View Full Version : Why is homosexuality not considered natural?
ShadowDeth
02-23-2006, 07:31 PM
I'm sure I made my definition ABUDANTLY clear! Natrual means "to be found in nature". I've said that 4 times by now.
Btw, the "to me" part = imo.
Yikes. Maybe you're not reading my post as well as you could be. Yes, i'm aware of how you defined natural, but my question was indirectly pointing out how it's flawed. You could make a case that certain synthetic chemicals are *found* in nature, because all the components are there yet would never occur if "nature" is left to it's own devices. As it is, your explanation was "found in teh nature" and that's all well and good but it doesn't actually add to the conversation. It's like me posting "homos kill teh babies", and asides from being funny it doesn't help.
The difference between "Why is homosexuality not considered natural?" and "is homosexuality a logical progression in animals, humans?" Is a hell of alot more than just "semantics"
And you can believe what you like, but it doesn't change the title of the thread from "Why is homosexuality not considered natural?" to "is homosexuality a logical progression in animals, humans?"
Nah. It's not considered natural *because* it's not a logical progression in nature. Better? Your disconnect is not my fault, buddy.
I think not contributing to the already heavy populated earth is positive trait. I think raising children that heterosexual can't (for whatever reason) take care of is a positive trait.
Oh yeah? Are you now saying that "nature" knows that humans won't live in certain areas of the world because it's inconvenient and then injected homosexuality into the mix to balance the playing field? We have tons of land we're not using, and our earth is far from overpopulated. The *choice* places to live are overpopulated, but that isnt' due to nature. You could make a case against africa being poor geographically, but poverty level = increased birth rates. This is an example of humans taking over, not nature. Nature has been trying to get people to move out of bad places forever, but cultures are often deeply ingrained in them.
How does it "stifle the desire to fart out babies"? I don't know about you, but I've seen, read, and heard about alot of gay couples wanting, having, or adopting children.
Adopting a child isn't the same as creating a new one. Yikes again.
I also haven't heard of our birth rate going down b/c we know that homosexuals exist. How would the exactly "stifle the desire to fart out babies" among hetero couples? Really, I'd like to see how that works.
Yowza! You haven't heard of the birth rate going down because, surprise, we have always had homosexuals! Theoretically if they didn't exist, the birth rate would be higher than it is now. Are you just trying to be argumentative or did you really not get what I was saying? This isn't really deep stuff i'm posting.
Actually, you said you thought your common sense arguement would be enough for you reference and you said "this isn't rocket science" 3 times.
How many posts did I make? It was not the basis of my whole argument. I appealed to it because I thought it was extremely simple to comprehend, even for someone like you.
Bashing? Honestly, come on. Ever hear of Bonobo chimps? Elephants? They do this "bashing" (what an ugly word).
Actually, I've seen primates hold hands several times.
Bashing is an expression some people use. How's anal intercourse for you? You know what I meant by the holding hands comment, dont be silly. You got proof that animals have homosexual relationships in nature? I define relationship by them taking turns sucking and doing each other and ignoring the opposite sex? Even if you can find 1, that wouldnt explain the other 1 billion who are not like that, would it not? Maybe if you can find one example or even 3, that would only show us an extreme anomaly out of the normal behavior. Show us what you got oh wise one.
Sorry, but your hamster experience is not a qualifier for the rest of the species on the planet.
Hince why I added USUALLY. Ive seen male dogs do the same thing, among other animals in nature. The results are usually the same. The male animal thats being assaulted tries his HARDEST to escape. I think everyone who has ever observed nature in there lives have seen something like this. Where the male tries to jump everything, male and female alike and the males dont sit there moaning in pleasure. Stop arguing this, it makes you look stupid.
Acutally, it IS conclusive. Did you look at the study?
It is? Lol you are joking right?
No, we've made abstinence only our mantra when it comes to sexual eduaction, along with spreading out right lies about how you can get pregnant and failure rates of contraceptives.
Also, we've spent less on abstinence only education, because it costs less! Not because we consider less important.
Um.. what country were you raised in? Where I come from, abstinence education WAS NOT the focus. In grade school, highschool and middle school safe sex was the primary method being taught. WTF are you talking about. What lies? Care you go into detail about this crap you are interjecting that has nothing to do with ANYTHING anyone has been debating?
Sure, I'll bet you did find websites. I can also find websites that say I'm from a race of mud people and that I'm a feminism is white witch craft, but these are not studies. Show me a study.
Study about what? What does this matter? I assure you I can refute anything you have said so far but why bother? Its not something I care about, since this was about homosexuals, not education. To many rabbit trails.
I think it's especially unfair to compare regular people to porn stars. Most people's sexual lives do NOT reflect those of a porn star's.
Address the point of the porn star comment if you would. Normal people have sex on a regular basis you know.
phagan
02-23-2006, 08:13 PM
Our society attaches stigma to it, treats them unfairly in a lot of cases like subhumans and all sorts of great stuff. It stifles the desire to fart out babies.
That alone should fly in the face of whether people still believe it's a choice. Yeah, that's a spectacular choice they are making.
Yes, people who have yet to master abstract and nuanced thinking. Has it not crossed your mind that some people might choose to be treated differently?
Masa the Masta
02-23-2006, 09:15 PM
Some people are just pseudo fags because they love the attention. Those are the flamers that use annoying lisps, use sexual innuendos, and try to "convert" straight men.
That isn't natural.
REAL gay men are still men, but they like buttsex.
That isn't natural.
Crossdressers.
That isn't natural.
It's not natural because it isn't what you were born with, and it isn't what you were designed to do.
LJGroh
02-23-2006, 09:20 PM
Yes, people who have yet to master abstract and nuanced thinking. Has it not crossed your mind that some people might choose to be treated differently?
No.
...But seriously. You're saying people choose to be alienated and to be treated like shit?
phagan
02-23-2006, 09:20 PM
I think Masa pretty much summed up this entire discussion with his closing arguement.
LJGroh
02-23-2006, 09:23 PM
It's not natural because it isn't what you were born with, and it isn't what you were designed to do.
Unless it was you that designed humans, I don't think you're in a place to determine what other humans were or were not designed to do.
phagan
02-23-2006, 09:23 PM
No.
...But seriously. You're saying people choose to be alienated and to be treated like shit?
That is precisely what I am saying. In this day and age, is that really that hard to believe?
LJGroh
02-23-2006, 09:27 PM
/\ /\ Yeah, it kind of is. If people are truly designed the way that Masa says, why would that design include choosing to behave in a way that gets them treated like garbage?
Kou123
02-23-2006, 09:32 PM
not to upset any people, but has anyone here actually read the Kinsey report, and its conclusions on homosexuality?
