Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

"If people are not "born gay," then how do you explain the fact that homosexuals are biologically different from heterosexuals, i.e. the brain structure, inner-ear, and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals, and that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals, i.e. homosexuals share a genetic marker and stretches of DNA that are not shared by heterosexuals?"

How in the hell can prove that fingerprints are different then heterosexuals when they vary by individual regardless of sexual preference.............................and the inner ear piece I would like to know about this one as well please.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Are you familiar with the "natural" function of the anus?

Seriously bud..how does this explain it as being "natural" for a man to stick his wanker up another man's poop shot?

You're being silly...regardless of whether one assumes swimming to be a "natural" or "unnatural" act..the bottom line is that human beings were not designed to live and cohabit in water..just like the anus was not "designed" for excepting male ejaculation to fertilize feces and produce offspring.

You keep on trying to equate one's "ability" to perform a particular action as "natural.."

Anyway..It's not strawmanning in the least...the anus is not meant for procreation. If a man "chooses" to stick his wanker in the anus of another man..there is no possibility of producing offspring.

Case in point...being able to swim..does not mean that man was designed to "live in water"

Being able to stick something in the anus, does not mean that it was designed to have stuff stuck up in it...nor does it make it an "accpetable" behavior when one "chooses" to do it..

Vous comprenez?

You keep making these long posts just to say you don't understand. If you don't get something I said, just ask me to elaborate.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
How is sticking the penis up the anus "acceptable"?

What "acceptable" biological purpose does this action perform?

What "acceptable" social purpose does this action fulfill?

What exactly makes it not acceptable to you anyway?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You've made plenty of assumptions..in fact everything you've posted is based on assumption.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
That's a weak rebuttal at best..a strawman at worst. My point has always been that because one has the "ability" to do something, that doesn't necessarily make that "ability" a natural one. Again..being able to stick things up the rectum..does not mean that it is "natural" to stick things up the rectum...and biology tells us that the rectum is not designed to have stuff go into it..it's designed to have stuff come OUT of it...duhh...😉

Originally posted by whobdamandog

And how does this "base desire" make it any less of a choice for one to follow through with their actions?

If all you are referring to is the act of sex or some "lifestyle" as you keep saying, why are you even here? We all agree that is a choice. There is no debate there.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I've given many facts.

Specifically one's relating to the "natural" biological functions of various human body parts.

People make choices everyday. An individual can choose what "lifestyle" they wish to engage in. This is my proof. This is common sense stuff bud.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You can't accept the fact that the "anus" was not designed to have large objects inserted into it. Your flawed ANAL-ogy..(me so funny) of comparing swimming to anal sex is ridiculous..as are all the other arguments you've presented within this thread.

So now it's only "large" objects eh?

I tired of reiterating this. Specific design is not wholly indicative of what is natural.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

I assume you mean "intelligence"..how oxymoronic..you can't spell intelligence properly..but you then put down someone else's intelligence...lol...

"Intellegence" is merely a typo of "intelligence". "Except", however, is an entirely different word from "accept". You have no room to jeer.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Anyway my friend..you've proven that you know nothing about human biology. If you did, you would not continue to make ridiculous arguments which compare anal sex to swimming...lol..
Fin

Originally posted by soleran30
"If people are not "born gay," then how do you explain the fact that homosexuals are biologically different from heterosexuals, i.e. the brain structure, inner-ear, and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals, and that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals, i.e. homosexuals share a genetic marker and stretches of DNA that are not shared by heterosexuals?"

How in the hell can prove that fingerprints are different then heterosexuals when they vary by individual regardless of sexual preference.............................and the inner ear piece I would like to know about this one as well please.

Where'd you get this information?

Originally posted by soleran30
How in the hell can prove that fingerprints are different then heterosexuals when they vary by individual regardless of sexual preference.............................and the inner ear piece I would like to know about this one as well please.

