You have in your mind refuted what I have posted, yet I find several errors… but mainly, it seems to be one non sequitir after another (both in responding to my posts and in the conclusions you jump to from your own statements).
“We are social beings who desire the relationship of another body.”
This is true. However, it seems love and marriage require a little more than two people ‘who desire the relationship of another body’. Are you married? If so, is your marriage simply the only way to satisfy a physical desire because, as Paul said, ‘it is better to marry than to burn’? Or is there more to it than the physical?
In any case, that desire is fulfilled through bodies of the opposite sex for some, and bodies of the same sex for others. Sexual preference is a subjective judgment of taste, much the same as a further delineation of sexual attractiveness tastes- I am attracted to tall, tanned blond girls with nice legs and a toned belly. My best friend likes brunettes who are a little shorter and slender rather than athletic. Someone else may like readheads, etc. etc.. None of these can be considered right or wrong because they deal with a judgement of taste not an assertion of a universal fact. Judgements of taste are purely subjective, i.e. would someone be wrong in stating they don’t like fish?, or they do like fish? No. But they would be wrong if they made that claim for anyone else without first qualifying it by asking them; they would also be wrong if they made a universal statement that it is wrong for anyone to like fish. The same truth holds for homosexuals. Their tastes are theirs, and theirs alone. No one else has any right whatsoever to make that judgement for them, or tell them the judgment they do make is wrong; it would be tantamount to someone telling you that you are wrong to like the paintings of Dali, or rap music, or books by C.S. Lewis, or, that it is wrong for anyone to like them at all.
“Whether or not a man or woman can procreate together does not change the fact that a man’s physiology and a woman’s physiology are such that the two make a whole. A male’s hormones and a female’s hormones are contrasting and therefore need the other to complete a “chemical” constitution that makes a whole. Or take the physical genitalia. A man is perfectly suited to be joined with a woman who is perfectly suited to allow a man to be joined with her. A man creates a seed that is necessary for procreation of human life. Whether or not science can create life without the copulation of two human beings does not change the fact that the seed from a MAN will ALWAYS be required to fertilize the egg from a WOMAN.
O.k. this really has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, except for maybe the first sentence, but even that is stretching it. I think what you are getting at here is that pieces from a man and a woman are necessary to create life, even though their copulation is no longer necessary. Fair enough, but how exactly does that imply, or have anything to do with, whether or not homosexuality is wrong? You seem to equate unnatural with wrong; however, in light of the fact that nearly everything humans do these days has a synthetic influence, or is entirely based on our unnatural creations (like communication through electronic mediums), your equation doesn’t compute. Do you also think that it is wrong to save someone’s life through advanced medicine or technology, say with the use of a defibrillator, because it is unnatural?
“Just because science can fertilize an egg does not mean that unnatural relations between two of the same sex is right.”
And, just because a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, cannot procreate through intercourse does not mean that relations between them is wrong; or, just because ‘a man is perfectly suited to be joined with a woman who is perfectly suited to allow a man to be joined with her’ doesn’t imply that homosexual relations are wrong.
“Evolution can be disproved right from the start in that we have not changed in over 7000 years of human history.”
Not to switch to a discussion regarding evolution, but written down human history doesn’t even come close to covering the scope of human existence, nor the scope of life on earth. So, your statement would be true if one only looked at the past 7k years. Thus, you can’t ‘disprove right from the start’ if you don’t start from the beginning (verily, since homo habilis walked the earth for 600k years, between 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, your 7k sample doesn’t really cut it).
‘But getting back to your statement, survival of the fittest in the light of mental reasoning I find has absolutely nothing to do with scientific discovery of artifical insemination.’
Actually, since the thrust of Linda’s statement was that homosexuality was wrong from an evolutionary standpoint (she seems to confuse unnatural with wrong as well), survival of the fittest is relevant to the discussion because male and female copulation is no longer necessary for procreation and the survival of homo sapiens. It is just another example of the evolution of human thought advancing our ability to survive into the future without any more physical evolution.
