If watching ugly people have sex disgusts you, then in that sense yes it's the same. That argument can't be used to suggest that gay sex is natural, though. Your argument: "Ugly people having sex disgusts me and is natural; gay sex is therefore natural by virtue of the fact that it disgusts me." Which would have to mean that any type of sex that is disgusting to you is therefore natural, and that conversely any type of sex that is not disgusting to you is unnatural... obviously that doesn't fly.

I would think that knowing that someone thinks you're going to hell because of a genetic difference to them is a good enough reason to get angry when they tell you you're wrong. Especially when that opinion is directly derived from a 2000 year old book that is no more credible than any other text from that time period.

This is great...this is the "Is there a God" thread and the "Bisexuality" thread rolled into one....go Jack Thompson.

Yeah, seriously. Only someone like him could spark a ethical/religious debate on a video game sales forum.

Wait, so I point out that it's a genetic *defect* that is created, artificially by scientists, in the group of flies... and you willingly draw a parallel between that and homosexual tendencies (in humans) not created by scientists. Despite the obvious mismatch between how the defect occured, you are calling homosexuality a genetic defect? It's interesting that we're more willing to admit that than we are that it's a choice/preference.

It was not a "defect". It was an alteration. They accidentally switched over the genes that control sexual preference. Gay animals exist, they just generally do not reproduce.

"The overall trend of greater acceptance of gay men and women in the latter part of the 20th century was not limited to secular institutions; it was also seen in some religious institutions. Reform Judaism, the largest branch of Judaism outside Israel has begun to facilitate religious weddings for gay adherents in their synagogues. Jewish Theological Seminary, considered to be the flagship institution of Conservative Judaism, decided in March 2007 to begin accepting gay and lesbian applicants, after scholars who guide the movement lifted the ban on gay ordination"

"In 2005, the United Church of Christ became the largest Christian denomination in the United States to formally endorse same-sex marriage."

"The American Psychological Association (APA) states that homosexuality "is not changeable", and that attempts at eliminating same-sex attractions are not effective and are potentially harmful. More generally, the APA states, "psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed", and in 2001 United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report maintaining that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed""

"Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring."

Just some interesting things I thought I'd post.

You're avoiding what my argument is showing you yourself must believe in order to say what you said. That is, taking your argument further leads to a claim that it is a defect. "It was an alteration" yes... which created a defect. That there are gay animals really doesn't mean anything for your argument; gay animals aren't the norm. Even if they occur naturally (purely in the sense that they aren't altered by man), that does not mean their behavior is natural. That's why they die out; they're unproductive. Arguably, if they were natural they would thrive.

The first two quotes don't mean anything to me. The people in religious organizations do not create/recreate that external moral code I was talking about, so why is what they say being heeded here?

A little quote of my own to counter the others, this one being more complete:

"There is much controversy going on as to whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental in origin. Homosexuals are desperately looking for any evidence that would seem to confirm that they were "born homosexuals." It should be easy to understand why, for if "God made them that way" then it is not their fault they are homosexual and it must not be a sin to act out their desires. So any research that might suggest a genetic origin is quickly offered as a defense. But the vested interest that homosexuals have often prevent them (and more "liberal thinking" heterosexuals) from seeing the obvious.
For example, recent studies done with identical twins have been offered by some as evidence that the origins of homosexuality might be in the genes. In one study, Dr. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University examined 110 pairs of identical twins who had been separated at birth and raised in different environments. He found that if one was gay there was a 52% chance the other was also. But among fraternal twins, the chance fell to 22%. Because the ratio was higher among twins who are genetically identical, this study has been referred to by many as evidence that homosexuality is genetic in origin. I even heard Dr. Dean Edell (a famous radio call-in doctor) appeal to this study in defense of homosexuality.

I may be missing something here, but the reason why identical twins are such fascinating subjects of scientific study is because they ARE alike genetically. Therefore, if homosexuality is solely genetic in origin, then if one twin is gay, you would expect the chances of the other twin being gay to be 100%! The fact that only 52% of those who were identical in genetic makeup to their homosexual twin were gay themselves would strongly confirm that genetics alone does not make one homosexual!

This study would rather confirm that though there may be genetic factors that increase the likelihood of one becoming a homosexual, these genetic factors alone do not produce homosexuality (as in the case of 48% of those heterosexuals whose identical twin was homosexual). There must also be environmental factors for homosexuality to develop.

