Religion

[Solion]

I just thought what you said was interesting, Cerce, so I shall respond.

The Scientific Requirements for Life are as fallows, if you want a non-religious point of view:
1) made of 1 or more cells
2) contain DNA as genetic material
3) respond to stimuli
4) metabolize
5) reproduce- here lies the problem.
6) evolutionary change

Not that it really works against your points, but on number 2), it is theorized that many simpler forms of life that existed millions of years ago was only based on RNA. Interesting thought, and it makes sense as it follows the line of "simple-> complex" that defines evolution.

And to number 5), are you also saying that individuals that choose not to/cannot reproduce for other reasons ("asexual," sterile, etc. etc.) cannot be counted as "alive?" That whole point is rather silly.

Also, on the argument that 'A fetus does not live'...

1) made of 1 or more cells-at no point does a fetus have less than one cell.
2) contain DNA as genetic material-both the sperm and egg contain compliments for each other as far as genetic material and DNA.
3) respond to stimuli-If a sperm can move on its own swimming up the birth canal then it responds to stimuli when it enters the egg
4) metabolize -of course he/she needs food from the mother to survive at all times during development and it has to go somewhere.
5) reproduce - It firstly reproduces cells to create itself, and, after it is born, and achieves a certain age, can reproduce
6) evolutionary change-humans have evolved, therefore that which is the beginning of a human also evolves.

Now, now. Anyone that says a fetus is not alive or is not human is silly. What we can say, however, is that their brain is probably not developed to the point of consciousness. If we go by a definition of consciousness such as it being a side effect of complex physical processes within the brain and not that it is brought about by the presence of a "soul," then I think it is fair to say that most legal abortions are done before the fetus is "conscious," as they are carried out very early on in the pregnancy before the fetus has time to truly develop.

A term that is often used to describe life similar to fetuses is "parasite." Putting all the sentimental and emotional thoughts aside, until that fetus becomes conscious, it is effectively just feeding directly off of the life force of its host. I think it is fair to say that the host should have some say in the matter (and no, don't say "WELL, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE SECKS" because rape does not work this way), although personally I try to stay relatively neutral as I am not the one that has to give birth to it in the end.

Now, no, I don't 'hate gay people' or am homophobic. I love gay people - no homo (no pun intended). It is the act of being gay that defiles the original purpose of sex, and that is 1. to show affection to your spouse, and 2. the act of reproduction.

If you would like a more biblical reason, God formed us in our mother's womb, and knew us before we even knew ourselves. Therefore, every single fetus, reguardless of stage or activity, has a potential future in God's plan.

Homosexuality is an outright defilement of what God intended to be pure, loving, and special. Today's society has turned what was once an act of pure love, an act between one man and one woman that were deaply in love, into a thing to have fun with. It's now a game, a source of pleasure, something to flaunt. It is no longer special or loving in today's world. I have fought, will fight, and continue fighting to back God in all things.

Oh, my. Okay. Let's see. Well, the only purpose of sex is to reproduce. Any other purpose is just something we make up or add on. What I have to say is, if "Homosexuality is an outright defilement of what God intended," then why do dozens of species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior? Assuming animals are not conscious, then they were "made" that way by God, right? Or does that imply that animals really are capable of conscious thought and action?

So, really. Saying that sex is supposed to be an act of pure love is false. Not that homosexuality has anything to do with sex not being an act of pure love. If you try to tell me that homosexuals only have sex because it's "fun," I would be deeply disappointed. I have seen just as many homosexual couples that are truly, truly in love as I do heterosexual couples.

On the topic of how sex became something for enjoyment, that lines up directly with our increase (if it's possible to say increase) in consciousness. It's really easy to see with everything else in our society that we do a lot of things not because we NEED to but because we WANT to. Saying that homosexuality is "unnatural" and "wrong" because homosexuals cannot reproduce is really becoming outdated.

Bwuhlkjaljfsd how late is it I don't even remember what I typed all the way up there oh well