‘Sciencetific discovery has allowed humans to live longer and live fuller lives. The need of male and female in artifical insemination is STILL necessary even though it is unnatural. Female egg, male sperm. Does this change the fact that a man CANNOT and will never be able to carry life? Can two men go the their local hospital and be artifically inseminated?’
Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is wrong. What exactly in this statement creates a logical extension to homosexual behavior being wrong? You are still confusing unnatural with wrong.
‘Think about is, Ryan, your argument is preposterous.’
This is pretty hilarious considering none of your arguments relate to the issue. But please, explain the fallacy in my argument? Why is it preposterous? You simply make this statement without qualifying it before jumping back into your discussion of needing pieces of a man and woman to create life; which, while quite nice, is irrelevant.
‘A child needs the influence of two different sexes to become a well rounded individual.’
Are you switching from a biological standpoint to a social one? If so, please qualify your statement. What data brought you to this conclusion? In any case, your rationale here would suggest that you think that a child who lost a parent at a young age would only become a ‘well rounded individual’ if the living parent remarried? Anyone who, unfortunately, had to grow up without one of their parents may object to your generalization. Furthermore, this doesn’t address homosexuality or homsexual marriages, but rather homosexual’s raising children (just a little bit ahead of where we are at now, but an interesting future topic nonetheless).
‘A man DOES NOT have the hormones that make a woman more nuturing than a man.’
Well, now we are talking about nature vs. nurture. Men have different levels of hormones than women. So what? That doesn’t mean that a man can’t be nurturing, nor does it imply that a man can’t learn to be nurturing.
‘And on the other hand, a woman could never give a child the same qualities that a man can and SHOULD.’
This seems to be quite a narrow-minded (and a little old and antiquated) viewpoint. Why do you think this is true?
‘A man thinks differently than a woman and looks at certain situations in an entirely different light than a woman. He is the head of the human race.’
Men are the head of the human race? Geez, Narnia, you’re setting the women’s movement back decades. But yes, men and women do think differently about certain things; however, that seems to be the product of nurture rather than nature.
‘Therefore, scientific discovery has NOT excluded the male/female “goods” in bringing forth life.’
An interesting conlusion, that does seem to follow from your previous statments (or at least this conclusion is logically valid when considering some of your premises); alas, I’m not sure how it relates to the points I was making, or how relevant it is to the question of homosexuality being wrong or not.
‘As far as my intellect can take me here, the only animal I can recall that is hermaphroditic is a species of amphibian that can change sex at will in the ABSENCE of the opposite sex. Research this topic and you may discover there is a reason why this species can change in the absence of a mate. I believe it is a survival traits to prevent extinction. Pretty smart on God’s part, Huh?! And as for M.S. Go to the debates and read what I posted in “Does God bring sickness?” God DOES NOT make people with disease, it is a result of sin and living in an imperfect world. Humans cause their own demise.’
These questions were rhetorical, but since you have responded to them: survival traits to prevent extinction, hmm, now why does that sound really familiar… So an unborn baby has done something sinful to produce M.S., or something to cause its own demise? Please explain.
‘Whether or not you agree is your business, but whatever you bring in here, I WILL refute you.’
That’s a pretty bold statement! Are you omniscient? Do you know everything I’ll bring here before I bring it? If not, that may imply a little arrogance! Well, I’m looking forward to seeing you do it (or try anyway)!
I’ve never heard CS Lewis (I read ‘The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe’ when I was a kid) mentioned as being a great apologist; most theologians I know favor guys like Moreland (who I’m going to see a lecture by on Monday night) or Plantinga.
Since you have made some reading suggestions, of posts and authors, I would like to recommend some for you:
Critique of Judgment – Immanuel Kant
(A great start to examining judgments; of taste included)
Also, I don’t recall seeing any of your thoughts in the ‘I’m an Atheist’ thread I started. Since you will ‘refute anything I bring here’, please refer to my posts on perfection, temporality, the supernatural, ontology, cosmology, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. etc., and ‘refute me’.. .. that would be my not so subtle way of challenging you, because ‘I LOVE TO DEBATE!!!’ too!
Looking forward to your response!