Hitler outlawed homosexuals too.
At that time homosexuals were outlawed just about everywhere and if they weren't outlawed, they were considered insane.
Hitler and nazis also had the most advanced animal rights laws of their time.
I suspect though that the opposition to homosexuality is more deep routed than just the act itself. I would be interested in hearing from someone opposed to homosexuality what they think is so wrong?
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a good reason. People don't always need logical reasons to like or dislike something. There are many things I don't like, which I cannot explain. For example I cannot explain why I don't like the color yellow. Gaysex disgusts me and I cannot explain why it does so. It could be my upbringing, because I was raised christian, but turned agnostic when I learned to think for myself. But even so, I am not sure it's my upbringing that makes the act of two men having sex disgusting, because the act of two women having sex is very ahem.. arousing
. I don't hate gays.
Justblair@Homosexuality is a behaviour that appears to occur naturally. Studies have repeatedly shown that other animals also have homosexuals within their communities.
Animals also have many behaviours and characteristics that differ from humans (ie spiders/praying mantis eating mates). Picking and choosing one characteristic and then saying this is "natural" is disingenuous. IMHO being gay is a product of upbringing and social acceptance/encouragement; many homosexuals have strong mother figures and weak/absent father figures. If homosexuality is innate, how do you explain that so many gays have similar personality traits (heightened interest in their appearance and clothes/fashion etc, catty behaviour, many other behaviours which are stereotypically associated with women).
I agree, that justblairs justification for homosexuality is flawed. But I don't really understand why homosexuality would even need to be explained or justified? I have always believed, that everything should be accepted unless a good reason is given to do otherwise. And there really are no logical reasons not to accept homosexuality. Even the STDs that have been a problem with gays is imo a product of the society driving the gay culture underground and giving it an environment to flourish. And back in the days people didn't know about AIDS. It's very different to these days. I'm guessing the STDs won't be plagueing the gay culture for much longer.
Jaganath, even if it homosexuality is a result and product of upbringing, isn't it still natural? Imo, we humans are a product of nature and cannot be unnatural, even if we tried. Strange yes, but not unnatural.
Shining Arcanine wrote:
I reject the notion that nature intends anything. Stuff happens accidentally all the time.
The probability that any one thing will occur is 1 divided by the number of probable events, given that the number of probable events is infinite, that gives us one divided by infinity, which when considered with a limit as x (the number of probable events) tends to infinity, yields zero.
Mathmatically, this means that it is impossible that anything has occurred by chance, as the probability that any one thing that could have occurred by chance did occur is zero. Thus, we can conclude that everything happens for a reason.
What were the odds for me to reply to this? For all my infinite possible actions I answered, although the probability was close to 0... And mathematically it's not impossible, it's only very unlikely to happen. Actually if something has even the slightest possibility to happen, it will inevitably happen given enough opportunities and time.
I too reject that everything is happening as intended. When I look at nature, existance of "god" looks possible to me. TO me god would be a force, that makes the impossible happen. This is also something that ID people believe they see in nature. But I just cannot understand why people connect this possibilty to Allah/Jahve/God. The fact that nature suggest there might be a "god", doesn't make the existance of souls, holy ghost, sons of god an more probable then they already are, which is impossible by your zero probability logic. It's a disgrace to use this possibility of god's existance as a proof that the father of Jesus was god.
I just find it impossible, that there exists an invisible and sadistic omnipotent being, that creates human with feelings, lusts and desires and then denies them to act on them and punishes with eternal suffering, if men act on their god given instincts. Gives human reason, but then asks men not to use reason and just accept some things as truths, or otherwise burn in agony for all eternity. And this is how he shows love?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus (c. 341-271 BCE)
I'm not sure I agree nature is fully random. I do tend to think that way, but a full acceptance of such would be a full acceptance of evolution. I suspect a part of my desire to retain what is natural is simply because it is what was created. However, it's also what is and is important simply because it is a boundary and an ideal, insofar as purposes of nature can be ascertained, that can be preserved and pursued.
I could gather from this that we are on the same page, but your god is a guardian of morality, my "possible god" would just be a loaded dice.