Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Sly_Wizard]

Sperm cells are alive; human sperm is mammalian...

 

 

 

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing.

 

 

 

Oh, and FYI, there isn't a single man in this world that can go without ejaculating for longer than a few weeks. It is extremely unhealthy to go long without it. Just a neat little fact. So "spilling your seed" being a sin is complete bollocks. Anyone who claims they don't masturbate and doesn't have sex regularly is a liar.

 

 

 

...So what's this got to do with anything?

[Sly_Wizard]

Christianity was ONE of the causes. All you do is pick apart certain phrases/words that people use when you know that it isn't the argument they're actually using.

 

 

 

Except for the fact that you specifically stated that Christianity was THE cause of anti-miscegenation laws, and then have proceeded to backtrack when called on it, instead choosing to invoke the "That's not really what I was saying!" line.

 

 

 

And this thread is on homosexuality.

 

 

 

Blame the person who brought the topic up, then.

 

 

 

And, no, it wasn't me.

 

 

 

Here is a question for you, to get back on topic (and no I'm not changing the subject we can continue this if you like).

 

 

 

What is the difference between not letting black people marry and not letting gay people marry?

 

 

 

Because one is a violation of the Constitution and the other one isn't.

 

 

 

*points to Baker v. Nelson*

 

 

 

What's the difference between barring people on the same gender to marry and barring two people from marrying based on consanguinity?

[Zierro]

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing.

 

 

 

We came directly from humans. We are living. There is nothing to wait for.

 

 

 

...So what's this got to do with anything?

 

 

 

You believe homosexuality and masturbating are sins. He's just pointing out that it's silly to believe that. (You believe silly things and you don't even have your reasons!)

 

 

 

PS: Sly, you haven't answered my lawyer question. :lol:

[Sly_Wizard]

We came directly from humans. We are living. There is nothing to wait for.

 

 

 

And, yet, you seem to not understand the difference between "living" and "human life".

 

 

 

You believe homosexuality and masturbating are sins. He's just pointing out that it's silly to believe that. (You believe silly things and you don't even have your reasons!).

 

 

 

Good luck finding the quotes to back either of those statements.

 

 

 

PS: Sly, you haven't answered my lawyer question. :lol:

 

 

 

What question?

[user1991]

Christianity was ONE of the causes. All you do is pick apart certain phrases/words that people use when you know that it isn't the argument they're actually using.

 

 

 

Except for the fact that you specifically stated that Christianity was THE cause of anti-miscegenation laws, and then have proceeded to backtrack when called on it, instead choosing to invoke the "That's not really what I was saying!" line.

 

 

 

No, I didn't. Can you please copy and paste that? I've just looked back and I actually said "the Church(which I was technically wrong about)/Christians of that time were FOR (implying they justified) those laws.

 

 

 

 

 

And this thread is on homosexuality.

 

 

 

Blame the person who brought the topic up, then.

 

 

 

And, no, it wasn't me.

 

 

 

Here is a question for you, to get back on topic (and no I'm not changing the subject we can continue this if you like).

 

 

 

What is the difference between not letting black people marry and not letting gay people marry?

 

 

 

Because one is a violation of the Constitution and the other one isn't.

 

 

 

*points to Baker v. Nelson*

 

 

 

What's the difference between barring people on the same gender to marry and barring two people from marrying based on consanguinity?

 

 

 

Nothing, they should both be allowed.

 

 

 

And if you're referring to where I said "it IS causation", the causation I was referring to was "The Bible as justification CAUSES Christians to be FOR those laws" NOT "Christianity caused the laws".

[Zierro]

And, yet, you seem to not understand the difference between "living" and "human life".

 

 

 

What makes an embryo any more "human" than sperm?

 

 

 

Good luck finding the quotes to back either of those statements.

 

 

 

Oh so you're saying you think homosexuality and masturbating are not sins? This is a prime example of your type of arguments.

 

 

 

What question?

 

 

 

Scroll up.

[jackattack]

 

What makes an embryo any more "human" than sperm?

 

 

 

It's got the full compliment of chromosomes and will grow into a human unless it is killed. A sperm alone won't become a human and only has a half set of chromosomes.

[Zierro]

 

What makes an embryo any more "human" than sperm?

 

 

 

It's got the full compliment of chromosomes and will grow into a human unless it is killed. A sperm alone won't become a human and only has a half set of chromosomes.

 

 

 

So the fact that it only has half the attributes of a human makes it non-human? Tell me, would a paraplegic be considered non-human too?

[user1991]

 

What makes an embryo any more "human" than sperm?

