Why is homosexuality not considered natural?

[eyez0nme]

I am not homosexual but thats an excuse many give (not natural) when asked about homosexuality. Most people don't care or aren't against it (ones I know) but think its unnatural.

Isnt homosexuality natural though? I realize that reproduction is considered normal but homosexuality is not a choice, you dont choose to be a homo if anything reason is unnatural. Isnt homosexuality natures way of saying theres too many of you on this planet and kind of a way to keep the world from being more populated. Imo Im all for homosexuality, go you!?

[The_Penguin]

Penis was specifically not designed for the vagina. You must understand this; there's the mouth, navel, earhole--why is men's g-point near the prostate (up the anus). Is nature telling us something?
O_o

Anyways...

Imo those who consider homosexuality to be unnatural are douchebags that are no different from bigots.

[ZaichikArky]

Heh.... many, many women have never gotten off with their g-spots. I never have. They like clitoral stimulation

As for men- pretty much I have noticed that most hetero men despise anything going up their anus. Obviously gay men is another story

As for your question. Would you then say that transexualism is natural? transexuals believe that they were "born to be fe/male". So they get sex changes. I belive this is not natural, however I do support it.

It's not the question of what is "natural" or not. Society has taught us that men and women belong together because of anatomy. In the last few decades we have challenged this norm. A lot of people will tell you that homosexuality is not natural.

I have no opinion about that. I support homosexuality. I don't care if it's natural or not. I just think people deserve to be homosexual if they want to be. I am *slightly* against bisexuality, however, I'm not very judgemental against bi people, just bi-sluts. You will find many bi-sluts in liberal schools such as mine. And I just look at it as a period in someone's life where they want to experiment with tons of people :p.

[Annoying MSN Person]

Why is such a level of stupidity not considered natural?

[Masa the Masta]

Heh.... many, many women have never gotten off with their g-spots. I never have. They like clitoral stimulation


Do you like clitorial stimulation? :watson:

Edit:

It's not natural to come out of your ass.

Hence it's not natural. :watson:

[ZaichikArky]

Do you like clitorial stimulation?

somewhat... I can only get off if I have clitoral as well as vaginal pressure. This is why it's rather hard for anyone to get me off :|.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

If you are talking about nature and how the way nature works then no it is not. For a population to grow you need man on woman contact. That the way NATURE works.

Now as for it being socially acceptable that's just up to each and every person.

For me I have no opinion and do not care. The people who are gay made that decision in their life and its not my place to tell them what to do. It's also no one elses decision to tell them how they should run their lives. They are your average Joe. So to speak.

[eyez0nme]

No.

There are gay penguins, dolphins, chimpanzees, so all these examples refute your statement. You just think it's unnatural. Think outside the box for once.

Gays aren't made--they're born with it. Don't you know anything about gays?

[ZaichikArky]

Gays aren't made--they're born with it. Don't you know anything about gays?

oh please. this is absolutely not true. NO ONE is born to be homosexual or heterosexual! People, children don't even know a damn thing about what they want sexually until they're about 13. Any younger than that, and you're pushing it. I know I didn't until I was 16! And I've been masturbating since I was 5 or 6. Back then, I only understood that it felt good, not that "I like men/women".

[Jay]

Don't you know anything about gays?

Don't you know anything about anything?

[Digital Masta]

Actually the penis is in fact made specifically for the vagina. You can just stick it elsewhere should you choose.

oh please. this is absolutely not true. NO ONE is born to be homosexual or heterosexual! People, children don't even know a damn thing about what they want sexually until they're about 13.

Isn't this being researched? I think there is a whole lot of gray area regarding this.

I have no opinion about that. I support homosexuality. I don't care if it's natural or not. I just think people deserve to be homosexual if they want to be.

Hey if you deserve to be homosexual then you deserve to be bi as well. Who's to say you have to pick one or the other?

[MrQ]

I am not homosexual but thats an excuse many give (not natural) when asked about homosexuality. Most people don't care or aren't against it (ones I know) but think its unnatural.

Isnt homosexuality natural though? I realize that reproduction is considered normal but homosexuality is not a choice, you dont choose to be a homo if anything reason is unnatural. Isnt homosexuality natures way of saying theres too many of you on this planet and kind of a way to keep the world from being more populated. Imo Im all for homosexuality, go you!?

If you mean natural as in "what is it designed for" the answer is obvious. Its unnatural.

If you dont think homosexuality is a choice, how can you explain someone who is bi? Are they born with a gene that drives them to have sex with girls and boys? What about someone who enjoys having sex with little kids? Is he born that way to?

2 men cause unbelievable physiological and psychological damage to each other. 2 women are a bit different but I promise this isnt rocket science.

[Myrsilus]

It is being researched. There are many factors that can contribute to homosexuality, including biological factors.

There is a study on a cluster of neurons that exists in the hypothalamus, an area of the brain commonly known for being involved in sexual behavior. Simon LeVay studied this and found that homosexual men and heterosexual women had smaller clusters than heterosexual men. Of course, LeVay states that this may not cause homosexuality. It may actually be homosexual thoughts that influence the brain structure.

So yeah, there are studies.

http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html#_Brain_studies—anatomy

This goes into deeper detail.

[MrQ]

It is being researched. There are many factors that can contribute to homosexuality, including biological factors.

There is a study on a cluster of neurons that exists in the hypothalamus, an area of the brain commonly known for being involved in sexual behavior. Simon LeVay studied this and found that homosexual men and heterosexual women had smaller clusters than heterosexual men. Of course, LeVay states that this may not cause homosexuality. It may actually be homosexual thoughts that influence the brain structure.

So yeah, there are studies.

http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html#_Brain_studies—anatomy

This goes into deeper detail.

Answer the questions I presented before grabbing data that might support this theory.

Even IF we can find a gene that gives one a proclivity to act a certain way it doesnt make the behavior justified or natural (hince my bi etc questions).


I promise its not rocket science.

[Darkblade]

homosexuality is biologically normal.
bisexuality is a choice
heterosexuality is biologically normal.

I dont have a problem with any of them (but my god do bi women make this world a better place..)

[Myrsilus]

Answer the questions I presented before grabbing data that might support this theory.

Even IF we can find a gene that gives one a proclivity to act a certain way it doesnt make the behavior justified or natural (hince my bi etc questions).


I promise its not rocket science.

My computer froze up. I'll try again.

First of all, my post was in response to Digital's. I didn't know you posted anything until afterwards. Now that I see your post, I'll try responding.

Second of all, my previous data suggested that brain structure can influence sexual orientation, among other things. Genes can influence brain structure.

There was a study conducted by two psychologists, Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, that dealt with brothers and homosexuality. They studied identical twins, fraternal twins, and adopted brothers. In studying the identical twins, they found a 52% chance that if one brother was homosexual, the other one was homosexual as well. The chance that both brothers were homosexuals were much smaller in the brothers with less genetic similarities. This same study was conducted on females, and similar (although less consistent) results were discovered.

Obviously, the method of conducting this study might have influenced these results. But by looking at the results, we can assume that genes were not always a guaranteed factor in determining sexuality.

As I mentioned earlier, genes can impact the brain structure. This goes with more things than just sexuality. From my studying, I feel like genes do influence sexual orientation and sexual behaviors. There are also studies on the causes of pedophilia, and genes are deeply studied as a possible causation. Some believe brain abnormalities caused by genes, such as a disorder of the seratonin system, may influence the development of pedophilic tendencies or thoughts. This is just a theory, however.

But trust me... I don't feel like genes are a guaranteed factor for sexuality. I don't even feel it is a justification. I don't think homosexuality, bisexuality, or pedophilia are diseases of the brain. I may believe that genes can influence sexuality, but I feel even more strongly that experience and choice are ultimately the determining factors for humans. The results of studies are just too inconsistent, and possibly not broad enough, to suggest that genes are that huge of a determining factor. When a truly consistent and replicated study appears that suggests that genes can always result in a specific sexual orientation, then I might change my opinion.

I hope this answered your questions adequately. If I overlooked something specific, please let me know.

[Livre]

Don't many animals in the wild have same sex partners?

[Myrsilus]

I tried editing my post after finding something I overlooked... Much success there.

When I say I don't feel genes are a justification, I mean in terms of pedophilia in court. I forgot to clarify that. Otherwise, from a biological standpoint, I feel genetics can be a justification for certain behaviors. I suppose the degree of this varies with each individual.

[LJGroh]

oh please. this is absolutely not true. NO ONE is born to be homosexual or heterosexual! People, children don't even know a damn thing about what they want sexually until they're about 13. Any younger than that, and you're pushing it. I know I didn't until I was 16! And I've been masturbating since I was 5 or 6. Back then, I only understood that it felt good, not that "I like men/women".

Just because you didn't know it, or understand it (your sexual orientation), doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[eyez0nme]

Someone close this thred.

[Praetorian]

It's not the question of what is "natural" or not. Society has taught us that men and women belong together because of anatomy. In the last few decades we have challenged this norm.

Not just in the last few decades. Homosexuality has always been there throughout history - sometimes far more tolerated (sometimes even encouraged) than today.

[Digital Masta]

I'll tell you when something is wrong and not natural...when nature itself tells you.

For instance...incest is wrong.

How do we know this?

Cause nature tells us by making the offspring fucked up.


I mean I really don't care what gay people wanna do, I mean if some dude put it in another dudes ass and his penis melted as a result and this is what happens when a man has sex with another man then yes...being gay would not be natural.

[Mechs]

Not just in the last few decades. Homosexuality has always been there throughout history - sometimes far more tolerated (sometimes even encouraged) than today.

Yeah wasn't that the greeks....or was it the romans :watson:?

Anyways, to answer the orignal question: No, homosexuality is not normal in the sense of natures way of doing things, as previously stated by another poster. And I got nothing against gays really. I just don't like the girly gays. I mean their men for god sakes. Even if their gay they can still be manly about it :duh:.

[FireWolf238]

why is homosexuality not considered nornal? for the same reason no desease is considered normal. animals are built to reproduce, that by definition forces them to be heterosexual. any diviation is then not considered natural because it isnot supposed to happend.

[tekkan]

Is having sex for pleasure natural? If it is then homosexuality is also natural.
Gay sex=people do it for pleasure only
straight sex=people do it for pleasure and reproducing.

[FireWolf238]

sex for pleasure is when a couple cheats the 'system', and yes that is artificual. homosexuals aren't cheating the 'system', their 'system' is mutated, their desires contradict natural functionality.
and yes, in general just about everything civilization does is not natural.

[tekkan]

Hamster's eat their young.

[MrQ]

Good gosh people.

Anyways..

Our bodies are very complicated and miraculous machines. No matter what you believe about the origin of mankind, the function of the @sshole is crystal clear. It functions as a relatively safe way to rid our bodies of waste. Period. 2 guys bashing each other in the @ss screws up their system. The @sshole was not designed for something to go inside of it, regardless of any sensation one might have from it (test it yourself if you dont believe me, ew). Anything contrary to this will only cause harm.

Also, whether one believes in darwins theory or creation he should be quick to recognize that without procreation the species will not make it. 2 same sex humans cannot procreate and if practiced on a large enough scale it would result in the end of our species many moons ago. Not to mention the amount of disease and filth and risk involved with practicing this stuff.

Can anyone argue against this simple logic?

[FireWolf238]

ok, well who said the evolution is always on track. besiedes, under what conditions and when do hamsters eat their young? if it's in harsh conditions with no predetors to solve the problem, some of the young have to die or else all of them would starve. humans also killed babies if they were born before a winter and drastically lowered the chances for survival of a group.

edit: MrQ, very nicely stated. also just to throw this out there, darwin's theory is far from perfect, and darwin knew that very well. the whole conflict between religion and drwinism arises from people who turn darwin's theory into a religion from not knowing any better.

[Digital Masta]

Is having sex for pleasure natural? If it is then homosexuality is also natural.
Gay sex=people do it for pleasure only
straight sex=people do it for pleasure and reproducing.

I'm not sure the number but its less than 3...regarding species that have sex for pleasure...I know that humans and dolphins are two of them.

[OliveButtercup]

No.

There are gay penguins, dolphins, chimpanzees, so all these examples refute your statement. You just think it's unnatural. Think outside the box for once.

Gays aren't made--they're born with it. Don't you know anything about gays? Actually, when referring to animals, you wouldn't classify an animal as 'gay' just because they engage in mating activities with the same sex. It has a lot to do with the animal showing dominance over the other animal.The act of receiving the dominant animal is an exercise of showing submission on the part of the other.

[Masa the Masta]

Actually, when referring to animals, you wouldn't classify an animal as 'gay' just because they engage in mating activities with the same sex. It has a lot to do with the animal showing dominance over the other animal.The act of receiving the dominant animal is an exercise of showing submission on the part of the other.


Similar to what you see in prison.

Making someone your bitch, dropping the soap. :watson:

[OliveButtercup]

LOL Masa....I know some dudes off the streets from San Quentin Prison here and it's very odd to hear them joke about being 'prison gay', when they are totally straight when they get out.

[羽之助]

You have to define 'natural' first. If an animal, without human intervention, does it, is it natural? Then if so, homosexuality is natural. I remember seeing one of those National Geographic specials about a bunch of apes that used hetero and homosexual sex as a ... what the hell was it, a reward system? Or maybe it was just for greetings/apologies/whatever.

Or is natural specific to species, i.e. humans? Well, pleasure is included in the Hierarchy of Needs, so if we, as humans, are to act natural, we seek pleasure. If I recall, historically, homosexuality was only practiced among those who did not have to rely on base subsistence farming or the like - you had court nobles and politicians doing it because they had tons of money and leisure time, but the ordinary peasant was more interested in producing children to work the farm.

And if you think anal sex is dirty and filthy ... I guess you've never read much material on the subject. The anus, like the vagina, keeps itself clean. If it didn't, it would soon collapse under bacterial infection.

Also, note that this thread was started by eyezonme, so it's not worth getting into a tussle over.

[OliveButtercup]

You have to define 'natural' first. If an animal, without human intervention, does it, is it natural? Then if so, homosexuality is natural. I remember seeing one of those National Geographic specials about a bunch of apes that used hetero and homosexual sex as a ... what the hell was it, a reward system? Or maybe it was just for greetings/apologies/whatever.

Or is natural specific to species, i.e. humans? Well, pleasure is included in the Hierarchy of Needs, so if we, as humans, are to act natural, we seek pleasure. If I recall, historically, homosexuality was only practiced among those who did not have to rely on base subsistence farming or the like - you had court nobles and politicians doing it because they had tons of money and leisure time, but the ordinary peasant was more interested in producing children to work the farm.

And if you think anal sex is dirty and filthy ... I guess you've never read much material on the subject. The anus, like the vagina, keeps itself clean. If it didn't, it would soon collapse under bacterial infection.

Also, note that this thread was started by eyezonme, so it's not worth getting into a tussle over.
The booty-hole keeps itself clean??? how... sorry for my sillyness, I'm tired :dj:

[NERD]

Also, note that this thread was started by eyezonme, so it's not worth getting into a tussle over.

Somehow, I think that little f*cker is laughing all about this. That's been my thoughts in regards to any activities of his in this forum.

[Pookie42]

jsut to add my two cents, i can't remember when but a awhiel bakc i read an article in one of my science classes about these scientists who did an experiment where they had a bunch of lovely mice in a controlled environment, and they all got along fine for awhile, but then when they reproduced and the numbe rof mice went overteh sustainable level for that environment there was a dramatic increase in suicides, homicides and homosexuality. so actually it is natural in that sense. but no i'm not suggesting that people who choose to be or are naturally inclined to be (i figure there might be a natural inclination but ultimately its choice but i don't know, either way it's their lifestyle it doesn't hurt anyone else so that's that imo) are just some tool to correct overpopulation. like i said i think its based on choice.

and i'l with olivebuttercup, lets not get all revved up about this. i think even eyes has asked to have this thread closed (btw eyes if u're not willing to hear other ppl's opposing opinions or let the thread u created take its own path please don't make one.)

[NERD]

Homosexuality occurs in nature. There, I said it. It's not only mankind who have GAY PRIDE.

[羽之助]

Somehow, I think that little f*cker is laughing all about this. That's been my thoughts in regards to any activities of his in this forum.

Agreed. He only creates threads with provocative titles designed to attract a lot of people with flame-intense opinions, then (usually) is never seen again until the next thread is created.

[Lisa M]

Homosexuality occurs in nature. There, I said it. It's not only mankind who have GAY PRIDE.

Some people have Azn Pride. Is Azn-ness, then, not natural? :watson:

(Yes, I'm aware that this makes no sense)

[NERD]

I'm Asian without that Azn pride. Though I may turn on to be a bit defensive upon anything related to Koreans, that is because that's my background. Everyone does this. However, Asian American kids with that Azn Pride shit is one of the biggest jokes in my opinion. Especially since those are the types who generally refuse interaction with other ethnicities.

And not making sense is my forte, don't you try to steal that from me. Blah!

[Lisa M]

I don't know. I'm so sick of this debate that I just can't respond seriously anymore.

I have girly bits. I like other people who have girly bits. No, I don't know why.

Still can't decide on the man-bits.

[Kwiz]

Because buttsex is wrong. It ain't made for that.

No, but it can be used for that.

Homosexuality isn't statistically "normal," but it is natural.

[ShadowDeth]

It's because homosexuality doesn't serve a function in nature. All life on earth essentially exists to procreate it's species. Homosexuality doesn't work towards that goal.

It could be argued that it's simply a personality defect, in that it's experienced in a small minority of the greater population.

eyez0nme - In any event, I would request you never try to think about anything - ever again. The stuff you wrote is juvenile and borderline insulting to homosexuals.

[sedatedmonkey]

Some people have Azn Pride. Is Azn-ness, then, not natural? :watson:

(Yes, I'm aware that this makes no sense)

off topic, but that is a very attractive posterior Lisa M.

[sedatedmonkey]

Interesting subject thread. I wonder if someone is fishing for affirmation.

If anyone cares for my opinion on this subject (which is highly doubtful) it is the following:

"I don't really care as long as it is not any of MY orifices into which you desire to project your manhood seed."

