Thread: Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

"I think nature gave us the inherent instinct to know that in-breeding is not conducive with self-preservation and can hardly be compared to homosexuality."

Oh? How do you know, just as with homosexuality? Do I smell a bigoted incestophobe? I hope I don't hear this term decades from now..

Since liberals tend to use animals as reasoning by stating that animals can perform homosexual acts, then why not also consider the fact that animals also engage in incestual acts?

Furthermore, homosexuality was a rare sin in the past, but now it's highly accepted as demoralization continues. Knowing this, I am sure incest will eventually be accepted as well. It takes a few, then a few more, then a few more, then a group, then a movement, then law changes/battles, then, well, people will most likely be debating this here as we are now with homosexuality.

Out of curiosity, wanting to test the validity of the previous statement, I searched a few phrases relating to incest on YouTube. Apparently, there ARE pro-incest people/vids out there. Hmm, is my theory totally impossible? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

ROFL. I think he would have to believe in "sin" before he believed it was or was not a sin.

Since sin to the Godless is subjective, undoubtedly incest will become common once demoralization reaches the latter stages.

You do have some points worth pondering but I think as societies come and go and things become accepted and not excepted down through time, the percentage of natural homosexuals in mankind remains pretty consistant. But that's only a guess.

Natural fact belongs to both liberals and conservatives. I don't look upon nature as a politcal entity or an ideology. It's more physics and law of nature to me. The law of nature dictates that homosexuals are here, have always been here, and will always be here. Hey, I didn't make the law so go easy on the "liberal" smack. That's just the way things are and have always been.

I know that it is entirely possible for animals to in-breed. captive animals will and do. But the natural animal inherently knows to distance themselves from their own bloodline. And they never had to go to church to be told. I suspect humans figured it out as well, long before they invented god.

Originally Posted by Wake

Since sin to the Godless is subjective, undoubtedly incest will become common once demoralization reaches the latter stages.

Ah, an appeal to consequences of belief fallacy. You are just so much fun because I tend to only see elementary school children make such basic mistakes in logic.

Actually, incest is a very interesting topic. While it is a universal cultural taboo, it has been practiced by royalty throughout history as a means to keep the family line in power. However, this lead to a disease called "hemophilia" and to other serious genetic abnormalities. Furthermore, behavioral scientists have found when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This is called the Westermarck effect and it is likely a biologically built in mechanism that keeps people from finding their relatives sexually attractive.

Of course, in Japan some studies have shown that 80% of men report they have had some sexual contact with their mother. But Japan is one of the most sexually conservative and repressed nations on the planet.

I would say the opposite of your view is true. The more sexually represeed a culture the more likely it will act out in ways that cross cultural and biological taboos.

Afterall, how many celibate priests have molested young alter boys?

Originally Posted by Captain America

I suspect humans figured it out as well, long before they invented god.

Imprinting (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's pretty smart right there CT. I had a hunch I might have been right.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Imprinting (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freud argued that as children, members of the same family naturally lust for one another, making it necessary for societies to create incest taboos,[5] but Westermarck argued the reverse, that the taboos themselves arise naturally as products of innate attitudes.

What the hell is Freud talkin' about?

Show of hands. How many people here had a sexual desire for their sister or mother?

"Pull out your false teeth granny! I wanna suck on your gums!"

Eeee-yewwwww....

Didn't think so.

What was this Freud guy smoking? I know he's some big famous psychobabbler and all that but he can't piss in my hair and tell me it's raining. That Westermarck guy, I believe, hits the nail on the head. It's just as naturally instinctive for humankind to avoid in-breeding as it is instinctive for a homosexual to be a homosexual. People are hard-wired to be what they are in that way. That's nature. Is nature wrong? It would be very arrogant for me to say so and furthermore, it doesn't matter. Nature was here a long time before me and will be here a long time after I'm gone. There is no winning an argument with nature. I don't care what religion one follows. Nature makes no explainations and makes no apologies. Man, in all his folly, can, and will, create new gods and religions for as long as they are able to create. Laws and morals from culture to culture will come and go. But nature remains the same. In constant change following the absolute laws of physics and nature.


Nature dictates that there will be homosexuals, straights, rainbows, lightning, sunny days and cloudy mornings. Summers, winters. No religious edict will ever change any of that. The only way nature will change is if the laws of physics change/evolve but I highly doubt that. Got nothing to do with religion or taboo mojo.

Originally Posted by Captain America

What the hell is Freud talkin' about...

Even Freud wouldn't argue with your view on homosexuality...

Originally Posted by Excerpt from Freud's letter to a mother

Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.

Freud on homosexuality: Letter to a mother — Warren Throckmorton

Of course that was in the latter part of his career. I think he was beginning to accept the limitations of his old theories.

Well, Siggy better be glad he wrote that letter to his momma. I was about to go find him and bust him up.

I used to tell the best queer jokes around. I never harbored any ill feelings towards gays, I was just going with the flow.

Then I met Jennie and Janice. I love them like my own family. Then I met some of their friends. Then I realized they are people just like anyone else. Except better, in some cases.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Oh? How convienent that they can be taken as literal for centuries but when it becomes self evident the earth is round, they are suddenly "figurative".

Hey, I'm just using the same scripture that the Church used for centureis to support its position.

The Catholic church liberalizes a poem to gain political power in the midevil era and all of a sudden that's supposed to represent all Christians, even non-Catholics, forever.

Talk about your over generalization.

This is as if some future archeologist discovers a document with someone at some point saying "well I'll be a monkey's uncle", then someone like you comes along and is like "RFOLZOMG thy thunk thy wr monkyz LOLKTHXBY".