LJGroh
02-23-2006, 09:33 PM
not to upset any people, but has anyone here actually read the Kinsey report, and its conclusions on homosexuality?
No, I haven't. What are its deductions?
phagan
02-23-2006, 09:38 PM
LJGroh: Perhaps they find joy in being different? A lot of people find joy that in things that might seem weird to the rest of us. Like, fat teutonic ladies defecating in each other mouths.
Kou123
02-23-2006, 09:40 PM
I dont have time to lay out all the facts but basiclly after, i believe the single largest study on sex, the report concluded that all people's sexual orientation exists on a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 being completely Hetero, and 6 being completely Homosexual. The study then stated that most american males were on the 1 or 2 and a large majority of them also appeared atleast somewhat bi-sexual(in the 1 - 5 range). It also showed that 10% of men where Homosexual most of there lives (5-6 range).
Anyways there conclusion was that there is no clear delineation between straight bi and gay. that it was actually a gradient
phagan
02-23-2006, 09:43 PM
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
Not trying to challenge your post Kou, I just love that quote.
not to upset any people, but has anyone here actually read the Kinsey report, and its conclusions on homosexuality?
You do know that Kinsey report was written about fifty years ago, and the study itself has been getting a lot of flack for not being accurate?
Kou123
02-23-2006, 09:48 PM
I know how old it is but it was conducted by a very large poll, one of largest samplings of different people, and the interviews where very comprehensive of there sexual history, also just because a study gets flak does not mean it is not accurate or that the criticism is unbiased.
Also i never said that i believed in it or why i was posting it
Okay I'll get out of here before I get sucked into this cesspool.
Kou123
02-23-2006, 09:50 PM
n a response to these criticisms, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, spent years "cleaning" the Kinsey data of its purported contaminants, removing, for example, all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's surprise he claimed, was that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by this bias.
Professor Martin Duberman writes:
Instead of Kinsey's 37 %, Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4 %; the 10 % figure (with prison inmates excluded) came to 9.9 % for white, college-educated males and 12.7 % for those with less education. And as for the call for a "random sample," a team of independent statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental endeavor." [2]
from wikipedia
n a response to these criticisms, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, spent years "cleaning" the Kinsey data of its purported contaminants, removing, for example, all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's surprise he claimed, was that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by this bias.
Professor Martin Duberman writes:
Instead of Kinsey's 37 %, Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4 %; the 10 % figure (with prison inmates excluded) came to 9.9 % for white, college-educated males and 12.7 % for those with less education. And as for the call for a "random sample," a team of independent statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental endeavor." [2]
from wikipedia
If Kinsey's study didnt require him and his associates to molest thousands of children Id find it more credible.
ShadowDeth
02-23-2006, 10:48 PM
Yes, people who have yet to master abstract and nuanced thinking. Has it not crossed your mind that some people might choose to be treated differently?
Bullshit. Who would willingly want to be a social outcast and beaten by rednecks for no good reason?
Has it not crossed your mind that you're a moron? You think I can't think in abstract terms because I don't agree with your HIGHLY flawed logic?
Masa the Masta
02-23-2006, 11:12 PM
Unless it was you that designed humans, I don't think you're in a place to determine what other humans were or were not designed to do.
Did I design the Ford Windstar? No. Can I deduct what it's for? Yes, it's a minivan, and it was designed for people in mind, rather than sports driving.
Did I design the cellular phone? No. Can I deduct what it's for? Yes, it's a portable phone designed for people who want to take calls away from home.
Did I design the anus? No. Can I deduct what it's for? Yes, it's an orifice designed for removing bodily waste, instead of packing meat back in.
Did I design the penis? No. Can I deduct what it's for? Yes, it serves as a dual purpose object for excreting waste in liquid form, along with inserting semen into the opposite sex for fertilization, through the use of stiffness to spread the vaginal walls apart, not the anal walls.
Granted there are things in the human body which have no answer or serve no purpose (why men are missing a rib), but to use that argument to justify their own claim that homosexuality is rubbish, because then they'd have to find homo organs.
Like cars, people can be put under situations beyond or outside of their design.
Perhaps homosexuality is but another design created to keep the population from breeding like rabbits.
Bullshit. Who would willingly want to be a social outcast and beaten by rednecks for no good reason?
Like I said ShadowDeth, there are flamers that crave attention, even in the negative spectrum of attention. If you were a normal gay, people wouldn't be flaming about it and you could just intermingle with other straight men and they wouldn't know.
If shit like S&M, sodomy, gagging, and whipping exist, then homosexuality isn't that farfetched.
:watson:
LJGroh
02-23-2006, 11:28 PM
Did I design the Ford Windstar? No. Can I deduct what it's for? Yes, it's a minivan, and it was designed for people in mind, rather than sports driving.
Did I design the anus? No. Can I deduct what it's for? Yes, it's an orifice designed for removing bodily waste, instead of packing meat back in.
The first is man-made, the second is the result of evolution or a higher-power (according to what you believe). While the first has a stated purpose, the second can only be left to deduction. Sure, you can definately deduce what you want, but that doesn't make it correct. Nor does it make the other side of the arguement correct, and that is my point. No one's in a spot to conclude that-- yes, the anus is for feces removal only. Or no, the anus is for both waste removal and sexual gratification. You can, of course, and that's what science is for (making deductions and proving them right or wrong through observation and experimentation), but nothing like that is concrete.
Does that make any sense? Probably not. Just ignore me, I hate involving myself in these sorts of topics anyways. No one ever changes their mind, anyway, and I'm not about to change mine. :bang:
slinky
02-23-2006, 11:30 PM
Bullshit. Who would willingly want to be a social outcast and beaten by rednecks for no good reason?
First I'd like to say that I'm not referring to homosexuality. However, beyond (or even within a subset) what Phagan said really isn't that farfetched.
Who would be willing to be a social outcast? Usually those already on the fringe, but if you take it to an extreme you can then blame the intolerance of others for an inability to interact with others.
A physical beating may ultimately be less painful than admitting to themselves that a person, because of who he or she is, cannot relate to others or fit in. Martyr Syndrome. It's not an accident that there's a name for the behavior. It's not uncommon.
I'd bet that almost anyone on here has met or knows someone who claims to be misunderstood and persecuted by ... family? society? Geez, isn't that what the teen years are often about? Solitude, angst, no one understands me. Maybe some people just don't outgrow it.
Again, not speakin to homosexuality, just the fact that some people find this behavior so farfetched when, in fact, it seems rather commonplace. Not a majority for sure, but common.
The data in regards to protection is insufficient. We dont know that for sure. EVERYONE in the world knows about condoms but HIV cases are getting HIGHER not LOWER. Something is wrong here. We can think, well because gay men dont use condoms. But is this true? Common sense tells me that IF i am GAY and I am going to be bashing butts, I better strap up because I am gambling with my life if I dont.
