Homosexuals

jeffbr

sonicreducer wrote:

you gotta be shitting me,... i hope you are being a smartalic.

Actually, I'm trying to figure out your definition. I know religious people who think the only reason for intercourse is procreation and didn't know if you were one of them.

hippiemom

sonicreducer wrote:

ok, please explain. im thinking strikingly outlandish things here,...

They have sex with someone they're not particularly attracted to because they want children. Many people have sex for much stranger reasons, it's far from the most outlandish thing I've heard of.

sonicreducer

sponger wrote:

Since when has religion been a source of guidelines for what is "natural"? Abstinence for priests and nuns? Natural? Fasting periods? I don't think that's very natural. Having to take time out of your day to "worship"? How natural is that? The church, on the contrary, preaches the unnatural. In the case of J. Christ, we're talking about the supernatural.

was that directed towards me?

sponger

sonicreducer wrote:

you gotta be shitting me,... i hope you are being a smartalic.

Pretty silly, huh? Well, that's catholicism for you.

sonicreducer

jeffbr wrote:

Actually, I'm trying to figure out your definition. I know religious people who think the only reason for intercourse is procreation and didn't know if you were one of them.

ok, well,...

what i meant was that anything besides intercourse and conception is unnatural according to basic laws of nature. (if the idea is to have children) animals mate and make babies. they don't in vitro. regardless of a belief in religion,... where in religion it is said to be wrong,... or say evolution, it isn't natural. if we came from monkeys, we fuck like monkeys. male and female mate. if female monkey and female monkey licky licky,... no babies. just because we have the technology, the freedom, and the free will to make that decision doesn't mean it is natural. by no means am i trying to say it is wrong. im nobody to tell someone else how to make decisions. it just isn't natural, in my opinion. i am open to everyone else's opinion.

sonicreducer

hippiemom wrote:

I personally know gay couples who have conceived children naturally, i.e. intercourse between a man and a woman. It happens.

so the gay couple introduces an outside partner (a male) to fertilize one of the women. then the women claim the child as their own although someone else is naturally the father. how is that natural, if indeed i assumed correctly the way that just happened? i am trying not to be rude,... please understand that,...

hippiemom

sonicreducer wrote:

so the gay couple introduces an outside partner (a male) to fertilize one of the women. then the women claim the child as their own although someone else is naturally the father. how is that natural, if indeed i assumed correctly the way that just happened? i am trying not to be rude,... please understand that,...

I know one lesbian couple who are the parents of the daughter of one of them from her marriage before she was "out of the closet." I also know a gay man who had sex with a lesbian woman for the sole purpose of producing a child. He and the lesbian woman share legal custody, and they've drawn up some fairly complex legal documents regarding custody should both of them die before the child (now 15) becomes an adult. In case anyone is interested, I've met this kid, and he's wonderful, very intelligent and personable, loves all four of his parents and appears to be enjoying a wonderful life. For all that people worry about the kids of gay couples, he's got a much better life than I had at that age, and I had it better than a lot of people I know.

cornnifer

sponger wrote:

Since when has religion been a source of guidelines for what is "natural"? Abstinence for priests and nuns? Natural? Fasting periods? I don't think that's very natural. Having to take time out of your day to "worship"? How natural is that? The church, on the contrary, preaches the unnatural. In the case of J. Christ, we're talking about the supernatural.

You talk as though it is only through the lens of religion that homosexuality is seen as unnatural. Elementary biology and basic human physiology demonstrate that it is. Ths slightest of glances at the human body and how it works makes it quite obvious, regardless of where you are with spiritual faith, that we were designed/evolved for heterosexuality. It is what God or Nature (whichever) intended.
Understand i am not talking about whether or not homosexuality is unacceptable, undesirable, or unethical. i'm not passing any judgements on the practice other than to say that is, quite obviously, unnatural.

sonicreducer

cornnifer wrote:

You talk as though it is only through the lens of religion that homosexuality is seen as unnatural. Elementary biology and basic human physiology demonstrate that it is. Ths slightest of glances at the human body and how it works makes it quite obvious, regardless of where you are with spiritual faith, that we were designed/evolved for heterosexuality. It is what God or Nature (whichever) intended.
Understand i am not talking about whether or not homosexuality is unacceptable, undesirable, or unethical. i'm not passing any judgements on the practice other than to say that is, quite obviously, unnatural.

you are much better at clarifying that than i was. that is what i had meant to said.

cornnifer

hippiemom wrote:

I know one lesbian couple who are the parents of the daughter of one of them from her marriage before she was "out of the closet." I also know a gay man who had sex with a lesbian woman for the sole purpose of producing a child. He and the lesbian woman share legal custody, and they've drawn up some fairly complex legal documents regarding custody should both of them die before the child (now 15) becomes an adult. .

