The Third Gender

[RamFel]

The simple solution there is read the definition for yourself.

Yes, you're right of course.

And I have.

 

[Omgitsme]

Yes, you're right of course.

And I have.

And what did it say?

 

[RamFel]

And what did it say?

It said the following:
[h=2]Definition of NATURAL[/h]1: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>



2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
2b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.

3a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents>
b : illegitimate <a natural child>

4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>


5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>


6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research


7 : having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>



8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>
b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights>
c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>



9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble … brother … ever most kind and natural — Shakespeare>



10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow>
b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities>
c : relating to or being natural food

11a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man>
b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society

12a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>
b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>



13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature
b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint
c : having a form or appearance found in nature



14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major>
b : being neither sharp nor flat
c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign



15 : of an off-white or beige color

— nat·u·ral·ness noun








Boy,that's saying a lot, isn't it?

Let's take a look at some of these.

3a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate.

Legitimate? Are gays legitimate?

8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature.

Now, I can say that gays don't follow in conformity with the "ORDINARY" course of nature, can't I?

8c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>

OK, I think you are probably looking at 10b, which says "existing in or produced by nature". That sounds like the one you guys have been quoting day in and out. But it also says Not artificial.

I also like this one (13b): marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint.

========================================================================================================

Do you see what I did? I took things out of the dictionary and made it sound like homosexuality is not natural, just like you guys are saying that homosexuality is natural pointing to one definition.

I can point to anything and make it mean what ever I want. That's what you guys are doing. That's why I don't use a dictionary when I have so much information, data, and proof! I use biology! And I don't even have to take it out of a Biology textbook. Everybody knows how nature works, except for you guys.

Did you guys get up one morning and decide that this is what you were going to defend?

Where's the grass roots to your movement? A lot of people believe what you believe, but that’s only because you guys have been telling them what you want them to believe for decades and it’s sinking in.

Not because it’s true, but because you guys have been telling them that!

Just tell the truth!

 

[Omgitsme]

It said the following:
[h=2]Definition of NATURAL[/h]1: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>



2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
2b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.

3a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents>
b : illegitimate <a natural child>

4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>


5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>


6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research


7 : having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>



8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>
b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights>
c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>



9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble … brother … ever most kind and natural — Shakespeare>



10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow>
b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities>
c : relating to or being natural food

11a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man>
b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society

12a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>
b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>



13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature
b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint
c : having a form or appearance found in nature



14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major>
b : being neither sharp nor flat
c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign



15 : of an off-white or beige color

— nat·u·ral·ness noun








Boy,that's saying a lot, isn't it?

Let's take a look at some of these.

3a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate.

Legitimate? Are gays legitimate?

8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature.

Now, I can say that gays don't follow in conformity with the "ORDINARY" course of nature, can't I?

8c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>

OK, I think you are probably looking at 10b, which says "existing in or produced by nature". That sounds like the one you guys have been quoting day in and out. But it also says Not artificial.

I also like this one (13b): marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint.

========================================================================================================

Do you see what I did? I took things out of the dictionary and made it sound like homosexuality is not natural, just like you guys are saying that homosexuality is natural pointing to one definition.

I can point to anything and make it mean what ever I want. That's what you guys are doing. That's why I don't use a dictionary when I have so much information, data, and proof! I use biology! And I don't even have to take it out of a Biology textbook. Everybody knows how nature works, except for you guys.

Did you guys get up one morning and decide that this is what you were going to defend?

Where's the grass roots to your movement? A lot of people believe what you believe, but that’s only because you guys have been telling them what you want them to believe for decades and it’s sinking in.

Not because it’s true, but because you guys have been telling them that!

Just tell the truth!

Your first problem is when you said lets look at some of these definitions. Because you are right. If you cherry pick out parts of a definition and ignore other parts you can make it seem like homosexuality isnt natural. Thats why its important to look at the definition yourself and see every possible meaning for the word natural. For example homosexuality sure doesnt fit 14a of the definition of natural but it does fit in other parts of the definitions which means that homosexuality can be correctly described as natural.