If this isn't the most ignorant thing you have writen as of yet, I don't know what is.
I have a lot of friends and almost ALL of my heterosexual friends have had unprotected sex with random women. They know they are putting themselves at risk but at that time period they are to horny/drunk to give a fuck. Same goes for homosexual men, but I believe its a lot easier to get laid when you are gay. You keep ignoring this simple fact, gay men have lots of sex with lots of partners. Just think about it for a second.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/A4150C99-2DF7-40AE-A929-736C5815019C.asp If that doesn't work search for gay men unprotected sex
I'm about to just fucking give up, you are one of the most stubborn fools I have met to date.
The first is man-made, the second is the result of evolution or a higher-power (according to what you believe). While the first has a stated purpose, the second can only be left to deduction. Sure, you can definately deduce what you want, but that doesn't make it correct. Nor does it make the other side of the arguement correct, and that is my point. No one's in a spot to conclude that-- yes, the anus is for feces removal only. Or no, the anus is for both waste removal and sexual gratification. You can, of course, and that's what science is for (making deductions and proving them right or wrong through observation and experimentation), but nothing like that is concrete.
Does that make any sense? Probably not. Just ignore me, I hate involving myself in these sorts of topics anyways. No one ever changes their mind, anyway, and I'm not about to change mine. :bang:
It makes sense. And I agree with you.
Will someone answer this simple question. What is "natural" and what is "un-natural"?
slinky
02-23-2006, 11:58 PM
Will someone answer this simple question. What is "natural" and what is "un-natural"?
Does anybody really know what time it is.... does anybody really care....
If this isn't the most ignorant thing you have writen as of yet, I don't know what is.
I have a lot of friends and almost ALL of my heterosexual friends have had unprotected sex with random women. They know they are putting themselves at risk but at that time period they are to horny/drunk to give a fuck. Same goes for homosexual men, but I believe its a lot easier to get laid when you are gay. You keep ignoring this simple fact, gay men have lots of sex with lots of partners. Just think about it for a second.
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/A4150C99-2DF7-40AE-A929-736C5815019C.asp If that doesn't work search for gay men unprotected sex
I'm about to just fucking give up, you are one of the most stubborn fools I have met to date.
What you believe is irrelevant. I need facts if I am to believe what you say. Whos debating who has more sex and with how many partners? Where I am from, the straight guys are with lots of different girls, but so what?
I am stubborn, but I tend to side with the evidence no matter what. I am at this moment, unsure of what you giving up on? What is your objective here? Ive been debating with quite a few people if you havent noticed so maybe I missed something you want me to understand.
4letterwords
02-24-2006, 12:17 AM
....I don't know if you just worded that goofily or not, mate, but from what I hear, the first few times for a girl are rather painful. And I give you two guesses where the g-spot on a girl is. Here's a hint: pussy :D
Actually it depends on the girl... Depends on how small she is, how stimulated she is, if her hymen is already broken (can be broken in a million ways other than sexual activity), how well the girl can take pain, and even her mood... Ever notice that if you're worried about something hurting, it hurts a lot more?
- just throwing that in :D
Masa the Masta
02-24-2006, 12:55 AM
how well the girl can take pain
It has to hurt before you get off? :eyepop:
Roxie
02-24-2006, 03:04 AM
Yikes. Maybe you're not reading my post as well as you could be. Yes, i'm aware of how you defined natural,
Then why did you ask me "What is your definition of natural?"
What was that? Just a typing excercise?
but my question was indirectly pointing out how it's flawed. You could make a case that certain synthetic chemicals are *found* in nature, because all the components are there yet would never occur if "nature" is left to it's own devices. As it is, your explanation was "found in teh nature" and that's all well and good but it doesn't actually add to the conversation. It's like me posting "homos kill teh babies", and asides from being funny it doesn't help. IF they don't compound when left to their own devices, then that compound, by my definition, isn't natural.
And actually, it does add. It adds my pov and if you don't think it's any better than adding "homos kill teh babies", then what exactly are you adding to it right now?
Nah. It's not considered natural *because* it's not a logical progression in nature. Better? Your disconnect is not my fault, buddy. According to you. You see, that's why I prefaced my definition with "to me", meaning, imo. Oh, wait, I said that already!
We have tons of land we're not using, and our earth is far from overpopulated. The *choice* places to live are overpopulated, but that isnt' due to nature.
I didn't say we're over populated. I said heavily populated. At the rate we're going, we'll be fine for the future generations. Even with Japan, Italy, and France's problems, the rest of the world is compensating just fine.
Adopting a child isn't the same as creating a new one. Yikes again. No shit, sherlock! However, our orphanges aren't quite empty yet. Not saying that they all would be, but every little part helps.
Yowza! You haven't heard of the birth rate going down because, surprise, we have always had homosexuals! Theoretically if they didn't exist, the birth rate would be higher than it is now. Are you just trying to be argumentative or did you really not get what I was saying? This isn't really deep stuff i'm posting.
No, it's certainly not deep, but niether is it clear. I'm trying to make sense out what you're posting.
It stifles the desire to fart out babies. I've never heard that before.
Please, clarify how exactly that works.
How many posts did I make? It was not the basis of my whole argument. I appealed to it because I thought it was extremely simple to comprehend, even for someone like you.The point is saying you said and how many times you said it made you sound conscending, point blank. And you continue with your conscending tones with your "even for someone like you" It's ok, we all do it, but your flat out denial is....outstanding.
Bashing is an expression some people use. How's anal intercourse for you?It's not my thing, so it's non-existant for me. But for friends mine they either enjoy it or it's not their thing either.
You know what I meant by the holding hands comment, dont be silly.No, no I didn't b/c it was throughly silly comment to make in the first place and on second thought, I shouldn't've replied to it. You got proof that animals have homosexual relationships in nature? I define relationship by them taking turns sucking and doing each other and ignoring the opposite sex?..What? Perhaps I should've phrased it more clearly for you. Homosexual acts occur in nature on quite a regular basis. Therefore, to find it in humans is not unnatural at all.
However, going by your definition, bisexuality is very, very natural.
Even if you can find 1, that wouldnt explain the other 1 billion who are not like that, would it not? But that's not the topic. We're not trying to explain the others. What would be the point there?
Hince why I added USUALLY. Ive seen male dogs do the same thing, among other animals in nature. The results are usually the same. The male animal thats being assaulted tries his HARDEST to escape. I think everyone who has ever observed nature in there lives have seen something like this. Where the male tries to jump everything, male and female alike and the males dont sit there moaning in pleasure. Stop arguing this, it makes you look stupid.Dude, when have you ever heard mating animals make any sounds simliar to human moan of pleasure? Bringing that up, makes you look stupid.