Yes, I have had "gays" hit on me. Quite uncomfortable. I can understand how cocktail waitresses feel. That's why I tip well and don't hit on them. :)

Odd, be a nice, unassuming person who doesn't play grab-ass at the bar and people tend to like you. Wow, imagine that!

[NERD]

off topic, but that is a very attractive posterior Lisa M.

I'm sure she gets that a lot.

Anyway, I believe the last thread about homosexuality also died an ambiguous death as it never got anywhere. So, instead of debating about this, let's

find eyez0nme, rope him up, leave him somewhere in the Sahara and never look back, or find a random loose mod to ban him, or try to

and/or

bury this thread, and pretend this never took place

while ignoring anything the ghost of eyez0nme will try to do.

Ya'll dig?

[Masa the Masta]

I'm sure she gets that a lot.

Anyway, I believe the last thread about homosexuality also died an ambiguous death as it never got anywhere. So, instead of debating about this, let's

find eyez0nme, rope him up, leave him somewhere in the Sahara and never look back, or find a random loose mod to ban him, or try to

and/or

bury this thread, and pretend this never took place

while ignoring anything the ghost of eyez0nme will try to do.

Ya'll dig?



Just put him in prison and make him someone's bitch.

That'll make him rethink his ideas about homosexuality. :clap:

[Roxie]

Also, whether one believes in darwins theory or creation he should be quick to recognize that without procreation the species will not make it. 2 same sex humans cannot procreate and if practiced on a large enough scale it would result in the end of our species many moons ago. Not to mention the amount of disease and filth and risk involved with practicing this stuff.

Can anyone argue against this simple logic?
I'm sorry, what exactly is your point? We all know that without reproduction we wouldn't be here.

Condoms and enemas pretty much take care of the "disease and filth and risk involved with practicing this stuff." Actually, I heard Dr. Drew (of loveline fame. he is a real doctor, btw) say that only 30% of homosexual men engage in anal sex regularly.

Homosexaulity is 100% natural. Many animals, mammal and otherwise engage in homosexual sex and have amazingly, not homo-sexed themselves into extinction. We've handled it and we're still popping out of vulvas everyday. Nothing to worry about.

[NERD]

Roxie, the smart thing to do would be ignore this thread and walk away. Argue all you want, you won't be able to reach any sort of compromise. I mean, give this thread a day or two, it will die anyway. I'll give it a week at most.

[Blind_Dog]

gays are as natural as the rest of us.and i read that nearly 5 percent of any civalization is gay meaning mother nature is trying to keep mankinds pop. under control. gays have the right to live the way they want to and neither you nor i have the right to tell them other wise

[Kwiz]

But then your ass is bleeding...
Lube much?

[ZaichikArky]

gays are as natural as the rest of us.and i read that nearly 5 percent of any civalization is gay meaning mother nature is trying to keep mankinds pop. under control. gays have the right to live the way they want to and neither you nor i have the right to tell them other wise

I heard it was 10 percent.... but yeah. I agree with you in any case. I do think that 1/10 people is gay or at least bi....

[yao_yao]

Don't many animals in the wild have same sex partners?

Yes, I remember watching a Discovery Channel documentary about a species of geese. It was biologically in their favor for their males to be homosexual/bisexual...

two males would become partners, and one would be obviously dominant. The dominant male would also take on a female, which he would mate with. Then, both the dominant and submissive males would help in the protection and raising of the eggs and young. Increased chances of survival.

[ZaichikArky]

Also, whether one believes in darwins theory or creation he should be quick to recognize that without procreation the species will not make it. 2 same sex humans cannot procreate and if practiced on a large enough scale it would result in the end of our species many moons ago. Not to mention the amount of disease and filth and risk involved with practicing this stuff.

you may be correct, however the way you worded that is very wrong and I do not think very highly of you. I do agree that you can't procrate... however lesbains certainly can. All they do is have one of them have sex with a male doner and they can have their own child. In most cases *the child will never even meet the father*. How can you say that it is associated with "disease and filth". this is very biased and degrading. You should apologize.

[NERD]

*NERD shakes his head*

...I just referred to myself in a third person. Bob Dole! Bob Dole. Bob. Dole. B-O-B D-

[Lisa M]

But then your ass is bleeding...

Same thing happens to vaginas if you're not careful (i.e. don't have enough lube, go too fast too soon, miss and hit the outer edge....), but most men are too self-centered to notice.

[羽之助]

Because buttsex is wrong. It ain't made for that.

Reminds me of this.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3372&p=2

By your definition, oral sex is also wrong, because a woman's mouth isn't made for my ... heh.

[drdan]

And if you think anal sex is dirty and filthy ... I guess you've never read much material on the subject. The anus, like the vagina, keeps itself clean. If it didn't, it would soon collapse under bacterial infection.


What's supposed to be clean is the cells/components making up the intestines and anus. The lumen (the space inside the intestines) is very much dirty. There is enough E. Coli in the intestines of a single human to kill of the entire human race, not to mention the countless numbers of other harmfull organisms and waste.

And on another note. The anus is not meant for anal sex. Unlike the vagina which goes back to it's normal size after intercourse and even after childbirth, the anus doesn't have that long term capability. After some time the anus (the opening) will get larger and not close up as tightly leading to anal leakage which requires surgery to fix. Eww... :eyepop:

And this is meant for everyone else but please stop trying to compare humans to animals. *animals are gay so it's natural for humans to be gay*. Uh, NO. Sometimes it's natural for animals to kill their young. It's natural for them to fight to the death in order to mate with the female. And yes, I said "mate". As far as I know animals don't have sex for pleasure. So if animals to that then it should be natural for us to kill our young right? Or maybe fight over a female (who only want's your sperm) and mate with her simply for reproductive purposes and not for pleasure. I don't know whether being gay is natural or not but please stop comparing humans to animals.

[Kwiz]

And this is meant for everyone else but please stop trying to compare humans to animals. *animals are gay so it's natural for humans to be gay*. Uh, NO. Sometimes it's natural for animals to kill their young. It's natural for them to fight to the death in order to mate with the female. And yes, I said "mate". As far as I know animals don't have sex for pleasure. So if animals to that then it should be natural for us to kill our young right? Or maybe fight over a female (who only want's your sperm) and mate with her simply for reproductive purposes and not for pleasure. I don't know whether being gay is natural or not but please stop comparing humans to animals.

Are you trying to somehow connect homosexuality with killing and eating young? That's called guilt/glory by association, and it doesn't pass as logical reasoning.

And we all are - quite literally - animals.

[MoosecatcherPrime]

Not just in the last few decades. Homosexuality has always been there throughout history - sometimes far more tolerated (sometimes even encouraged) than today.

If you're reffering to Greece (especially Sparta), it was bisexuality that was encouraged, not homosexuality. While Spartan soldiers WERE encouraged to engage in gay sex (mostly to develop a special bond in combat), they were also expected to find wives. Feminine males were also frowned upon.

Still, I have no beef with homosexuality.

[paul]

Good gosh people.

Anyways..

Our bodies are very complicated and miraculous machines. No matter what you believe about the origin of mankind, the function of the @sshole is crystal clear. It functions as a relatively safe way to rid our bodies of waste. Period. 2 guys bashing each other in the @ss screws up their system. The @sshole was not designed for something to go inside of it, regardless of any sensation one might have from it (test it yourself if you dont believe me, ew). Anything contrary to this will only cause harm.

Also, whether one believes in darwins theory or creation he should be quick to recognize that without procreation the species will not make it. 2 same sex humans cannot procreate and if practiced on a large enough scale it would result in the end of our species many moons ago. Not to mention the amount of disease and filth and risk involved with practicing this stuff.

Can anyone argue against this simple logic?

Hm I read an interesting fictional novel regarding that. In this novel's world, the neanderthals became intelligent rather than humans (they've always had a bigger brains), and in their society, every man/woman and a same AND opposite sex partner. All procreation is scheduled, hunting etc are organized so there is no such thing as overhunting. The men get to see the women periodically, but otherwise keep each other company. This keeps population under control. Its a cyclic system, pretty interesting read actually.

For anyone interested, just google the neanderthal parallax or something, by Robert J Sawyer.

[ManiacLove]

If you dont think homosexuality is a choice, how can you explain someone who is bi? Are they born with a gene that drives them to have sex with girls and boys? What about someone who enjoys having sex with little kids? Is he born that way to?


Yes.

I am Bisexual, and this isn't by choice. if I find someone attractive, they're attractive to me, I can't help it.

Pedophilia is an attraction to young children that one is in fact born with, as it's a psycological disease.

Homosexuality is not excluded to human beings, there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The percentage of homosexuality in animals is supposed to the be the same as in people.



Also, whether one believes in darwins theory or creation he should be quick to recognize that without procreation the species will not make it. 2 same sex humans cannot procreate and if practiced on a large enough scale it would result in the end of our species many moons ago. Not to mention the amount of disease and filth and risk involved with practicing this stuff.

Can anyone argue against this simple logic?

Who cares about procreation, really? I don't. Why do people think that if you can't have babies, your relationship means nothing? My boyfriend and I are NEVER having children, (By choice) does that make our relationship less meaningful?


Yes, a gay man is more like to get HIV than a straight man, but only because back in the 80s (when AIDS first broke at such a rate) it wasn't as acceptable. People hid in the shadows, some people still do. "Straight" men give their wives HIV all the time because they go have gay one night stands, and wearing a condom is seen as admitting to being gay. It's not because being gay is wrong, or worse than being straight.

[Zensouken]

What's the Japanese cultural stance on homosexuality?

[Masa the Masta]

What's the Japanese cultural stance on homosexuality?

I read somewhere that it's acceptable among young men in their early to late teens, but it's something they 'should' grow out of in their 20's, and they're expected to get bitches or something.

I'm also 40% sure on this little tidbit of information though, so take it with a block of salt.

[Zensouken]

I read somewhere that it's acceptable among young men in their early to late teens, but it's something they 'should' grow out of in their 20's, and they're expected to get bitches or something.

I'm also 40% sure on this little tidbit of information though, so take it with a block of salt.

Doesn't Japan generally have a mentality that there are stages of life people 'should' grow out of?

[Masa the Masta]

Doesn't Japan generally have a mentality that there are stages of life people 'should' grow out of?


That's a question someone living in Japan could answer. I have no clue.

[Lisa M]

Yes, a gay man is more like to get HIV than a straight man

75% of HIV-positive people are heterosexual men and women.

Just so y'alls know.

[Masa the Masta]

75% of HIV-positive people are heterosexual men and women.

Just so y'alls know.

It's also easier for a woman to get HIV than a man. :watson:

[drdan]

Are you trying to somehow connect homosexuality with killing and eating young? That's called guilt/glory by association, and it doesn't pass as logical reasoning.

And we all are - quite literally - animals.


No, I don't think you quite understood what I meant. I don't like it when others compare humans to other animals. What I'm saying is that just because there are gay animals, it doesn't make it natural or right for humans to be gay. That kind of argument does not work for me. Just because other animals eat their young, it doesn't make it right or natural for humans to do. I can come up with many other analogies but I think you get the point. And just because we are all quite literally animals doesn't give us the excuse to behave a certain way. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say because it has nothing to do with associating homosexuals with killing or eating their young.

[paul]

What does it matter anyway, I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me. I take that attitude towards alot of stuff. Its selfish I know. And don't start accusing me of being responsible of starving children in africa now, you know what my answer will be.

[Stu]

Isnt homosexuality natural though?No. It is not unnatural. If nature didn't want it, it wouldn't allow it at all. For example, a dog cannot have sex with a tree - that would be unnatural. A man can have sex with another man - nature does not mind one bit.

you dont choose to be a homo if anything reason is unnatural. ermm... don't use that word. For someone who tries to take the stance of an underdog, you might not want to alienate any. Thanks.

[Stu]

Pedophilia is an attraction to young children that one is in fact born with...Just because you're born with it doesn't make it right. Pedophilia is wrong, regardless of wether or not it is innately present at birth. In my book, an ok relationship is a mutually consentual relationship between two rational adults. Pedophilia violates 1.5 of those parts - it's not between two adults and it's not fully consentual in the sense that the child is not in complete possesion of rational faculties yet.

[Kwiz]

No, I don't think you quite understood what I meant. I don't like it when others compare humans to other animals. What I'm saying is that just because there are gay animals, it doesn't make it natural or right for humans to be gay. That kind of argument does not work for me.

No, the fact that we are animals alone doesn't make it natural, but tons of other evidence does. A few members of this board are walking examples of the fact that homosexual people feel genuine romantic love, and can raise children under such a parental relationship.

[MrQ]

I'm sorry, what exactly is your point? We all know that without reproduction we wouldn't be here.

Condoms and enemas pretty much take care of the "disease and filth and risk involved with practicing this stuff." Actually, I heard Dr. Drew (of loveline fame. he is a real doctor, btw) say that only 30% of homosexual men engage in anal sex regularly.

Homosexaulity is 100% natural. Many animals, mammal and otherwise engage in homosexual sex and have amazingly, not homo-sexed themselves into extinction. We've handled it and we're still popping out of vulvas everyday. Nothing to worry about.

My point was about the natural debate. If people long ago (before the scientific advancements of our day) practiced homosexuality on a much larger scale it would of ended our race. Mankind had a hard enough time surviving all that other crap..

You believe everything on TV? You gotta be kidding me. Homosexuals practice alot of things that you would have no idea about because they do not shout it out in the streets. The image of the gay lifestyle is glorified in our media. Unfortunately, it is all a lie. Ever heard of fisting? Its very disturbing yet a very common practice among homosexuals. Do you know what kind of damage is done to a man who engages in the homosexual lifestyle both physically and emotionally? Its horrific. Trying to justify it is a waste of time.

Homesexuality is not natural. If you believe it is you should do more research. I remember my hamsters when I was a young boy. When the male had offspring, the ones that he didnt get to eat would grow older. He would occasionally try to hump them. They would do whatever they could to ESCAPE the anal assault by their parent. They never walked side by side and took turns.. I have yet to see this in nature. Even if you can find one example the overwhelming evidence is against this.

you may be correct, however the way you worded that is very wrong and I do not think very highly of you. I do agree that you can't procrate... however lesbains certainly can. All they do is have one of them have sex with a male doner and they can have their own child. In most cases *the child will never even meet the father*. How can you say that it is associated with "disease and filth". this is very biased and degrading. You should apologize.

Many lesbians find the act of sex with a male disgusting. Good luck trying to convince them of that. I was clearly speaking of a hyperthetical situation anyway, with the past comment.

Anal sex has more risks of disease and filth than any other method of sex along with beastiality. Thats what I was talking about. Biased? No its called facts. Maybe you misunderstood everything I posted?


And if you think anal sex is dirty and filthy ... I guess you've never read much material on the subject. The anus, like the vagina, keeps itself clean. If it didn't, it would soon collapse under bacterial infection

Lol. Seriously guy, you are seriously misinformed if you think this applies to things being inserted into your @sshole. Try it yourself then come back and say this with a straight face.



Yes.

I am Bisexual, and this isn't by choice. if I find someone attractive, they're attractive to me, I can't help it.

Pedophilia is an attraction to young children that one is in fact born with, as it's a psycological disease.

Homosexuality is not excluded to human beings, there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The percentage of homosexuality in animals is supposed to the be the same as in people.

Are you kidding me? You honestly believe pedophilia is a disease? My dear, I urge to you become more versed in the classical schools of thought.. Your line of thinking is very scary. You are basically saying we cant control our impulses... criminals ALWAYS use this defense to justify their behavior. If you honestly believe this you are on a dangerous road at your tender age.

Who cares about procreation, really? I don't. Why do people think that if you can't have babies, your relationship means nothing? My boyfriend and I are NEVER having children, (By choice) does that make our relationship less meaningful?


Yes, a gay man is more like to get HIV than a straight man, but only because back in the 80s (when AIDS first broke at such a rate) it wasn't as acceptable. People hid in the shadows, some people still do. "Straight" men give their wives HIV all the time because they go have gay one night stands, and wearing a condom is seen as admitting to being gay. It's not because being gay is wrong, or worse than being straight.

You are entitled to your opinion. Though I dont know who you are arguing against in your first paragraph.. its nothing anyone has said I dont think.

Your 2nd paragraph is a bit loose on the data. Care to share your sources? Why are so bent on believing this garbage? No one is saying you cant live the way you want...you have free will you know. I dont hate you for being bi..

There is no proof at this time that people are born gay, bi, adulterers, sex fiends, etc. Dont hang your hat on research thats biased and largely inadequate. If you want to be gay then be gay. Just know that many will disagree with you about it being a healthy lifestyle.

[Lisa M]

Fisting is very common among gay men? And your source is what now?

Experience?

On a more serious note, fisting is not limited to gay men. Some heterosexual couples and lesbian couples enjoy vaginal fisting; some men enjoy being anally fisted by their girlfriends.

And while I'll give you that homosexuals are more likely to be "psychologically damaged" - higher rates of depression, suicide, et cetera - studies have shown that that is not caused merely by being homosexual. It is mostly caused by environmental factors, namely the negative attitude towards homosexuals that most people have.

And also to your assertation that anal sex is "dirtier" than vaginal sex - which one is more likely to cause a bacterial infection, now? Oh, yes, that would be a UTI caused by vaginal sex....

You see, men have a longer urethra than women and therefore are MUCH less likely to contract a bacterial infection through any type of intercourse. The body will kill the bacteria before it gets to breeding ground. Bacteria from a man's penis, however (which I will admit usually comes from the anus), doesn't have a hard time travelling a woman's urethra or vagina into more fertile grounds. With anal sex, you don't have to worry much about bacteria entering the anus, as it's very well equipped to deal with that particular problem.

[drdan]

And also to your assertation that anal sex is "dirtier" than vaginal sex - which one is more likely to cause a bacterial infection, now? Oh, yes, that would be a UTI caused by vaginal sex....

You see, men have a longer urethra than women and therefore are MUCH less likely to contract a bacterial infection through any type of intercourse. The body will kill the bacteria before it gets to breeding ground. Bacteria from a man's penis, however (which I will admit usually comes from the anus), doesn't have a hard time travelling a woman's urethra or vagina into more fertile grounds. With anal sex, you don't have to worry much about bacteria entering the anus, as it's very well equipped to deal with that particular problem.