Oh and yes you can say that homosexuality occurs in conformity with the ordinary course of nature. But it fits in better with 2a and 2b.

2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
2b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.

Also I have yet to see you use biology in this thread. All I have seen is a bunch of assumptions about homosexuality without any shred of evidence to back it up. Because the truth is no one knows if homosexuality has a purpose or not. We dont have all the information yet and its going to take some time to get that information. So until we have that information everything on the subject is just pure speculation.

 

[joko104]

Claiming homosexuality is unnatural is obviously nonsense and wrong. Foolishness with no logic offered whatsoever to support that nonsense.

 

[RamFel]

Your first problem is when you said lets look at some of these definitions. Because you are right. If you cherry pick out parts of a definition and ignore other parts you can make it seem like homosexuality isnt natural. Thats why its important to look at the definition yourself and see every possible meaning for the word natural. For example homosexuality sure doesnt fit 14a of the definition of natural but it does fit in other parts of the definitions which means that homosexuality can be correctly described as natural.

Oh and yes you can say that homosexuality occurs in conformity with the ordinary course of nature. But it fits in better with 2a and 2b.

2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
2b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.

Also I have yet to see you use biology in this thread. All I have seen is a bunch of assumptions about homosexuality without any shred of evidence to back it up. Because the truth is no one knows if homosexuality has a purpose or not. We dont have all the information yet and its going to take some time to get that information. So until we have that information everything on the subject is just pure speculation.

Yeah, I remember hearing that one about there being a purpose to homosexuality, but I see it as a desperate attempt to convince us that there is a purpose. As if you’re saying “we must wait until it’s purpose is known”.

You know, we as a species are pretty smart. We figured out the elements. We figured out space travel, invented computers and many other things. And now you’re suggesting that there IS A PURPOSE to homosexuality, that has yet to be figured out. As if I were stupid.

The thing about this whole debate is that you cannot possibly win, and I suspect you know it. And I keep debating against you guys and the truth of the matter is that you don’t care if you’re wrong, or that you can never win.

I believe that the game that you guys are playing is to debate and stall us, for years if necessary, in the mean time. That’s why CC lost to me, and that’s why you are losing now.

But I believe that winning isn’t the goal. It’s “just keep the right tied up” and “just stall them”. That’s the reason for the dictionary trick, and the proof trick. When you ask for proof, you’re not really asking for proof because when we give it, you guys just say that we have proven nothing. And we get stalled, and tripped up. Clever!

The truth is that gays haven’t had a purpose in tens of thousands of years, and they never will. And waiting for some wonderful magical day, when we finally figure out what their purpose is, will never happen.

Wait, you suggest. Someday, someday…yeah. I think that none of you are waiting. I’m not waiting either. I have two things that I’m going to use against you guys. I have my “stall” theory that you guys are engaging, and the proof.

 

[Omgitsme]

Yeah, I remember hearing that one about there being a purpose to homosexuality, but I see it as a desperate attempt to convince us that there is a purpose. As if you’re saying “we must wait until it’s purpose is known”.

Im not trying to convince you that there is a purpose. Im trying to convince you to stop acting like you know if there is a purpose or not when there is no possible way for you to know.

And if what you got from my posts was we must wait until a purpose is known then you have misread my posts. My point is that we need to gather more information before you can say for sure if homosexuality has a purpose or not and no one should claim to have the answer to that question because they dont.

You know, we as a species are pretty smart. We figured out the elements. We figured out space travel, invented computers and many other things. And now you’re suggesting that there IS A PURPOSE to homosexuality, that has yet to be figured out. As if I were stupid.

Yeah we have figured out some pretty amazing things. Doesnt mean anything. We dont know everything. And its only been more recently that we have even begun to start trying to see if homosexuality has a purpose.