Here's some sources for you
If you have access to a science library or can use a search engine artfully, references to technical, academic papers detailing homosexual behaviors in a wide variety of primates, from langurs to orangutans to pit-tailed macaques can be accessed at www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/Werner/Werner20.24.htm
Among human populations, homosexuality occurs at a certain rate in all populations. Thus homosexuality is natural and inevitable. Data suggests that homosexuality may be at least partly genetically determined. A semi-technical paper at the University of Texas with the title "Biological Correlates of being Gay - Biological Determinism?" is available at www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html
Um.. what country were you raised in? Where I come from, abstinence education WAS NOT the focus. In grade school, highschool and middle school safe sex was the primary method being taught. WTF are you talking about. What lies? Care you go into detail about this crap you are interjecting that has nothing to do with ANYTHING anyone has been debating?
Obviously, you didn't google the Waxman study, did you? That's fine. Here's a link on an article about it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26623-2004Dec1
I'm not talking about when you where in school, I'm talking about currently. Yes, when I was in school, we had safe-sex education, however it was hardly comprehensive. They did not tells how we could obtain and acquire contraceptives and they did not even mention that homosexuals existed.
However, that has recently changed.
Study about what? What does this matter? I assure you I can refute anything you have said so far but why bother? Its not something I care about, since this was about homosexuals, not education. To many rabbit trails.
You don't understand, they're all interlinked! If people aren't aware of condoms, how to use them, and their success rate, then they are less likely to use condoms. Thus, the incendence of STDs goes up.
Address the point of the porn star comment if you would. Normal people have sex on a regular basis you know.
It was YOU who brought up pornstars in the first place. If anyone, you should be the one addressing how the analogy between regular people and porn stars' sex lives is valid.
To emulate someone who said this previously, why ar you still arguing this seriously?
None of you are going to be swayed to the other's opinion; just say fuck it and get on with things.
Jay Rhymes with Gay... Paul goes Away!
marycatherine
02-24-2006, 03:40 AM
To emulate someone who said this previously, why ar you still arguing this seriously?
None of you are going to be swayed to the other's opinion; just say fuck it and get on with things.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Jay man.
phagan
02-24-2006, 08:28 AM
Bullshit. Who would willingly want to be a social outcast and beaten by rednecks for no good reason?
Has it not crossed your mind that you're a moron? You think I can't think in abstract terms because I don't agree with your HIGHLY flawed logic?
I see you had to resort to petty name-calling. In accordance with the international law of debating, that means I am winning this arguement. Go me!
eyez0nme
02-24-2006, 08:37 AM
I never wanted to know why homosexuality is unnatural--but how is it natural?
How is homosexuality natural?
I never wanted to know why homosexuality is unnatural--but how is it natural?
How is homosexuality natural?
You should burn, burn, burn for coming up with this thread in the first place.
ZaichikArky
02-24-2006, 09:55 AM
You should burn, burn, burn for coming up with this thread in the first place.
I think the thread was fun. I mean, for us n00bs of course. yeah.
I never wanted to know why homosexuality is unnatural--but how is it natural?
How is homosexuality natural?
It's not.
characterscharacterscharacterscharacterscharacters characterscharacterscharacterscharacterscharacters
kyaa the catlord
02-24-2006, 10:08 AM
My friends say I should get a pet penguin.
you can call him boom! or captain boom!
although eyezonme has quite succeeded this time. congrats to him :P
Well you know what they say about persistence.
Stay in the game long enough and you gotta get results.
kyaa the catlord
02-24-2006, 10:24 AM
Or a venereal disease.
That's true as well. :(
Bullshit. Who would willingly want to be a social outcast and beaten by rednecks for no good reason?
Has it not crossed your mind that you're a moron? You think I can't think in abstract terms because I don't agree with your HIGHLY flawed logic?
Shut up. Aight? Just shut the fuck up.
This isn't an attack against you - I don't give a shit what your opinion is and you're allowed to have one.
Just shut the fuck up with this stupid fucking argument because none of up because none of you arguing the question how is homosexuality natural anymore, you're all fucking arguing with eachother.
None of you are ever going to agree with eachother, no matter how much you diplomatise or yell or call bullshit or swear or call eachother names. You're all arguing bullshit fucking semantics with the other guy, who's arguing just as retarded a fucking point as you are.
So just shut THE FUCK up.
...Please.
marycatherine
02-24-2006, 01:06 PM
I never wanted to know why homosexuality is unnatural--but how is it natural?
How is homosexuality natural?
To define how homosexuality is *natural*, don't you also have to have an idea of how it's *unnatural*?? I know math and homosexuality aren't really related at all, but to define negative numbers the math proof goes like "if there's an integer x and if -x is a positive ingeter, then x is negative"...using one previously defined thing (positive integers) to define another. Maybe saying why homosexuality seems to be unnatural was easier to define than why it's natural.
but don't start picking this post apart b/c I'm not lookin' to bicker here. I just wanted to toss that arguing method on the table for you since you don't seem to be aware of it.
Mary Catherine
That's true as well. :(
Shut up. Aight? Just shut the fuck up.
This isn't an attack against you - I don't give a shit what your opinion is and you're allowed to have one.
Just shut the fuck up with this stupid fucking argument because none of up because none of you arguing the question how is homosexuality natural anymore, you're all fucking arguing with eachother.
None of you are ever going to agree with eachother, no matter how much you diplomatise or yell or call bullshit or swear or call eachother names. You're all arguing bullshit fucking semantics with the other guy, who's arguing just as retarded a fucking point as you are.
So just shut THE FUCK up.
...Please.
If you don't like this thread DO NOT CLICK ON IT. Let those that want to discuss it discuss it. Instead of spamming it, just don't open this thread.
... PLEASE
Goes for all of you that don't like this thread.
The point is saying you said and how many times you said it made you sound conscending, point blank. And you continue with your conscending tones with your "even for someone like you" It's ok, we all do it, but your flat out denial is....outstanding.
I was obviously being an ass when I made that comment directly to you. A bit of a joke you know?
..What? Perhaps I should've phrased it more clearly for you. Homosexual acts occur in nature on quite a regular basis. Therefore, to find it in humans is not unnatural at all.
However, going by your definition, bisexuality is very, very natural.
Homosexual acts as in the male trying to assault another male yes. The way I defined homosexual acts, taking turns and ignoring the opposite sex of the same species is a totally different thing. You havent addressed this yet.
Dude, when have you ever heard mating animals make any sounds simliar to human moan of pleasure? Bringing that up, makes you look stupid.
Here's some sources for you
Its called sarcasm. Dont use my own quote "makes you look stupid." Get original.
