Homosexuality

[bub]

Do some people here think that it is "not natural"??!!

 

[Intransigent Atheist]

I'm sure that some on this forum will think that homosexuality is "not natural". Even if we could all agree that homosexuality is not natural why should that make any difference.

 

[Goshin]

We've been thru this several times already, ad nauseum. Is there really a good reason to dredge all this up again?

 

[bub]

I'm sure that some on this forum will think that homosexuality is "not natural". Even if we could all agree that homosexuality is not natural why should that make any difference.

We've been thru this several times already, ad nauseum. Is there really a good reason to dredge all this up again?

I don't come often in this part of the forum, but I'd like to see a definition of what is "natural" by people who think that homosexuality is not "natural"

 

[Goshin]

I don't come often in this part of the forum, but I'd like to see a definition of what is "natural" by people who think that homosexuality is not "natural"

*Sigh*. Okay then.

You will please note that male and female reproductive equipment are clearly intended to work together in a manner that facilitates reproduction. Reproduction is the sine-qua-non of species survival: "without this, nothing."

It's a shame I don't have a video of my ex-wife doing her gestures to explain this, it's pretty funny. To translate to text, I'll just say key fits into lock...two locks don't fit together, neither do two keys.

Homosexual behaviors do not, in and of themeselves, result in reproduction, since two people of the same sex cannot reproduce without the intervention of a third party of the opposite sex...an inconvenient and risky way to run something essential to species survival.

It is therefore obviously "not natural".

Now, we do a lot of things that are not natural. Driving cars and flying planes, to name two. "Not natural" and "wrong" are not the same thing.

However, I do think that the fact that is isn't natural and is arguably contra-family/species survival could be used to support an argument that exclusively homosexual behavior is an aberration, possibly a disorder. The fact that it tends to inhibit reproductive behavior would be evidence against the idea that it is genetic, also.

I do believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, for religious reasons that I've explained in great detail elsewhere and don't care to go over again. That doesn't necessarily mean that in a country like the USA, which is governmentally secular and is supposed to be based on personal liberty, that I would wish it outlawed...my personal religious beliefs and what should be law are not necessarily the same in many cases.


Are we cool then, or do we have to address the supposed homosexual behaviors of some animals and all that stuff?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Do some people here think that it is "not natural"??!!

I think its gay....

 

[Goshin]

I think its gay....

:lamo:funny:lamo




~ten characters~

 

[bub]

*Sigh*. Okay then.

You will please note that male and female reproductive equipment are clearly intended to work together in a manner that facilitates reproduction. Reproduction is the sine-qua-non of species survival: "without this, nothing."

It's a shame I don't have a video of my ex-wife doing her gestures to explain this, it's pretty funny. To translate to text, I'll just say key fits into lock...two locks don't fit together, neither do two keys.

Homosexual behaviors do not, in and of themeselves, result in reproduction, since two people of the same sex cannot reproduce without the intervention of a third party of the opposite sex...an inconvenient and risky way to run something essential to species survival.

It is therefore obviously "not natural".

Now, we do a lot of things that are not natural. Driving cars and flying planes, to name two. "Not natural" and "wrong" are not the same thing.

However, I do think that the fact that is isn't natural and is arguably contra-family/species survival could be used to support an argument that exclusively homosexual behavior is an aberration, possibly a disorder. The fact that it tends to inhibit reproductive behavior would be evidence against the idea that it is genetic, also.

I do believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, for religious reasons that I've explained in great detail elsewhere and don't care to go over again. That doesn't necessarily mean that in a country like the USA, which is governmentally secular and is supposed to be based on personal liberty, that I would wish it outlawed...my personal religious beliefs and what should be law are not necessarily the same in many cases.


Are we cool then, or do we have to address the supposed homosexual behaviors of some animals and all that stuff?

thanks a lot for your answer!

I'll reply tomorrow, it's a bit late today:2razz:

 

[Oftencold]

Cancer, tapeworms, athlete's foot, rickets, and flatus are natural too. So, what's your point?

 

[mikhail]

Everything humans do is natural as we are part of nature.The question is one of morality and also political beliefs.If it is "natural is meaningless to the discussion.

 

[hazlnut]

Cancer, tapeworms, athlete's foot, rickets, and flatus are natural too. So, what's your point?