I think your trying to argue a different point. Some people are saying that the anus is dirtier than the vagina, but you are saying that getting an infection in the vagina is more common than in the anus during intercourse. That may or may not be true, but the fact remains that the anus is still "dirtier" than the vagina even though there is less risk for disease in the anus than in the vagina for the girl but for the guy, risk of infection is higher if doing anal rather than vaginal sex. What I mean is that the girl that is doing the receiving during sex will have higher risk of infection in the vagina and less of a risk for infection in the anus, but that is her senario. But the guy doing the giving has a much much higher risk for infection if he gives anal sex to the girl rather than vaginal.

[ミュー]

I think that lesbian women need Koda Kumi to teach them "The Way of the Hot Spray"

:O

[Lisa M]

Since men are less likely to get an infection anyway (that whole long urethra thing), it is sufficient to simply wash the penis after unprotected anal sex, making sure to wash the opening at the tip. Nowadays, however, we have the convenience of condoms, which makes the whole process much easier.

[Renter]

I think I won't bother suffering through this thread and just answer the original question instead: It is, just not by retards. And who cares about retards?

[Kaji]

If people want to make the argument that genetics predetermine homosexuality that's fine, but if such is really the case then I consider it to be about as natural as Down's Syndrome, which likewise doesn't require any scientific manipulation or psychological inducing to cause it to occur last I checked.

[羽之助]

Lol. Seriously guy, you are seriously misinformed if you think this applies to things being inserted into your @sshole. Try it yourself then come back and say this with a straight face.

What makes you think I haven't? I never talk about anything unless I am sure of the data. If I'm not, then I use words like 'think' and 'I'm not sure if this is true'. I have had anal sex with two girls and they have both been clean as a whistle. As for myself, I've gotta wash up (though everyone should do so before).

This thread needs to die. It was started for the very purpose of people yelling and flaming each other.

[ZaichikArky]

mrq is obviously a closet(not) conservative Republican bastard. And he's older than a lot of us. AND he's from the lonestar state of happyness. And I mean this in the nicest way possible. I go to a damn hippie school(very very similar to berkeley) called UC Santa Cruz and it's bad enough there. Of course I dislike Texas, but not Texans as a whole, just the meanest and the most right-wing of the Texans :|

You know, being conservative and being a complete dick are two different things. I respect that you're anti gay-rights, anti-abortion, anti-lots of liberal stuff, but there is a difference between acting considerate and just terrible about your political views.

I dislike Republicans, however, my parents are republicans and some people I know are, and even if you AREN'T a Rebublican, how the hell is it supposed to sound when you say that anal sex is disgusting and associated with filth? I'm sorry, but living in Santa Cruz, I know a shitload(excuse the pun) of gay people and they tell me all kinds of weird stuff about the life of a queer. I have never heard them tell me anything about any kind of penile/anal infection they may have had.

I have severe urinary tract problems(associated with the shape/size of a normal femine urethera). Having sex irritates these problems and I get vaginal as well as urinary infections. The vaginile infections have never bothered me, though, they just go away. I like my vagina, but I hate my urethera because I think it's deformed :p. Do people say that sex is filthy? Well, maybe the prudish nuns? Some people think heterosexual sex is filthy as well. However, most people think that this is very wrong.

Everything you have said in this thread is insulting and degrading. I'm not even too offended, however, you need to consider how others will respond to the audacious things you have to say.

[NERD]

This thread needs to die. It was started for the very purpose of people yelling and flaming each other.

Um, you think? At least you are not the only one who thinks so.

Some people here just looooooove to argue for the hell of it. Sorry, but you are not gonna convince anyone otherwise. It's like two rams butting heads against each other until one of them dies.

[Lisa M]

But arguing can be so much fun.

[ShadowDeth]

^ It seems like people enjoy ducking their heads in the sand. If the thread is maintaining a relatively civil tone, why should it end? I'm honestly sick of those responses. It's always someone who feels they are above the discussion, have seen it before or think they already have the winning stance on the issue.

So instead of looking at what you *think* the thread is, why not actually read it? Because very little has been inflamatory.

"I have yet to see this in nature. Even if you can find one example the overwhelming evidence is against this. "

homosexual preference in animals have been proven. Just because fluffy and foo-foo didn't consensually have sex (and it's not like you can prove it; monitor your hamsters all day) it doesn't mean studies haven't been done. I suggest before going off on your war on gays that you actually do your research.

[MrQ]

Fisting is very common among gay men? And your source is what now?

Experience?

On a more serious note, fisting is not limited to gay men. Some heterosexual couples and lesbian couples enjoy vaginal fisting; some men enjoy being anally fisted by their girlfriends.

And while I'll give you that homosexuals are more likely to be "psychologically damaged" - higher rates of depression, suicide, et cetera - studies have shown that that is not caused merely by being homosexual. It is mostly caused by environmental factors, namely the negative attitude towards homosexuals that most people have.

And also to your assertation that anal sex is "dirtier" than vaginal sex - which one is more likely to cause a bacterial infection, now? Oh, yes, that would be a UTI caused by vaginal sex....

You see, men have a longer urethra than women and therefore are MUCH less likely to contract a bacterial infection through any type of intercourse. The body will kill the bacteria before it gets to breeding ground. Bacteria from a man's penis, however (which I will admit usually comes from the anus), doesn't have a hard time travelling a woman's urethra or vagina into more fertile grounds. With anal sex, you don't have to worry much about bacteria entering the anus, as it's very well equipped to deal with that particular problem.

Do a bit of research. I have had alot of contact with gays growing up, thats all I can say about that.

Show me 1 couple that fists and ill show you 100k that dont. Its not common among anyone but GAY MEN.

How do you know its mostly caused by the environment? Thats your opinion not substantiated by the facts. There are gay people who live in gay areas and therefore dont have to worry about "environmental factors." The reason why many have to deal with this is because deep down we all know the truth behind this lifestyle. It is not natural and its against the design. You can be pro-gay all you want but you cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence that shows you that this is not the way he/she is intended to live. And I am not arguing from a moral standpoint here. Thats another can of beans.

Again, this isnt rocket science. What passes through the anus and through the vagina are totally different things. Stop trying to justify this sh*t with this argument that has no basis in reality.


What makes you think I haven't? I never talk about anything unless I am sure of the data. If I'm not, then I use words like 'think' and 'I'm not sure if this is true'. I have had anal sex with two girls and they have both been clean as a whistle. As for myself, I've gotta wash up (though everyone should do so before)..

Because your statement was so outrageously incorrect in regards to men having anal sex (which is what I was referring to). Your pesonal experience with 2 girls dont make your position true.

mrq is obviously a closet(not) conservative Republican bastard. And he's older than a lot of us. AND he's from the lonestar state of happyness. And I mean this in the nicest way possible. I go to a damn hippie school(very very similar to berkeley) called UC Santa Cruz and it's bad enough there. Of course I dislike Texas, but not Texans as a whole, just the meanest and the most right-wing of the Texans :|

You know, being conservative and being a complete dick are two different things. I respect that you're anti gay-rights, anti-abortion, anti-lots of liberal stuff, but there is a difference between acting considerate and just terrible about your political views.

I dislike Republicans, however, my parents are republicans and some people I know are, and even if you AREN'T a Rebublican, how the hell is it supposed to sound when you say that anal sex is disgusting and associated with filth? I'm sorry, but living in Santa Cruz, I know a shitload(excuse the pun) of gay people and they tell me all kinds of weird stuff about the life of a queer. I have never heard them tell me anything about any kind of penile/anal infection they may have had.

I have severe urinary tract problems(associated with the shape/size of a normal femine urethera). Having sex irritates these problems and I get vaginal as well as urinary infections. The vaginile infections have never bothered me, though, they just go away. I like my vagina, but I hate my urethera because I think it's deformed :p. Do people say that sex is filthy? Well, maybe the prudish nuns? Some people think heterosexual sex is filthy as well. However, most people think that this is very wrong.

Everything you have said in this thread is insulting and degrading. I'm not even too offended, however, you need to consider how others will respond to the audacious things you have to say.

I have a different opinion than yours based on evidence and experience so that makes me a bastard? Ive stated before that I am not republican. I side with the facts, plain and simple. Regardless of personal biases unlike many.

I think you should perhaps take a step back and reread what I read. When I was referring to dirty and filth.. well theres a reason why their are a good amount of gay men dying with Aids. I have personally known several and have researched the hard truth like gay black men in Dallas alone is approaching the 50% mark with HIV. Scary. Thinking like yours is dangerous as it ignores the facts and glorifies an obviously destructive lifestyle.

[ZaichikArky]

Um, you think? At least you are not the only one who thinks so.

Some people here just looooooove to argue for the hell of it. Sorry, but you are not gonna convince anyone otherwise. It's like two rams butting heads against each other until one of them dies.

shrug. I love arguing on the internet. I seldom get angry at internet stupidity, that's why I love it so much. on the contrary I act full of myself and laugh at people who take it so seriously. I dislike mrq's attempt to be on the opposite side of things. i respect homophobes to a cetain extent. To a certain extent my boyfriend is a homophobe. what I don't accept, however, is people acting like people who don't agree with them are stupid >_<. What I mean to say is that I dislike people acting condescending towards me or others. This does irritate me to the extent of my trolling, but it's only counteracting stupid with a greater stupid which is fun as hell. This is why i troll. I don't think I've trolled anything here, however.

I have a different opinion than yours based on evidence and experience so that makes me a bastard? Ive stated before that I am not republican. I side with the facts, plain and simple. Regardless of personal biases unlike many.

I think you should perhaps take a step back and reread what I read. When I was referring to dirty and filth.. well theres a reason why their are a good amount of gay men dying with Aids. I have personally known several and have researched the hard truth like gay black men in Dallas alone is approaching the 50% mark with HIV. Scary. Thinking like yours is dangerous as it ignores the facts and glorifies an obviously destructive lifestyle.

I do not disrespect your point of view. I disrespect how you carry yourself and pretty much the way you tell people your point of view. You sound like a very intelligent person, however, please gain a little bit of sensitivity for the issues at hand. Especially when refering to abortion(this is a highly sensitive subject to many feminists) as well as gay rights(this affects ALL liberals). I actually do understand what you read and what you say. If I misinterpret it, chances are I'm not the only one because the way you make things sound, it just seems as if people were designed to get pissed at you.

And as for my thinking. I go to UC Santa Cruz where everyone experiments with all kind of shit and cares less. Up to 80% of the students I know smoke pot on a daily basis. Many more drink underage. Ahh college life. I'm sure you remember. I actually don't do any of this. I sit on my computer, work hard in my classes, and study Japanese. I'm a geek and I have no friends in my college town. I socialize once a week at most. I actually go 2.5 hours home to socialize with my hometown. heh. Please don't tell me I lead a destructive lifestyle. I do not. I'm a moderate VERY politically aware lady(although sadly I act a lot more like a "man" than most of the queers on campus :|). I support PEACE, being considerate towards other people, and freedom in many forms. If this leads to a destructive lifestyle, than so be it. However, I disagree with you. You see, saying things exactly like that is what made me a bit annoyed to begin with. I dislike your attitude. However, I have taken every single post of yours into consideration because at least you don't *completely* try tobe a troll like that eyez guy.

Nice to meet you, btw :|.

[NERD]

^ It seems like people enjoy ducking their heads in the sand. If the thread is maintaining a relatively civil tone, why should it end?


You assume too much, man. I dunno, I've been involved in a thread quite similar to this one not too long ago, but if you n00bs want to butt heads all over again, be my guest. I feel that there's been nothing new that's been said and done here.

I'm honestly sick of those responses. It's always someone who feels they are above the discussion, have seen it before or think they already have the winning stance on the issue.

Huh. What about your Music that sucks thread? http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1442

[Stu]

Thinking like yours is dangerous as it ignores the facts and glorifies an obviously destructive lifestyle.I'm going to get on the ZaichikArky-train for a second here. Homosexuality is not destructive by nature. A homosexual relationship can be consentual, caring, and supportive. A heterosexual relationship can be destructive as well in terms of an abusive relationship.

Sexual promiscuity is one feature of male homosexuality that tends to be very different from male heterosexuality, but this does not make homosexuality wrong - just different from heterosexuality. This, incedentally, is one of the things that makes AIDS so deadly in the male gay population. :cop:

[Stu]

You assume too much, man. I dunno, I've been involved in a thread quite similar to this one not too long ago, but if you n00bs want to butt heads all over again, be my guest. I feel that there's been nothing new that's been said and done here.I like how you call us n00bs for discussing something you've already discussed before, like we're new to the spaceweb and all. You've been waving the "this topic is dead so stop posting" flag so much now it's practically a leitmotif. Here's what I do when I want to get my message accross with as little effort as possible. Feel free to copy and paste my BB Code.

blah blah blahhttp://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7108/stopposting10gg.gif


And try to resist that urge to post my post back to me as a riposte.

[ZaichikArky]

You assume too much, man. I dunno, I've been involved in a thread quite similar to this one not too long ago, but if you n00bs want to butt heads all over again, be my guest. I feel that there's been nothing new that's been said and done here.



Huh. What about your Music that sucks thread? http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1442

WOW. Liek. You're so much cooler and smarter than us n00bs. I mean, being here a whole 5 months earlier than us! Liek. you're SO cool. Can I marry you? Assuming you're a woman and all, because I'm a butch dyke irl. I think that we'd make an awsome couple.

like how you call us n00bs for discussing something you've already discussed before, like we're new to the spaceweb and all. You've been waving the "this topic is dead so stop posting" flag so much now it's practically a leitmotif. Here's what I do when I want to get my message accross with as little effort as possible. Feel free to copy and paste my BB Code.

you might not get that nerd is being mean to us just so he can find a pathetic source of amusement out of it. Just ignore it, or join me on the troll-train, because his behavior is bordering on trolling.

I troll
you troll
we all troll

what a jolly good time.

[ShadowDeth]

You assume too much, man. I dunno, I've been involved in a thread quite similar to this one not too long ago, but if you n00bs want to butt heads all over again, be my guest. I feel that there's been nothing new that's been said and done here.


That's great then. Not posting has the same effect as essentially protesting a thread, except that people don't care when someone charges in telling them just how much they don't like it.

Huh. What about your Music that sucks thread? http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1442

Ok, I will stop being civil now. You're a retard. That thread was *about* what we didn't like, what we *thought* we were above.

You're like a whole 'nuther level of dumb, kiddo.

[NERD]

All right! I have your attention now.

And changed the topic. Good good.

Say what you will, I was merely being sarcastic. You guys can continue the debacle if you'd like.

[ZaichikArky]

nerd is an attention whore! and a closet lesbian! AND a sarcastic bastard :clap:

I don't understand sarcasm online half the time anyway : (.

[ManiacLove]

Just because you're born with it doesn't make it right. Pedophilia is wrong, regardless of wether or not it is innately present at birth. In my book, an ok relationship is a mutually consentual relationship between two rational adults. Pedophilia violates 1.5 of those parts - it's not between two adults and it's not fully consentual in the sense that the child is not in complete possesion of rational faculties yet.

I never said that it was right, just that it's something someone was born with and in most cases can't get help for.

Because the second someone says "I think I'm attracted to kids, I need help". They're alienated and assumed to be a child molestor, which makes it difficult for the disease to be treated, or quarantined, or whatever solutions people are trying to come up with.

Therefore pedophiles hide in the shadows until their disire is too much, and end up raping/killing children.




Are you kidding me? You honestly believe pedophilia is a disease? My dear, I urge to you become more versed in the classical schools of thought.. Your line of thinking is very scary. You are basically saying we cant control our impulses... criminals ALWAYS use this defense to justify their behavior. If you honestly believe this you are on a dangerous road at your tender age.

Listen up, PEDOPHILE does NOT equal CHILD MOLESTOR.


Pedophilia is an attraction to children that one is born with. Child Molestion is a CHOICE made by pedophiles.

DO NOT put words in my mouth, thanks.

[羽之助]

Well it's kind of hard to without hearing the tone of voice and seeing the facial expression. Well, if NERD is an attention whore, then YOU are a ... uh ... Nintendo whore! (said for absolutely no reason other than it's in your sig).

[kensei]

Thinking like yours is dangerous as it ignores the facts and glorifies an obviously destructive lifestyle.

Idiocy. You fail to recognize the fact that hetero couples are just as prone to HIV as any homosexual couple. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that homosexual couples are less likely to catch other STDs than straight couples, while failing to cite your sources and downplaying the sources cited by others in the next breath. Try not to be so stereotypical next time. You're giving Texans a bad rap.

[KKF]

He is very closed minded about a different life style than his. Seems to me he had a bad experience with a gay male. Shrug.

[Stu]

Listen up, PEDOPHILE does NOT equal CHILD MOLESTOR.
..
DO NOT put words in my mouth, thanks.Well said. I was just trying to say that I think that pedophilia is wrong, but I suppose I should have tightened it up to state that I think that child molestation is wrong. You made an important distinction.

[Kuhool]

could someone be homosexual for the same reasons another would be born blind, or with CP?

[SuperToy#1]

I wonder how this topic sprung about... what made u ask this eyez??????

This is such a tuchy subject seeing as how homosexualty is the "In" thing now...
by that i mean that it alot more common and publicized but thats mostly an american thing. Its really not a big thing in most other contries its accepted even through out history its was accepted and encouraged (it was the both ancient greeks and romans but where it really rampant was in sparta, even in Japanese history it is common) but americans seem to have "christian values" (which is why its something that is very touchy) and under the eyes of God, well...

"Man shall not lay with man and woman shall not lay with beast."

as u can see there is nothing wrong with some girl on girl action :D

[MrQ]

I dislike mrq's attempt to be on the opposite side of things. i respect homophobes to a cetain extent. To a certain extent my boyfriend is a homophobe. what I don't accept, however, is people acting like people who don't agree with them are stupid >_<. What I mean to say is that I dislike people acting condescending towards me or others. This does irritate me to the extent of my trolling, but it's only counteracting stupid with a greater stupid which is fun as hell. This is why i troll. I don't think I've trolled anything here, however.

I am not attempting to be anywhere. I am expressing a viewpoint here that I believe is correct. I am not a homophobe. Just because I do not agree with the majority doesnt mean I fear gay people. This is something many of you will perhaps learn someday. People with different opinions arent the enemy. You can interpret my comments anyway you can but I find it hard consider them personally harmful to anyone.

