Why do the world religions reject same sex relations?

[Faiyez]

This seems to be a common rule in religious traditions and including relatively recent ones like the Baha'i faith. Same sex relations are invariably forbidden.

Is there anything to be said about this?

[Goldias]

Most religions advertise the correct way to live. Same sex marriage pretty much oppose all their teachings.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Not Big Surprise:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

There is nothing more to be said. It is obvious. Unless you have a specific question which is actually sincere and not sealioning like usual?

when you talk about whether or not it's "natural", what does this mean?

See, that's why I said NOT SEALIONING. I explained what I meant by it.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย mai72:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

It is unnatural. Biologically speaking, males and females are obviously designed to have sex together (and procreate). Two males or two females are not. It's like trying to connect two plugs, or two sockets.

Ha, not true.

In the animal kingdom there are many MANY cases of same sex couples.

#2

[Not Big Surprise]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Not Big Surprise:

when you talk about whether or not it's "natural", what does this mean?

See, that's why I said NOT SEALIONING. I explained what I meant by it.

you explained what you didn't mean by that

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Not Big Surprise:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

See, that's why I said NOT SEALIONING. I explained what I meant by it.

you explained what you didn't mean by that

Ok, that's it. You just can't stop yourself from being like this. I'm going to block you again. I need lots more patience than I have to deal with you.

[Abaddon the Despoiler]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย mai72:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

It is unnatural. Biologically speaking, males and females are obviously designed to have sex together (and procreate). Two males or two females are not. It's like trying to connect two plugs, or two sockets.

Ha, not true.

In the animal kingdom there are many MANY cases of same sex couples.

In the animal kingdom incest, peadophillia, murder, cannabalism ect is quite normal.

Aren't we supposed to be better than animals? Or are those things normal to you too?

[JELLY 200000]

too stubborn to believe homosexual intimacy is enjoyable and thus acceptable
gullible enough to believe in virgin birth

always the most confusing people on earth, the religious xD

[Not Big Surprise]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Abaddon the Despoiler:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย mai72:

Ha, not true.

In the animal kingdom there are many MANY cases of same sex couples.

In the animal kingdom incest, peadophillia, murder, cannabalism ect is quite normal.

Aren't we supposed to be better than animals? Or are those things normal to you too?

you do know that "there are gay animals in nature" isn't meant to be an argument in itself, but rather a rebuttal to the idea that being gay is somehow "unnatural", right?

[Abaddon the Despoiler]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Not Big Surprise:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Abaddon the Despoiler:

In the animal kingdom incest, peadophillia, murder, cannabalism ect is quite normal.

Aren't we supposed to be better than animals? Or are those things normal to you too?

you do know that "there are gay animals in nature" isn't meant to be an argument in itself, but rather a rebuttal to the idea that being gay is somehow "unnatural", right?

Are you agreeing with my argument and saying you are just an animal, not worthy of human status?

Are you saying the other things I mentioned are natural to you?

[AD]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย AD:

It's not unnatural. It exists in nature and is not artificially created.

Ah, there it is. The answer I knew would come at some point. But I did not expect it from YOU. Surely you can see that is not an answer to my argument. You have a brain, use it.

Nope, you just said it's unnatural and then something about gay people not being able to have children. Homosexuality exists in nature, it's clearly natural and not a problem to the survival of the species, which is the only thing nature really cares about (well, technically it doesn't really care, it's just cause and effect).

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Abaddon the Despoiler:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย mai72:

Ha, not true.

In the animal kingdom there are many MANY cases of same sex couples.

In the animal kingdom incest, peadophillia, murder, cannabalism ect is quite normal.

Aren't we supposed to be better than animals? Or are those things normal to you too?

Animals also form loving relationships as well. All the positive things we have are also things animals do. There are cases of animal altruism, like that dog that dragged a hurt dog off a freeway, saving its life. I don't think homosexuality is comparable to murder or cannibalism.

[Abaddon the Despoiler]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย AD:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Abaddon the Despoiler:

In the animal kingdom incest, peadophillia, murder, cannabalism ect is quite normal.

Aren't we supposed to be better than animals? Or are those things normal to you too?

Animals also form loving relationships as well. All the positive things we have are also things animals do. There are cases of animal altruism, like that dog that dragged a hurt dog off a freeway, saving its life.

I didn't deny that, and your post is irrelevant to mine.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย AD:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

Ah, there it is. The answer I knew would come at some point. But I did not expect it from YOU. Surely you can see that is not an answer to my argument. You have a brain, use it.

Nope, you just said it's unnatural and then something about gay people not being able to have children. Homosexuality exists in nature, it's clearly natural and not a problem to the survival of the species, which is the only thing nature really cares about (well, technically it doesn't really care, it's just cause and effect).

Sigh.

You, like others, are getting hung up on the term "natural". I EXPLAINED what I meant by it, and you completely ignored that and start talking about something unrelated. You did nothing to counter my argument.

[AD]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Abaddon the Despoiler:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย AD:

Animals also form loving relationships as well. All the positive things we have are also things animals do. There are cases of animal altruism, like that dog that dragged a hurt dog off a freeway, saving its life.

I didn't deny that, and your post is irrelevant to mine.

I added that I don't think the comparison is a good one afterwards. It's like saying red heads are immoral because dolphines like to murder.

[AD]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย AD:

Nope, you just said it's unnatural and then something about gay people not being able to have children. Homosexuality exists in nature, it's clearly natural and not a problem to the survival of the species, which is the only thing nature really cares about (well, technically it doesn't really care, it's just cause and effect).

Sigh.

You, like others, are getting hung up on the term "natural". I EXPLAINED what I meant by it, and you completely ignored that and start talking about something unrelated. You did nothing to counter my argument.

Are you referring to the part where gay couples can't have kids?

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย AD:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kapitein Gnapmans:

Sigh.

You, like others, are getting hung up on the term "natural". I EXPLAINED what I meant by it, and you completely ignored that and start talking about something unrelated. You did nothing to counter my argument.

Are you referring to the part where gay couples can't have kids?

There is no "part", I made a single, simple argument. Here it is again:

Biologically speaking, males and females are obviously designed to have sex together (and procreate). Two males or two females are not. It's like trying to connect two plugs, or two sockets.