself have yet to decide which side I am on, it is not proven to be natural. I have a friend who is a lesbian and being such an expert taking an AP Psychology class, I was able to analyze her life and know there are reasons why she is a lesbian. Ok, so joking aside, in her case she was sexually assaulted at 11 by an aunt's b/f, she then told me she came out when she was 12. She's also been raised catholic and her parents always told her her older brother was smarter than her. So to me, there are environmental reasons as to why she may be a homosexual, and she was not born it.

Matt

Mageth

This is for you evolutionists out there. This is why atheists/evolutionists should not agree with homosexuality.

How about theistic evolutionists?

If you believe that we were just evolved from lower forms of life, the whole point of your existence is to make children and continue your species.

Speak for yourself. I have higher aspirations than that for my existence. Such as fighting such ignorance as you're talking here.

If I am incorrect, please answer the point of life for all atheists that believe they evolved from less complex organisms.

You're not correct, so I guess I don't have to answer. However, each of us is free to provide our own meaning to our lives. Nature doesn't dictate our choices in that matter.

So if the whole point of life is to make babies (to be less scientific) then homosexuals disrupt the normal cycle of life. And therefore, atheists/evolutionists should not agree or accept homosexuality.

Total BS. Should we also not agree with or accept people who decide to marry and not have children, or people who never marry (like my aunt, who never had children?), or people who cannot have children due to physiological reasons. My wife and I adopted a child because we could not naturally conceive; that (adoption) is not natural, is it? Should we atheists also be against adoption?

My point was that it is natural to produce offspring, and therefore homosexuality would not be natural.

You're guilty committing the Natural Law Fallacy, otherwise known as the Appeal to Nature.

Just because something is, or seems, natural doesn't mean we humans are limited by it. Hell, cooking food before you eat it isn't exactly natural either, by your standard; should we eat only raw meats and vegetables?

It's also not natural to use a toilet; in nature, animals relieve themselves on the ground. Cats and some other animals bury their excrement. Should we follow nature in this manner too, and at most bury our shit in the back yard?

seebs

Is this an intentional troll, or are you really this naive? Many of the Christians here accept evolution.

I think most of them would say "whatever you want to make of it", but being a non-atheist who believes we evolved from less complex organisms, I'd say the point of life is to make God happy.

Note that the purpose is not to make children; it's to make sure your genes are passed on. Protecting your family may be a better strategy for the success of your genes than having your own kids is.

But that's not the "whole point". Furthermore, homosexuals often help raise children, making them biologically useful.

The only qualm I'd have about saying "yes" is that I'm not sure there was any logic there to have problems.

tribalbeeyatch

Well, so much for your argument then, eh?

seebs

<insult deleted by moderator>

What is your evidence that these things CAUSED her to be gay? Why are there so many girls abused by men who *don't* turn out gay? Abuse does not cause homosexuality, nor does being told your siblings are smarter than you.

This is not just stupid.

This is FUCKING stupid.

Please, stop. You're making Christianity look bad.

Daleth

And there are many environmental reasons why a person might be infertile based on choices people make. Smoking, STDs, chemotherapy... there are lots of them.

Or how about people who simply choose not to have children. Maybe they don't like children. Or maybe they think they'd be bad parents. There may be "natural" or environmental reasons people choose not to have kids. Should we not accept them?

Dal