I do not disrespect your point of view. I disrespect how you carry yourself and pretty much the way you tell people your point of view. You sound like a very intelligent person, however, please gain a little bit of sensitivity for the issues at hand. Especially when refering to abortion(this is a highly sensitive subject to many feminists) as well as gay rights(this affects ALL liberals). I actually do understand what you read and what you say. If I misinterpret it, chances are I'm not the only one because the way you make things sound, it just seems as if people were designed to get pissed at you.

Sensitivity? Are you kidding? I call things like I see them. Im a bit harsh at times in my words but I assume we are all adults here so you can get over it.

And as for my thinking. I go to UC Santa Cruz where everyone experiments with all kind of shit and cares less. Up to 80% of the students I know smoke pot on a daily basis. Many more drink underage. Ahh college life. I'm sure you remember. I actually don't do any of this. I sit on my computer, work hard in my classes, and study Japanese. I'm a geek and I have no friends in my college town. I socialize once a week at most. I actually go 2.5 hours home to socialize with my hometown. heh. Please don't tell me I lead a destructive lifestyle. I do not. I'm a moderate VERY politically aware lady(although sadly I act a lot more like a "man" than most of the queers on campus :|). I support PEACE, being considerate towards other people, and freedom in many forms. If this leads to a destructive lifestyle, than so be it. However, I disagree with you. You see, saying things exactly like that is what made me a bit annoyed to begin with. I dislike your attitude. However, I have taken every single post of yours into consideration because at least you don't *completely* try tobe a troll like that eyez guy.

Nice to meet you, btw :|.

Whoever said you live a destructive lifestyle? I think this is where you are misunderstanding me. I was referring to the gay lifestyle, particulary men. I dont troll at all...........uhh nice to meet you too..

I'm going to get on the ZaichikArky-train for a second here. Homosexuality is not destructive by nature. A homosexual relationship can be consentual, caring, and supportive. A heterosexual relationship can be destructive as well in terms of an abusive relationship.

In regards to the physical damage and pyschological damage it is very destructive by nature. Stick to the topic if you insist on debating what I am saying.. No one is talking about feelings here or crazy heterosexuals.

Listen up, PEDOPHILE does NOT equal CHILD MOLESTOR.


Pedophilia is an attraction to children that one is born with. Child Molestion is a CHOICE made by pedophiles.

DO NOT put words in my mouth, thanks..

Get off the born with train please. No scientific studies will support your crazy claims. Your reasoning dictates the words that I put in your mouth. Glad you clarified yourself but I still think your line of thinking is dangerous.

You pretty damn hot too. Ahem. Moving on..

Idiocy. You fail to recognize the fact that hetero couples are just as prone to HIV as any homosexual couple. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that homosexual couples are less likely to catch other STDs than straight couples, while failing to cite your sources and downplaying the sources cited by others in the next breath. Try not to be so stereotypical next time. You're giving Texans a bad rap.

I havent failed to recognize anything. Its obvious people dont like to hear the facts surrounding any lifestyle they want to do but KNOW that something is wrong with it. Its like the alcoholics who hate the bartender to cut off their liquor.. Its to SAVE their lives but they still want to drink. Same thing here with homosexuals. Ramming fists and penises in a place that isnt designed for it causes unbelievable harm to the individual. I can gladly produce my sources if any of you would post something worth me refuting. I figured my source of "common sense' would be enough. Do you have sources to back up your rediculous statements?? Why is it that almost 1 out of every 2 gay black males in DALLAS have HIV?? Not the straight black men, but the gays? Why is it many gay communites the HIV rates are getting out of control? Wake up please.

Its funny how my opinion is being branded as closed minded while you guys with the opposite is just soooo open about mine. Gimme a break. Some of you have alot to learn.

[Roxie]

Ever hear of being on the downlow?

[raevyn]

Ever hear of being on the downlow?

only if you are black ;)

[Roxie]

I hear it's quite common amongst Latinos/hispanics, thanks to the machismo.

[raevyn]

I hear it's quite common amongst Latinos/hispanics, thanks to the machismo.

I guess I could see that happening, I was just under the impression that downlow was a black thing

[Roxie]

Oh yeah, that phrase is associated with it, but it would be naive to think that attitude represents is a "black thing" (not saying that you are).

I recently attented a speech at my Uni by this woman who wrote on it (and other sexual things, like hymen rejuvination) happening in the Latino and Latino-American community...if only I could remember her name...

[Stu]

I am not attempting to be anywhere. I am expressing a viewpoint here that I believe is correct. I am not a homophobe. Just because I do not agree with the majority doesnt mean I fear gay people. I must say, you have been getting a disproportionate amount of flack for your opinions. It's not fun to be attacked for proposing rational arguments for your position.

In regards to the physical damage and pyschological damage it is very destructive by nature. Stick to the topic if you insist on debating what I am saying.. No one is talking about feelings here or crazy heterosexuals.I don't quite understand - how wasn't I sticking to the topic? I thought the topic was why or why not is homosexuality unnatural. It seems that you feel that it is unnatural because of physical reasons (true, anal sex can cause severe damage to the lower GI region). I feel that it is perfectly fine (read: natural) for emotional reasons because people can form perfectly happy relationships.


Either way, it's patently obvious that neither of us are straying off topic because we're both justifying our views on why it is or is not natural. Right?

[ShadowDeth]

Why is it that almost 1 out of every 2 gay black males in DALLAS have HIV??


Homosexuals are second class citizens and i'm sure it's not on the government's highest priority to assist them.

Likewise, aids was quite obviously man-made. Diseases that lethal and perfect don't naturally occur.

Not the straight black men, but the gays?

What is your point? I've heard this nonsense before, and it never adds up. You're claiming that the HIV positive rate in gays (+minorities, whatever) is associated with their lifestyle? Would you care to explain how you came to become so familiar with their lifestyle? You wouldn't happen to be going off other propaganda from other like minded people attempting to push forward their agenda, would you?

Why is it many gay communites the HIV rates are getting out of control? Wake up please.

It couldn't be general apathy towards the plight of "undesirables" would it? Nah. It's that you seem to believe anal sex spreads aids faster than vaginal sex. Or that they are more promiscuous than straight partners. I have some news for you buddy, if you have aids, and you exchange sexual fluids under any cirumstance you will hand over the disease.

This leads me to the next question you should be asking yourself. Are you now claiming that gay men have more sex than straight men? I'd like to see your numbers, that have been peer reviewed.

But anyways, I wouldn't expect someone from Texas who is obviously a hard-line republican to see the full picture.

Ps - Pedophilia and homosexuality is something you're born with. I don't see why anyone would purposely make those decisions.

[kensei]

-snip-
I would actually love to see all these sources you are taking information from, mate. No, your "common sense" wont cut it. I have some common sense of my own, though. I encounter someone spewing a point of view that justifies looking at any minority as inferior or wrong in who they are, and I choose to ignore it. When they try to express an opinion that furthermore seems to attempt to discredit my personal views on what I deem simply equality then I don't simply sit around, nod, and assume they know what they're talking about.

[Stu]

Likewise, aids was quite obviously man-made. Diseases that lethal and perfect don't naturally occur.Um... what? Sure they do.

Bam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague)
Bam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Flu)
Bam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria)

I haven't even mentioned the (somewhat overblown) H5N1 strain of Avian Flu.

But I'm not saying your wrong - just send me some sources.

[kyaa the catlord]

This thread has descended into dumb. You are all voted off the island.

[MrQ]

I must say, you have been getting a disproportionate amount of flack for your opinions. It's not fun to be attacked for proposing rational arguments for your position.

I don't quite understand - how wasn't I sticking to the topic? I thought the topic was why or why not is homosexuality unnatural. It seems that you feel that it is unnatural because of physical reasons (true, anal sex can cause severe damage to the lower GI region). I feel that it is perfectly fine (read: natural) for emotional reasons because people can form perfectly happy relationships.


Either way, it's patently obvious that neither of us are straying off topic because we're both justifying our views on why it is or is not natural. Right?

Lol, I am used to it. When you say emotional, you are talking about a very small percentage of homosexual relationships. A large majority involves the destructive parts (physical and psychological). No one said being gay in our society is easy, though its getting easier.

I misunderstood you, my bad. I get your point.


Homosexuals are second class citizens and i'm sure it's not on the government's highest priority to assist them.

Likewise, aids was quite obviously man-made. Diseases that lethal and perfect don't naturally occur.


Homosexuals are not second class citizens, what the hell are you talking about? Do you live in America? How do you know aids is man-made? How many conspiracy theory books have you read? You ever heard of the black plague?


What is your point? I've heard this nonsense before, and it never adds up. You're claiming that the HIV positive rate in gays (+minorities, whatever) is associated with their lifestyle? Would you care to explain how you came to become so familiar with their lifestyle? You wouldn't happen to be going off other propaganda from other like minded people attempting to push forward their agenda, would you?

Hell yea its associated with their lifestyle. Man, I appealed to COMMON SENSE at the start of this thread, do I really need to post this? Heres a link to the center for disease control (many more sources one can research to see that HIV has reached epidemic proportions in the gay community).

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/PUBS/Facts/At-A-Glance.htm

Let me break down into language you might understand.

The asshole is not designed for something so sensitive, like the penis, to go inside of it. If you participate in such things, you do it at great peril. I am not a hater of gay people because I tell you the truth.


It couldn't be general apathy towards the plight of "undesirables" would it? Nah. It's that you seem to believe anal sex spreads aids faster than vaginal sex. Or that they are more promiscuous than straight partners. I have some news for you buddy, if you have aids, and you exchange sexual fluids under any cirumstance you will hand over the disease.

This leads me to the next question you should be asking yourself. Are you now claiming that gay men have more sex than straight men? I'd like to see your numbers, that have been peer reviewed.

But anyways, I wouldn't expect someone from Texas who is obviously a hard-line republican to see the full picture.

Ps - Pedophilia and homosexuality is something you're born with. I don't see why anyone would purposely make those decisions.

Im not answering your rediculous questions that I have never asserted. If you cant follow my reasoning then Id urge you to brush up on comprehension 101.

The repeated statements by some of you here calling me a "republican" because I have certain viewpoints is FRIGHTNENING. When did opinions equate to a politcal party? Does this mean the opposite is true? Democrats must be PRO abortion, PRO gay, and anti-common sense?

Guy.. there is very little credible evidence supporting the "born with a behavior" statements you making. Many problems occur if you have this viewpoint. Like the bi issue, or the adulterer issue I brought up. If you want to get to bottom of this, dont take a study as absolute when it favors such thinking. You have to look at the greater pool of knowledge out there before making an opinion.

If you dont care about anything I am saying at least take the time to seriously GET INFORMED.

[kensei]

Women could seriously minimalize the chances of getting HIV/AIDS if only they'd stop having sex with men. Hell, by 79% compared to the 63% of men getting it from other men (yes, I recognize the number difference here) All the same, it seems to seriously run the chance of getting HIV from having sex with men. Now, does that mean they should stop doing so? Should women just shut off the switch in their heads that tells them that they are attracted to men? No.

Should a gay man be asked to do the same for their safety? Should they just stop being attracted to men? No.

In the end, would any of this matter if HIV/AIDS wasn't an issue? No. People would still be ranting about how wrong it is to live the homosexual lifestyle.

[ElizaD]

So.... AIDS is natures way of telling us to become lesbians?

[Zensouken]

HIV/AIDs is simply an epidemic, it doesn't matter how it exists or how it spreads. For any living organism there will always be SOME form of virus that will manifest. I'm sorry but there are too many dumb fuckers in the world to just stop HIV/AIDs cold by practicing safe-sex so by scapegoating a group (the human way to solve everything) to alleviate the problem instead of busting ass to figure out a cure rather than blowing each other up, we're all getting butt-sex'ed.

That's my two-cents, straping-up is of course the general human way of saving your own ass but people don't seem to realize that the only way for that to effectively work is if you seperate the world population into two groups and anihilate the infected group. I think most people don't understand that and forget the bigger picture which is a cure as the only answer. Or maybe they do understand this and say whatever and fuck anything that moves.

Sheeeeeesh...

[Zensouken]

Likewise, aids was quite obviously man-made. Diseases that lethal and perfect don't naturally occur.

WTF?! Black Plague?!

[drdan]

Likewise, aids was quite obviously man-made. Diseases that lethal and perfect don't naturally occur.



Since when? Are you just trying to be funny?

[羽之助]

Homosexuals are second class citizens and i'm sure it's not on the government's highest priority to assist them.

Likewise, aids was quite obviously man-made. Diseases that lethal and perfect don't naturally occur.

I like your sarcasm, but apparently without HTML tags nobody else gets it.

I wonder how this topic sprung about... what made u ask this eyez??????

Because he's a troll.

The asshole is not designed for something so sensitive, like the penis, to go inside of it. If you participate in such things, you do it at great peril.

I know I shouldn't reply but ... argh, what the hell. I didn't want to delve into the personal details of my sexual activities, but ... I don't give a fuck for what it was 'designed' for. My girlfriend's mouth was designed for the chewing and consumption of food, but I'm still going to stick my dick in and have her suck it. My ass was designed for defecation of excrement, but if I give it a quick wash it's nice and clean and in close proximity to my prostate, so I'm going to let my girlfriend stick something like this (http://www.dvice.co.nz/products/anal+toys/silicone/1011.php) in, because we both enjoy it. Are there health risks if we don't do it properly? Yup. Just like regular sex and STD and just plain overdoing it, there are health risks with anal sex that we have to acknowledge.

Nobody is asking you to take anything up your butt. If you don't want to know about or think about it, don't. The rest of us are quite fine anyway. You can argue all you want, but I think the only thing that everyone on this idiotic thread can agree on is people are not going to switch camps.

And, hehe, just can't resist adding this, what if it is natural? If homosexual relationships promote bonding, perhaps our ancient ancestors practiced it just like today and throughout recorded history, and the team that bonded this way got more food. The ones who couldn't take it and died of internal bacterial infection removed their tight genes from the pool, while those who could passed their enveloping rectal genes on to the rest of us! Hah! I mean, it's possible.

[yao_yao]

HIV/AIDS in Africa was transmitted via heterosexual sex. It just happens that it was discovered in gay men in the US. Main transmission CONTINUES to be heterosexual sex and dirty needles used in drugs.

Once again, I quote Discovery Channel's documentary on sex, primarily a study of a certain species of geese. They EVOLVED for bisexuality, because it increased the number of parents raising young, increasing chances for their survival. Two daddies and one mommy... mommy raises young, daddies get food for her and young and protect them.

[MrQ]

Women could seriously minimalize the chances of getting HIV/AIDS if only they'd stop having sex with men. Hell, by 79% compared to the 63% of men getting it from other men (yes, I recognize the number difference here) All the same, it seems to seriously run the chance of getting HIV from having sex with men. Now, does that mean they should stop doing so? Should women just shut off the switch in their heads that tells them that they are attracted to men? No.

Should a gay man be asked to do the same for their safety? Should they just stop being attracted to men? No.

In the end, would any of this matter if HIV/AIDS wasn't an issue? No. People would still be ranting about how wrong it is to live the homosexual lifestyle.

Did you review the data from the link I posted? You are trolling now so why dont you stop? Obviously no one made such stupid arguments?

If you are gay, then again.. I said be GAY. Just know that there are extreme risks involved and dont try to sugar coat it or justify it. Its your decision. Im not trying to take it away but I will not LIE to you about the problems involved with it. I never brought up a moral argument yet, which reveals where you are coming from. Cut it out already. I dont hate you.

HIV/AIDs is simply an epidemic, it doesn't matter how it exists or how it spreads. For any living organism there will always be SOME form of virus that will manifest. I'm sorry but there are too many dumb fuckers in the world to just stop HIV/AIDs cold by practicing safe-sex so by scapegoating a group (the human way to solve everything) to alleviate the problem instead of busting ass to figure out a cure rather than blowing each other up, we're all getting butt-sex'ed.

That's my two-cents, straping-up is of course the general human way of saving your own ass but people don't seem to realize that the only way for that to effectively work is if you seperate the world population into two groups and anihilate the infected group. I think most people don't understand that and forget the bigger picture which is a cure as the only answer. Or maybe they do understand this and say whatever and fuck anything that moves.

Sheeeeeesh...

It does matter how it spreads and how it started. If we know how a disease is spread, we can take preventitive measures to stop it. If we know where it comes from we can figure out how to cure it (eventually). I dont think anyone says we can stop HIV/AIDS by safe sex. We can say we can minimize the cases if its practiced. This has nothing to do with scapegoating. Look at the center of disease control statistics. Male/male gay sex has the highest risks and make up the largest percentage of hiv cases in America. Obviously needle sharing, etc passes it to. Dont trivialize this. All that tearing of tissue that takes place when men have sex with each other in an area that expells waste cannot be healthy for crying out loud. Why is this difficult to swallow?

Dont be fooled. Countless people are looking for a cure. AIDS do not care who you are so its the best interest of mankind to find a cure ASAP.

Is that really you? Looks really familiar................

HIV/AIDS in Africa was transmitted via heterosexual sex. It just happens that it was discovered in gay men in the US. Main transmission CONTINUES to be heterosexual sex and dirty needles used in drugs.

Once again, I quote Discovery Channel's documentary on sex, primarily a study of a certain species of geese. They EVOLVED for bisexuality, because it increased the number of parents raising young, increasing chances for their survival. Two daddies and one mommy... mommy raises young, daddies get food for her and young and protect them.

Sorry guy. Your statements are contrary to the facts. Do I believe your statements, or facts like the statistics from the CDC? The discovery channel's documentaries are far from absolute fact.


I know I shouldn't reply but ... argh, what the hell. I didn't want to delve into the personal details of my sexual activities, but ... I don't give a fuck for what it was 'designed' for. My girlfriend's mouth was designed for the chewing and consumption of food, but I'm still going to stick my dick in and have her suck it. My ass was designed for defecation of excrement, but if I give it a quick wash it's nice and clean and in close proximity to my prostate, so I'm going to let my girlfriend stick something like this in, because we both enjoy it. Are there health risks if we don't do it properly? Yup. Just like regular sex and STD and just plain overdoing it, there are health risks with anal sex that we have to acknowledge.

