Quote Originally Posted by Sorovis
So of course any ruptures and fissures in the rectum that can result in dangerous infection and further damage to the body are only minor damage, right? Fact of the matter is, as I have repeated many times, anything can sustain damage no matter how resistant it may be. The rectum is not designed to withstand any sexual activities; therefore it will be damaged when doing so.
I'm not saying it won't be damaged. But the vagina will also be damaged by vaginal intercourse; so just because the epithelial layers are thicker it doesn't make it any more "natural". It's more natural in terms of reproduction, but that's it.

I am arguing right now about homosexual marriage and why homosexuality in general is wrong. Anal sex may not be the focus of homosexuality, but it certainly is involved. Also, lesbians may not do sodomy exactly, but similar activities (ie., foreign objects instead of sexual organs). I have also said that anal sex in general is wrong, and I do not know why you insist on referring to the point heterosexual couples do it as well. I forget how we got on the topic of homosexual sexual activities, but if you wish to return to the basic debate over homosexuality, I will gladly return as well.
I keep saying that anal sex is done by heterosexual couples as well because it seems to be a major point that you keep trying to "prove" homosexuality is "wrong" with. Whether or not anal sex is "wrong" has nothing to do with who the practitioners are, because there is no single select group that does it. Whether or not you think it's wrong, it is not something you can use to justify why you think homosexuality is wrong, because it is not solely limited to homosexuality.

And again I say you do not know everything about yourself and it is pointless to act as if you do. I did not say how you became bisexual, I offered reasons to how it may have come along since there is no evidence it is genetic.
Except that, given the way other genetic "conditions" behave and are exhibited, it would seem to be more likely genetic than not, particularly in that it occurs in nature, which would argue it to be genetic, and most people who are gay or bisexual, etc., are certain they didn't choose, as much as any straight person is certain they, too, didn't choose to be straight and yet still are. And you sort of did try to tell me that I must've chosen, and that I just couldn't remember it.

You proposing that homosexuality is genetic and unavoidable is one proposing since it is unavoidable, then it cannot be a sin in any fair definition. By disproving that, I have shown that it is at some point a choice and is changeable and or avoidable. I would also like to note my reason for homosexuality being a sin is due to the negative effects on the homosexual themself and those around them. At no point did I ever say anything not genetic was automatically wrong.
No, you haven't shown it's not genetic; you haven't disproven that it is, either. And no, even if it were a choice, which I don't think the evidence supports, it still wouldn't be a sin, because there is no reason to call it such. There are negative effects when people speak one language and not the other, and others can't understand them. Straight relationships, too, have negative effects; is it a sin for a married couple, with kids, to remain together if the environment is predominantly hostile due to marital strife? I don't think so; it's not ideal for the child or the people, because they're all in a situation they don't like, but it's not a "sin." Nor is homosexuality, which actually doesn't have negative effects on those involved that outweigh the positives. How is two people in love and being able to be together bad? It isn't. The only people around that might not do well are those that refuse to accept them, which is not the fault of the gay person or people, but the fault of he or she who rejects them.

Fair enough, now I would like you to show me to a site that explains the difference in brain size with homosexuals.
I didn't say there was one; I was using the study of the cadavers used as samples of populations that showed what appeared to be a difference. The study suggested there was difference in the brains in terms of the developments of certain areas, which many of the gay male bodies showed to be similar to those of the females rather than the straight males, which was then called into question because the study wasn't totally conclusive on the sexuality of the straight males, which then led me to make the statements about the probability of the entire group actually being gay - which was incredibly small and almost impossible.

Ah, but you say statistics show that homosexuals are on average more unhappy with their lives than heterosexuals, and that homosexual relationships hardly if ever last through life. Indeed, the average homosexual male will have multiple times the sexual partners in their lives than the average heterosexual. I hardly find the happiness in that.
Would you be joyous about your life all the time if you had people such as yourself now telling you that you were sinning, and that for loving someone of the same gender you were committing what you think should be a crime? I don't think so. It's because of societal attitudes, not because of mental depression, that you'd find a lot of homosexual people are unhappy for. And, as I said before, love in terms of being in love with someone doesn't last; however, the expectations of those who get married to stay together are often what keeps them together (not from without the relationship, solely, but from within as well, with each partner thinking, 'well, I got married - am I just going to give up because I don't feel quite the way I used to?') - as well as the fact that people are creatures of habit, and once something is established that they're used to and isn't something they hate, then they tend just to fall into a rut and not try to break out of it.