Originally posted by Eis
Expirience? Ha, other than church and soccer, can't think of any. Yes up to 12 but I learned I was gay when I was 11, by the time my life started to change I already knew I was gay.

Originally posted by Eis
Nope, really, I grew up in a christian home. Mom and dad, etc. When my life changed dramatically I already knew I was gay... plus I have tons of brothers and sisters, why did this so called "environmental factor" not affect them?

Although, this particular example does seem to support that Italian experiment where fertile moms tended to be more likely to produce homosexual offspring.

Originally posted by Eis
Really? So I don't have to be gay? Wow... never looked at it like that... Thank you Whob.

*becomes straight*

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The stupidity of certain people in this thread never ceases to astound me. Even the title of the thread is idiotic presuming that if homosexuality is not genetic then it must be chosen.

The deliberate blurring of the line between sexual behaviour and sexual orientation is transparent.

A man is heterosexual. He is attracted to women.
He is extorted into performing a homosexual sexual act.
He does not become a homosexual. He is not attracted to men.
The extortion is ongoing, for a long period of time.
He still does not become a homosexual. He is still not attracted to men.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A study by Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua - Italy found that women who pass on a trait for homosexuality to their children are more fertile than women who do not.

If people are not "born gay," then how do you explain the fact that homosexuals are biologically different from heterosexuals, i.e. the brain structure, inner-ear, and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals, and that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals, i.e. homosexuals share a genetic marker and stretches of DNA that are not shared by heterosexuals?

Here Bardiel13

Originally posted by soleran30
How in the hell can prove that fingerprints are different then heterosexuals when they vary by individual regardless of sexual preference.............................and the inner ear piece I would like to know about this one as well please.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Where'd you get this information?

Originally posted by StyleTime
The fingerprint "evidence" seems a bit odd to me as well.

In 1991, Simon LeVey, neuroanatomist for the Salk Institute, found that the INAH3 structure of the hypothalamus in homosexual men is twice as small as those of heterosexual men, more closely resembling those of heterosexual women.

Seven years later, findings published in the March edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at the University of Texas - Austin report that the cochlea structure in homosexual women more closely resembles that of heterosexual men.

In both studies, the difference in the structures of homosexuals is attributed to hormone exposure in the womb, evidence that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.

A fingerprint study by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found that a significant percentage of homosexuals have excess ridges on their left hand digits compared to their right hand digits, a characteristic that was not shared by heterosexuals.

This study shows a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth as fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.

A study by Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University found that if one sibling is homosexual the likelihood of an identical twin also being homosexual is 52%, the likelihood of a fraternal twin being homosexual is 22%, and the likelihood of a genetic or non-genetic sibling being homosexual is 10%.

They also found that in most instances in which identical twins are separated at birth and one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual.

This study shows that sexuality has a genetic component and is not determined by life experiences.

Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute examined the DNA of 40 homosexuals and found that ALL shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.

Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua - Italy found that there is no single "gay gene" but rather several genes responsible for sexual orientation. He identified that genetic components are indeed linked to the X chromosome and that there are other components likely to be on other chromosomes as well.

Findings published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics by Brian Mutanksi of the University of Illinois at Chicago in conjunction with Pennsylvania State University, the University of California - Los Angeles, the University of California - San Diego, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation report, after combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, identifying them in stretches of DNA on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A fingerprint study by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found that a significant percentage of homosexuals have excess ridges on their left hand digits compared to their right hand digits, a characteristic that was not shared by heterosexuals.

This study shows a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth as fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.

This study would show a genetic link if they were actually able to show all the homsexuals had it. The fingerprints could be related to to other factors as they have been shown to be before.

Jeff Buzby of the CHOC Research Institute in Orange, California has found that "Fingerprints form before birth and their shape is generally believed to be influenced by nutrition and the growth of fingers during the 13th week of pregnancy".

This implies that the uncertain number of homosexuals in the study you posted had deviant fingerprints because of coincidence.

