Originally posted by whobdamandog
Don't you know that Feceman is the standard of what we all should live up to PVS?
I can't keep up with the conversation here. It keeps jumping from one thing to another with random comments interjected and I am...tired. You guys should be glad. You have literally sapped me of my strength. The posts of "it happens in nature, therefore, it's natural" and "it's not abnormal" have sucked the will from me.
No.
Homosexuality is not natural. Just because something happens in nature does not make it natural. What about albino alligators? A very cool looking reptile indeed, but are they natural? In the strictest sense that "they happen in nature", but taking a glance at the other definitions of 'natural, they are clearly not.
Homosexuality is also abnormal. Just as Down Syndrome is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Just as being born without an arm is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Just as being born with 17/20 vision is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Homosexuality deviates from the norm and is thus abnormal.
I think it's great that one study involving sixty four men is representative of the entire population. I think it's also great that we're assuming that repression exists because God knows that Freud hit the mark so often. This, of course, ignores a fundamental concept of psychology: correlation does not equal causation. One cannot even tell if there IS a correlation for "homophobia" and homosexual desires.
Originally posted by Makedde
Gay Pride Day isn't ridiculous, it's one day a year when gays and lesbians can actually walk down the street and tell us that they are PROUD and happy to be the way they are. It's probably the most special, important day of the year for them, the one day where they actually feel like society accepts them.
Originally posted by Makkedde
Gays and lesbians can have kids, as many as they like. IVF and adoption are available.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Homosexuality is also abnormal. Just as Down Syndrome is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Just as being born without an arm is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Just as being born with 17/20 vision is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Homosexuality deviates from the norm and is thus abnormal.
Being born with Down Syndrome is not a choice, being born with one arm isn't a choice. Being blind isn't a choice, and being homosexual isn't a choice.
Originally posted by FeceMan
There's a difference between stating one's views and one's sexuality and flaunting it to the masses.
Heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality every single day. They force their sexualitys down our throats, and expect us to be okay about it. Whats wrong with having one day a year when gays and lesbians can force their sexuality down the throats of straight people?
Originally posted by Makedde
Being born with Down Syndrome is not a choice, being born with one arm isn't a choice. Being blind isn't a choice, and being homosexual isn't a choice.Heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality every single day. They force their sexualitys down our throats, and expect us to be okay about it. Whats wrong with having one day a year when gays and lesbians can force their sexuality down the throats of straight people?
For the second part, it's hardly flaunting one's sexuality and ramming it down the throats of homosexuals. Holding hands with a member of the opposite sex?
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING?! THAT IS BIGOTRY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. YOU ARE FORCING YOUR HETEROSEXUALITY ONTO THE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION!
Bullshit. What's more, those who espouse all sorts of views of tolerance are usually AGAINST forcing one's views onto someone else, which makes the idea all the more hypocritical.
Originally posted by FeceManWhat is 'natural' then? Whatever doesn't irk you?
Homosexuality is not natural. Just because something happens in nature does not make it natural. What about albino alligators? A very cool looking reptile indeed, but are they natural? In the strictest sense that "they happen in nature", but taking a glance at the other definitions of 'natural, they are clearly not.
Originally posted by FeceManIn essence you are calling homosexuality a disease. Human variation is 'normal'. Which eye colour is the abnormal one? Which skin colour? Sieg heil, Kommandant.
Homosexuality is also abnormal. Just as Down Syndrome is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Just as being born without an arm is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Just as being born with 17/20 vision is abnormal, so is homosexuality. Homosexuality deviates from the norm and is thus abnormal.
Originally posted by FeceMan
For the first part, what the hell does that have to do with anything?For the second part, it's hardly flaunting one's sexuality and ramming it down the throats of homosexuals. Holding hands with a member of the opposite sex?
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING?! THAT IS BIGOTRY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. YOU ARE FORCING YOUR HETEROSEXUALITY ONTO THE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION!
Bullshit. What's more, those who espouse all sorts of views of tolerance are usually AGAINST forcing one's views onto someone else, which makes the idea all the more hypocritical.