Neither sin nor morals are subjective. In this belief, nothing could be considered a sin, and therefore nothing is wrong. The truth is, however, sins apply the same to every living person on this planet as well as morals. Murder is universally wrong; no matter what the circumstances, it should not be performed. Indeed, divorce could be called a sin. However, which is the greater sin, leaving your partners or committing adultry or possibly murder? To God there is black and white, while to us their can be grey, because certain sins affect us at certain times in certain ways. No matter how indirect or immediatly effective the negative consequences are of a sin, it is just that, a sin.
Which isn't true; morals and the concept of "sin" are not universal, and are very subjective. Even within single societies they aren't constant - murder, for instance, is not a sin in all cultures, if there is reason behind it (in Ancient Greece, a person who was caught sleeping with another man's wife could be killed on the spot) - and in our own murder is acceptable in situations of conflict, such as war. I personally don't see war as justifiable, but I'm not the whole of society. Now, divorce isn't a choice between separation and staying together while cheating with someone else - many marriages continue despite cheating, although the two people in the marriage love each other; and many divorces aren't based around the concept of finding new partners, either. I don't see committing adultery as a sin, either (for one, I don't think the concept of "sin" is anymore than a human invention anyway, and for another, whose right is it to judge another person for acting a certain way? Sure, I might not wish to cheat on any partner I may have in my life, but I won't think less of someone just because they did. It's not my business, and affects me in no way. If it was, say, my father cheating on my mother, or vice-versa, I might feel pissed off, angry, upset, etc., but even then I wouldn't hold it against the parent who did it, because people do things that perhaps they shouldn't, but they're not to be judged by their actions. It's hard to explain, and I hope I've said something that makes sense).

Yet you yourself make the claim that homosexuality isn't wrong and isn't genetic, yes? Yet you have given no evidence to support this except for the statistics of homosexuality in animals, which I have already explained.
No, I never said it isn't genetic. I said it isn't wrong, and I think it genetic. I think so given the fact that it occurs naturally in animals, and that heterosexuality isn't a choice, apparently, and that, despite the efforts of many cultures to frown it into non-existence, it still exists. Obviously you don't wish to see it the same way, but that's your choice and I can't help it if you wish to remain ignorant of the truth of the matter (not implying that you're overall ignorant).

The damage in anal sex however happens more severely and frequently. It is a more dangerous thing, infecting something thats job is to remove wastes from the body; especially if these wastes carry bacteria that make their way into the infection, no matter how minor. I argue against unnatural sex because that is the only way homosexuals can have intercourse. These ways are dangerous to the body and should not be practiced; nor should homosexuality which encourages them.
Which is actually flawed, as well - sure, it isn't the safest form of sex, and that I've never said any differently. However, just because it is involved in some homosexual relationships doesn't make it unnatural; and just because there are risks doesn't mean it shouldn't be practiced. If someone wants to drink, they should be able to - they're damaging their bodies, not mine, and if they want to enjoy themselves they should be able to. Same with body piercing; that often leads to infections, but I have no problem with it. It's not my body, it's theirs. The same applies to me - if I want to do something with my body, I should be able to - it's mine, not under anyone else's control but my own.

And no, homosexuality doesn't encourage anal sex any more than heterosexuality does; it's fallacious to claim so, and just shows the typical societal assumptions that anal sex is "gay sex", and that homosexuality is nothing but anal sex, too. I know you've said you don't think so, but I'm talking about society in general.

I refer again to the fact that one cannot know everything about oneself. That is what psychiatrists are for; they generally have knowledge of a person the person themself does not have. I am not claiming to be a psychiatrist; I gave examples of how you became bisexual. Last I saw, you have given no other evdidence or reason as to how you became bisexual except that it must be genetic, which I have been disproving all along.
No, a psychiatrist cannot tell a person something that the person doesn't already know; a psychiatrist can help to explain why they think something, or why they hate their mothers, but they cannot say, "you hate your mother even though you don't have any knowledge of it," and still be taken seriously. Psychiatrists help people understand themselves, but can't tell them what they know of themselves - a psychiatrist is not a psychic, and cannot feel what another person feels, or think what another person thinks, or know what another person knows about themselves. They can only listen and go from what they're given to start off with.

Now, you telling me how I "became" bisexual has no weight - you don't know, and you can only guess. If you claim that I don't know, how can you claim to have any power to make any guesses at all? You can't. You haven't proven anything to me, or to anyone else still arguing against you, which is most people present; I know I didn't choose to be bisexual. If I didn't choose, and their is evidence that homosexuality occurs in nature, then what can I surmise for myself? That I am naturally bisexual. I note that you think heterosexuality natural, but what if it isn't, and you just can't remember choosing? If you've proven homosexuality to be a choice, then I've done so for heterosexuality, too. Relying on "but male and female are complimentary" doesn't help you, as physical gender doesn't have any bearing on mental gender OR on the person you naturally are. It doesn't make you mentally stronger, it doesn't make you befriend certain people and not others, it doesn't make you smarter - so why should it affect the people you love? It doesn't. I don't believe in a "soul", of course, but I don't also believe that the body dictates the mind; the two are quite separate. The body is a result of genes, and so is the mind - you, obviously, will also disagree with me on that, but perhaps that's why you can't understand what I'm saying.