Michael Watson, Biomedical Engineer states that scientist have found "The ultimate shape of fingerprints are believed to be influenced by environmental factors during pregnancy, like nutrition, blood pressure, position in the womb and the growth rate of the fingers at the end of the first trimester.

If finger prints are indicative of one's sexuality, sexuality may indeed not be genetic. It could occur from some environmental condition within the uterus of the mother. Nutrition, position, blood pressure, etc could cause sexuality before birth if there is truly a correlation between fingerprints and sexuality.

The fingerprints imply it is neither choice nor genetic. It would be environmental while in utero.

No matter what anybody says, I will always know that my sexuality has nothing to do with anything or anybody but.....................well I did experience a life altering event in my opinion, for me that is. So it may not apply to me.

But for those who have lived a normal life without incident and are either homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, their sexuality has nothing to do with anybody or anything but them.
Not genetics or any of that babble.

is it comprehensible.....

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'm not saying the study is incorrect but it is strange it doesn't give less vague numbers that just a "significant percentage". That could be 20% for all I know.

This study would show a genetic link if they were actually able to show all the homsexuals had it. The fingerprints could be related to to other factors as they have been shown to be before.

Jeff Buzby of the CHOC Research Institute in Orange, California has found that "Fingerprints form before birth and their shape is generally believed to be influenced by nutrition and the growth of fingers during the 13th week of pregnancy".

This implies that the uncertain number of homosexuals in the study you posted had deviant fingerprints because of coincidence.

Michael Watson, Biomedical Engineer states that scientist have found "The ultimate shape of fingerprints are believed to be influenced by environmental factors during pregnancy, like nutrition, blood pressure, position in the womb and the growth rate of the fingers at the end of the first trimester.

If finger prints are indicative of one's sexuality, sexuality may indeed not be genetic. It could occur from some environmental condition within the uterus of the mother. Nutrition, position, blood pressure, etc could cause sexuality before birth if there is truly a correlation between fingerprints and sexuality.

The fingerprints imply it is neither choice nor genetic. It would be environmental while in utero.

Do not conflate genetic and biological substrates such as the intraueterine environment with experiences and uprbringing.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Do not conflate genetic and biological substrates such as the intraueterine environment with experiences and uprbringing.

When I said environment, I was referring strictly to where and the conditions under which the fingerprints were developed. Again, this is only if a proven connection between fingerprints and secuality were to exist. Your example said that sexuality would be genetic because of the fingerprints and I was merely showing that fingerprints are shaped by other factors.

Either way, it wouldn't be genetics if the fingerprints did play a role. It wouldn't be a choice either. It would be an effect of phsyical environment. Unfortunately, this would probably still be lumped together with experiences and upbringing.

However, I am more inclined to believe that fingerprints play no role in this and any similaries between the "significant percentage of homosexuals" are purely coincidence.

Originally posted by StyleTime
It would be environmental while in utero.

Lol..for a guy who seems to be so keen on correcting an individual's minor spelling/grammatical typos, you certainly have a keen inability to detect these types of errors in your own literary pieces. Each word in bold referenced in your quotes represents a spelling or grammatical error. No need to thank me. Since you've been so kind to assist me with my writing, I thought it would be quite appropriate to return the favor.

Originally posted by StyleTime
For the last time, I only used that analogy to show that just because it isn't specifically designed for something, doesn't make it unnatural to do so.

So basically you're asserting that you believe it's NATURAL to stick foreign objects up the anus?

🙄😆

Come on now bud..certainly even you can realize the absurdity behind this argument.

Originally posted by StyleTime
You keep making these long posts just to say you don't understand. If you don't get something I said, just ask me to elaborate.

Okay please elaborate..explain to me how it is NATURAL to stick things up the rectum/anus? No more silly analogies my friend. Answer this question directly.

Originally posted by StyleTime
What exactly makes it not acceptable to you anyway?