Your sources? Are you joking? Did you even read what you linked me to? Yea, let me goto a gay website with a paragraph citing some instances where male animals have sex with male animals which absolutely proves nothing. My hamster broke into the asshole of his offspring im sure during the billion times he was in heat and tried to hump them. That didnt stop them from biting, making loud panic noises and running the hell away from the big ol bully.
Obviously, you didn't google the Waxman study, did you? That's fine. Here's a link on an article about it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...A26623-2004Dec1
I'm not talking about when you where in school, I'm talking about currently. Yes, when I was in school, we had safe-sex education, however it was hardly comprehensive. They did not tells how we could obtain and acquire contraceptives and they did not even mention that homosexuals existed.
However, that has recently changed.
I dont care about abstinence programs right now. Stop bringing this up. A whole different debate all together.
You don't understand, they're all interlinked! If people aren't aware of condoms, how to use them, and their success rate, then they are less likely to use condoms. Thus, the incendence of STDs goes up.
Maybe, just maybe you can understand why your position here is flawed.
If what you say is true, we should have the HIV cases from heterosexual intercourse SKYROCKETING high above the homosexuals. If gays only equate to 5-10% of the society, yet they equal 60% of the new HIV cases then something is WRONG. FOR 20+ years CONDOMS and safe sex has been the MAIN focus of SEXUAL EDUCATION in AMERICA. Sure, some places have had abstinence only programs but in MOST of the public schools, it was SAFE SEX programs. This unfortunately has not done ANYTHING to stop the spread of HIV. You cant say "well thats because people are ignorant of condoms, and dont like them." That does not address the fundamental problems with the statistics. I said the data is inconclusive here, but there are GLARING problems between the facts and your thought patterns and Dr. Drew's opinions.
It was YOU who brought up pornstars in the first place. If anyone, you should be the one addressing how the analogy between regular people and porn stars' sex lives is valid.
Only because I wanted you to address the physical damage issue which you havent tackeled remarkably.
Will someone answer this simple question. What is "natural" and what is "un-natural"?
That is the whole reason behind the argument. Till you set a valid defention for both the answer will never be had.
OliveButtercup
02-24-2006, 03:34 PM
Did you just respond to your own question? :watson:
Shut up. Aight? Just shut the fuck up.
This isn't an attack against you - I don't give a shit what your opinion is and you're allowed to have one.
Just shut the fuck up with this stupid fucking argument because none of up because none of you arguing the question how is homosexuality natural anymore, you're all fucking arguing with eachother.
None of you are ever going to agree with eachother, no matter how much you diplomatise or yell or call bullshit or swear or call eachother names. You're all arguing bullshit fucking semantics with the other guy, who's arguing just as retarded a fucking point as you are.
So just shut THE FUCK up.
...Please.
I've got no idea who he is, but I agree with this fellow.
Did you just respond to your own question? :watson:
Oops forgot to quote marycatherine
I've got no idea who he is, but I agree with this fellow.
If you don't like this thread DO NOT CLICK ON IT. Let those that want to discuss it discuss it. Instead of spamming it, just don't open this thread.
... PLEASE
Goes for all of you that don't like this thread.
ten characters
You're one of the main offenders, man. You, MrQ and a couple of others. No one gives a shit anymore. You'll never agree with the other bloke's opinion or he yours, so fuck it and move on with shit.
Y'know?
THEN LEAVE DUMBASS. If you don't want to read what we have to say then LEAVE you jackass. You don't HAVE TO READ WHAT WE POST! We are having a discussion if you don't like it, THEN FUCKING DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK!
Wow seems so hard to understand!
Now you're arguing with me. Who's the dumbarse here?
:D
phagan
02-24-2006, 06:45 PM
Hehe..."dumbarse".
You know it's the right way to spell it, you... you... non-Australian, you! *shakes fist*
KKF, I understand perfectly. Oh sure, I understand that if I don't want to see you lot arguing bullshit I can just not click on the thread, but that's not it - I LIKE seeing you people argue. For whatever reason you care to name, it gives me humour.
But we weren't talking about my willingness, or lack thereof if you prefer that angle, to click on this thread, were we?
Hey Jay, as long as these blokes will continue to stay and argue in this thread, they won't spread to the other threads and infect them, given that eyez0nme won't make any hare-brained threads.
I think that sounds good, don't you think? All we have to do is ignore this thread, and let them continue.
Oh well, there goes my brilliant scheme... flew right out the window, that one did.
Thanks mate.
See I was trying to get flamed and then be all polite and reasonable, thus flaring the flames, and I was well on the way with KKF here until you opened your trap.
Shithead.
I didn't think such tactic was going to work... they will probably get on with this whole thing sooner or later. What makes you think they will stop now?
But, I do encourage hijacking this thread by all means. Suicide bombing, even.
I didn't think such tactic was going to work... they will probably get on with this whole thing sooner or later.
Of course it would have.
What makes you think they will stop now?
Experience, dear lad - they'll read this.
Wanna make this a bet then?
Well considering that they'll likely overlook this and continue arguing anyway - no.
Good point.
I'm sorry a threw a wrench in your schemes, but I couldn't help myself but to butt in there. You know that, of course. At least I commend your efforts, and perhaps you will accept my apology?
Ah well, maybe I could start quoting from Shakespeare to fill this thread with useless spam for a good measure.
Masa the Masta
02-24-2006, 08:22 PM
Fags are gay.
The end.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/2005/20050615_idaho-god-hates-fags.jpg
Fear not, for he also hates America - the shirt says it.
kyaa the catlord
02-24-2006, 10:30 PM
Behead the Infidels!
So basically you are a immature little kid. Who has WAY to much time on his hands. Great life you lead there lad.
So basically you are a immature little kid.
Hey, I'm not little, I'm a big kid, my mummy told me so!
Who has WAY to much time on his hands.
*ticks box*
Great life you lead there lad.
:D
Thanks.
otro34
02-25-2006, 08:14 PM
If you search for homosexuality in Wikipedia, you'll find that aparently there are some genetical reasons for this "problem"... could that make it natural? Or would it become some sort of deficiency?
I say it depends on the point of view. Normal, common or "natural" things are tied to the way people see things, the world, their believes, their religions... so if you say that the "objective" of sex is reproduction, then no, homosexuality isn't natural. And so, having sex just for "fun" isn't natural either...
As far as what i think... I think people is born gay. Since i'm not gay i can't actually say that for sure, but i have friends who are and i see them fight that reality at first, and then when they finaly embrace it they are really happy... so yes, as someone said here, you don't choose to be gay, you choose to act on it, to embrace that reality... i would even go as far to say that you choose to be honest with you and be happy...
But for normal standars of our society... No, homosexuality is neither normal nor natural. It doesn't mean it's bad... it's just that according to our "rules", things just don't go that way... or at least, a lot of people like to think so...
Ladies and Gentlemen, that was the 4th post EVAR by otro34.