The thing about this whole debate is that you cannot possibly win, and I suspect you know it. And I keep debating against you guys and the truth of the matter is that you don’t care if you’re wrong, or that you can never win.

Well if I was trying to argue that homosexuality definitely has a purpose then you would be right. I cannot possibly win that argument. Of course neither can someone who claims that homosexuality definitely doesnt have a purpose.

I believe that the game that you guys are playing is to debate and stall us, for years if necessary, in the mean time. That’s why CC lost to me, and that’s why you are losing now.

I hate conspiracy theories. Is it so hard to believe that I just think Im right?

But I believe that winning isn’t the goal. It’s “just keep the right tied up” and “just stall them”. That’s the reason for the dictionary trick, and the proof trick. When you ask for proof, you’re not really asking for proof because when we give it, you guys just say that we have proven nothing. And we get stalled, and tripped up. Clever!

Yeah see above.

Oh and lol at the part where you said consulting a dictionary to figure out if something fits a definition is a trick.

The truth is that gays haven’t had a purpose in tens of thousands of years, and they never will. And waiting for some wonderful magical day, when we finally figure out what their purpose is, will never happen.

You nor I know that. You just assume there isnt a purpose.

Wait, you suggest. Someday, someday…yeah. I think that none of you are waiting. I’m not waiting either. I have two things that I’m going to use against you guys. I have my “stall” theory that you guys are engaging, and the proof.

Im very curious why you think we are stalling exactly. What do we have to gain? Its not like the gay marriage debate hinges on if homosexuality is deemed natural or not.

Oh and Im also very curious why you didnt mention anything about the part of my last post where I point out exactly which definition of natural applies to homosexuality and therefor homosexuality can correctly be described as natural.

 

[Quag]

I know, I know, I know.

I get it! Gays (according to some of you) are natural. Homosexuality is natural.

But I believe that everything in nature has a purpose. If it was created, then it fits in to a plan, or a system. It has to be part of something! And as any part of any system, there are usually inter-dependencies or interconnectivity. Some parts of a system interdepend or interconnect to other parts of the system.

Gays don’t seem to have any purpose. If they engage in homosexual sex, they can’t procreate. But they CAN procreate if they have straight sex. When it comes to sex, they can only fulfill its true purpose when they engage in straight sex. If gay sex is so natural, why is it that they can’t procreate without engaging in straight sex?

If gays and homosexual sex are natural, then why did God create them? And just how do they fit in? Where’s the interconnectivity? The interdependence?

It’s as if they’re a third gender without an interdependency, and that doesn’t sound natural to me.

First off you are asking people to defend their opinions based upon your belief that homosexuality serves no purpose, this makes no sense to me.

I will however play devils advocate with you on this (not really trying to bring the devil in so excuse the phrase)
Lets say you are right and everything in nature has a purpose as designed by god.
Please tell me where you or anyone else has seen gods master plan?
As far as I know god has not revealed all to us.

In fact most if not all religions have some version of the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) I take this to mean leave others alone if they are not doing anything to you, which unless you are being raped by a homosexual means they are not doing anythign to you, of course I think we can all agree it is the act of rape that is the transgression here not the fact that the rapist is homosexual.
Now if god created all in nature to have a purpose and there are homosexual people (and animals I might add) Then does it not stand to reason that they are part of gods plan?
What of the dodo bird was there a plan involving their extinction? was it not meant to happen? If not, did god have a back-up plan? Is the idea of a back-up plan for god an absurd one?
Tasmanian tiger also extinct, where is the plan?
Many parasites do not seem to perform any usefull purpose.
Are inanimate objects such as rocks, earth, water part of nature and part of gods plan?
If not why not? If so how can a stone in my shoe serve any purpose?

Basically I am saying you are asking people to reveal gods plan to you and that is an inherently silly question.