Well the law states that it's "unacceptable"...you have heard of the criminal offense of SODOMY right? 🙄

And as I've stated many times, I believe biology also states that it's not NATURAL to have large objects inserted into the rectum as well. Correct me if I'm wrong however...😉

Or how about the damage one can cause to the rectum or it's lining by consistently sticking objects into it...and the innumerable amounts of bowel problems such actions can cause...

There are many other reasons as to why society deems such behavior "unacceptable", however, I don't believe it necessary to list anymore. If you don't possess the practical intellect necessary to comprehend such simple concepts, then it would be a fruitless endeavor to continue listing anymore of these common sense reasons to you.

Originally posted by StyleTime
You assume that because something wasn't specifically designed for an action, performing said action is unnatural.

How can anal sex be deemed "biologically" natural?

When did anal sex become "legally" acceptable?

Why do you believe anal sex should be deemed "morally" acceptable?

How would legalizing anal sex benefit society?

Can you directly answer these questions Style?

Originally posted by StyleTime
Quit trying to do that. We aren't even talking about the "act" of homosexual sex. We all know sex is a choice no matter what orientation you are, save for cases of rape and such. We are talking about feelings of sexuality.

Another stupid argument.

Of course one's feelings of "sexuality" have to do with "sex."

We're talking about homosexual sex, specifically homosexual "male" sex. Anal sex/oral sex/ and masturbation are the only types of "sexual behaviors" homosexual males can engage in and could ever be attracted to.

Is anal sex exclusively linked to homosexual lifestyle? Of course not, however this type of unnatural "sexual" act, is the only form of "intercourse" homosexual males can perform.

Homosexual females are even more limited in the sexual acts they can partake in. Many resort to using fake male appendages(dildo's) and other body parts(fingers, toes, fists, etc) to simulate heterosexual intercourse. This type of behavior is a bit hypocritical if you ask me..I mean..if one is attracted only to women, then what's with all the pseudo male sexual devices and sexual acts?

Anyway..moving on..sexual acts..have everything to do with sexuality. Only a fool would state otherwise.

Originally posted by StyleTime
If all you are referring to is the act of sex or some "lifestyle" as you keep saying, why are you even here? We all agree that is a choice. There is no debate there.

Once again, this only reaffirms that the ACT of sex is a choice. Where is the proof that sexuality is?

Then why are we debating? As you stated, engaging in homosexual behavior is obviously a choice. Despite what one's desires may be, whether they be to physically hurt someone, to eat crap, to eat spaghetti, to stick their mouth on another's genitalia, etc..they still can choose not to do these things. Doing what we feel like doing is not always what's good for us. If the government recognized and upheld everyone's "feelings" as being "socially" and "legally" acceptable, then we would live in a lawless/anarchic society.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'm tired of reiterating this. Specific design is not wholly indicative of what is natural.

You still have not explained how anal sex is natural..

And please try to give another excuse besides "you've seen two animals do it."

I've observed animals eat crap, drink out of toilets, rub their asses against trees..among countless other silly behaviors. Should all of these behaviors be deemed as "acceptable" and "natural" for humans to do?

Originally posted by StyleTime
Wow. I make like one typo in a post, yet you continually use "except" in lieu of "accept" among various spelling and grammatical errors.

"Intellegence" is merely a typo of "intelligence". "Except", however, is an entirely different word from "accept". You have no room to jeer.

3 so far..and counting, There are a host of other grammatical errors..such as transitional modifiers in the wrong places, conjunctions being used inappropriately, but again I don't have all day to correct, and besides I'm quite guilty of these things myself. Besides this is a message board..not an English class. I'm sure if I were writing a dissertation on world peace, I would take time to correct every minor spelling/grammatical error. However, since I'm only attempting to preach to a bunch of dinks who go by the names of "Styletime", "Adam Poe", "Wolverine Rules" etc, who have pictures of anime/comic book characters on their profiles..I generally don't feel as if I'm inherently subjected to having to prove my literary abilities...🙄