Nobody is asking you to take anything up your butt. If you don't want to know about or think about it, don't. The rest of us are quite fine anyway. You can argue all you want, but I think the only thing that everyone on this idiotic thread can agree on is people are not going to switch camps.

And, hehe, just can't resist adding this, what if it is natural? If homosexual relationships promote bonding, perhaps our ancient ancestors practiced it just like today and throughout recorded history, and the team that bonded this way got more food. The ones who couldn't take it and died of internal bacterial infection removed their tight genes from the pool, while those who could passed their enveloping rectal genes on to the rest of us! Hah! I mean, it's possible.


Uh, you putting your thing in your girls mouth doesnt cause irreputable damage there. A different kind of thing dont you think? Try not to take my comments out of context, I am consistent with my line of thinking.

In regards to history uh.. do some research to see why thats absurd. Why does expressing ones viewpoint equate to proselytizing?

[Kwiz]

Can we all stop being so anal, please?

[Zensouken]

Is that really you? Looks really familiar................

It should be obvious to anyone that HIV/AIDs would be spread EASIER (not most of fastest) amongst homosexuals (I.E. gay men) because the possible tearing of tissue results in blood, and we all know HIV/AIDs spreads through the bloodstream. But I think a lot of people (acitivists, religious activists, nutcases) just take homosexuals as a scapegoat for the transmission and turn a blind eye to the facts.

Also, that is me, however I have only been to Texas once and I never left the airport as it was a transfer flight.

[KKF]

Sorry guy. Your statements are contrary to the facts. Do I believe your statements, or facts like the statistics from the CDC? The discovery channel's documentaries are far from absolute fact.


Which part of his facts don't you agree with? In the US homosexuals do have the highest level of Aids, but in Africa that is not so. And hence why in the world more heterosexuals have Aids than homosexuals.

Also think for a second what a gay male is. He is a horny bastard like all men are, now put that with another guy that is also a horny bastard and well...

One thing I do take great offense to is your assumption that homosexual relationships are physical and mentally abusive. I have known a lot of gay individuals, and have yet to encounter something like this. I actually known a few couples that have been together longer than married straight couples. Maybe you should go down to Austin and see what gay culture is about.

I as a heterosexual male think homosexuality is as natural as anything else. Natural selection works in funny ways but it no longer pertains to us humans as it does to animals. We have gone past what nature can control. We can make the choice to mate and have children or not. That right there cancels out natural selection. The thing you are forgeting is that we can control nature now. We, in the strict terms you are putting on nature, are no longer natural. None of us, since we do liver transplants, take medications, etc... so if you take any of those you are as un-natural as a homosexual.

[Roxie]

Also, MrQ, black & hispanic females have the fastest growing HIV/AIDS infected population.

Oh and for the love of God, drop the "common sense" routine. Not only is it old, it's seriously insulting to anyone who would think that your "common sense" sounds like a bunch of propaganda.

B/c to me, common sense would dictate that natrual means "to be found in nature" and since homosexuality is found in nature, among various animals, homsexuality is therefor natural.

Whether you think it's right, good for the species, dirty, damgaing, etc..isn't the point.

[kensei]

O.o

<---Is with Anubis Nine, thusly making it pretty damn hard for me to be gay.

Yeah, Q, your argument that the data you've found is right and everyone else's data is wrong because it goes against your findings is a litte assinine.

[MrQ]

Which part of his facts don't you agree with? In the US homosexuals do have the highest level of Aids, but in Africa that is not so. And hence why in the world more heterosexuals have Aids than homosexuals.

Also think for a second what a gay male is. He is a horny bastard like all men are, now put that with another guy that is also a horny bastard and well...

One thing I do take great offense to is your assumption that homosexual relationships are physical and mentally abusive. I have known a lot of gay individuals, and have yet to encounter something like this. I actually known a few couples that have been together longer than married straight couples. Maybe you should go down to Austin and see what gay culture is about.

I as a heterosexual male think homosexuality is as natural as anything else. Natural selection works in funny ways but it no longer pertains to us humans as it does to animals. We have gone past what nature can control. We can make the choice to mate and have children or not. That right there cancels out natural selection. The thing you are forgeting is that we can control nature now. We, in the strict terms you are putting on nature, are no longer natural. None of us, since we do liver transplants, take medications, etc... so if you take any of those you are as un-natural as a homosexual.

Post your sources for your data if you would please. In some places in Africa, 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 men have HIV. They have obviously reached a severe epidemic phase that have affected all of its population, gay, straight, child, girl, whatever. Id never suggest otherwise.

In America we have a different problem. Males who have had sex with other males outnumber heterosexual unions at least 4 to 1 (roughly). This is not by coincidence.

Whos talking about abuse? Reread what I have always asserted then get back to me on this. You are talking about something entirely different.

Your last paragraph does not warrant a response from me since I find it a bit silly. If you are trying to make another point, do a better job at it because that was nonsense.

Also, MrQ, black & hispanic females have the fastest growing HIV/AIDS infected population.

Oh and for the love of God, drop the "common sense" routine. Not only is it old, it's seriously insulting to anyone who would think that your "common sense" sounds like a bunch of propaganda.

B/c to me, common sense would dictate that natrual means "to be found in nature" and since homosexuality is found in nature, among various animals, homsexuality is therefor natural.

Whether you think it's right, good for the species, dirty, damgaing, etc..isn't the point.

I can read the data that I posted, but thank you anyway?

In regards to common sense and natural, well you can interpret it anyway you wish. Clearly I am appealing to the physical consequences resulting from anal intercourse between men. You dont need a PHD to recognize this.

For example: If I drink liquor, which is toxic to my system, eventually my body will shut itself down. This is what happens when we pass out right from being drunk, right? Its our own bodies defense against killing ourselves from alcohol poisoning. This kind of thing happens alot.

So when the doctor has to put his fingers in an @ss, it doesnt feel pleasant. It tries its best to stop whatever it is thats trying to invade it. If that thing persists, tearing of tissues will ensue. Over time, those muscles never get healed. You know about some porn stars who have to wear diapers do you not? Not to mention what goes out of this hole is anything less than pleasant. No wonder its a cauldron that potentially brews nasty diseases. I feel that its a way our own bodies warns us against this (not to mention the procreation aspect).

O.o

<---Is with Anubis Nine, thusly making it pretty damn hard for me to be gay.

Yeah, Q, your argument that the data you've found is right and everyone else's data is wrong because it goes against your findings is a litte assinine..

I have no idea what your sexual preference is. Considering the way you barged in this thread and made invalid points, I was a bit skeptical.

If anyone posted something credible, I am not idiotic enough to ignore it unlike you (clearly ignoring the data I posted). Do you even know what the Center of Disease Control and Prevention is?

If you cant add something to this discussion I fail to understand why you are still yapping.

[kensei]

Okay, here's something you've failed too see, twit. Outside your little peace of heaven, HIV and AIDS isn't most commone among men. Homosexuality occurs naturally (IE in nature among other species). All your talk about how dangerous and disgusting the homosexual life style is is completely beside the point of this entire thread. Did you get all that, mate?

[MrQ]

Okay, here's something you've failed too see, twit. Outside your little peace of heaven, HIV and AIDS isn't most commone among men. Homosexuality occurs naturally (IE in nature among other species). All your talk about how dangerous and disgusting the homosexual life style is is completely beside the point of this entire thread. Did you get all that, mate?

Lol. Im a twit now? You are funny guy.

[Zensouken]

Whether or not he condones homosexuality is a societal view considering it occurs naturally in other species, which totally disenvows it being right or wrong. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks...

[KKF]

Post your sources for your data if you would please. In some places in Africa, 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 men have HIV. They have obviously reached a severe epidemic phase that have affected all of its population, gay, straight, child, girl, whatever. Id never suggest otherwise.

You said that you didn't believe him when he said it was spread through hetero sex in Africa. Considering 22 million Africans have Aids and the cultural aspects of their society I really doubt it was spread by homosexuals as you implied. I would look it up but I'm leaving shortly.

In America we have a different problem. Males who have had sex with other males outnumber heterosexual unions at least 4 to 1 (roughly). This is not by coincidence.

Are you joking? If this was even remotely true homosexuality would be accepted. I would like some stats and backing on this.

Whos talking about abuse? Reread what I have always asserted then get back to me on this. You are talking about something entirely different.

I did take the time to read what you wrote. I love the fact that I can quote people.

Do you know what kind of damage is done to a man who engages in the homosexual lifestyle both physically and emotionally? Its horrific. Trying to justify it is a waste of time.

So where did I miss understand what you wrote? Pretty clear that you think people in homosexual lifestyles are in both physical and emotional horrifically damaging relationships. Because you can't really be a homosexual unless you act on it. Or are they regardless if they act on it or not?

Your last paragraph does not warrant a response from me since I find it a bit silly. If you are trying to make another point, do a better job at it because that was nonsense.

What is nonsenses about it? Please explain why it is silly that we have passed over the laws of nature? We are no longer controlled by natural selection and other laws of nature. We control the direction we are headed now. Our technology is to far advanced to be really effected by nature. So we in ourselves are not controlled by NATURE. And since you are saying it is un-natural to be homosexual, I say thats bullshit, since we are no longer controlled by nature. We are "un-natural", please by all means prove me wrong. But considering I have a degree in Biology I doubt you will.

[ShadowDeth]

"In America we have a different problem. Males who have had sex with other males outnumber heterosexual unions at least 4 to 1 (roughly). This is not by coincidence."

Data?

"At least", and "roughly" don't fit when trying to make a point. Let's see those cold hard numbers buddy.

[ZaichikArky]

mr q needs to get laid. You are such a prude.

There is a thin line between having an "intelligent debate" and "trying to prove everyone wrong just because you feel like it".

I think about 80% of the peope in this thread agree with nothing you say. I don't get the point of even continuing.

Fun internet drama.

[Zensouken]

...internet/drama...

Hand in hand my friend...

[MrQ]

"In America we have a different problem. Males who have had sex with other males outnumber heterosexual unions at least 4 to 1 (roughly). This is not by coincidence."

Data?

"At least", and "roughly" don't fit when trying to make a point. Let's see those cold hard numbers buddy.

I left this out in my lenghty responses on accident. I didnt mean there were more gays then straights in America sheesh. I was talking about HIV cases.

In other words, like the CDC statistics show that I posted that few of you actually took the time to look at... If 16k people got HIV, 12k got it from male to male sex and 4k from male to female sex. Got it?

[kensei]

And as I said, several thousand women could avoid getting HIV if only they'd stop being attracted to men. All in all, this doesn't particularly pertain to whether or not homosexuality is natura at all.

[paul]

"In America we have a different problem. Males who have had sex with other males outnumber heterosexual unions at least 4 to 1 (roughly). This is not by coincidence."

Data?

"At least", and "roughly" don't fit when trying to make a point. Let's see those cold hard numbers buddy.

I don't agree with it, but maybe he's saying this:

Say, 2 men have sex with 2 different men, thats 4 men who's had sex with other males. Now say one other straight man decides to get married, with a woman, I mean thats not entirely unfeasible, looking at the marriage/divorce situation now. That would make a 4:1 ratio of gay sex participants verus hetero unions. Which I suppose is more believable.

But, still, this is an astonishing high number. For example, for every married couple, there are 2 men out there who's had sex with 2 other men.

The general stats floating around is that 1 in 5 men around you are homosexual, i don't believe this one at all, but lets say the stat is true. According to Mr. Q's stat, that would mean in 10 men, 2 are gay (has sex with 2 others), and only 1 marries a woman, so the other 7 don't marry?!

I don't know marriage stats, so I can't confirm.

[MrQ]

You said that you didn't believe him when he said it was spread through hetero sex in Africa. Considering 22 million Africans have Aids and the cultural aspects of their society I really doubt it was spread by homosexuals as you implied. I would look it up but I'm leaving shortly.

No way dude. Id never dispute that. I actually know the AIDS situation in Africa and its terrible. Where did I say I didnt believe heteroes in AFRICA dont have aids??




Are you joking? If this was even remotely true homosexuality would be accepted. I would like some stats and backing on this.



I did take the time to read what you wrote. I love the fact that I can quote people.



So where did I miss understand what you wrote? Pretty clear that you think people in homosexual lifestyles are in both physical and emotional horrifically damaging relationships. Because you can't really be a homosexual unless you act on it. Or are they regardless if they act on it or not?

Mistype. I was referring to the HIV cases. Reread my post before this for clarification. Im glad you guys caught my error here though, it was not what I inteded.

I said GAY MEN in particular in regards to the physical damage. I said PSYCHOLOGICALLY because of the strain and stigma associated with being gay in society.

[Kuroshi]

A thought that just occurred to me, minorly disgusting, and I apologise, but it seems fitting.

Have you ever taken a dump, and your log of excrement was both long, and relatively firm? Aside from potential water/fiber imbalances, that piece of crap is approximately the length and girth of the average human penis. Maybe firmness too. Now, that thing came entirely out of your rear end, and, if anything, was compressed to a smaller size on the way out.

Therefore, the human anus is perfectly capable of taking something that size/shape/length into it without damage, if the proper precautions are taken (lubrication, willingness of participant, etc)

[paul]

I firmly believe that this is one of those things that is easy out but hard in.

[Zensouken]

That's true but your anus isn't designed for HARD POUNDING ACTION, so it'll tear easily compared to when stuff is SLOWLY sliding out...

Jesus...

[paul]

HARD POUNDING ACTION
Jesus...

AhAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[FOBulous]

There's nothing wrong with a little man on man lovin'. It seems to work in prison so I'm okay with it.

[Zensouken]

[boondocks-gangstalicious]...it's that thuggin' loooooove...[/boondocks-gangstalicious]

[Roxie]

lol, I got that thuggin love...

one comic had Riley asking Granddad, "Granddad, which do women prefer--Thug Love or Gangsta Lovin?"

[MrQ]

mr q needs to get laid. You are such a prude.

There is a thin line between having an "intelligent debate" and "trying to prove everyone wrong just because you feel like it".

I think about 80% of the peope in this thread agree with nothing you say. I don't get the point of even continuing.

Fun internet drama.

How am I a prude? I get booty on average 4 times a week.

I just think guys jabbing each other in the bum is nasty as hell. My opinion.

On a lighter note, some of these comments have been pretty damn funny and even though 40% of you disagree with me, I still love you all and have no hard feelings, honest. Maniaclove, why dont you PM me ^.^

[Kuroshi]

Gasp, he's cheerful!

This must be one of the four times a week. Mark it down, boys and girls.

[SDSUMarcus01]

Most people do not consider homosexuality normal because sexual relations between two members of the same sex does not result in the procreation of a species.

If you believe in evolution and state that homosexuality is genetic (aka people don't have a choice) then you are in effect stating that homosexuality is a genetic mutation that is harmful. Harmful because the theory of evolution is driven by the continued mixing and change of genetics... and any genetic mutation that prevents a specimen from procreating and producing more offspring is in effect, harmful.

That's if you believe in evolution and if you believe homosexuality is genetic. I don't believe either. Not because I'm super religious... But because I simply do not believe that evolution can completely account for the diversity of life (that exists today). It's easy to see evolution when you're looking at land animals... but when you start looking at marine life, it just seems to me that there simply hasn't been enough time for all of the changes to have existed. Especially if you take into account just how damn long it takes for mutations to become standardized in a gene pool... and then look at how long the Earth was actually inhabitable. Sorry, but I just don't see there being enough time for that. Take for example the fish that look exactly like certain types of coral. Not only did that type of coral have to evolve to look like that, but the fish (through countless generations and mutations) would have to evolve into looking like that coral? Mutations are pretty random... and then you factor in the mating cycle of the fish, and then natural selection... and more mutations on top of that? Sorry. Earth's history isn't that long. Neither is the history of coral... let alone fish.

As for homosexuality, I think it has to do with social pressures and how you were raised. Just look at ancient Greece, what was the percentage of bisexuals there? Something astronomical I suppose. If you look throughout the world and across time, you'll find that many societies have differing opinions on what is sexually attractive (especially those that are more isolated).

[Jay]

I just want to say to eyez0nme: if homosexuality is so natural, how come it fuckin' hurts to get a finger shoved up your clacker?

Answer THAT one, smartypants.

[kensei]

Maybe the same reason it hurts so bad for a tight female virgin to take one between the legs?

[Jay]

Well the subject matter is "the g-spot for men is up the arse", basically, but how can that be right when it hurts so much to get a finger poked up there?

Flawed reasoning there. :D

[kensei]

....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

[ShadowDeth]

As for homosexuality, I think it has to do with social pressures and how you were raised. Just look at ancient Greece, what was the percentage of bisexuals there? Something astronomical I suppose. If you look throughout the world and across time, you'll find that many societies have differing opinions on what is sexually attractive (especially those that are more isolated).

So are you saying that general acceptance of homosexuality in those cultures is related to the percentage? Or that Homosexuality is more rampant than we believe, but stigma and societal pressure keeps it locked down?

Well the subject matter is "the g-spot for men is up the arse", basically, but how can that be right when it hurts so much to get a finger poked up there?

Flawed reasoning there. :D

Because it's not in your ass, it's inside of you.

[Masa the Masta]

How am I a prude? I get booty on average 4 times a week.

I just think guys jabbing each other in the bum is nasty as hell. My opinion.

On a lighter note, some of these comments have been pretty damn funny and even though 40% of you disagree with me, I still love you all and have no hard feelings, honest. Maniaclove, why dont you PM me ^.^

Notice he said booty and not snatch. :watson:

[Zensouken]

Notice he said booty and not snatch. :watson:

This thread is done, completely OWNED...

[drdan]

Could you guys image talking and using the words you guys are using in a conversation in public. :frypan:

[kensei]

Yes, yes I can.

[Zensouken]

Uhh, yeah. It's common in conversational speech, in colloquial circumstances but never in a formal setting. That's just insane...

[OliveButtercup]

someone needs to find a cure to kill the disease known as this thread :gangster:

[ZaichikArky]

How am I a prude? I get booty on average 4 times a week.

I just think guys jabbing each other in the bum is nasty as hell. My opinion.

On a lighter note, some of these comments have been pretty damn funny and even though 40% of you disagree with me, I still love you all and have no hard feelings, honest.