 

[jschie]

Homosexuality in the Animal kingdom - Naturhistorisk museum
you see: gay sex is natural...

the answer of the katholic church on this is:
animals doesn´t know what they are doing. this will be the difference between animals and humans.

really?

humans make natural sex when they don´t do it like animals. first they have to think about it, make a plan of it and then do it. this seems to be more natural to the church.

 

[CLAX1911]

This is a completely absurd discussion, homosexuality isn't unnatural, it has been part of humanity since the dawn of it. It seems to go against common sense to say that it isn't natural, but who cares people do things that are not natal all the time nobody seems to freak out about it.

Skating isn't natural, driving a car isn't natural, using a computer isn't natural. So what on earth does nature have to do with anything? Worrying about people having homosexual sex because it isn't natural in your opinion is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Who cares, if it isn't natural to you than don't do it, and keep that garbage to yourself, nobody cares why you think it is unnatural, you are not a biologist or an archeologist or a psychologist so take your opinion and jump in a lake

Aside from this going against your opinion of what nature is what is the point? People go against nature every time they open a plastic bag to east food. Going against nature is human nature so now that that ridiculous argument is out of the way, let's hear a real reason why homosexuality is wrong.

if you talk about this natural crap again I'll take that as a concession that you have no grounds to support your argument. childbearing is not a function of homosexual sex I think the kindergartner would figure that out so instead of insisting that two men can't have children through homosexual sex 1 of explain why it's wrong or is it because you can't.

masturbation is just as wrong because 1 person can't produce and sexually so masturbation is unnatural, so should not be practiced? most people have sex thousands of times in the lives yep they don't have thousands of kids they may have 1 or 2 maybe 3 do it seems that having children is not the purpose of sex statistically speaking that's 1 10th of a percent of sex being natural so there's no such thing as natural sex.

see why I said that argument stupid.

 

[CLAX1911]

let's just get down to the real reason here, it is about natural or unnatural, it's about some people just not liking it. if you live in America and don't like something someone is doing tuff this is America. if you don't like that then perhaps you need to find a new place to live. otherwise leave people the hell alone.

all these ninnys in our world crying about what they don't like and getting involved in the things that don't concern them is exactly the reason why we are losing our liberty. just get a life stop worrying about it it doesn't concern you anyway.

if I want to drive my car without a seatbelt or eat a hamburger and french fries, or smoke cigars,or or drink beer are not watch my calorie intake, or have sex with someone in my gender it's not your business so shut up keep your opinions to yourself and get on with your day everyday life I promise you it'll be okay.

or perhaps thinking about gay people turns you on and that frightens you because apparently you don't have much control over your own desires.

UC homophobia is it straight people being scared of me it's self proclaimed straight people being afraid of themselves and thrown latent homosexual tendencies

 

[CS5150]

Wow, you seem to have put no thought into this subject. Gays have the same purpose as any other human being. Despite reproductive necessity, not every human should or wants to procreate. That's why "God" made it so you can have sex and not get pregnant every time. They interconnect just fine with everyone.

 

[Lakryte]

I know, I know, I know.

I get it! Gays (according to some of you) are natural. Homosexuality is natural.

But I believe that everything in nature has a purpose. If it was created, then it fits in to a plan, or a system. It has to be part of something! And as any part of any system, there are usually inter-dependencies or interconnectivity. Some parts of a system interdepend or interconnect to other parts of the system.

Gays don’t seem to have any purpose. If they engage in homosexual sex, they can’t procreate. But they CAN procreate if they have straight sex. When it comes to sex, they can only fulfill its true purpose when they engage in straight sex. If gay sex is so natural, why is it that they can’t procreate without engaging in straight sex?

If gays and homosexual sex are natural, then why did God create them? And just how do they fit in? Where’s the interconnectivity? The interdependence?

It’s as if they’re a third gender without an interdependency, and that doesn’t sound natural to me.

What about straight couples that cannot have children due to infertility/sterility issues? According to your logic, sex between them would be just unnatural as gay sex.