I don't know what compelled otro34 to come on up, but I am certainly honored by his/her/its presence here today.
otro34
02-25-2006, 08:35 PM
Hehe. Thanks for that. This is a topic that really makes you think... and i like that. I'm a guy btw. :P
I'm just pointing out that for some reason, a lot of people just flock to politically charged topics like this one. And these types of threads are the only ones they will ever leave comments on. Which really vexes me.
I mean, outside of General Discussion, anything goes. Most people don't really know what the fuck to do with them, and the people who have been here long enough knows that General Discussion is more prone to endless, meaningless discussions that will go nowhere before it dies like a white dwarf. Shit, I am good for some serious discussions from time to time, but the only thing you could do is running your mouth on some deadbeat topics?
Give me a break.
Stuff.
This is the only time I'm going to properly wade into this argument, and this is the only post I'm going to make about the subject.
My belief is that deciding factors around you as you're growing up through early childhood help decide whether you're going to be gay or not. Like for example, bullies hurting you, depressing you and making you think you're not worthwhile - if that bully wasn't there you wouldn't be feeling suicidal thoughts.
No one argue semantics on that; that was just a general example.
Now replace bullying with some other factor and replace lousy thoughts with homosexual thoughts and you have my theory, in a nutshell.
Think of it this way: Deciding Factors X, Y and Z are involved with you as you grow up, and you turn out to be homosexual. If Deciding Factors X, Y and Z were suddenly removed from the equation, however, you'd never be thinking homosexual in the first place.
Surroundings > Initial Trigger > Thoughts > Feelings.
Only post, remember.
Oh, and nobody attack me about this; if you have direct proof otherwise then I will gladly listen. Just don't jump all over me aight? :sarcasm:
gyoza
02-25-2006, 08:59 PM
I will make my only post here to support Jay's post because it makes quite a lot of sense to me, at least from my experience. In Asia homosexuality is a lot less socially accepted than it is in the West, and thus there are far fewer homosexuals. I'd imagine because they grew up in this environment they didn't have the surroundings that triggered the thoughts and feelings and blahblahblah as Jay said.
Now you might say that the actual number is the same but more people are in the closet because it's more taboo. But of the many Asians who migrate/move to study in more liberal environments, very very few actually 'convert', so I don't think they were closeted in the first place.
Now I attach the same disclaimer as Jay to this post, and sign off.
ZaichikArky
02-25-2006, 09:17 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, that was the 4th post EVAR by otro34.
I don't know what compelled otro34 to come on up, but I am certainly honored by his/her/its presence here today.
stop fucking condescending the newbie. his/her post was thoughtful and intelligent. Much better than any of YOUR bullshit which is just thinking of a way to insult a person in less than two sentances. You are an asshole.
slinky
02-25-2006, 09:25 PM
I'm just pointing out that for some reason, a lot of people just flock to politically charged topics like this one. And these types of threads are the only ones they will ever leave comments on. Which really vexes me.
I mean, outside of General Discussion, anything goes. Most people don't really know what the fuck to do with them, and the people who have been here long enough knows that General Discussion is more prone to endless, meaningless discussions that will go nowhere before it dies like a white dwarf. Shit, I am good for some serious discussions from time to time, but the only thing you could do is running your mouth on some deadbeat topics?
Give me a break.
I see what you're saying here... kind of. But what are the options? Threads like:
Oooh! <Some chick> is teh hotness!
Yeah!
w00t!
She's my girlfriend!
No way man, <Some other chick> is way hotter!
Oh yeah baby!
No way man, you are teh ghey!
Or maybe:
Murder is bad.
Yep.
I agree.
Totally.
etc.
If the forum doesn't really have any new members I can see how it would get redundant. But if there are fresh voices, new viewpoints and different information brought into the mix I think the exchange of ideas is valuable. True no one is ever really going to change anyone's mind. But the discussion can still make people think and I believe that encouraging thought and learning is a worthwhile exercise.
And there seems to be a disproportionate amount of intelligent, articulate people here (as compared to many message boards) and I like to read what they think even if I don't agree.
But I do agree that when a thread degenerates into complete redundancy and irritability ("If you would just READ what I SAID in my past 15 posts you would clearly see X unless you're a moron" kind of thing.) it's time to just stop posting and move on.
That said I would like to state two things:
1) If you don't like the hot button discussions but still read them: DOn't you have a car crash to scope out ;)
2) eyez0nme needs to be stabbed.
slinky-
I am not against having new members. In fact, as long as they stay long enough to be an active part of the forum as a respectable member who doesn't take things too seriously, I encourage more people to join.
However, if you spend enough time here, you'll know it is the same old people making threads and leaving posts, while new members are just being spectators, or out of blue, decide a certain thread is deemed as important and start going off on that. If you have something to say, and if you are being political, that's fine. But also note that a lot of us are just here to make silly talks and generally trying to have fun.
But, all things considered, I'd say it's time to close this thread, like I've said before.
stop fucking condescending the newbie. his/her post was thoughtful and intelligent. Much better than any of YOUR bullshit which is just thinking of a way to insult a person in less than two sentances. You are an asshole.
Holy shit... settle down here, grab a bag and breathe into it or something. :eyepop:
It wasn't condescending, it was facetious. He wasn't having a go at the new 'fresh meat', he was being sarcastic.
So just back off a step, aight? You're still a newbie yourself; you don't have the foothold to go attacking established members.
you don't have the foothold to go attacking established members.
*puts on his members only jacket- complete with the club crest!*
slinky
02-25-2006, 09:42 PM
*puts on his members only jacket- complete with the club crest!*
Oooh Sweet!
*puts on jelly shoes and tries to dance to Billie Jean*
*puts on members-only jacket and stands on street corner with NERD*
gyoza
02-25-2006, 09:50 PM
I haven't been here long enough to get the jacket. I have a T-shirt, though. :cool:
*pulls out a cigar, lights it, and takes a puff*
Pass the curvoisier, bitch!
*gulps it down*
I'm getting wasted.... bitches!!!
slinky
02-25-2006, 09:59 PM
*gulps it down*
I'm getting wasted.... bitches!!!
Time warp! 80's to now!
whoa.... woozy.
Duke Luke of Juke
02-25-2006, 10:01 PM
So just back off a step, aight? You're still a newbie yourself; you don't have the foothold to go attacking established members.
Who says you have to be an established member to attack people?
It's like walking into some random bar room somewhere and having a go at one of the regulars. Shit like that just doesn't happen.
Well, Jay, you should know how things work out in a bar, eh? You silly Aussie... *taps on Jay's member's only jacket on the shoulder*
slinky
02-25-2006, 10:07 PM
It's like walking into some random bar room somewhere and having a go at one of the regulars. Shit like that just doesn't happen.