So it is okay for straights to flaunt their sexuality but not okay for gays to do the same? You are one big hypocrite. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not just men ****ing..men ****ing women and producing "smart" babies..Homosexuals can't **** each other and produce babies..or can they? You tell me bud..😉
Irrelevant; the fact remains that the driving force behind the advancement of society is the contribution of its members.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Does the possibility exist for homosexuals to produce offspring during their sexual interactions..yes or no?
In other words, you refuse to answer the question, "Do elderly, infertile, or sterile couples choose their sexual orientation," because if you answer, "yes," you concede that heterosexuality is a chosen orientation, but if you answer, "no," you concede that the ability or inability to procreate has nothing to do with whether or not sexual orientation is chosen or genetic.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So I guess you agree with me..these types of studies are not very conclusive..they leave out a whole host of various sociological/environmental factors..😉So I guess you agree with me..these types of statistics/studies are not very conclusive..they leave out a whole host of various sociological/environmental factors..😉
In other words, you are obstinately maintaining your position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary because you cannot refute it.
You guys are never going to let me get a good nights sleep..😉
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
[B]Ah, but we have reached the stage where actually having sexual intercourse between a man and a women isn't necessary for two women to have a child. A little thing called science. Sure, sperm is needed, but not always from the usual source. And as has been said, there are plenty of heterosexual couples out there that are incapable of having children without the aid of science.And this is in response to all that talk about how "homosexuals aren't natural because they don't have babies, which is what humans were made for" - and it's been pointed out that the same if true for infertile couples and for those who choose celibacy. Now, there is a difference of course, but the result is the same. And nobody is advocating that a fertile man shouldn't wed an infertile woman because she can't have his children, are we? Or the other way round? And if we can accept that a small part of the population is together and sexually active without the chance of having children, why is it so hard to accept another, slightly larger, but still quite small, part of the population is also together and sexually active in caring relationships that also don't have the chance to produce children (baring artificial means)?
Let me break this down in the most simplistic terms possible..
man + man = 0 % possibility of offspring..
woman + woman = 0 % possibility of offspring..
man + woman = 1-99.9 % possibility of offspring...
The "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" exists within "heterosexual" relationships.
The "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" does NOT exist within same sex relationships.
Thus same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones, because the "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" does not exist.
Simple enough..n'est ce pas?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Two very different things.So you expect the human genome to be different one person to another? That the group tested conclusively proved something, but that their genome is going to be different from the rest of humanity? Effectively, as it were, they are a different species?
If everything that each human being was comprised of was completely identical..wouldn't we all look the same?
Me thinks so....
Moving on..you can't identify something as being unique..if you have nothing to compare it against. It would be like if I picked up a fruit for the first time, and then claimed that it was the only fruit that had seeds in it..even though it was the only one that I had eaten.
Scientific studies should always be done on a diverse group of specimens, in order to get well rounded and accurate results.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Irrelevant; the fact remains that the driving force behind the advancement of society is the contribution of its members.
Adam..you've just skipped over ignorance, leeped over foolishness, and have run the complete marathon which leads to "stupidity" my friend.
Did I read what you just wrote correctly?
Did you really say that a society's ability to reproduce has nothing to do with its advancement?
How the hell do a members of a society come into being?
Answer: Through reproduction my friend. There ain't no society, without people being in it. You need to be able to make people, to keep a society going.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, you refuse to answer the question, "Do elderly, infertile, or sterile couples choose their sexual orientation," because if you answer, "yes," you concede that heterosexuality is a chosen orientation, but if you answer, "no," you concede that the ability or inability to procreate has nothing to do with whether or not sexual orientation is chosen or genetic.
I'm beginning to think that you and Imperial are the same person..
repeat:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let me break this down in the most simplistic terms possible..man + man = 0 % possibility of offspring..
woman + woman = 0 % possibility of offspring..
man + woman = 1-99.9 % possibility of offspring...
The "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" exists within "heterosexual" relationships.
The "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" does NOT exist within same sex relationships.
Thus same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones, because the "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" does not exist.
Simple enough..n'est ce pas?
Originally posted by Adam Poe
In other words, you are obstinately maintaining your position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary because you cannot refute it.
repeat:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Scientific studies should always be done on a diverse group of specimens, in order to get well rounded and accurate results.
And let me add "unbiased" after "well rounded" in the quote above.