Go you. I get laid 10 times every 3 months. : (. Being in a long-distance relationship sucks. I am very sexually liberal, though, as is most of us. Most guys actually don't want anything shoved up their asses. I have heard this general consensus. Why is it more common to shove something up a woman's ass? It seems chauvenistic to me. Some men want to shove stuff up a woman's ass, but refuse to have anything shoved up their ass.

Omg I'm glad you find internet trolling/drama funny. Most of the things you say, I don't find funny. I find some reactions to it funny.

[Jay]

Because it's not in your ass, it's inside of you.

Yes. But how can it be entirely natural if it hurts getting a cock shoved up your arse?

Now if it felt good to get a phallic-shaped object inserted into your rectum, I can understand that. But it hurts to get something shoved up there, so maybe that's nature's way of saying that it isn't in fact natural.

Get me?

[Roxie]

why're you acting like lube doesn't exist?

[Jay]

I'm not.

characterscharacterscharacterscharacters

[Roxie]

Then good. It maybe uncomfortable, but it wouldn't be painfull. Unless this guy is just really huge.

[Jay]

I have a few gay friends, both personal and online. I've asked all of them at some point ago and they still say it's painful. Not OVERLY painful; maybe it's the idea that it SHOULD be painful, but still painful, according to them.

Incidentally, you just proved my theory - it's still uncomfortable to get phallic objects inserted into your rectum, therefore in my opinion Old Girl Nature is trying to say "hey sonny, that's uncomfortable so don't do it".

But then, I have nothing against gays. If you LIKE getting boned up the butt, hey, who am I to complain? Your lifestyle.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

heh, i like that attitude, why should I care if you like getting it up the ass? it's not my ass.

[OliveButtercup]

ummm yeah it does hurt. Unless you have an asshole the size of Hokkaido

[Jay]

Yeah, exactly. :D

[KKF]

I thought about this and had a discussion with one of my friends on a two hour drive yesterday. I came to the conclusion that it does not matter if it is "natural" or not. Since like I stated earlier we as a spieces are past being natural.

It is not natural for our bodies to have organ transplants. It is not natural for our bodies to have shots. It is not natural for our bodies to have surgery performed on it. And the list goes on and on. To argue in this day and age if homosexuality is natural is ridiculous. Since a lot of us would not be around if we adhered to the ideals of only doing what nature wants us too.

I seriously do not understand why people want to argue over a subject like this. To me atleast I think homosexuality is something that is natural. But does it really matter? Since after all we are not adhering to the rules of nature?

[Roxie]

I have a few gay friends, both personal and online. I've asked all of them at some point ago and they still say it's painful. Not OVERLY painful; maybe it's the idea that it SHOULD be painful, but still painful, according to them.

Incidentally, you just proved my theory - it's still uncomfortable to get phallic objects inserted into your rectum, therefore in my opinion Olg Girl Nature is trying to say "hey sonny, that's uncomfortable so don't do it".

But then, I have nothing against gays. If you LIKE getting boned up the butt, hey, who am I to complain? Your lifestyle.
Yes, well having a period can be all kinds of "uncomfortable" (to say the least), but it's very natural. Just b/c something's uncomfortable or it hurts doesn't make it unnatural.

[Jay]

Having a period is natural, because you're shedding the blood and other material that a foetus that may one day go on to father the child that cures world hunger would have fed on.

Having something inserted into an orifice that was intentionally designed to be an exit only is not natural.

[Roxie]

Yes, but your arguement was about pain and being uncomfortable as proof of it being unnatural. Both which millions of wome experience monthly when they have thier period, which you've said is natural.

[MrQ]

I thought about this and had a discussion with one of my friends on a two hour drive yesterday. I came to the conclusion that it does not matter if it is "natural" or not. Since like I stated earlier we as a spieces are past being natural.

It is not natural for our bodies to have organ transplants. It is not natural for our bodies to have shots. It is not natural for our bodies to have surgery performed on it. And the list goes on and on. To argue in this day and age if homosexuality is natural is ridiculous. Since a lot of us would not be around if we adhered to the ideals of only doing what nature wants us too.

I seriously do not understand why people want to argue over a subject like this. To me atleast I think homosexuality is something that is natural. But does it really matter? Since after all we are not adhering to the rules of nature?

It matters because there are natural consequences to the actions we take.

If you drink to much, you will ruin your health.

If you smoke to much weed, you will dumb down your brain.

If you engage in anal intercourse with other men, you risk death (aids) and severe physical damage to your body etc.

Is this not clear? You are free to act as you will in our free society within reason. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences.

[Jay]

No, Roxie - my argument is this.

Menstruation happens naturally. There's nothing you can do to stop it, unless you're willing to have your ovaries removed, tubes tied and vaginal opening blocked off. Blah blah, whatever.

You can however, stop the uncomfortable feeling of rectum-inserting-things-into by NOT inserting things into said rectum.

My view is, if it's uncomfortable or painful and you have the power to stop it, then do so.

[Lisa M]

No, Roxie - my argument is this.

Menstruation happens naturally. There's nothing you can do to stop it, unless you're willing to have your ovaries removed, tubes tied and vaginal opening blocked off. Blah blah, whatever.

You can however, stop the uncomfortable feeling of rectum-inserting-things-into by NOT inserting things into said rectum.

My view is, if it's uncomfortable or painful and you have the power to stop it, then do so.

So then... as I was born with an unusually difficult hymen and small vaginal passage, and the insertion of anything into my vagina is painful, I should never have heterosexual sex. I should never try to bear children, I should never get a PAP smear, and I should never ever even attempt a G-Spot orgasm. Seriously, who needs that, anyway? Orgasms are for losers.

[Idlethought]

The way I feel about homosexuality is this: Who really gives a fuck if it's natural or not? As long as you're not trying to fuck ME in the ass, you can do whatever you want. It's your ass, your privacy. Just like, dont try to come after me. Cause pain will be the result.

[ZaichikArky]

~If you engage in anal intercourse with other men, you risk death (aids) and severe physical damage to your body etc.

but that's what humans do all the time 0_o. they do stuff tons worse than anal intercourse. In my opinion, heterosexual intercourse is far more damaging. Doesn't mean that it's wrong. You act like it is.

[phagan]

If being gay is something quite natural and not a choice, then I can only conclude that me being creeped out by the very same thing is also something natural and not a conscious choice.

[X Punk]

Someone close this thred.
Must be a hater.

[MrQ]

~If you engage in anal intercourse with other men, you risk death (aids) and severe physical damage to your body etc.

but that's what humans do all the time 0_o. they do stuff tons worse than anal intercourse. In my opinion, heterosexual intercourse is far more damaging. Doesn't mean that it's wrong. You act like it is.


You are hung up on the moral issue that I never brought up. Whos talking about the evil of mankind? Stick to the topic and the point.

Its one thing to have an opinion based on nothing and one based on scientific fact.

Get over the moral aspect since I dont believe anyone brought that up yet.

[ZaichikArky]

You are hung up on the moral issue that I never brought up. Whos talking about the evil of mankind? Stick to the topic and the point.

Its one thing to have an opinion based on nothing and one based on scientific fact.

Get over the moral aspect since I dont believe anyone brought that up yet.

maybe everyone has and you haven't realized it yet. Get over being closed-minded. Get over being too scientifical and lacking in any sensitivity.

[MrQ]

maybe everyone has and you haven't realized it yet. Get over being closed-minded. Get over being too scientifical and lacking in any sensitivity.

Huh??

What the hell are you talking about? You addressing me when you bringing up the moral aspect and I am telling you I have never argued from that standpoint.

Who is the closed minded one?

A) The person who rejects the evidence that proves their position is wrong?

B) Someone who accepts the evidence and forms an opinion based on the facts?

Ill give you a hint....

[phagan]

It couldn't be general apathy towards the plight of "undesirables" would it?

Actually, that isn't as big of a factor as you seem to believe. I live in one of the, if not the, most liberal and gayfriendly countries in the world, yet sexually transmitted diseases is just as rampant amongst the homosexual communities is here as it is in the U.S, which I assume is where you live. Heck, they even have laws (Bastuklubbslagen, "The Sauna Club Law) here that explicitly makes it illegal to run and/operate gay sex clubs, solely due to the horrible diseases that were spread there a couple of decades ago.

And no, I will not bother to look up articles or any documents concerning this law and/or the above-mentioned epidemic. I am far too lazy.

[KKF]

It matters because there are natural consequences to the actions we take.

If you drink to much, you will ruin your health.

If you smoke to much weed, you will dumb down your brain.

If you engage in anal intercourse with other men, you risk death (aids) and severe physical damage to your body etc.

Is this not clear? You are free to act as you will in our free society within reason. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences.

We are not discussing the consequences of having homosexual sex. We are discussing, or atleast I am, that it being considered natural/un-natural doesn't matter in this day and age. See the title of the OP made for the thread? It is not asking what the consequences are, instead if the act of homosexuality is natural.

Even then your analogy sucks. Because you risk all those things regardless if you are homosexual or straight. In fact pregnancy is very harmful both physically and mentally. Proably a lot more so than being in a homosexual relationship. Also aids is not a natural consequence of engaging in homosexual sex. I do not know where you got that idea from? That is plain silly. If anything engaging in unprotected sex leads to the consequence of acquiring STDS. For both heterosexual and homosexuals who practice in unprotected sex.

[MrQ]

We are not discussing the consequences of having homosexual sex. We are discussing, or atleast I am, that it being considered natural/un-natural doesn't matter in this day and age. See the title of the OP made for the thread? It is not asking what the consequences are, instead if the act of homosexuality is natural.

Even then your analogy sucks. Because you risk all those things regardless if you are homosexual or straight. In fact pregnancy is very harmful both physically and mentally. Proably a lot more so than being in a homosexual relationship. Also aids is not a natural consequence of engaging in homosexual sex. I do not know where you got that idea from? That is plain silly. If anything engaging in unprotected sex leads to the consequence of acquiring STDS. For both heterosexual and homosexuals who practice in unprotected sex.

Guy, please READ what the hell I post. Im getting tired of restating my position when you guys are CLEARLY not READING.

I posted a link to the CDC. Over 60% of the new HIV cases in 2003 were from MALE TO MALE SEX. NOT MALE TO FEMALE. SO THE RISKS ARE NOT THE SAME.

In regards to your first paragraph......when you quote me and try to refute what I say, please understand what you are refuting cause this is not going anywhere. I AM APPEALING TO IT NOT BEING NATURAL BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES. I DIDNT GO INTO MORALS, BUT THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD NOT EXIST IF YOU DIDNT PARTICIPATE IN THAT PARTICULAR ACT. CAN I GET ANY CLEARER?

[marycatherine]

I think what MrQ is getting at is that the "natural" way for humans to interact sexually is man-to-woman, not man-to-man or woman-to-woman. The idea behind sex is to reproduce, isn't it? If you're getting it on with someone of the same sex, then you're not ever going to reproduce. Ok, lots of people want someone of the same gender...the purpose of sex changes from reproduction to (only) pleasure. But you can get pleasure from the opposite sex, so why not do both? "It's only natural", right?

I honestly don't care what people do in their own beds or who they do it with (male, female, straight, gay, bi, trans...whatever). I don't see why people don't just let other people be sexually happy if they aren't imposing their acts on anyone who doesn't want them. Or do anything that makes one happy w/o bothering the people who don't have to be involved. You want to cut yourself up? You want to pay for sex? (report you taxes please) You want to smoke, inhale, snort, shoot up all kinds of drugs? By all means, I say go ahead. Just don't make me do it if I don't want to - and please try not to bother anyone else in the process.

It could really be as simple as that. Or so I think.
Mary Catherine

[kensei]

Guy, please READ what the hell I post. Im getting tired of restating my position when you guys are CLEARLY not READING.

I posted a link to the CDC. Over 60% of the new HIV cases in 2003 were from MALE TO MALE SEX. NOT MALE TO FEMALE. SO THE RISKS ARE NOT THE SAME.

In regards to your first paragraph......when you quote me and try to refute what I say, please understand what you are refuting cause this is not going anywhere. I AM APPEALING TO IT NOT BEING NATURAL BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES. I DIDNT GO INTO MORALS, BUT THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD NOT EXIST IF YOU DIDNT PARTICIPATE IN THAT PARTICULAR ACT. CAN I GET ANY CLEARER?

I don't think that AIDS or HIV is a product of a homosexual lifestyle, though. I don't honestly know what scientist are assuming caused this virus anymore, but last I heard, it wasn't because two guys decided to get it on.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I quit reading at page 8, so I'm sorry if this has already been said (though the fact that it's gone for two pages past page 8 tends to suggest it hasn't been said yet).

Once upon a time, we were all monkeys. Unless you're a creationist, in which case this phrase should read, 'Once upon a time humans weren't created yet but there were monkeys.'

Monkeys were monkeys. They shat where they wanted to (generally in easily accessible piles for flinging), whacked off regardless of who or what was watching, and generally had a bunch of fun fucking around all day.

Then humans came along, and we figured out relatively early in our existence that this sort of nonsense would NEVER do. We created morality, fixed rules, and tried to make sense out of everything. The monkeys, as always, whacked off and threw shit. They were happy monkeys.

Eventually, our human sense of morality grew to the point where we found the monkeys disgusting. We thought that it would be horrible to be associated with shit-flinging masturbators. I agree that shit-flinging sounds pretty terrible, but there are some (human) adults who enjoy scat play in the privacy of their own homes. They are absolutely disgusting creatures.

The monkeys, as always, continued whacking off and tossing shit, absolutely impervious to our scorn, because they were monkeys.

As modern science progressed, a device (called a 'monolith') was invented which allowed for Instant-Sentience(c) (I.S. for short) which allowed monkeys to instantly become sentient. Communication took a while, since they didn't really develop proper vocal cords, but eventually a scientist made a breakthrough and began speaking with the monkeys.

He taught them how to be good intelligent moral monkeys.

The leader of the pack asked, "Wait, you're telling me I have to stop flinging shit and masturbating?"

The scientist looked at the monkey as if he had just been brought to sentience recently (he had). He says, "Not outside of the privacy of your own home."

-----

The point is simple. The reason that homosexuality isn't considered natural is because we don't have conclusive proof that it is natural any more than we have conclusive proof that evolution is absolutely the way we became human. And so long as there is no conclusive proof, there will be doubters. When people have a lot riding on doubting something, the smaller the margin of doubt becomes, the more they focus on making that little amount of doubt look bigger than it is.

Monkeys masturbate for fun, dolphins gang rape each other, frogs change genders, and certain species fuck the same gender. This is the way it works in nature. We haven't decided how much 'nature' is TOO 'natural' yet. After all, we don't want to send the message that it's okay for you to eat your husband simply because a praying mantis does.

Considering the sheer amount of fucked up stuff that happens naturally in nature, I'd argue that it doesn't matter whether or not something is natural or not. People like to tell me that they only do natural drugs, and think this is something to be applauded, right until I point out that the heroin addict down on the corner is also using a natural substance.

So we don't know if homosexually is natural or not for certain, but we do know it occurs in nature. However, even if it did occur in nature, that's not a 'gimme' for either side on the argument, because it could be 'good' nature (like having a digestive system), or it could be 'bad' nature (like eating babies).

If my good ol' buddy Siddartha were here, he'd totally chuckle a jolly fat-man chuckle and say, 'That is not a question that leads to edification' and immediately put eyezonme on ignore. If only we were all as enlightened.

The question is regardless of whether or not homosexual is natural, should it be something we allow in our civilized societies? Should we group it with sex with the opposite gender missionary-style, or should we group it with dolphin-esque gang rape and say 'That ain't gonna fly, sonny?'

And that's a question that we all have different answers to. MrQ and several others on this thread seem to think that it is a very bad thing that we should not approve of. And that's their choice. Several others seem to want to say that it's a perfectly fine occurrence, and that anyone who disagrees deserves to suffer a horrible fate.

Personally I'm of the 'live and let live' mentality, figuring that if people want to bink each other up the bum, throw feces, or masturbate, they can happily do it in the privacy of their own homes regardless of its natural or unnatural status, because they are consenting adults and can enjoy whatever rocks their boat without violating the rights of another person.

We can argue back and forth over the semantics of this issue all day and all night. We can argue whether or not it causes physical harm (though it can and regularly does, as does vaginal sex a whole other slew of natural activities), we can argue over whether or not it reduces the amount of reproduction in the world (it likely does, but so does a slew of perfectly valid activities that lower sperm count), and we can argue over its role in natural selection (though I fail to see why we'd do this as natural selection is something that humans fight very hard to thwart at every turn).

And I'm sure that will likely continue from this point forward, since, well, that's the way internet forums work, but it won't really get us anywhere special. I'm sure good points will be made on both sides, and nobody will change their mind, because it really isn't something you can prove one way or the other.

You guys disagree on what society should allow and disallow. I bet there are many other issues you disagree about. However, discussing the merits of whether or not candy should be taxed as a grocery or as a luxury doesn't have the same appeal.

So fight to the death or until your spacebar stops working. I think I'll stay out of it.

[KKF]

Guy, please READ what the hell I post. Im getting tired of restating my position when you guys are CLEARLY not READING.

I posted a link to the CDC. Over 60% of the new HIV cases in 2003 were from MALE TO MALE SEX. NOT MALE TO FEMALE. SO THE RISKS ARE NOT THE SAME.

In regards to your first paragraph......when you quote me and try to refute what I say, please understand what you are refuting cause this is not going anywhere. I AM APPEALING TO IT NOT BEING NATURAL BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES. I DIDNT GO INTO MORALS, BUT THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD NOT EXIST IF YOU DIDNT PARTICIPATE IN THAT PARTICULAR ACT. CAN I GET ANY CLEARER?


Reading comprehension much? When did I say morals? Not once go ahead and quote me if you like. I did say that none of us follow nature anymore so we are all un-natural to being with. So whats the point of only calling one thing that humans do "un-natural". Is it that hard to comprehend?