Jeez!

Not too homophobic are we??
:alert

 

[Oftencold]

I rarely use that term, it's pretty absurd to confuse disapproval, with fear (phobia.)

I do not fear homosexuals as such. I would prefer to develop an attitude of indifference through benign neglect. But a segment of that troubled segment of society keeps bringing the subject forward.

What I'm illustrating here though, is the invalidity of approving anything simply because it's natural.

 

[hazlnut]

I rarely use that term, it's pretty absurd to confuse disapproval, with fear (phobia.)

I do not fear homosexuals as such. I would prefer to develop an attitude of indifference through benign neglect. But a segment of that troubled segment of society keeps bringing the subject forward.

All bigotry is fear-based. That's why homophobia means what it means. Look it up before you try to play semantics with me.

And consider what is motivating you to take your position against homosexuals and gay rights. For most people, it is fear on some level.

What I'm illustrating here though, is the invalidity of approving anything simply because it's natural.

Bull****.

Sorry, no way man. You made a very homophobic direct comparison between homosexuality and

Cancer, tapeworms, athlete's foot, rickets, and flatus are natural too.

Sounds like mean-spirited hate and bigotry to me. Which makes you a homophobe. (again, look it up before you try to get cute with some semantics BS)

If you had intelligently compared homosexuality to being left-handed or having light-blue eyes--then I wouldn't have called you out. But you went to very disturbing place with your comparison.

It is what it is, pal. Better deal with it because the world is changing.

 

[rivrrat]

Of course it's natural. We're natural. We exist in nature. Whatever we do is natural.

 

[Oftencold]

All bigotry is fear-based. That's why homophobia means what it means. Look it up before you try to play semantics with me.

Play? I?

It is not recess time, I am attempting to educate you. You must approach these things in a calmer state of mind, lest you come to fear me and thereby become a bigot.

And consider what is motivating you to take your position against homosexuals and gay rights. For most people, it is fear on some level.

First of all, I graciously support equal rights for Homosexuals, including the right to marry people of the opposite sex, blend quietly into society and generally not make a fuss, like everyone else.

That said, I can easily dismiss the concept of special rights for anyone based on their private practices.

With me so far?

Now, if you'll look very closely, you’ll soon discover that I’m not “most people.” Though I will concede that it would be a happier world if more of the common herd would heed my guidance.

Please limit your irrational and unfounded tirade to the subeject (me) at hand.

Bull****.

Which is a very good naturl feritilizer. I appreciate your contribution to my list of natural things.

Sorry, no way man. You made a very homophobic direct comparison between homosexuality and . . .

Would you have preferred a comparison to crab grass, putrefaction, goiters and tooth decay, which are also natural? My point was that justification for acts based upon their natural occurrence is invalid in a civilized society.

Sounds like mean-spirited hate and bigotry to me. Which makes you a homophobe. (again, look it up before you try to get cute with some semantics BS)

Now this is a spectacular example of inane thinking, so common in some quarters, and before I analyze it I want to thank you for providing such a wonderful specimen for the edification of your peers.

By stating that someone’s statements “sound like” something to you (an opinion,) and therefore the person in question must be assigned to a category by you (a judgment,) you express your belief that your opinions are to be taken as fact.

This is a typical delusion of Leftists.

Note that I certainly think that your post strikes me as resembling the expostulation of an emotionally distraught and petulant child, but I do not therefore state that this makes you a mental defective.

No, I must be open to other possibilities. You might be overwrought. You might be startled by your inability to refute my points intelligently. You might be drunk. All of these possibilities need to be allowed for.

The developed mind resists firm conclusions based upon scant evidence.

You see?

The parenthetical material can be assumed to be further emotionalism, and therefore safely ignored.

If you had intelligently compared homosexuality to being left-handed or having light-blue eyes--then I wouldn't have called you out. But you went to very disturbing place with your comparison.

Consider that most people consider buggery to be a disturbing concept, and you’ll begin to see that my comparison was fairly in keeping with the subject.

That being said, once again, my original point was that assertions of acceptability through natural occurrence, are an invalid argument.

It is what it is, pal. Better deal with it because the world is changing.

The world indeed is changing.

Aggressive people are, and will change it, while self-absorbed popel rant. This is in fact, only natural.