Originally posted by whobdamandogIf you're losing sleep it's only because you've deluded yourself into thinking there's any legitimate support behind the things you say, rather than them being your own slanted opinions based on religious indoctrination, and your self-delusion extends to thinking anyone actually cares what you have to say... they don't... in the least.
You guys are never going to let me get a good nights sleep..😉
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you're losing sleep it's only because you've deluded yourself into thinking there's any legitimate support behind the things you say, rather than them being your own slanted opinions based on religious indoctrination, and your self-delusion extends to thinking anyone actually cares what you have to say... they don't... in the least.
Hey Guys!! Read the post above and see if you can spot the irony in it. It's kind of like playing that "Where's Waldo" Game. If you search hard enough, you'll find it. 😆😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You guys are never going to let me get a good nights sleep..😉Let me break this down in the most simplistic terms possible..
man + man = 0 % possibility of offspring..
woman + woman = 0 % possibility of offspring..
man + woman = 1-99.9 % possibility of offspring...
The "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" exists within "heterosexual" relationships.
The "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" does NOT exist within same sex relationships.
Thus same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones, because the "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" does not exist.
Simple enough..n'est ce pas?
There are something like 6 billion people in the world - the majority of whom are heterosexual. Then there are people who are unable to have children (the infertile) and those that choose not to (both heterosexuals and homosexuals) - the fact is though that humanity has reached a point whereby we are no longer bound by the "you have to have children, if you don't, humanity will die." Nor need couples be in a heterosexual relationship to have children (adoption and IVF.) These are viable, viable I say, ways of having children. Yet you keep saying "natural" - if natural means man and women then natural needs to be updated, because lets face it, if that doesn't work there are things you can do, or just bypass that all together.
And this might sound crazy, but really the argument being put forth sounds like, we as people should be little more then animals, slaves to the fact men produce sperm and women eggs.
Now disregard happiness. Disregard the possibility that a person is born that way. Disregard the fact science makes it so that a lesbian couple need not be engaged in a heterosexual relationship to bear child. Disregard all of that - the natural way, the right way is for people to be forced to be little more then birthing machines. It sounds extreme, but then arguing that a homosexual person is wrong because they don't procreate is equally extreme. Saying they should forgo their happiness, and what is natural for them, and forcing them to live in a heterosexual relationship where they can use their reproductive organs "correctly" sounds extreme.
And now I will say something inflammatory and erroneous like "But then homosexual couples can adopt or foster all of those unwanted/mistreated children produced in a correct, natural heterosexual relationship"
If everything that each human being was comprised of was completely identical..wouldn't we all look the same?Me thinks so....
Moving on..you can't identify something as being unique..if you have nothing to compare it against. It would be like if I picked up a fruit for the first time, and then claimed that it was the only fruit that had seeds in it..even though it was the only one that I had eaten.
Scientific studies should always be done on a diverse group of specimens, in order to get well rounded and accurate results.
No, they wouldn't. Recessive/dominant genes, things that cancel each other out and all that jazz.
And ok, how would you have done the experiment. 100 people? 1000? 1000000? Even though huge numbers aren't always necessary. What if the experiment only had 30 people. 15 gay men and 15 straight men. Randomly drawn from all walks of life. The 15 gay men all have something in their genetics that is lacking or not active in the genes of their heterosexual counterparts. Now that would be terribly conclusive, and although I imagine it wasn't quite like this, the question is would that be satisfactory, or would it be flawed because they didn't have hundreds and thousands of test subjects?
Originally posted by whobdamandogCase-in-point. I neither care what others on here think of me, nor do I think they actually care what I have to say. I post now and then to kill time. You post for attention and constantly proclaim having "won" something without any justification.
Hey Guys!! Read the post above and see if you can spot the irony in it. It's kind of like playing that "Where's Waldo" Game. If you search hard enough, you'll find it. 😆😆
Add to the self-delusions that you actually think you're funny. You laugh amidst silence.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Case-in-point. I neither care what others on here think of me, nor do I think they actually care what I have to say. I post now and then to kill time. You post for attention and constantly proclaim having "won" something without any justification.Add to the self-delusions that you actually think you're funny. You laugh amidst silence.