Your link to the CDC does not state if this was with protection or not. I'll take a bet that gay men have more unprotected sex than women do. This is why I stated that your analogy sucks, of course you didn't answer this. Since aids is not a natural consequence of homosexual sex, it is a consequence of UNPROTECTED SEX! What you are saying is plain false. The consequences of having UNPROTECTED SEX in the gay male society is a higher chance of getting AIDS. That is a correct statement to make but you are not saying that. In fact the you are fasley portraying what the CDC states, you are saying having gay sex equals aids that is not what the CDC says. Again totally and utterly wrong. Also homosexuality includes lesbians so it still stands that homosexual sex does not equal aids. Or do you suddenly not include lesbians as homosexuals? So is lesbian sex natural now or what?

You might want to take the time to READ what I write before you go on a "poor me no one listens to me" rant.

[KKF]

I don't think that AIDS or HIV is a product of a homosexual lifestyle, though. I don't honestly know what scientist are assuming caused this virus anymore, but last I heard, it wasn't because two guys decided to get it on.


Actually new studies came out saying that it was proably passed down through people eating the monkeys.

[Jay]

So then... as I was born with an unusually difficult hymen and small vaginal passage, and the insertion of anything into my vagina is painful, I should never have heterosexual sex. I should never try to bear children, I should never get a PAP smear, and I should never ever even attempt a G-Spot orgasm. Seriously, who needs that, anyway? Orgasms are for losers.

But that's not natural, that's a slight deformity.

Or maybe it IS natural, who the hell knows how that old coot works? Maybe she chucks in a slight anomaly every now and then, just to keep it real, y'know?

:D

[kyaa the catlord]

But that's not natural, that's a slight deformity.

Or maybe it IS natural, who the hell knows how that old coot works? Maybe she chucks in a slight anomaly every now and then, just to keep it real, y'know?

:D

Or have sex with very small men.

[Jay]

Or have sex with very small men.

You've got me there, I'm afraid.

[kyaa the catlord]

Your legend is in peril! OH NOES!

[Jay]

It's in dire straits.

If I shout you a round of drinks or three, will you restore it?

[kyaa the catlord]

yes. I put on my wizard hat and robe.

[Jay]

Are you higher than a level two druid? I don't trust anyone below level two.

[kyaa the catlord]

I specialized in herbalism.

[Jay]

Good. You may proceed with restoration.

[MrQ]

I don't think that AIDS or HIV is a product of a homosexual lifestyle, though. I don't honestly know what scientist are assuming caused this virus anymore, but last I heard, it wasn't because two guys decided to get it on.

This is where you have to look at the statistics and understand what actually happens when 2 men have sex with each other.

Its difficult for women to give HIV to a man. This is a fact. For details, do some research.

Its easy for another man to give another man HIV. This is a fact. For details, do some research.

There is a reason why out of 100 thousand new HIV cases, 60% of them come from male to male homosexual sex. Is this not clear? I never said its limited to gay people or even hinted at it. My position has always been the same.

I never said where it started since the evidence is not clear here. I can only imagine but I cant say for certain. My theory about this is simple. 40 years ago during the sexual revolution, there were about 5-8 common STDs. After 40 years of this "liberation" we have over 30 STDs. What the hell went wrong here? I think it follows my line of thinking in regards to natural consequences, but anyways.

Reading comprehension much? When did I say morals? Not once go ahead and quote me if you like. I did say that none of us follow nature anymore so we are all un-natural to being with. So whats the point of only calling one thing that humans do "un-natural". Is it that hard to comprehend?

Your link to the CDC does not state if this was with protection or not. I'll take a bet that gay men have more unprotected sex than women do. This is why I stated that your analogy sucks, of course you didn't answer this. Since aids is not a natural consequence of homosexual sex, it is a consequence of UNPROTECTED SEX! What you are saying is plain false. The consequences of having UNPROTECTED SEX in the gay male society is a higher chance of getting AIDS. That is a correct statement to make but you are not saying that. In fact the you are fasley portraying what the CDC states, you are saying having gay sex equals aids that is not what the CDC says. Again totally and utterly wrong. Also homosexuality includes lesbians so it still stands that homosexual sex does not equal aids. Or do you suddenly not include lesbians as homosexuals? So is lesbian sex natural now or what?

You might want to take the time to READ what I write before you go on a "poor me no one listens to me" rant.

I was not referring to you in regards to the moral argument, I was making a point.

You have to take the term "natural or nature" and interpret it in the context in which it was given. I laid out my position many times on why I didnt think it was natural. You used it in a different way. I am only saying if you are going to debate me on this, stick to the context in which I used it, not your own. This rule applies to all readings.

Reread my post about sugar coating the data. I have never said having homosexual sex EQUALS aids. Ive always said the RISKS are greater. This is where you need some practice with debating. For one, when did I ever bring up protection into this argument? I also have been firmly talking about MALE TO MALE gay sex, not WOMEN.

I refuse to waste time restating the OBVIOUS when people like YOU have a hard time READING.

[ZaichikArky]

[B]This is where you have to look at the statistics and understand what actually happens when 2 men have sex with each other.


I refuse to waste time restating the OBVIOUS when people like YOU have a hard time READING.


No. What strikes me is that you do NOT make your views "obvious" and when people actually call you on it you say "no, I didn't say that at all, you didn't read it correctly." It's your own fault if everyone is "misunderstanding" you. And by the looks of it, plently of us are. So that's either.

1. YOUR FAULT for making your words harsh,condescending, offensive, and overall unpleasant in some ways
2. Their faults for being too stupid to "read properly".

I'm not saying you're an idiot, I'm saying you need to word things MUCH BETTER. Is that clear enough for you?

[KKF]

I was not referring to you in regards to the moral argument, I was making a point.

Ok.

You have to take the term "natural or nature" and interpret it in the context in which it was given. I laid out my position many times on why I didnt think it was natural. You used it in a different way. I am only saying if you are going to debate me on this, stick to the context in which I used it, not your own. This rule applies to all readings.

So now my view point is not valid in your point of view because you won't argue against it? First off I was stating MY view point on what is natural/un-natural. Considering this is not a discussion on only what Mr.Q thinks, I think I made a valid point. I later focused my attention on YOUR point of view.


Reread my post about sugar coating the data. I have never said having homosexual sex EQUALS aids. Ive always said the RISKS are greater. This is where you need some practice with debating. For one, when did I ever bring up protection into this argument? I also have been firmly talking about MALE TO MALE gay sex, not WOMEN.

And again you clearly choose to ignore a very specific data that WAS not added in the CDC dataset. You continously choose to ignore the CAUSE behind getting aids. You continously put gay sex in a NEGATIVE light without stating all the facts. You have said time and time again that if you have gay male sex you risk aids.

If you engage in anal intercourse with other men, you risk death (aids) and severe physical damage to your body etc.

That is FALSE! How HARD is it for you to understand this? If you engage in UNPROTECTED anal intercourse then the risk of aids is higher. But so does it go with heterosexual individuals as well. Just because you choose to ignore this and leave that out does not make what you say true. It also explains WHY gay men have a higher rate of getting aids than any other sector. http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/A39C68DD-EB82-4FF7-8B4C-BAA6FEA7B1D8.asp
But of course if you choose to ignore the reason behind why something is so... well we get people like you.

I talked about the female homosexuals because I wanted to ask a question about what you think is natural. Since after all this is the topic at hand.


I refuse to waste time restating the OBVIOUS when people like YOU have a hard time READING.

This doesn't even deserve a response.

-edit-

Maybe this will make it simpler for you to understand. Gay men like to have a lot of sex with a lot of different gay men without protection. (I'm being VERY general here to make it easy for him to understand.) That is why they are the leading group of new cases of Aids. Men like to have sex, regardless if homosexual or straight. Now imagine women where like you looking to get laid everynight. Get it yet?

[OliveButtercup]

I can't believe you guys are still trying to have intelligent arguments about this

[Jay]

Yeah, me and Kyaa took the piss out of this whole thread ages ago. :D

[kyaa the catlord]

And other assorted bodily fluids.

[Jay]

Considering this is a gay thread, that created quite the mental image.

[kyaa the catlord]

The threads not gay, the posts are!

[slinky]

The threads not gay, the posts are!

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[kyaa the catlord]

Indeed. We hate all posts equally.

[Jay]

Considering the subject matter, it still created quite the mental image. :boggled:

[kyaa the catlord]

I'm sorry, he's some cartoon porn to help.

[Lisa M]

I decided to stop trying when MrQ decided to argue causation from a study that only reported correlation.

[Jay]

MrQ just likes to argue. Right or wrong, something's amiss.

[ZaichikArky]

Considering this is a gay thread, that created quite the mental image.

:rofl: . Well said.

I think Mr Q doesn't care that he's being offensive. Don't blame him. I start up lj drama all the time because people say slightly offensive things and I corrent them and there is a huge argument XD. Same as on message boards.

I really <3 all of you, though, most of you are supernice and friendly. All but two of you. Guess which two and you get a cookie :|. No, not really. I'm just a n00b. I don't know everyone very well yet : ).

[kyaa the catlord]

eyez and bob?

[slinky]

:rofl: . Well said.

I think Mr Q doesn't care that he's being offensive. Don't blame him. I start up lj drama all the time because people say slightly offensive things and I corrent them and there is a huge argument XD. Same as on message boards.

I really <3 all of you, though, most of you are supernice and friendly. All but two of you. Guess which two and you get a cookie :|. No, not really. I'm just a n00b. I don't know everyone very well yet : ).

The only thing that I found offensive about MrQ was the logical fallacy that LisaM mentioned. However I did note that he stuck to the high ground when many others called him twit and prude and other names.

That he didn't candy coat his beliefs to your or anyone else's liking is not offensive. He didn't go out of his way to use slurs and even his tone, while condescending at points, was hardly denigrating (though it got that way after the ad hominem attacks...)

I find it really funny as well that you accuse him of always wanting to be right and arguing a point when you admit yourself to doing the same thing: I always correct people on message boards to the point that there's a huge argument.

Sounds to me like you seek out reasons to be offended so that you can ignore the postings and attack the poster. I'll keep that in mind.

[Jay]

[commentator voice on]

"Oooh, the gospel's been laid down by slinky! How will his other competitors react to that? Only time will tell!"

[/commentator voice off]

[ZaichikArky]

Sounds to me like you seek out reasons to be offended so that you can ignore the postings and attack the poster. I'll keep that in mind.

Naw, I don't usually ignore postings. Towards the start of the thread, the debating was pretty intelligent. I shouldn't be criticized for acting along with a bunch. *white sheep*. There have been only 2 posters I have attacked, and it wasn't very personal. There are worse things you could be worrying about.

[slinky]

[commentator voice on]

It ought to be interesting Jay. Emotions seem to be running high and that could be a benefit or a detriment...

While we wait why not discuss the horrible tragedy that occurred to the US Snowboarder just before that last run. I hear he got a really bad hangnail that he's trying to overcome.

[/commentator voice off]

Clearly, a few people have been watching too much Olympic coverage...

[Jay]

While we wait why not discuss the horrible tragedy that occurred to the US Snowboarder just before that last run. I hear he got a really bad hangnail that he's trying to overcome.

Screw that, let's talk about the Aussie aerialist who blew her knee out again, only eight months after blowing it out the first time. I'm shattered about that. :(

Clearly, a few people have been watching too much Olympic coverage...

:o I'm a very passionate sports fan.

[ZaichikArky]

let's talk about michelle kwan some more.

I CRIED FOR DAYS!!!

Well not really. I was depressed, though, because I so wanted her to take the gold.

[Jay]

Michelle Kwan is hawt...

...for an American.

:P

[Lisa M]

If you dont think homosexuality is a choice, how can you explain someone who is bi? Are they born with a gene that drives them to have sex with girls and boys? What about someone who enjoys having sex with little kids? Is he born that way to?

Equivocation (comparing apples and oranges)

Also, whether one believes in darwins theory or creation he should be quick to recognize that without procreation the species will not make it. 2 same sex humans cannot procreate and if practiced on a large enough scale it would result in the end of our species many moons ago.

Composition (assumption that one part has effect on the whole)

You believe everything on TV? You gotta be kidding me.

Ad Hominem

I have had alot of contact with gays growing up, thats all I can say about that.

Authority (Using himself as the authority. That's unique.)

Sensitivity? Are you kidding? I call things like I see them. Im a bit harsh at times in my words but I assume we are all adults here so you can get over it.

Ad Hominem again

I figured my source of "common sense' would be enough.

Masses

How many conspiracy theory books have you read?

Complex Question with a little bit of Ad Hominem goodness

Guy.. there is very little credible evidence supporting the "born with a behavior" statements you making.

Ignorance

... and I'm stopping around page six. Sorry to single you out, MrQ, but you seem to be arguing that you are looking at this logically, and it is quite obvious from the examples above that you have committed several logical fallacies.

[KKF]

I like this Lisa M. girl! Now start pointing mine out and I'll hate you. ;) jk

[Pierrot le Fou]

I quit reading at page 8, so I'm sorry if this has already been said (though the fact that it's gone for two pages past page 8 tends to suggest it hasn't been said yet).

Once upon a time, we were all monkeys. Unless you're a creationist, in which case this phrase should read, 'Once upon a time humans weren't created yet but there were monkeys.'

Monkeys were monkeys. They shat where they wanted to (generally in easily accessible piles for flinging), whacked off regardless of who or what was watching, and generally had a bunch of fun fucking around all day.

Then humans came along, and we figured out relatively early in our existence that this sort of nonsense would NEVER do. We created morality, fixed rules, and tried to make sense out of everything. The monkeys, as always, whacked off and threw shit. They were happy monkeys.

Eventually, our human sense of morality grew to the point where we found the monkeys disgusting. We thought that it would be horrible to be associated with shit-flinging masturbators. I agree that shit-flinging sounds pretty terrible, but there are some (human) adults who enjoy scat play in the privacy of their own homes. They are absolutely disgusting creatures.

The monkeys, as always, continued whacking off and tossing shit, absolutely impervious to our scorn, because they were monkeys.

As modern science progressed, a device (called a 'monolith') was invented which allowed for Instant-Sentience(c) (I.S. for short) which allowed monkeys to instantly become sentient. Communication took a while, since they didn't really develop proper vocal cords, but eventually a scientist made a breakthrough and began speaking with the monkeys.

He taught them how to be good intelligent moral monkeys.

The leader of the pack asked, "Wait, you're telling me I have to stop flinging shit and masturbating?"

The scientist looked at the monkey as if he had just been brought to sentience recently (he had). He says, "Not outside of the privacy of your own home."

-----

The point is simple. The reason that homosexuality isn't considered natural is because we don't have conclusive proof that it is natural any more than we have conclusive proof that evolution is absolutely the way we became human. And so long as there is no conclusive proof, there will be doubters. When people have a lot riding on doubting something, the smaller the margin of doubt becomes, the more they focus on making that little amount of doubt look bigger than it is.

Monkeys masturbate for fun, dolphins gang rape each other, frogs change genders, and certain species fuck the same gender. This is the way it works in nature. We haven't decided how much 'nature' is TOO 'natural' yet. After all, we don't want to send the message that it's okay for you to eat your husband simply because a praying mantis does.

Considering the sheer amount of fucked up stuff that happens naturally in nature, I'd argue that it doesn't matter whether or not something is natural or not. People like to tell me that they only do natural drugs, and think this is something to be applauded, right until I point out that the heroin addict down on the corner is also using a natural substance.

So we don't know if homosexually is natural or not for certain, but we do know it occurs in nature. However, even if it did occur in nature, that's not a 'gimme' for either side on the argument, because it could be 'good' nature (like having a digestive system), or it could be 'bad' nature (like eating babies).

If my good ol' buddy Siddartha were here, he'd totally chuckle a jolly fat-man chuckle and say, 'That is not a question that leads to edification' and immediately put eyezonme on ignore. If only we were all as enlightened.

The question is regardless of whether or not homosexual is natural, should it be something we allow in our civilized societies? Should we group it with sex with the opposite gender missionary-style, or should we group it with dolphin-esque gang rape and say 'That ain't gonna fly, sonny?'

And that's a question that we all have different answers to. MrQ and several others on this thread seem to think that it is a very bad thing that we should not approve of. And that's their choice. Several others seem to want to say that it's a perfectly fine occurrence, and that anyone who disagrees deserves to suffer a horrible fate.

Personally I'm of the 'live and let live' mentality, figuring that if people want to bink each other up the bum, throw feces, or masturbate, they can happily do it in the privacy of their own homes regardless of its natural or unnatural status, because they are consenting adults and can enjoy whatever rocks their boat without violating the rights of another person.

We can argue back and forth over the semantics of this issue all day and all night. We can argue whether or not it causes physical harm (though it can and regularly does, as does vaginal sex a whole other slew of natural activities), we can argue over whether or not it reduces the amount of reproduction in the world (it likely does, but so does a slew of perfectly valid activities that lower sperm count), and we can argue over its role in natural selection (though I fail to see why we'd do this as natural selection is something that humans fight very hard to thwart at every turn).

And I'm sure that will likely continue from this point forward, since, well, that's the way internet forums work, but it won't really get us anywhere special. I'm sure good points will be made on both sides, and nobody will change their mind, because it really isn't something you can prove one way or the other.

You guys disagree on what society should allow and disallow. I bet there are many other issues you disagree about. However, discussing the merits of whether or not candy should be taxed as a grocery or as a luxury doesn't have the same appeal.

So fight to the death or until your spacebar stops working. I think I'll stay out of it.
*puts on his 'not PLF' diguise*

I agree entirely with this man! Forsooth he speaketh teh honesty!

[slinky]

*puts on his 'not PLF' diguise*

I agree entirely with this man! Forsooth he speaketh teh honesty!

Iwouldhaveagreedbutmyspacebarstoppedworking.

[kensei]

PLF wins this thread.

[ZaichikArky]

~Michelle Kwan is hawt...

...for an American.

yeah yeah. Australians CAN be hot too. I mean, that guy who plays Dr Chase in "House" is Australian and damn he's sexay. #*)#^(#*&. And has a sexy accent.

One of my best internet friends is Australian. It's funny because when talking online to people he TOTALLY disguises his accent! He does it on purpose because he doesn't like attention drawn to it or "how to speak australian". He claims that Steve Irwin fakes his accent. When we tell him that "he grew up in the billabong!" he gets pissed XD.

