Posted on 10/27/2005 1:31:05 PM PDT by Coleus
Same sex acts are indeed immoral, unnatural, and unhealthy. Nothing wrong with pointing that out; in fact, it needs to be pointed out a lot more.
And after your comment is a quote wherein he says that he was referring to behavior.
"Same sex acts are indeed immoral, unnatural, and unhealthy."
Does this include sodomy by heterosexuals? The Bible condemns all sodomy -- not just homosexual sodomy. Does this mean that many heterosexuals are "sub-human"?
Do you have a bee in your bonnet or something?
We're not discussing sex acts performed by people of the opposite sex. We're discussing the labeling of homosexual acts "subhuman".
"We're not discussing sex acts performed by people of the opposite sex. We're discussing the labeling of homosexual acts 'subhuman'."
First of all, the student said that homosexuals are "sub-human" -- not their sex acts. Secondly, the sex act that most in this thread are referring to is sodomy. I'm willing to bet that millions of heterosexuals have committed sodomy. Does this make them "sub-human"? You referred to "unhealthy" sex acts. Is heterosexual sodomy not "unhealthy"?
No. That implicaiton is not true logically.
If you read what the student said in explanation (by reading the whole thread you'd have seen that), he explained he was referring to homosexual acts.
Second, anal sodomy (which is what people usually and generally mean when they refer to sodomy) is unhealthy, immoral and unnatural whoever practices it. But, as I said, we're specifically speaking about homosexuals.
So what if husband and wives practice it. Homosexuals are often into S&M, which is sick stuff. If men and women practice it it's still sick stuff. But that's not the topic at hand.
Try reading the article.
I'm not sure "disordered" can fairly be equated to "subhuman."
"Second, anal sodomy (which is what people usually and generally mean when they refer to sodomy) is unhealthy, immoral and unnatural whoever practices it. But, as I said, we're specifically speaking about homosexuals."
My point is why single out homosexuals for being "sub-human" when heterosexuals are committing the same "immoral" and "unnatural" sex act? If, as you say, the student was referring to the sex act and not the person, then millions of heterosexuals are also "sub-human".
Yet accurate and logical...
We can't have logic or dissent at universities while they are trying to molest the minds and bodies of young people, can we?
In a biological sense, the very essence of the human creature is defined by sexual reproduction. Perversion of that makes you much less so in the scheme of natural selection and/or evolution, doesn't it?
see #91 for your answer...
"In a biological sense, the very essence of the human creature is defined by sexual reproduction. Perversion of that makes you much less so in the scheme of natural selection and/or evolution, doesn't it?"
Then I guess we can agree that millions of heterosexuals are also "sub-human". It's funny that the student singled out homosexuals when the Bible makes no distinction.
Go away -try DU maybe if you wish to debate the finer points of sex between homosexuals versus sex between animals
You too? Try DU...
"You too? Try DU..."
That's a brilliant reply!
Exactly.
This type of rhetoric ultimately helps gain public sympathy for the gay rights forces.
It was a stupid thing to say.
Could it be considered sub-human or inhuman behavior?
I'm an atheist talking about BIOLOGY and EVOLUTION, not the Bible...
Do the male animals merely mount or do they insert?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.