 

 

 

It's got the full compliment of chromosomes and will grow into a human unless it is killed. A sperm alone won't become a human and only has a half set of chromosomes.

 

 

 

Where is the line drawn? If you stop a rape that technically means you're stopping the potential life of a child.

 

 

 

Potential doesn't mean anything. Until it IS, it isn't.

 

 

 

"Killing" an embryo isn't "killing" because there is NOTHING there. It isn't conscious. It isn't a person. It doesn't have a soul.

 

 

 

And this thread isn't on abortion.

[J a m e s]

Sperm cells are alive; human sperm is mammalian...

 

 

 

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing.

 

 

 

What do you mean? Sperm isn't human life, it only has 23 chromosomes. Humans have 46. You said sperm doesn't have a place in the animal kingdom, which isn't true, that's all.

 

 

 

Also, an embryo will indeed grow if not spontaneously aborted or aborted by human will, but in reality it is just as "alive" as the sperm was. It doesn't have thoughts or feelings (using the word it because it's genderless, not to furthur convey my point).

 

 

 

Isn't the soul supposed to be essentially the personality and individuality of a person? An embryo has neither. Enlighten me as to what a soul actually is so I can further understand your stance on this.

[jackattack]

^^ Look above you.

[Sly_Wizard]

Nothing, they should both be allowed.

 

 

 

And if you're referring to where I said "it IS causation", the causation I was referring to was "The Bible as justification CAUSES Christians to be FOR those laws" NOT "Christianity caused the laws". Read it in context d-bag.

 

 

 

Except, guess what? The first ISN'T what you said and you know it, as you were going on and on and on as Christianity being the reason for anti-miscegenation laws.

 

 

 

And lol @ d-bag.

[Sly_Wizard]

This goes to Zierro, too.

 

 

 

Where is the line drawn? If you stop a rape that technically means you're stopping the potential life of a child.

 

 

 

Something which isn't is not the same thing as something which is. That doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

Potential doesn't mean anything. Until it IS, it isn't.

 

 

 

Except a fetus is. If it wasn't, it wouldn't exist.

 

 

 

"Killing" an embryo isn't "killing" because there is NOTHING there.

 

 

 

100% incorrect. What do you mean there's nothing there?

 

 

 

It isn't conscious.

 

 

 

Not scientific.

 

 

 

It isn't a person.

 

 

 

Not scientific.

 

 

 

It doesn't have a soul.

 

 

 

Definitely not scientific. Note how most of the pro-choicers can only resort to purely philosophical arguments when defining life.

 

 

 

And this thread isn't on abortion.

 

 

 

No, it's not.

[Sly_Wizard]

Sperm cells are alive; human sperm is mammalian...

 

 

 

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing.

 

 

 

What do you mean? Sperm isn't human life, it only has 23 chromosomes. Humans have 46. You said sperm doesn't have a place in the animal kingdom, which isn't true, that's all.

 

 

 

Also, an embryo will indeed grow if not spontaneously aborted or aborted by human will, but in reality it is just as "alive" as the sperm was. It doesn't have thoughts or feelings (using the word it because it's genderless, not to furthur convey my point).

 

 

 

Isn't the soul supposed to be essentially the personality and individuality of a person? An embryo has neither. Enlighten me as to what a soul actually is so I can further understand your stance on this.

 

 

 

Explain to me what a soul has to do with anything? In fact, no one mentioned it except for you and that Noob guy. Furthermore, Zierro asked me what species sperm is. I answered none, because it's not a species.

[J a m e s]

Sperm cells are alive; human sperm is mammalian...

 

 

 

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing.

 

 

 

What do you mean? Sperm isn't human life, it only has 23 chromosomes. Humans have 46. You said sperm doesn't have a place in the animal kingdom, which isn't true, that's all.

 

 

 

Also, an embryo will indeed grow if not spontaneously aborted or aborted by human will, but in reality it is just as "alive" as the sperm was. It doesn't have thoughts or feelings (using the word it because it's genderless, not to furthur convey my point).

 

 

 

Isn't the soul supposed to be essentially the personality and individuality of a person? An embryo has neither. Enlighten me as to what a soul actually is so I can further understand your stance on this.

 

 

 

Explain to me what a soul has to do with anything? In fact, no one mentioned it except for you and that Noob guy. Furthermore, Zierro asked me what species sperm is. I answered none, because it's not a species.

 

 

 

A soul has everything to do with abortion. You and I both know that. You claim the soul is there as soon as the sperm meets the egg or something like that, do you not?