 

[Mathematician]

What about straight couples that cannot have children due to infertility/sterility issues? According to your logic, sex between them would be just unnatural as gay sex.

If you can't figure it out yourself, you explicitly stated those are medical issues. The inability of a same sex pair to create a child is not a medical issue, seeing as not one such pair can do so. Hence gays were not meant to have kids.

 

[Lakryte]

If you can't figure it out yourself, you explicitly stated those are medical issues. The inability of a same sex pair to create a child is not a medical issue, seeing as not one such pair can do so. Hence gays were not meant to have kids.

Not one such pair of heterosexuals with those issues can create children either.

Don't like breaking up heterosexual relationships into those categories? Then why break up relationships by gender? I can say although certain pairs of humans (homosexual) cannot create children, most can, so all are normal. You applied that same reasoning to heterosexual relationships.

 

[Mathematician]

Not one such pair of heterosexuals with those issues can create children either.

Don't like breaking up heterosexual relationships into those categories? Then why break up relationships by gender? I can say although certain pairs of humans (homosexual) cannot create children, most can, so all are normal. You applied that same reasoning to heterosexual relationships.

Did you notice the first bolded word in my post? Your side is the one which doesn't want to call homosexuality a mental disorder. Every healthy human has a gender. Again, pairing healthy humans and having them screw, not a darn same sex pair will produce a child. Is that so hard to admit?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If you can't figure it out yourself, you explicitly stated those are medical issues. The inability of a same sex pair to create a child is not a medical issue, seeing as not one such pair can do so. Hence gays were not meant to have kids.

Wrong. Firstly, being involved in a relationship is not about procreation. That is not the primary purpose. Secondly, homosexuals, unless there is some medical issue, are completely capable of having kids. That about demonstrates that your position has no logic.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Did you notice the first bolded word in my post? Your side is the one which doesn't want to call homosexuality a mental disorder. Every healthy human has a gender. Again, pairing healthy humans and having them screw, not a darn same sex pair will produce a child. Is that so hard to admit?

So what? Your point is meaningless in this discussion. Why is THAT so hard to admit?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Not everything natural has a purpose. Evolution is not a guided, intelligent process. It's a random process. Positive traits survive, but so do neutral ones sometimes. Sometimes certain traits survive for no reason -- they don't hurt anything, so they just kind of hang around in the gene pool. Sometimes old traits leave traces of their existence for millions of years before being completely eliminated, like human tail bones, and finger bones in dolphins. Lots of stuff has no purpose.

Which isn't to say that homosexuality has no purpose. There's some evidence that it does, as women with homosexual brothers tend to be more fertile for some reason. Homosexuals are also perfectly capable of childcare, elderly care, food gathering, etc. It's not like breeding is the only thing human societies need. So they may well have some kind of purpose.

But frankly... who cares?

So what if it did have no purpose?

I mean, what's the purpose of straight people? To breed more so we can... what? Just... have more of us? There's no real reason.

Why do gay people need a reason when there's really no inherent reason for any of us in the first place?

 

[Mathematician]

Wrong. Firstly, being involved in a relationship is not about procreation. That is not the primary purpose. Secondly, homosexuals, unless there is some medical issue, are completely capable of having kids. That about demonstrates that your position has no logic.

IMO, I'm going to say it is based on procreation. Heck, there are enough idiots in this world who only got married because of sexual attraction. The simplest explanation for sexual attraction is so the creature instinctively knows they must procreate to maintain the survival of their species. You want to say homosexuals are capable of having kids. However, they better not hold their breath if they think they'll create a kid by packing fudge or scissoring.

 

[CLAX1911]

Did you notice the first bolded word in my post? Your side is the one which doesn't want to call homosexuality a mental disorder. Every healthy human has a gender. Again, pairing healthy humans and having them screw, not a darn same sex pair will produce a child. Is that so hard to admit?