I have not based my entire argument around what one person said; I have based it around what one God said, the only God, and the only one to know absolute truth. You have told me this entire debate that I have no evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, which I clearly do. I am not making claims beyond my reach at all; homosexuality cannot be logically or technically genetic based on the requirements; and it cannot be unnavoidable by any trustworthy definition.
One "god" whom you assume to exist but cannot prove. One "truth" that you adhere to despite the fact that while it says that "god" loves unconditionally, there are conditions. You have not proven homosexuality to be unnatural, or not-genetic (it naturally occurs in animals, therefore debunking that statement - and we are nought but animals ourselves); and you are making claims beyond your ability. You tell me that homosexuality cannot logically be genetic - and yet you have not demonstrated any logistic argument that supports it (claiming that it's an evolutionary block is stupid, because I've already given examples of other genetic conditions that are not inherited and therefore not bred out of the population, and I've also explained how, if caused by a number of genes, it could still exist in all human populations, which it does). Technically it's the same - you haven't given me any arguments to support the claim; and while you say it's not unnavoidable, I say that if you're gay or straight it's genetic. If you're bisexual, it's genetic. If you are someone who used to be one and is now the other, it's genetic. Biologically, it makes sense - evolution is the process in which behavioural biology and physical as well as mental make-up is caused to change - if bisexuality somehow afforded a species stronger prospects of passing on their genes (for instance, it may have been, in our ancestors, that closely-knit bands of males and females could depend on each other for support, and sexual contact may have been a way of reinforcing bonds, as it is in many species today [dolphins, primates, etc., etc.], and this increased their chances of survival), then more bisexuality would be apparent in the members of the population. Heterosexuality would be part of this bisexuality, as would homosexuality, but they would be at the extreme ends of the scale; heterosexuality would be more common than homosexuality, true, because it is far more likely to produce offspring and pass on the genes causing the orientation - and this is perhaps what we see today. However, bisexuality itself would also result in offspring; the more female partners a male could have, the more offspring - but also, the more male partners, the stronger and more far-reaching the alliances and therefore the amount of power a male could get, and the amount of reproduction he could be involved in, would increase. You might, again, choose to ignore this, but on a scientific basis this is far more sound than claiming that something that cannot be proven to exist by any means, and actually has no evidence to suggest its any more than a concept, does exist.

While a homosexual relationship among two may not harm me directly or (apparently) indirectly, it harms other people. I am not defending myself, I am defending all people; all sin harms someone in some way, whether me or another person, and it should not be enforced because of this. Telling me I have no argument because it does not affect me is pointless; I am fighting in defense of all people, myself included.
How are "all people" being harmed by the fact that less than 10% of the population are not having children? I'd say that "all people" were actually suffering more at the hands of your flagrant bigotry, to be honest - you're the on keen on discrimination and persecution and prejudice, and those are what most, if not all, people on the planet and in this world would say was harming everyone. Don't try to take the righteous defender-of-the-people stand here, because you can't. You don't want to defend anything but your own prejudice, and because you're being called out on that, you're trying to disguise it by claiming you're doing something to prevent harm from coming to other people - harm which you still haven't shown to exist anywhere but in your own perception.

First of all, according to natural selection, an animal cannot survive with genetics that prevent them from reproducing. If each animal was born and always homosexual, it would die off leaving no remains for similar offspring, and homosexuality would continue to appear and disappear in animal kind. However, it does not.
First of all, you don't understand natural selection. An animal individual can survive just fine without reproducing. An animals species does need to reproduce, of course, but nobody's saying that there are those animals out there that are wholly, or even predominantly, homosexual. There are individuals within each species, and they need not be heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual in order for the species to survive. Nobody's saying that because homosexuality is observed in a species, it is a species of only homosexual individuals. Perhaps your interpretation has misled you on this one, no? I think it must have. Homosexuality, also, does appear and disappear in animal kind if it aids the species. Some animals, remember, are bisexual; this guarantees social alliances, and when they come to breed, they can depend on these alliances and so pass on their bisexual genes more successfully. There are all kinds of reproductive strategies in the animal kingdom, none of which are chosen and all of which are instinctual and genetically based.