He's really against Americans joking about Australians XD. Still, he's an awsome friend and hits on every internet female ever. Also goes so far as to hit on some of my RL friends when they come over to visit me!

[Pierrot le Fou]

~Michelle Kwan is hawt...

...for an American.

yeah yeah. Australians CAN be hot too. I mean, that guy who plays Dr Chase in "House" is Australian and damn he's sexay. #*)#^(#*&. And has a sexy accent.

One of my best internet friends is Australian. It's funny because when talking online to people he TOTALLY disguises his accent! He does it on purpose because he doesn't like attention drawn to it or "how to speak australian". He claims that Steve Irwin fakes his accent. When we tell him that "he grew up in the billabong!" he gets pissed XD.

He's really against Americans joking about Australians XD. Still, he's an awsome friend and hits on every internet female ever. Also goes so far as to hit on some of my RL friends when they come over to visit me!
...

...

Huh?

[Myrsilus]

Err... This thread has gone off the deep end. Someone should probably destroy it.

[Idlethought]

ZaichikArky....youre not only in the wrong thread, youre in the wrong section buddy lol

[ZaichikArky]

...

...

Huh?


I really don't understand again : ). I'm probably not going to immerse myself completely into the mannerisms of this board.

Someone posted something sarcastic about how hawt Michelle Kwan is(and she's damn hawt!). I almost missed the Korean joke.

I just find Australians hot, ok? As well as Japanese, black men, Russian women(some Russian men), and other exotic-looking mens. rawr. you can't stop me.

And with how fucked up this thread is, no no, I don't think I'm in the wrong thread. I think I'm perfectly at home. XD.

[MrQ]

Lisa M-

I applaud you for trying to look intellectually cool and all but you have clearly failed. Ill address your 10 quotes of mine clearly taken out of context to try and prove your point.

1. I was addressing the idea of being born as a homosexual. The idea, if taken to its logical extent would have to answer those questions as well. Which I dont recall anyone addressing them.

2. I clearly said "on a large scale" for a reason.

3. This was to someone using non credible sources.

4. This was in response to your direct question about me having experience. How is this authorative? Nice try though.

5. This was in response to a personal attack against me. Do you know what an ad hominem argument is?

6. I was not appealing to the masses for the bread and butter argument of mine, only in the early stage.

7. In response to a guy saying AIDS was created by man. This is a conspiracy theory. My question is valid, your analysis is flawed.

8. Ignorance my ass. She posted a general belief with no sources. How is this ignorance?

Yawn.



KKF "So now my view point is not valid in your point of view because you won't argue against it? First off I was stating MY view point on what is natural/un-natural. Considering this is not a discussion on only what Mr.Q thinks, I think I made a valid point. I later focused my attention on YOUR point of view.

And again you clearly choose to ignore a very specific data that WAS not added in the CDC dataset. You continously choose to ignore the CAUSE behind getting aids. You continously put gay sex in a NEGATIVE light without stating all the facts. You have said time and time again that if you have gay male sex you risk aids.

That is FALSE! How HARD is it for you to understand this? If you engage in UNPROTECTED anal intercourse then the risk of aids is higher. But so does it go with heterosexual individuals as well. Just because you choose to ignore this and leave that out does not make what you say true. It also explains WHY gay men have a higher rate of getting aids than any other sector. http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/A39C...AA6FEA7B1D8.asp
But of course if you choose to ignore the reason behind why something is so... well we get people like you.

I talked about the female homosexuals because I wanted to ask a question about what you think is natural. Since after all this is the topic at hand. " KKF

1. You started off addressing an idea of nature that was different then the way I used it. You bringing up organ transplants I believe is irrelevant to the discussion considering I was clearly appealing to the natural consequences to anal intercourse between men (ripping the flesh and muscles that never heal etc).

2. I didnt ignore anything. Not once did anyone bring up protection until you did. This was not what I was arguing about. Obviously protection can help prevent the spread of aids a bit. Unfortunately this has not worked in Africa (despite the millions of dollars we sent to support safe sex). If we have aids cases going UP in America and not DOWN why are you bringing up protection? I dont believe we have enough data to know if the massive percentage of gay men catching HIV used condoms.

3. How is this false? You telling me your asshole is not physically damaged if a man bashes it with his penis? Are you joking? If you engage in any anal intercourse with men your risks are higher, period. I have never addressed females during this discussion, only the homosexual males. Thats another topic and of course is a bit different.

You still flying past me?

[Masa the Masta]

People, stop arguing.

Gay people are unnatural because it's not natural to cum out of your ass.

There, it's settled, now move on.


..I'm kidding.

[NERD]

People, stop arguing.

Gay people are unnatural because it's not natural to cum out of your ass.

There, it's settled, now move on.


..I'm kidding.

That was brilliant.

[phagan]

I like MrQ. If not for his opinions, than at least for his tenacity in expressing them.

[KKF]

1. You started off addressing an idea of nature that was different then the way I used it. You bringing up organ transplants I believe is irrelevant to the discussion considering I was clearly appealing to the natural consequences to anal intercourse between men (ripping the flesh and muscles that never heal etc).

Again I was not talking to you I was stating a point about how it doesn't matter anymore what we view as something being natural or not since we are all un-natural. Also as a side note would you care to prove that these muscles never heal? I really doubt this but go ahead and link me to some info.


2. I didnt ignore anything. Not once did anyone bring up protection until you did. This was not what I was arguing about. Obviously protection can help prevent the spread of aids a bit. Unfortunately this has not worked in Africa (despite the millions of dollars we sent to support safe sex). If we have aids cases going UP in America and not DOWN why are you bringing up protection? I dont believe we have enough data to know if the massive percentage of gay men catching HIV used condoms.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE CONDOMS!!!! Both Africans and gay men do not use protection. What is so hard for you to understand about this?! Did you bother to read the link that shows how the increase happened when gay individuals stopped using protection?! That is the cause of spread of aids not the act of having anal sex. Also there are less closet homo's now which is another reason.


3. How is this false? You telling me your asshole is not physically damaged if a man bashes it with his penis? Are you joking? If you engage in any anal intercourse with men your risks are higher, period. I have never addressed females during this discussion, only the homosexual males. Thats another topic and of course is a bit different.


That is wrong because you are at risk of getting aids regardless if you have anal or vaginal sex. It might be higher with anal but its all relative because its all about PROTECTION. If they do not use protection then it does not really matters if its anal or vaginal sex. Thats what I'm getting at. You are looking at the stats and assuming that because gay men have anal sex they have a higher rate of aids. I disagree because really they have more unprotected sex than any other group hence why the hight rate of aids. You are making a correlation were one does not exist from the data you provided.

[ZaichikArky]

I like MrQ. If not for his opinions, than at least for his tenacity in expressing them.

mm agree somewhat. Not the opinion part. I suppose having guts is one thing, but being condescending is another and he has been condescending thoughout this entire thread. More than anyone. I don't respect people like that IRL....

[MrQ]

mm agree somewhat. Not the opinion part. I suppose having guts is one thing, but being condescending is another and he has been condescending thoughout this entire thread. More than anyone. I don't respect people like that IRL....


You have mental issues that should be looked at.

[Roxie]

You have mental issues that should be looked at.
I'm not sure about that, considering you're not a doctor, but I have to agree with ZaichikArky. You have been very condescending throughout your posts. Referring to the things you've said that are "common sense" and that it shouldn't be so hard to see. By saying these things you absolutely ignore & neglect the fact that others do not agree with you that these things are common sense at all!

Common sense to me is, if it occurs in nature, it is therefor, natural.
KKF's statement BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE CONDOMS!!!! for the reasoning as for why HIV/AIDS is higher among certain populations is common sense to me.
Anything involving two people and their body parts can be physically & psychologically damaging, but to regulate this to only homosexual couples, specifically male, is...well..nutty to me.
Using protection, communication, understanding, lube, all these are common sense to me.

The things that you've said however, no, not so much.

[phagan]

You have mental issues that should be looked at.

The audacity! No one with that cute of an avatar and that unpronouncable of a name should ever be called mental. I hereby withdraw any condonement of your character!

[OliveButtercup]

/kills self

[MrQ]

I'm not sure about that, considering you're not a doctor, but I have to agree with ZaichikArky. You have been very condescending throughout your posts. Referring to the things you've said that are "common sense" and that it shouldn't be so hard to see. By saying these things you absolutely ignore & neglect the fact that others do not agree with you that these things are common sense at all!

Common sense to me is, if it occurs in nature, it is therefor, natural.
KKF's statement BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE CONDOMS!!!! for the reasoning as for why HIV/AIDS is higher among certain populations is common sense to me.
Anything involving two people and their body parts can be physically & psychologically damaging, but to regulate this to only homosexual couples, specifically male, is...well..nutty to me.
Using protection, communication, understanding, lube, all these are common sense to me.

The things that you've said however, no, not so much.

Lol phagan.

The very first response by Zach to me was about me being condescending. I dont think me appealing to common sense is the same thing as being intellectually superior. Thats just me.

I dont ignore people who disagree with me. If you havent noticed I have responded each time.

Your idea of "it occurs in nature, so its natural" is a terrible argument. Remember the idea of eating the young and what not? Or did you ignore that?

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.

I was describing the orgran itself from the beginning. An organ on our body designed for EXPELLING WASTES cannot be a good spot for us to stick our dingalings in. You might enjoy this, hell I might enjoy it but that doesnt take away the FACT that it damages the organ and increases my risk for disease, does it not? This is why I find the opposition amazing on here. I have never said it was morally wrong, or anything of the sort. I have been arguing from a scientific point of view the whole time.

I clearly said psychological based on the stigma of being gay and sociological pressures in our society. Oh wait, you didnt read that.

[Lisa M]

As for use of protection increasing... show your resources. In many parts of Africa, it's believed that you can cure AIDS by having unprotected sex with a virgin. Makes no sense, but it's what a lot of people believe, just increasing the problem.

Basically, no, not everyone knows about condoms and HIV.

A lot of young gay men, because of the stigma of being gay and the sociological pressures of our society, are also more likely to drink and do drugs (I remember about two years ago meth was the big one. Don't know what it is now). If a guy's on, say, meth, he's MUCH less likely to think of using a condom. You also have the same problem as teenage pregnancy - teenagers tend to think they're invincible. It's the "It won't happen to me!" syndrome. I've seen plenty of people into their mid-twenties, gay and straight, who still have this mentality. Sorry I don't have any studies. To anyone who's been in a high school in their lives, though, it should be common sense.

[Roxie]

Lol phagan.

The very first response by Zach to me was about me being condescending. I dont think me appealing to common sense is the same thing as being intellectually superior. Thats just me.
You don't get it. It's your insistence that this is all common sense that should be shared knowledge to everyone and how you're amazed we don't "get it" is where you condescending attitude factors in.
I dont ignore people who disagree with me. If you havent noticed I have responded each time.
No, you ignore the fact that your "common sense" isn't everyone else's common sense. You do this by repeatedly saying you're only speaking common sense here, ignoring the fact that your sense ISN'T akin to everyone else's by repeatedly insiting your sense is the common kind.

Your idea of "it occurs in nature, so its natural" is a terrible argument. Remember the idea of eating the young and what not? Or did you ignore that?
I'm sorry, when did I say everything that occurs in nature should be copied in the human world? Could you quote me on that, it must've slipped my mind.
You're confusing the question. It isn't "should things that occur in nature be validated and legal in the human world?" it's "is homosexaulity natural?" And since it occurs in nature, it is therefor, natural.


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?
YES, it's true! Sure, people may know about condoms, but what is that they know? Perhaps you should google the Waxman (I believe that's the congressman's name) report on abstinence only education and its ineffectiveness. Some of these programs tell out right lies to teenagers and DO NOT address the needs of students who have already had sex or are homosexual.

Also, thanks to the Catholic church saying condoms are a sin, they're not getting much use in Africa. Also, restriction if not complete revoking for funding for NGOs and other programs that would teach safe sex in forgien countries has been revoked/restricted b/c they teach safe sex.

It's all ABC now. Anything But Condoms.

I was describing the orgran itself from the beginning. An organ on our body designed for EXPELLING WASTES cannot be a good spot for us to stick our dingalings in. You might enjoy this, hell I might enjoy it but that doesnt take away the FACT that it damages the organ and increases my risk for disease, does it not? This is why I find the opposition amazing on here. I have never said it was morally wrong, or anything of the sort. I have been arguing from a scientific point of view the whole time.
You know, it can be done without damage. Hell, at least I quoted a realy doctor about this, which you simply dismissed b/c he'd been on TV. It only increases the risk of disease if you don't use condoms! Get it?

I clearly said psychological based on the stigma of being gay and sociological pressures in our society. Oh wait, you didnt read that.
You took your sweet time doing that. It's certainly not in your several first posts.

[MrQ]

Lisa M-

You familiar with the term "hyperbole?" Dont take "everyone in the world knows about condoms" into a wooden literal sense. You get my point.

You don't get it. It's your insistence that this is all common sense that should be shared knowledge to everyone and how you're amazed we don't "get it" is where you condescending attitude factors in.

Its not my insistence. If you read my posts, I referred to the common sense argument only a few times and it was not my main point AND I restated that MANY times.

No, you ignore the fact that your "common sense" isn't everyone else's common sense. You do this by repeatedly saying you're only speaking common sense here, ignoring the fact that your sense ISN'T akin to everyone else's by repeatedly insiting your sense is the common kind..

Actually no. I simply explain why I believed it was common sense. I didnt hang my argument on this. If you read ALL of what I said, you would of known this.

I'm sorry, when did I say everything that occurs in nature should be copied in the human world? Could you quote me on that, it must've slipped my mind.
You're confusing the question. It isn't "should things that occur in nature be validated and legal in the human world?" it's "is homosexaulity natural?" And since it occurs in nature, it is therefor, natural..


B/c to me, common sense would dictate that natrual means "to be found in nature" and since homosexuality is found in nature, among various animals, homsexuality is therefor natural. .

Your statements like this seems to speak for themselves. You based your homosexuality is 100% natural because we can find some animals doing it. To this, I answered where do we find animals taking turns bashing each other in the butts and holding hands? I used my hamster experience as an example of what is USUALLY seen in nature. You see males trying to have sex with other males and those males being assualted RUN THE HELL AWAY.


YES, it's true! Sure, people may know about condoms, but what is that they know? Perhaps you should google the Waxman (I believe that's the congressman's name) report on abstinence only education and its ineffectiveness. Some of these programs tell out right lies to teenagers and DO NOT address the needs of students who have already had sex or are homosexual.

Also, thanks to the Catholic church saying condoms are a sin, they're not getting much use in Africa. Also, restriction if not complete revoking for funding for NGOs and other programs that would teach safe sex in forgien countries has been revoked/restricted b/c they teach safe sex.

It's all ABC now. Anything But Condoms. .

FYI. It is not conclusive on what works in terms of education. In the nineties we poured billions of dollars into sexual education around the world stressing protection with condoms. This has not worked. HIV has only spread through the roof.

We put SOME money into abstinence only programs and there is contradictory data showing whether it has worked or not. I can find websites claiming the opposite of what you are saying here but whats the point? Im not debating condoms usage here.

You know, it can be done without damage. Hell, at least I quoted a realy doctor about this, which you simply dismissed b/c he'd been on TV. It only increases the risk of disease if you don't use condoms! Get it?

You took your sweet time doing that. It's certainly not in your several first posts..

Maybe a super small penis wont cause THAT much damage but for the most part, damage is done when it takes place. Ever do any research on porn stars who specialize in this? Find out how there assholes are doing years later why dont you.

I clarified psychologically as soon as I felt it needed to be clarified.

[ShadowDeth]

MRq - As much as I find myself disagreeing with your pretty conservative approach to this argument (ie: Teh gays use buttsex and that's more aids friendly ^^), you're wasting your time arguing with Roxie. You're still very mis-guided, but you do make more sense than she does.

I'm pretty sure you've figured out why by now.

"Originally Posted by Roxie
B/c to me, common sense would dictate that natrual means "to be found in nature" and since homosexuality is found in nature, among various animals, homsexuality is therefor natural. ."

Total nonsense. What is your definition of natural? I'm pretty sure we *all* knew what the thread starter was getting at when we walked into the post. You can argue semantics and claim "well if it occurs in nature it's natural" and lalalalala, but that's not the point. I believe the issue was that if homosexuality a logical progression in animals, humans etc.

Homosexuality isn't by any means natural. As posted earlier, it doesn't do anything to further the procreation of our species. I don't see it as a trait with any positives. 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.

[Roxie]

Its not my insistence. If you read my posts, I referred to the common sense argument only a few times and it was not my main point AND I restated that MANY times. I didnt hang my argument on this.
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.

Your statements like this seems to speak for themselves. You based your homosexuality is 100% natural because we can find some animals doing it. To this, I answered where do we find animals taking turns bashing each other in the butts and holding hands?
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.


I used my hamster experience as an example of what is USUALLY seen in nature. You see males trying to have sex with other males and those males being assualted RUN THE HELL AWAY.
Sorry, but your hamster experience is not a qualifier for the rest of the species on the planet.


FYI. It is not conclusive on what works in terms of education. In the nineties we poured billions of dollars into sexual education around the world stressing protection with condoms. This has not worked. HIV has only spread through the roof.
Acutally, it IS conclusive. Did you look at the study?

We put SOME money into abstinence only programs and there is contradictory data showing whether it has worked or not. I can find websites claiming the opposite of what you are saying here but whats the point? Im not debating condoms usage here.
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.

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.



Ever do any research on porn stars who specialize in this? Find out how there assholes are doing years later why dont you.
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.

[Roxie]

"Originally Posted by Roxie
B/c to me, common sense would dictate that natrual means "to be found in nature" and since homosexuality is found in nature, among various animals, homsexuality is therefor natural. ."

Total nonsense. What is your definition of natural?
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.

"I'm pretty sure we *all* knew what the thread starter was getting at when we walked into the post. You can argue semantics and claim "well if it occurs in nature it's natural" and lalalalala, but that's not the point. I believe the issue was that if homosexuality a logical progression in animals, humans etc.
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?"

Homosexuality isn't by any means natural. As posted earlier, it doesn't do anything to further the procreation of our species. I don't see it as a trait with any positives. It stifles the desire to fart out babies.

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.

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. 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.