 

 

 

Wow, this thread got derailed to hell. This is the homosexuality thread! :P

[Zierro]

100% incorrect. What do you mean there's nothing there?

 

 

 

What do you mean that I was "nothing" as a sperm? This is what I call double standards.

 

 

 

Why is it wrong to kill a human? Why is it wrong to kill an embryo? Why isn't it wrong to kill a sperm? Why isn't it wrong to stop a rape?

 

 

 

Bet ya can't answer those.

[Sly_Wizard]

A soul has everything to do with abortion. You and I both know that. You claim the soul is there as soon as the sperm meets the egg or something like that, do you not?

 

 

 

No. I said that it's a human life. Big difference between that and having a soul.

 

 

 

100% incorrect. What do you mean there's nothing there?

 

 

 

What do you mean that I was "nothing" as a sperm? This is what I call double standards.

 

 

 

First, I didn't say you were nothing. I said you weren't anything (And, yes, there is a difference between those two statements). Second of all, it means just what I said. "You" aren't "you" until a joining of two haploid cells which forms the basis of, well, "you" lol

[J a m e s]

100% incorrect. What do you mean there's nothing there?

 

 

 

What do you mean that I was "nothing" as a sperm? This is what I call double standards.

 

 

 

I would venture to say that a Christian would say that a sperm doesn't have a soul but an embryo does. That's the only reason I can think of...

 

 

 

That doesn't make any sense... Why is the embryo with no soul but is a "human life" so important to you? The sperm isn't important to you; why does it's bondage with the egg change everything? They are essentially equally alive and the embryo doesn't have any human characteristics that the sperm didn't have (besides the double chromosomes, of course).

[Zierro]

Okay, so if a sperm is not anything, that still doesn't mean it is "nothing"? Say what? Yay, it's my turn to play semantics.

 

 

 

Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all

 

 

 

PS: I'm going to repeatedly ask you these questions until I get an answer Sly:

 

 

 

Why is it wrong to kill a human? Why is it wrong to kill an embryo? Why isn't it wrong to kill a sperm? Why isn't it wrong to stop a rape?

[J a m e s]

That was directed towards Sly, obviously.

 

 

 

Gotta catch some sleep, g'night gentlemen.

[Sly_Wizard]

That doesn't make any sense... Why is the embryo with no soul but is a "human life" so important to you? The sperm isn't important to you; why does it's bondage with the egg change everything? They are essentially equally alive and the embryo doesn't have any human characteristics that the sperm didn't have (besides the double chromosomes, of course).

 

*Sigh*

 

 

 

I really hoped to avoid this argument but, *meh*, whatever.

 

 

 

Sperm cells might be "alive" but they are not "living", as they cannot and do not posses the ability to make more of themselves and can only live in a certain environment (I should say, they can only live outside of it for a very short period of time before they die) while an embryo can (Given adequate developmental time). To assert that an embryo is as equally "alive" (In this case meant "living") as sperm cell is to be rather disingenuous.

 

 

 

Okay, so if a sperm is not anything, that still doesn't mean it is "nothing"? Say what? Yay, it's my turn to play semantics.

 

 

 

Nothing = Not something

 

Nothing =/= Not anything

 

 

 

Hooray semantics!

 

 

 

Why is it wrong to kill a human? Why is it wrong to kill an embryo? Why isn't it wrong to kill a sperm? Why isn't it wrong to stop a rape?

 

 

 

Humans are living organisms. Embryos are living humans. Sperm are "alive" but not living. Something which isn't cannot be "killed".

 

 

 

Edit: Something which isn't can be killed. I guess you should clarify what you mean by "isn't" first.

[Ginger_Warrior]

EDIT: Woops. Didn't read any of the above stuff except for the last one. And education was an issue. The teachers union had already said that parents wouldn't be able to pull their kids out from learning about gay marriage and one school took kids on a field trip to a lesbian wedding.

 

Kids going to a gay marriage. Oh no?

 

 

 

Seriously, I was raised an Atheist and I went to a church on a school day out when I was aged 8. The history lessons I received on Ireland were given by a Protestant Unionist, despite me agreeing in principle with the Republicans' cause and being half-Irish myself. You don't find my parents complaining about the influence school had on me.

 

 

 

Don't tell me you consider that as evidence of forcing liberal morals onto school children, unless you're afraid of children seeing the world around them for themselves. Challenging children about subjects they may otherwise feel awkward with is part of education. It allows them to approach those issues again later on in life with some sense of maturity.