Originally posted by StyleTime
Again, you show you don't even know what you are arguing about. I used that reference to demonstrate natural actions despite specific "design". The actual act I used was inconsequential. [/B]

Unless you can prove to me how anal sex is a "biologically" natural as well as "legally" acceptable behavior, or how an individual has no ability to control their desires, you've miserably failed in proving your arguments Styletime.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Lol..for a guy who seems to be so keen on correcting an individual's minor spelling/grammatical typos, you certainly have a keen inability to detect these types of errors in your own literary pieces. Each word in bold referenced in your quotes represents a spelling or grammatical error. No need to thank me. Since you've been so kind to assist me with my writing, I thought it would be quite appropriate to return the favor.

The only reason I commented on your use of "except" was because it is an entirely different meaning than the word "accept". If you had really meant "except", the meaning of your post would be completely changed and I wanted to make sure I knew what you were saying. Quit being defensive about it as I didn't mean it as an insult.

I grow weary of responding to each little excerpt you have posted so I'll just address the entire issue of naturality right here.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition , natural is "characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions".

Anal sex needs no artificial means through which to occur, hasn't been affected by anything, and definitely not brought about by inhibitions. You might try to argue it is not spontaneous but you'd be wrong.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. says that spontaneous actions are those "proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint."

Anal sex arises from an inherent desire for it.

I'll even use a definition from BIOLOGY which you seem to think is so against homosexuality.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language gives the biological definition of natural as "not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned."

Anal sex is, once again, not affected by any artificial means nor is it conditioned.

In short, anal sex is quite natural.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Or how about the damage one can cause to the rectum or it's lining by consistently sticking objects into it...and the innumerable amounts of bowel problems such actions can cause...

When did anal sex become "legally" acceptable?

Why do you believe anal sex should be deemed "morally" acceptable?

How would legalizing anal sex benefit society?

Can you directly answer these questions Style?

Sodomy is not illegal in all areas like you seem to think. Even where it is illegal, the law is not enforced.

Your morals have no place in this argument and neither do mine.

A better question is" How does anal sex hurt society?"

I can.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Unless you can prove to me how anal sex is a "biologically" natural as well as "legally" acceptable behavior, or how an individual has no ability to control their desires, you've miserably failed in proving your arguments Styletime.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
However, since I'm only attempting to preach to a bunch of dinks who go by the names of "Styletime", "Adam Poe", "Wolverine Rules" etc, who have pictures of anime/comic book characters on their profiles..I generally don't feel as if I'm inherently subjected to having to prove my literary abilities...🙄

Are you saying that you'd believe me if I had a picture of Congress in my signature and used Albert Einstein as my avatar?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Intrauterine neuroendocrinology... epigenetics ... the either/or nature of this thread is oversimple.

At least I am trying to use a third category instead of just genetics or free will. The problem is, the categories are so broad that they cover just about anything already.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Or how about the damage one can cause to the rectum or it's lining by consistently sticking objects into it...and the innumerable amounts of bowel problems such actions can cause...

This is not true. It's more of the lies you tell to get your jaded point across.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Is anal sex exclusively linked to homosexual lifestyle? Of course not, however this type of unnatural "sexual" act, is the only form of "intercourse" homosexual males can perform.

Homosexual females are even more limited in the sexual acts they can partake in. Many resort to using fake male appendages(dildo's) and other body parts(fingers, toes, fists, etc) to simulate heterosexual intercourse. This type of behavior is a bit hypocritical if you ask me..I mean..if one is attracted only to women, then what's with all the pseudo male sexual devices and sexual acts?

You must have the most boring and/or non-existant sex life in history.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Anyway..moving on..sexual acts..have everything to do with sexuality. Only a fool would state otherwise.

Well, then we can call you a fool, because you have repeatedly denied sex acts observed in animals as having nothing to do with their sexuality, rather opting to say that these observations are falsified by the scientists who observed them.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

You still have not explained how anal sex is natural..