A lot of the time, I like what you have to say. Were as wob, he takes both sides, I guess he likes to argue more that have a real point. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
man + man = 0 % possibility of offspring..woman + woman = 0 % possibility of offspring..
man + woman = 1-99.9 % possibility of offspring...
The "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" exists within "heterosexual" relationships.
The "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" does NOT exist within same sex relationships.
Thus same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones, because the "possibility" of "naturally" producing "offspring" does not exist.
Who really gives a **** if two people of the same sex can't naturally produce children? Two people of the opposite sex can't always naturally produce children eithor. IVF isn't what you would call natural procreation.
This isn't about having children, not all straight couples choose to have kids. The Catholic Church rams it's idiotic beliefs down our throats, telling us that we must procreate because that is what we are here for. Well, I am sorry. If I don't want to have kids, I don't have to. This has nothing to do with gays having kids. Why you brought that up I don't know. 🙄
From now on all decisions I do in life will be genetic, then no one can blame me if something go wrong. I will never be responsible, and probably that will help me in my fear of assuming responsability for my decisions. It will always be my genes fault.
I think that if we want to make one choice then we need to assume it. People do many things which are not natural without problem. Is driving a car natural ?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samaru
There are something like 6 billion people in the world - the majority of whom are heterosexual. Then there are people who are unable to have children (the infertile) and those that choose not to (both heterosexuals and homosexuals) - the fact is though that humanity has reached a point whereby we are no longer bound by the "you have to have children, if you don't, humanity will die."
Biological definition of natural:Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
The basic premise of the argument of "procreation" seems to have alluded you all. The main point being thrusted forth is that same sex unions, are " unnatural" behaviors..because they are not "naturally" condusive to producing offspring. Heterosexual relationships are.
Do all heterosexual couples have the ability to produce offspring? Of course not. But the "possibility" does indeed exist within a good majority of heterosexual relationships, to "naturally" conceive children.
The possibility of "naturally" conceiving children through sexual relations with one another, does not exist within "same - sex" relationships.
Thus as reitterated post after post within this thread by multiple people..by this definition..same sex union's are not natural.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samaru
Now disregard happiness. Disregard the possibility that a person is born that way. Disregard the fact science makes it so that a lesbian couple need not be engaged in a heterosexual relationship to bear child. Disregard all of that - the natural way, the right way is for people to be forced to be little more then birthing machines.
Marvelous speech. You should consider getting into politics..however..you've diverged from the initial topic of the thread quite a bit my friend. The initial question posed is not whether or not "homosexuals" should be able to have children, or if they can have children through "artificial" means.
The question being posed is...
Homosexuality choosen or genetic?
Clearly based on all of the evidence presented to you in this thread, it has been made apparent that one does indeed "choose" to engage in sexual activities with those of the same gender. The arguments that you/others have put forth in opposition to this have been summarized below:
Arguments AGAINST Homesexuality being choice:
1. Studies were done on 64 men..which demonstrated that many of them had similar genetic compositions. This study can be used to accurately reflect and represent the general populace which consists of women..children..old people, blacks, whites, asians, the handicapped, poor people, rich people, those who have grown up in broken homes, those who have been raped, those who have been molested, the physically abused, emotionally abused, etc, etc..etc..
2. Lesbians can be impregnated through artificial means.
3. Homosexuals should be able to be happy and themselves.
4. Homosexuals should be able to adopt children who come from heterosexual broken homes.
Please feel free to correct me if I have left anything out..😉 🙄
You all have clearly failed to prove how homosexuality can be defined as natural or genetic based on the arguments above.
Now if you want to discuss homosexuals being able to adopt children, legalizing same sex unions, or the religious/moral aspects regarding homosexuality in a society, please feel free to post your opinion in any one of the threads listed below.
Should homosexuals be able to adopt kids?
Why do some Religions oppose Homosexuality
Click the link below to see how well you all have presented your arguments throughout this entire debate..
How well your arguments have been presented in this thread...
Originally posted by Atlantis001
From now on all decisions I do in life will be genetic, then no one can blame me if something go wrong. I will never be responsible, and probably that will help me in my fear of assuming responsability for my decisions. It will always be my genes fault.I think that if we want to make one choice then we need to assume it. People do many things which are not natural without problem. Is driving a car natural ?
Whob, get laid.