...In this regard, it is not much different than alcoholism, where similar studies involving identical twins have shown similar results. All it confirms is that there may be some people with a genetic likelihood of developing a "predisposition" toward such things as homosexuality and alcoholism, but it requires the addition of environmental factors to produce the actual homosexual or alcoholic."

"The Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Bible) is the primary source for Jewish views on homosexuality. It states that: "[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a toeva ("abomination")" (Leviticus 18:22). (Like many similar commandments, the stated punishment for willful violation is the death penalty, although in practice rabbinic Judaism rid itself of the death penalty for all practical purposes 2,000 years ago.)"

That would be Judaism promoting killing of homosexuals. I assume you include the old testament in your version of the bible, which means that christianity has the same stance, unless it has decided not to follow the bible on this one.

"In Christianity, despite the wide variations between different Christian denominations, which often specifically include different views of sexuality, it is possible to draw a general picture of the underlying views and Biblical doctrines.

The basis of many Christian views comes from the idea that human sexuality was created by God with the twin purposes of procreation and intimacy—bringing a sexually active couple into a close emotional and spiritual relationship through the close physical relationship. As such, it should be restricted to a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage is a commitment to a close and lasting relationship and a basis on which to build a stable family. Because of the emphasis on the procreative function of sex, relationships and specific acts that do not lead to conception are frowned upon or expressly forbidden in some denominations. According to fundamentalist Christian teachings, engaging in sodomy is a sin, as it is not procreative and is believed to be contrary to God's intentions for sex. However a small number of Christian churches and denominations believe homosexuality to be morally acceptable. Liberated Christians argue that the ancient teachings against premarital and extramarital sex were misread throughout previous centuries. According to this faith, the New Testament does prohibit unmarried sexual activities (1 Corinthians 6:15-20)."

I should add that there are similar laws against pre marital sex. Is sex outside of marriage wrong and disgusting? It carries the same punishment as homosexuality, according to the old testament.

First of all, I don't, in fact, see in that chapter itself anything stating that the punishment for that sin or any other is actually death...
Leviticus 18:29 - "For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people." That's all the chapter gives regarding the "punishment"... It sounds like secular Jewish law determined the death penalty; the Old Testament only labeled the act as sin.
Second of all, even if you could find somewhere else where the death penalty is given in the Old Testament for homosexuality (and I don't see that it is), under the old covenant (Old Testament law) punishments for sin were much harsher. But we aren't under the old covanent; we live under the new covanant. Christ's visit changed everything (hence *Christ*ianity). It's all there in the Bible. You'd do well not to quote others who quoted the Bible. Try reading it yourself; it's not going to bite you. (Muahahaha!)

The Bible views homosexuality as on par in terms of severity with any other sexual sin, because of course... a sin is a sin. There's no "worse" sin, because that would imply there is a "better" sin. You can in no way use any of this to make an argument that homosexuality is natural simply because pre-marital sex is not disgusting (just on the basis that they're both sins). You may eventually realize that any argument you could possibly make similar to this will contain that same logical flaw I showed you in a previous post, and now again in this one.

Look, throughout this debate I've taken the time to individually address nearly every point you've raised. You, however, have avoided or otherwise moved on from every solid point I've made in my argument (just a word count comparison alone evidences this), and have virtually failed utterly to show any flaw in any point of logic of my own. My argument is cohesive; yours clutches at straws and then moves on to other straws, undaunted. And since I've invested enough time and enough careful consideration of your points (in trade for what I feel is, on your part, far less care taken in the analysis of my own points) by now, I'm going to have to ask that we move on. You clearly have no interest in seriously considering any view that opposes the one you happen to have (whereas the same cannot be said of me, since by addressing each point individually I've respected each point you've raised as though it could reveal your view as the truth above mine), and I seriously doubt you've even taken the time to read any of the articles I linked to for you.

If anything, I hope you've at least come to see that a view you think/thought is/was rediculous and silly is in fact quite thoroughly defensible (seeing as I can reasonably defend it). That's gotta strike you as something...

Let's call it a day, and try to be friends hereafter too. If I find myself agreeing with you about something regarding video games in the future (God forbid!), I won't pretend otherwise. And maybe you can do the same. Really, I haven't ever wanted this to be taken as a personal matter. I'm hoping you're with me on that.