And please try to give another excuse besides "you've seen two animals do it."

I've observed animals eat crap, drink out of toilets, rub their asses against trees..among countless other silly behaviors. Should all of these behaviors be deemed as "acceptable" and "natural" for humans to do?

Explain how it is unnatural.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Unless you can prove to me how anal sex is a "biologically" natural as well as "legally" acceptable behavior, or how an individual has no ability to control their desires, you've miserably failed in proving your arguments Styletime.

No one has ever implied that people can not control their actions, as has been pointed out to you dozens of times. The only implication that has been stated is that people can not control what they WANT to do. As for the legal aspect, if gay clubs were patrolled by brownshirts with billy clubs, then your rationale would be legitimate.

Wait, strike that. There are such people at the clubs. But they don't work for the government.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Strangely enough, the 3 things you bolded weren't incorrect in the least.

Of course they weren't, seeing as how the bolded words represented corrections that were made to your original post. No sense in lying bud, all of us make mistakes sometimes..😉

Originally posted by StyleTime
The only reason I commented on your use of "except" was because it is an entirely different meaning than the word "accept". If you had really meant "except", the meaning of your post would be completely changed and I wanted to make sure I knew what you were saying. Quit being defensive about it as I didn't mean it as an insult.

Yes you were in no way attempting to damage the credibility of my argument by pointing out minor spelling/grammatical errors...🙄

Nor were you in anyway shape or form hypocritical for pointing out minor grammatical errors in my post, and then committing similar types of errors in your own..🙄

It's also quite apparent that I didn't know the correct verbiage that should be used in referenced post, nor did I know the difference between the words "except" and "accept" I mean..I only used "accept" correctly in almost every other post..

By the way..what does all of this have to do with the topic of the thread?😕

My bad..it has nothing to do with the topic, sorry I didn't know that..I wasn't trying to distract everyone from the initial topic or anything because my arguments were weak..😆😆

Originally posted by StyleTime
I grow weary of responding to each little excerpt you have posted so I'll just address the entire issue of naturality right here.

I grow weary of seeing you respond with "I grow weary" in each of your posts. Perhaps neither of us is really that weary..I mean if we keep on responding..how weary can we be?

Originally posted by StyleTime
In short, anal sex is quite natural.

😆

This statement highlights your general misunderstanding of the biological definition of natural. Let me clarify with you what natural truly means from a "biological" standpoint..

Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

The natural reflexes of the anus/colon/rectum allow for the excretion of waste..not for the incretion of seminal fluid into rectal tissues or into the bloodstream.

These natural reflexes are not designed for the allowance of foreign objects to be inserted into the rectum. The tissue in which the rectum is comprised of is extremely sensitive, and can be damaged quite easily. Why do you think physicians are extremely careful when performing colonoscopies on their patients? Puncturing any portion of the large intestine can cause a multitude of health issues..such as inability to perform normal bowel movements, severe internal bleeding, toxic shock, among many others. All of which if not treated properly, could inevitably lead to causing an individual's death.

Originally posted by StyleTime
The vagina can also be harmed by hereterosexual intercourse. I guess we should outlaw that as well huh?

And the kicker is..the vagina is actually designed for the purpose of sexual intercourse!!! The rectum is not. But you are partially correct, we should indeed outlaw sex for those who believe that it is "natural" to insert their sexual organs within any orifice of the human body.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Sodomy is not illegal in all areas like you seem to think. Even where it is illegal, the law is not enforced.

What the hell state do you live in!! I'm almost certain that every state in the Union has some sort of laws against sodomy.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Your morals have no place in this argument and neither do mine.

Of course they do. I've been asked by you and countless others many times why such behavior was not "moral."

Now you explain to me how such behavior is "moral"? How does it benefit a society? What biological benefits does it offer to the human body? You still haven't answered these questions Style.

Originally posted by StyleTime
A better question is" How does anal sex hurt society?"