Well, it DOES. But only by the very drunk or very stupid.
Well, Jay, you should know how things work out in a bar, eh? You silly Aussie... *taps on Jay's member's only jacket on the shoulder*
That's what I meant, someone off the street doesn't just come up and start having a go at established folks until they've earnt the respect and foothold.
:D
Slinky - I meant shit like that isn't cool, frowned upon, etc.
Duke Luke of Juke
02-25-2006, 10:09 PM
That's what I meant, someone off the street doesn't just come up and start having a go at established folks until they've earnt the respect and foothold.
:D
So it's a respect thing, basically.
<---approves the hi-jacking of this thread
slinky
02-25-2006, 10:11 PM
Slinky - I meant shit like that isn't cool, frowned upon, etc.
I knew what you meant - but I was amusing myself by thinking of the consequences... (Um... not that I'd know or anything. Just imagining - you know. Conjecture. Never been in a locals bar in my life. Nope.)
So it's a respect thing, basically.
Yeap.
<---approves the hi-jacking of this thread
We've hijacked it so many times and the nutcases just keep arguing, so it's not for lack of trying.
And on that note, I'm going to bed. Have fun. :wave:
If you search for homosexuality in Wikipedia, you'll find that aparently there are some genetical reasons for this "problem"... could that make it natural? Or would it become some sort of deficiency?
I say it depends on the point of view. Normal, common or "natural" things are tied to the way people see things, the world, their believes, their religions... so if you say that the "objective" of sex is reproduction, then no, homosexuality isn't natural. And so, having sex just for "fun" isn't natural either...
As far as what i think... I think people is born gay. Since i'm not gay i can't actually say that for sure, but i have friends who are and i see them fight that reality at first, and then when they finaly embrace it they are really happy... so yes, as someone said here, you don't choose to be gay, you choose to act on it, to embrace that reality... i would even go as far to say that you choose to be honest with you and be happy...
But for normal standars of our society... No, homosexuality is neither normal nor natural. It doesn't mean it's bad... it's just that according to our "rules", things just don't go that way... or at least, a lot of people like to think so...
How would this explain people who are ex-gay? Do you believe they are not being true to themselves when they stop the lifestyle and live happy as straight?
Jay, your only serious contributing post is what I hang my hat on as the truth.
ZaichikArky
02-25-2006, 10:48 PM
sure I'm new. I realize I should be berating the people here that are 5 months older than me. The only person here ever who pissed me off thus far is Nerd. usually it is very difficult to piss me off. I have VERY little respect for him.
Sorry.
It's NERD. Not Nerd. Doesn't make sense that way.
And I have NO respect for you. Mmmmmkay? So go back to your Pokémons.
ZaichikArky
02-25-2006, 11:08 PM
It's NERD. Not Nerd. Doesn't make sense that way.
And I have NO respect for you. Mmmmmkay? So go back to your Pokémons.
Okay, nerd. :clap:
I don't like Pokemons too much anymore. But I like Arcanines. They're cute.
ruaidhri
02-25-2006, 11:10 PM
I’ve really tried to refrain from entering this discussion. From the outset, I’ve held the opinion that it serves no purpose to argue about whether or not someone else’s lifestyle is “natural”. I often wonder if those with the most objections are merely attempting to elevate their own status by denigrating others. That, to me, is a sad way of making yourself feel good.
I don’t know what “causes” homosexuality. Actually, I don’t care. It’s not important. My philosophy is to not interfere in how other people live their lives as long as their action are not physically violent and do not directly impact my life in a negative manner.
Live goes by so quick. It’s so short. Believe me, I know. Why waste your time labeling someone else as unnatural. That’s hurtful. It really serves no purpose because it’s not going to change anything. Words hurt. Bashing isn’t only physical.
Okay, nerd. :clap:
You are clapping at yourself for calling someone nerd, while he calls himself NERD? Oh boy. Sarcasm doesn't really translate over the Internet.
I don't like Pokemons too much anymore. But I like Arcanines. They're cute.
Oh, are they? Are you still in elementary school, because I can't tell from what you just said.
But enough with this silly squabble.
ruaidhri just made an excellent point.
ZaichikArky
02-25-2006, 11:53 PM
You are clapping at yourself for calling someone nerd, while he calls himself NERD? Oh boy. Sarcasm doesn't really translate over the Internet.
Oh, are they? Are you still in elementary school, because I can't tell from what you just said.
But enough with this silly squabble.
ruaidhri just made an excellent point.
oh no, I'm actually in 15th grade. aren't you the smart one. I was into pokemon when I was in 8th grade through 10th grade.
Praetorian
02-26-2006, 12:05 AM
In a way, it's funny how a topic starting about homosexuality derailed into chat about pokémon.
This thread has been derailed sooooo many times. Seeing it still hanging around makes me feel like I'm watching an old whale beached up, laboring for its last breaths.
ZaichikArky
02-26-2006, 12:29 AM
In a way, it's funny how a topic starting about homosexuality derailed into chat about pokémon.
HAHAHAHA! Yes, it is very funny. Well, I found it very funny how you worded that anyway.
OMG ARCANINE I CHOSE YOU!!!111 ARCANINE RULEZ
otro34
02-26-2006, 01:01 AM
If there are "ex-gay" people then what they truly are is bisexuals represing their gay side... In studies made not so long ago, experts afirm that 90% of the population of the world is... bisexual. What happens is that people usually have a tendency towards one side or another... Most people can actually deny this, or maybe they don't know... but in this world only about 10% is (ACTUALLY IS) heterosexual, bisexual (can go either way but doesn't have a tendency) or homosexual.
Now that's the side of the experts.
One teacher once told me (and my class) that it doesn't matter if u truly believe that you are hetero, and like girls and stuff... if u have sex with another guy, you're doing a homosexual act, so that makes you a homosexual. I don't think that's entirely true, since one can have sex just for pleasure and still like girls 100% (that goes in the category of bisexual with tendency, as i said before :P )... So may be that's the case you are refering to. OR... it could be that the homosexuality of this "ex-gay" person was a psicologycal desorder... every case is unique. I refer only to people that is actually GAY or have that tendency..
Then again, every rule has an exception... :)
Live goes by so quick. It’s so short. Believe me, I know. Why waste your time labeling someone else as unnatural. That’s hurtful. It really serves no purpose because it’s not going to change anything. Words hurt. Bashing isn’t only physical.
This is one amazing thought. And Totally true. The Only time i've seen "ex-gay" people is when they where totally summited to psicologycal treatments or "religious" treatments... if they found peace and happiness that way, then... good! Like i said, every case is different.
ZaichikArky
02-26-2006, 01:02 AM
I wouldn't say that it's been derailed in that respect. Pokémon is pretty gay, semantics notwithstanding.
heh... most anime is pretty gay. that's why I love it :p.