Things do not always have to be taught in order for them to be known. Already a possible explanation for homosexuality in animals have been given; homosexuality is an outlet of sexual energy towards one of the same gender when they cannot procreate; ie. the one stud for every mare. The males who cannot reproduce release sexual energy upon eachother. Simple enough, and logical enough.
Except that it's not true, because adolescent males and females in the Bonobo species are actively bisexual despite not being sexually mature. They're not yet sexually mature, and yet they're sexually active - I wouldn't theorise that to be sexual frustration, given that it's population-wide (meaning that if they were really that frustrated, they'd look at each member of the opposite sex and think, "well, I don't actually need to be sexually frustrated at all"). Other species have rape to deal with sexual frustration - i.e., the males not sexually satisfied don't turn to each other, but they rape females. However, you should also not assume that I'm trying to say that rape is okay, because that IS against the will of one of the participants (and there is no "raposexual" orientation like there is hetero-, homo- and bisexual). Sexual frustration leads to violence and sexual crimes, not to homosexuality, or at least in most cases.

Have you any evidence homosexuality is the same as progeria at all? No, and that is why I have continued to ignore that argument. Another point is that just because progeria is not inherited from parent to child, it may be the result of some genetic mutation. So could homosexuality, you say? Then it could not be changed at all; yet it is. Homosexuality is not permanent, not irreversable, and not avoidable. Your apparent ignorance towards this argument seems to blatantly show your refusal to consider it and thus show you exhibit the close-mindedness you constantly accuse me of having.
Have you evidence that homosexuality is not like Progeria? No. You haven't done a full genome sweep to see whether common genes are in homosexual and bisexual people, but not in strictly heterosexual people. Should I ignore all you say? That, apparently, is your solution. You assume that because you can cite a few cases of homosexual people becoming heterosexual that it is "reversable" - but I can do the same for heterosexual people who become homosexual. That automatically counts out heterosexuality, then, from being genetic - meaning that, by your logic, it must be a choice. I'm fully aware that there are cases of gay-to-straight, but there are straight-to-gay cases, too - so what do you make of that? I'll tell you what I make of it; that sexuality is genetic, and that, up till the point in life when this person "reversed" whatever sexuality they were (straight or gay), they hadn't met anyone of the gender they thought they didn't like that they found sexually attractive. Genetic tendencies are also not always exhibited until a certain age is reached (premature baldness, for instance, comes with age, as do some instances of Type 1 diabetes, which is not related to diet). Trying to argue a case by giving only half the story doesn't get you anywhere.

And homosexuality is able to be changed while racial features are not.
And heterosexuality is able to be changed - will you agree that it, then, must also be a choice and not genetic?

Nice, refer to almost any of my above points. I have already clarified what I meant at this point; heterosexuality is genetic because it results in reproduction and is done through sexual organs. Homosexuality is not; it would be an unneffective genetic trait; which, like I raised above in animals, would have disappeared long ago.
But you assume that physical gender dictates mental gender, which it doesn't. Sexual reproduction is the only way for us to pass on our genes, and depends on male and female - but heterosexuality isn't about sex anymore than homosexuality is. The relationships involved in both are what most people want, not sexual reproduction - and love and affection doesn't automatically lead to children, either. If you wished to argue for heterosexuality being natural on the basis of gender, you'd need to argue from the standpoint that all we really need to do is have sex with as many people of the opposite gender as possible. However, the relationship is what people desire, and that does not rely on gender - so using gender of the body to argue your point doesn't accomplish anything for you. Besides, no, if homosexuality were genetic, then it would survive in forms such as bisexuality for the most part (which it does in Bonobos), and in us we could say the same. Strict homosexuality would be rarer, because it would not be so easily passed on, but it would still exist due to the "scale" on which it is measured and how far towards one end each individual may be. You would get middle of the road bisexuality, you'd get heterosexuality due to the fact that genes would be passed on, and you'd get a small amount of pure homosexuality, which we have in our species.

I completely understand. Just stay on as long as you want to I suppose.
I was actually thinking last night that I've only got four weeks left to do study for, so unless I was to update this thread once a week, I probably shouldn't let myself become more involved. Aside from this, it does take a lot of effort, and I don't just forget about it when I log off, and I'd rather be able to concentrate fully on study, etc., that spend my time debating this and saying the same things again and again. So, I think this will be my last post; my arguments are still the same, and though you've not changed my opinion or my knowledge, I'm certain you could say I've not changed what you think either. However, it has been interesting debating, if not at many times frustrating. I certainly don't agree that homosexuals should not have the same rights, because that is wilfull discrimination, and you would likely not accept it if it happened to Christians, but I've already made that clear, as I have my position on the rest of your views.