Have you ever heard of pedophilia or rape?

How about the statement "higher rate of STD's" or "hemorrhoids?"

Do I really need to go into explicit detail?

Perhaps you should go to your local Prison, and demand that they release all of the pedophiles/rapists who were imprisoned on "sodomy" charges. They should be retried..I mean..sodomy is a natural sexual act and all..🙄

Originally posted by StyleTime
I can.

You can what? Stick your wanker in someone's ear, mouth, eye, or nose? I believe it's now time for you to tell me how doing such things should be deemed "natural" behavior..😆

Originally posted by StyleTime
I showed you how it is biologically natural. Base desires are uncontrollable and you already know this. It is obviously legally acceptable because the few the places that even have laws against it don't enforce it. The only reason the laws even stay is because there are more important issues to be settled than what people do in their personal life.

Styletime, the only thing you've proved is your inability to understand what "biologically natural" means, as well as your ignorance regarding basic human anatomy and physiology.

However you have managed to prove one thing, that "base desires" are indeed uncontrollable. Let me use myself for example..one of my "base desires" is to ridicule those who act intelligent, but prove themselves to be fools. I can't control myself when I do this, perhaps the government should now legalize libel and slander.

Time for me to finish posting in "Style"...

I'm done with ya Styletime..and puhlleaasse for the life of ya..take some beginning level human biology courses..😆

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This is not true. It's more of the lies you tell to get your jaded point across.

You must have the most boring and/or non-existant sex life in history.

Well, then we can call you a fool, because you have repeatedly denied sex acts observed in animals as having nothing to do with their sexuality, rather opting to say that these observations are falsified by the scientists who observed them.

Explain how it is unnatural.

No one has ever implied that people can not control their actions, as has been pointed out to you dozens of times. The only implication that has been stated is that people can not control what they WANT to do. As for the legal aspect, if gay clubs were patrolled by brownshirts with billy clubs, then your rationale would be legitimate.

Wait, strike that. There are such people at the clubs. But they don't work for the government.

Captain you're an animal..Roman's threw their babies out in the woods, and certain tribes in Africa dump sh*t on women's heads...we've already heard all of these excuses from you Cap..there's no need for you to continue at this point...😉

Wow... From the way he thinks I can imagine whobdamandog's wife must be quite unsatisfied with her sex life.

Also, just curious. Why are there sexual pleasure nerves in the anus, hmm?

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Wow... From the way he thinks I can imagine whobdamandog's wife must be quite unsatisfied with her sex life.

Also, just curious. Why are there sexual pleasure nerves in the anus, hmm?

Why do we have 2 eyes instead of 1?

Or 2 arms instead of three?

Maybe I should now gouge one of my eyes out, and rip an arm off of a corpse and have a surgeon graft it it to my body, since no one can prove that it is not unacceptable or unnatural to do so. I saw a monkey gouge out the eye of another monkey once. And hermit crabs get to live in the shells of other animals, why can't I take other peoples body parts, and use them as my own? Besides..I think I could see better with one eye..and be able to do more with three arms anyway..🙄 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why do we have 2 eyes instead of 1?

For depth perception

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Maybe I should now gouge one of my eyes out, and rip an arm off of a corpse and have a surgeon graft it it to my body, since no one can prove that it is not unacceptable or unnatural to do so. I saw a monkey gouge out the eye of another monkey once. And hermit crabs get to live in the shells of other animals, why can't I take other peoples body parts, and use them as my own? Besides..I think I could see better with one eye..and be able to do more with three arms anyway..🙄 😆

foolish waffle to avoid the point that men for some reason have the ability to have orgasms from anal sex, completely debunking 1 of 2 solutions...

1) god intended us to have anal sex, and intelligently designed us capable of receiving pleasure from it

2) God didn't intend of us to have anal sex, but we evolved the ability...

Pick whob, which is it, You can either be wrong here or wrong in the evolution thread...