If there are "ex-gay" people then what they truly are is bisexuals represing their gay side... In studies made not so long ago, experts afirm that 90% of the population of the world is... bisexual. What happens is that people usually have a tendency towards one side or another... Most people can actually deny this, or maybe they don't know... but in this world only about 10% is (ACTUALLY IS) heterosexual, bisexual (can go either way but doesn't have a tendency) or homosexual.
Now that's the side of the experts.
One teacher once told me (and my class) that it doesn't matter if u truly believe that you are hetero, and like girls and stuff... if u have sex with another guy, you're doing a homosexual act, so that makes you a homosexual. I don't think that's entirely true, since one can have sex just for pleasure and still like girls 100% (that goes in the category of bisexual with tendency, as i said before :P )... So may be that's the case you are refering to. OR... it could be that the homosexuality of this "ex-gay" person was a psicologycal desorder... every case is unique. I refer only to people that is actually GAY or have that tendency..
Then again, every rule has an exception... :)
This is one amazing thought. And Totally true. The Only time i've seen "ex-gay" people is when they where totally summited to psicologycal treatments or "religious" treatments... if they found peace and happiness that way, then... good! Like i said, every case is different.
Wow guy, just wow.
You are at the ripe young age of 21, so I will give you a bit of advice that I think will go a long way.
1. Be cautious with the words of your instructors. Many are not teaching the idea of "critical thinking" anymore.
2. When you hear an "expert" declare something, do more research of your own. Weigh all the evidence before making an informed opinion or decision.
3. Check the sources behind the studies. Try to find neutral sources. Many are not.
In our day and age, one cannot know the truth unless he loves it.
kensei
02-26-2006, 09:53 AM
Okay, I've had it with this thread.
Here's the thing. People are different. Some people choose to be gay, some not so much. Using a disease that effects both homosexuals and heterosexuals as a stand against why homosexuality is not natural is retarded. AIDS and HIV are horrible diseases. Unless we find a cure they wont ever go away unless we round up everyone infected and quarentine them. Is that going to happen? No, because we would like to at the very least think that we're a more civilized society than that. With all the intolerance that people reak of in this thread it's hard to believe that we've really come that far, but whatever. This debate has branched so far off coarse now, folks. People have attempted to make one valid point after another while missing the overall topic of this thread. Hell, I'm just as guilty of that as the lot of you. I think we're all beating this dead horse just the way the founder of this lil' thread wished us to do. Maybe we should let it die.
Good God, is this thread still going?
phagan
02-26-2006, 12:47 PM
I don't trust science, mainly because you can use science to prove anything. No wonder God hates scientists...
Okay, I've had it with this thread.
Here's the thing. People are different. Some people choose to be gay, some not so much. Using a disease that effects both homosexuals and heterosexuals as a stand against why homosexuality is not natural is retarded. AIDS and HIV are horrible diseases. Unless we find a cure they wont ever go away unless we round up everyone infected and quarentine them. Is that going to happen? No, because we would like to at the very least think that we're a more civilized society than that. With all the intolerance that people reak of in this thread it's hard to believe that we've really come that far, but whatever. This debate has branched so far off coarse now, folks. People have attempted to make one valid point after another while missing the overall topic of this thread. Hell, I'm just as guilty of that as the lot of you. I think we're all beating this dead horse just the way the founder of this lil' thread wished us to do. Maybe we should let it die.
Wheres the intolerance in this thread. I have failed to see it. I have also failed to see where someone used HIV as the reason why homosexuality is not natural.
otro34
02-26-2006, 07:30 PM
MrQ, I Think the same way you do, at least in this part:
1. Be cautious with the words of your instructors. Many are not teaching the idea of "critical thinking" anymore.
I know that. That's why i don't believe the first thing someone tells me.
2. When you hear an "expert" declare something, do more research of your own. Weigh all the evidence before making an informed opinion or decision.
Allready done. I certanly would not say anything about something if i'm not sure about it. THis studies i refered to were done several times since the 1960s 'til today. Those are not crazy ideas, those are FACTS.
3. Check the sources behind the studies. Try to find neutral sources. Many are not.
This sources i refered to are neutral. Well, may be not so much since the cientist were all probably hetero. This is not some pro-gay propaganda... as i said before... this-are-facts. If you want to believe in them or not.. it's totally up to you.
-----
About this topic being so awfully long. Well, when new peoplo shows up to an old topic, they usually bring life to it, don't ya think?? If you don't like it, then there's always the option of NOT READING THIS THREAD.
otro34-
Glad you feel the same, but uh.. where are the facts you mentioning?
People that want this thread to close need to grow up.
If you don't like it, don't post. A discussion is not always about people coming to agreement. It can be about people viewing how others think. The ironic part is that one of those that wants this thread to die proably has the most posts in it. Oh well, I should of expected that by now.
And I agree with ruaidhri.
Fallen Angel
02-26-2006, 10:46 PM
I think homosexuality is natural. You're born that way, that's all.
Besides, who would choose to be one of the most hated (by almost every religions/culture/whatever) group of persons? Duh...
*waits for MrQ to come across this statement*
Ichisan
02-27-2006, 03:58 AM
Gay animals in nature! They prove it's natural!
otro34
02-27-2006, 05:05 AM
otro34-
Glad you feel the same, but uh.. where are the facts you mentioning?
One easy thing to do is look for it in wikipedia. It has a LOT (and when i say a LOT I reaaaaaaally mean A LOT) of information about this topic. If you don't find it very "realistic", you'll find there a list of books you can read.
Searching for it can be a little tricky tough, since there's a lot of info to read. If I find the time, I'll search for this later and post the links.
EDIT:
This is the general topic, In the part [b]Incidence[/b[ you'll find some reference to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual
This is another one more centered on the topic at hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports
Hope You'll Find Your Aswers There.
Take Care!
Otro34-
Wikipedia is your source for truth? Have you looked at Kinseys data? Hardly trustworthy through any lense. His research was so heavily flawed its almost laughable.
Fallen-
I am sure murderers are more hated than gays, but thats just me.
otro34
02-27-2006, 04:07 PM
Otro34-
Wikipedia is your source for truth? Have you looked at Kinseys data? Hardly trustworthy through any lense. His research was so heavily flawed its almost laughable.
No, i said it's an easy way to find information. Anyway, as one Friends character once said (XD)... Moo Point. There's more info on the subject everywhere on the internet or if you can find, in books.
Until someone new comes with new ideas ;) ...
Joey from Friends called it Moo Point.
Uh... >_>
*cough*
*fart*
*sneeze*
...anyway.
gyoza
02-27-2006, 07:13 PM
I see. *rubs chin*
*giggles like a Japanese schoolgirl*
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.