Are you arguing got the illegalisation of non copulating sex? Because humans really enjoy sex even if kids are not born. I understand and even respect your belief that sex should not be enjoyed unless it its going to produce a child, but I don't agree. I frankly enjoy sex for many purposes, it draws me closer to my lover, it releases stress built up, it releases sexual tension.

 

[CLAX1911]

IMO, I'm going to say it is based on procreation. Heck, there are enough idiots in this world who only got married because of sexual attraction. The simplest explanation for sexual attraction is so the creature instinctively knows they must procreate to maintain the survival of their species. You want to say homosexuals are capable of having kids. However, they better not hold their breath if they think they'll create a kid by packing fudge or scissoring.

Well, nice vulgarities first off.

true, two men or two women cannot produce a kid by scissoring our packing fudge, but a man and a woman can't by pushing fish with a rubber on.

Do you object to a heterosexual couple that never peocreates but is often sexual? Because it us the same thing.

 

[Lakryte]

Did you notice the first bolded word in my post? Your side is the one which doesn't want to call homosexuality a mental disorder. Every healthy human has a gender. Again, pairing healthy humans and having them screw, not a darn same sex pair will produce a child. Is that so hard to admit?

My side? What exactly is that? I believe in smaller government, low taxes, less spending, and free markets. I also believe that those beliefs should be extended to the personal lives of individuals as well.

As for your bolded word--yes. Let me try to clarify my post. Think of a tree structure to get a visual image of my point.

You have the category of human sexual relationships between two individuals at the top. It is split into two categories, heterosexual and homosexual. Heterosexual is then split again into the possibility of children and the impossibility of children (sterile partners). You say that sterile partners having sex is natural even though they will never produce children. This is because the parent category (heterosexual relationships) almost always produce children. If that reasoning is sound, then you must apply it to to homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships can never produce children. But the parent category (human sexual relationships between two individuals) almost always produces children. Therefore, homosexual relationships must also be natural, according to your own logic. I am doing nothing other than carrying out your own argument.

Here is a picture to help:

 

[CLAX1911]

My side? What exactly is that? I believe in smaller government, low taxes, less spending, and free markets. I also believe that those beliefs should be extended to the personal lives of individuals as well.

As for your bolded word--yes. Let me try to clarify my post. Think of a tree structure to get a visual image of my point.

You have the category of human sexual relationships between two individuals at the top. It is split into two categories, heterosexual and homosexual. Heterosexual is then split again into the possibility of children and the impossibility of children (sterile partners). You say that sterile partners having sex is natural even though they will never produce children. This is because the parent category (heterosexual relationships) almost always produce children. If that reasoning is sound, then you must apply it to to homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships can never produce children. But the parent category (human sexual relationships between two individuals) almost always produces children. Therefore, homosexual relationships must also be natural, according to your own logic. I am doing nothing other than carrying out your own argument.

Here is a picture to help:
View attachment 67140291

The only natural law I see that the anti gay people can come up with is that people can't have sex with their own gender because I think its icky.

Because it isn't about kids, its about sex. If this argument was about procreation there would be no discussion about homosexuals. because oral sex isn't for procreation, anal sex isn't for procreation, mutual masturbation isn't for procreation. If you are against couples who have sex for reasons other than having kids.

This is just the last straw that anti gay people have to grasp at. I am okay with folks not liking my sexual behavior, but it really isn't anyone else's business. There is busy bodies that think it is, and they will continue until they are simply ignored for the dolts that they are. This is the only card they have to play and they mask it in some fabricated notion of natural law if there is such a thing, if you break natural law what are the consequences? Some church zealots that don't like anybody will have yet another reason to not like you?

 

[Lakryte]

The only natural law I see that the anti gay people can come up with is that people can't have sex with their own gender because I think its icky.

Hit the nail on the head. They make an infinite number of rationalizations, but all of them easily disproved. I just wish people would face and try to understand what makes them uncomfortable rather than turn against it as if it were evil.