 

 

 

Well maybe to you that doesn't mean anything but to most people it does. That was one of the main reasons it passed. To a lot of people it went from letting gays do their own thing to forcing it upon children. I wouldn't want my six year old learning about gay marriage alongside regular marriage. And the teachers union basically said that they were going to teach it "Whether you Like it or not!" to quote Gavin Newsom.

 

Why not? You'll no doubt drill it into their head it's wrong when they're outside of school anyway. What's wrong with school giving them a balanced view of the world?

 

 

 

There are only two rational reasons why I can think people would honestly feel uncomfortable with their children receiving education on gay marriages:

 

 

 

1) Homophobia - simply put, they just don't like gays.

 

2) A fear of their children "choosing" to be homosexuals.

 

 

 

Now if we both accept it's in the national interest to remove hatred and prejudice from society, reason 1) simply doesn't cut. If we also accept that homosexuality isn't a choice or some sort of mental illness (I'm not arguing this point, it isn't), then reason 2) doesn't hold either.

 

 

 

In other words, people voting for Prop 8 on the basis of their children's education haven't cast a vote with proper reasoning. It reminds me of the calls for an EU referendum in this country, where's it's patently obvious that those calling for a referendum are not informed enough to make an informed decision. Explain to me the point in putting something to a referendum when people are gonna make such badly informed decisions?

 

 

 

Although of course you'll no doubt find some convoluted excuse somewhere since it does, after all, help the anti-gay cause, don't it?

 

 

 

Sperm cells might be "alive" but they are not "living", as they cannot and do not posses the ability to make more of themselves and can only live in a certain environment (I should say, they can only live outside of it for a very short period of time before they die) while an embryo can (Given adequate developmental time). To assert that an embryo is as equally "alive" (In this case meant "living") as sperm cell is to be rather disingenuous.

 

OK, the embryo's growing. There's one of the conditions needed to say something is "living" in biological terms. You know as a biologist there are more conditions that need to be met.

 

 

 

The only biological argument I can think of that justifies being against abortion is that the new embryo has a different genetic make-up than its mother so could be argued has its own independent life. But in reality, aside from its ability to grow (since it can now grow through mitosis as well as meiosis), an embryo isn't that much different to a gamete.

 

 

 

Above all else, to say an embryo can survive outside the womb is just contradictory. You know full well that generally, a human embryo in the first or second trimester will not survive birth. By that token, you're actually saying an embryo is about as living as a sperm in that period.

[Howlin0001]

I don't know any gay people irl.

 

Just because you don't know any homosexuals in real life, that don't mean you can hate/not hare them.

[Sly_Wizard]

OK, the embryo's growing. There's one of the conditions needed to say something is "living" in biological terms. You know as a biologist there are more conditions that need to be met.

 

 

 

1.) Being composed of at least one cell.

 

2.) The ability to propagate itself (Cell division) and grow.

 

3.) Able to undergo both respiration and other metabolic processes.

 

4.) Responds to external stimuli.

 

5.) Regulatory internal controls.

 

 

 

Those are the basic properties of life-- All of which a fetus exhibits. Sperm, on the other hand, does not satisfy the second condition (And, really, a couple of the others could also be debated in relation to sperm, but I'm too lazy to do that).

 

 

 

(PS> I probably forgot a property of life, but I think that'll suffice.)

 

 

 

The only biological argument I can think of that justifies being against abortion is that the new embryo has a different genetic make-up than its mother so could be argued has its own independent life. But in reality, aside from its ability to grow (since it can now grow through mitosis as well as meiosis), an embryo isn't that much different to a gamete.

 

 

 

Except those "little" difference aren't really little at all. Following your logic, you're not much different from a gamete, either. But, I'm sure you'll try to argue otherwise by invoking a non-scientific argument, which I totally thought atheists were big on. :-k

 

 

 

Above all else, to say an embryo can survive outside the womb is just contradictory. You know full well that generally, a human embryo in the first or second trimester will not survive birth. By that token, you're actually saying an embryo is about as living as a sperm in that period.

 

 

 

1.) Notice where I said "given adequate developmental time".

 

 

 

2.) Viability has nothing to do with whether or not something is alive or not. Viability is simply the point at which a fetus can live outside of a woman's body without aid. Furthermore, to address the whole "sperm = fetus" thing, I said that a sperm is "alive" but not "living" as it lacks the ability to make more of itself or to go through cell division (Which is why virus aren't considered "living", as they don't go through cell division but rather replication).

[Housepig]

In my opinion, Homosexuality is caused partly by psychological factors and partly by hormones. People have no choice if they are genuinely Homosexual, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to act on their desires.