Now you have a lot to think about after you calm down a bit.

So I think we’ll conclude the lesson here.

Carry on.

 

[G.I. Joe]

Of course it's not natural. How in the hell could anybody think it's natural? We're talking about grown men sodomizing each other for christ's sake.

 

[hazlnut]

That being said, once again, my original point was that assertions of acceptability through natural occurrence, are an invalid argument.

You do this often -- attempting to be cute or clever or sound smart, you make these totally insensitive and ignorant remarks, then spend the next 10 pages of the thread trying to defend them--completely oblivious to how out-of-line the remark was.

Just admit is was stupid thing to say and take it back.

BTW--I don't mean to pry or pick on you--but do you know what Asperger's Syndrome is?

Anyway, nice try on the back peddle, but all parsing and semantics and desperately thumbing through a thesaurus is not going to save your ass. And save the pretentious vocab for someone who doesn't see you as a wanna-be intellect.

My original point - You made an ignorant and ugly homophobic remark:

Cancer, tapeworms, athlete's foot, rickets, and flatus are natural too. So, what's your point?

You could have made many legitimate comparisons/analogies between homosexuality and naturally occurring human conditions, but instead tipped your hand (head) with the words you chose.

 

[katiegrrl0]

*Sigh*. Okay then.

You will please note that male and female reproductive equipment are clearly intended to work together in a manner that facilitates reproduction. Reproduction is the sine-qua-non of species survival: "without this, nothing."

It's a shame I don't have a video of my ex-wife doing her gestures to explain this, it's pretty funny. To translate to text, I'll just say key fits into lock...two locks don't fit together, neither do two keys.

Homosexual behaviors do not, in and of themeselves, result in reproduction, since two people of the same sex cannot reproduce without the intervention of a third party of the opposite sex...an inconvenient and risky way to run something essential to species survival.

It is therefore obviously "not natural".

Now, we do a lot of things that are not natural. Driving cars and flying planes, to name two. "Not natural" and "wrong" are not the same thing.

However, I do think that the fact that is isn't natural and is arguably contra-family/species survival could be used to support an argument that exclusively homosexual behavior is an aberration, possibly a disorder. The fact that it tends to inhibit reproductive behavior would be evidence against the idea that it is genetic, also.

I do believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, for religious reasons that I've explained in great detail elsewhere and don't care to go over again. That doesn't necessarily mean that in a country like the USA, which is governmentally secular and is supposed to be based on personal liberty, that I would wish it outlawed...my personal religious beliefs and what should be law are not necessarily the same in many cases.


Are we cool then, or do we have to address the supposed homosexual behaviors of some animals and all that stuff?

if sexuality is just for reproduction why do men and women have oral sex. Babies do not come from oral sex. Lesbians and gays have oral sex as do heterosexual couples. it seems to be a human desire. should we be doing these things if they do not reproduce children? if we should still do these things ten would that make Lesbian and gay sex as acceptable?

 

[Thorgasm]

We're talking about grown men sodomizing each other for christ's sake.

What? Christ's sake isn't a good enough cause for you?

 

[rivrrat]

Of course it's not natural. How in the hell could anybody think it's natural? We're talking about grown men sodomizing each other for christ's sake.

Or grown women licking, nuzzling, and fondling each other.

And your point is?

 

[Thorgasm]

Or grown women licking, nuzzling, and fondling each other.

Please, go on.

 

[rivrrat]

Please, go on.

I'd love to. Too bad I don't have a willing female partner up here in no-man's-land yet.

 

[G.I. Joe]

I'd love to. Too bad I don't have a willing female partner up here in no-man's-land yet.

I always wondered something and maybe you can enlighten me. If lesbians don't like ****, why do they use dildos?

 

[Oftencold]

BTW--I don't mean to pry or pick on you--but do you know what Asperger's Syndrome is?

I'm an EMT, I know what Asperger's is.

And I should point out, that I did not in fact, backpedal. I took pains to explain what I thought should have been obvious.

 

[rivrrat]

I always wondered something and maybe you can enlighten me. If lesbians don't like ****, why do they use dildos?

I'm bisexual, but my best answer is that it's not that lesbians don't like '****' (i.e., something big and hard moving in and out of their vagina), it's that they don't like what the real ones are generally attached to.