That's great, but, all of your examples show a child being produced through the sexual union of a man and a woman. heterosexuality. Two men or two women cannot naturally produce a child.

hippiemom

cornnifer wrote:

You talk as though it is only through the lens of religion that homosexuality is seen as unnatural. Elementary biology and basic human physiology demonstrate that it is. Ths slightest of glances at the human body and how it works makes it quite obvious, regardless of where you are with spiritual faith, that we were designed/evolved for heterosexuality. It is what God or Nature (whichever) intended.
Understand i am not talking about whether or not homosexuality is unacceptable, undesirable, or unethical. i'm not passing any judgements on the practice other than to say that is, quite obviously, unnatural.

But animals who appear to lack the ability to judge what is natural, moral, etc., engage in homosexual behavior. How do we explain that?

hippiemom

cornnifer wrote:

That's great, but, all of your examples show a child being produced through the sexual union of a man and a woman. heterosexuality. Two men or two women cannot naturally produce a child.

Of course they can, just not with one another. When I had ovaries, I could have "naturally" conceived children with any fertile man, whether or not I was attracted to him. Sexual attraction and fertility are not the same thing. I shudder to think how many heterosexual marriages have been held together for reproductive or social reasons, in the absence of any sort of "attraction." The number must be staggering.

cornnifer

hippiemom wrote:

But animals who appear to lack the ability to judge what is natural, moral, etc., engage in homosexual behavior. How do we explain that?

Not naturalistically. Thats for sure. I have to be honest. I will never understand the "Homosexuality must be natural because, occasionally, a couple of male penguins have been observed going at it" argument. It does nothing to support such a claim.

sonicreducer

hippiemom wrote:

I know one lesbian couple who are the parents of the daughter of one of them from her marriage before she was "out of the closet." I also know a gay man who had sex with a lesbian woman for the sole purpose of producing a child. He and the lesbian woman share legal custody, and they've drawn up some fairly complex legal documents regarding custody should both of them die before the child (now 15) becomes an adult. In case anyone is interested, I've met this kid, and he's wonderful, very intelligent and personable, loves all four of his parents and appears to be enjoying a wonderful life. For all that people worry about the kids of gay couples, he's got a much better life than I had at that age, and I had it better than a lot of people I know.

im glad that it seems to have worked out for him, although im sure that not many of them have such a happy story. but then again, how many "normal" families have happy stories,... thanks for the comments. my point was that i think it is unnatural by nature/religion/evolution/historically,... etc. to each his own, people can define or perceive natural however they want. im only one person.

sonicreducer

hippiemom wrote:

Of course they can, just not with one another. When I had ovaries, I could have "naturally" conceived children with any fertile man, whether or not I was attracted to him. Sexual attraction and fertility are not the same thing. I shudder to think how many heterosexual marriages have been held together for reproductive or social reasons, in the absence of any sort of "attraction." The number must be staggering.

maybe i should also state im thinking of a natural family. by nature's intentions, not man's,...

yeah, naturally a gay couple can let a fertile man help one of the women conceive. but neither of the women can literally/naturally call themself the father. i was being very literal.

and then it's even harder for two men. they have to get an outside person involved for nine months.

that is very unnatural.

cornnifer

hippiemom wrote:

Of course they can, just not with one another. When I had ovaries, I could have "naturally" conceived children with any fertile man, whether or not I was attracted to him. Sexual attraction and fertility are not the same thing. I shudder to think how many heterosexual marriages have been held together for reproductive or social reasons, in the absence of any sort of "attraction." The number must be staggering.

Were circling around the very obvious point here. A gay woman can naturally have a baby through sexual relations with a man (whether or not shes attracted to him. Yes, that is true. That is a heterosexual union producing the child. What a woman cannot do, is naturaly produce a baby by having sexual relations with another woman. It is impossible. A homosexual union cannot naturally produce a baby. No matter how you verbalize it.

hippiemom

sonicreducer wrote:

im glad that it seems to have worked out for him, although im sure that not many of them have such a happy story. but then again, how many "normal" families have happy stories,... thanks for the comments. my point was that i think it is unnatural by nature/religion/evolution/historically,... etc. to each his own, people can define or perceive natural however they want. im only one person.

Exactly my point! He lives in a fairly progressive neighborhood, goes to a school largely populated by progressive liberal types. And you're right, I could fill several threads with horror tales told to me by friends who were raised by hetersexual couples, so I don't think the possibility that a family might be disfunctional is any excuse to deny rights to any segment of the population.

hippiemom

cornnifer wrote:

Were circling around the very obvious point here. A gay woman can naturally have a baby through sexual relations with a man (whether or not shes attracted to him. Yes, that is true. That is a heterosexual union producing the child. What a woman cannot do, is naturaly produce a baby by having sexual relations with another woman. It is impossible. A homosexual union cannot naturally produce a baby. No matter how you verbalize it.

That's the thing ... you can't prohibit gay reproduction. You can ban artificial insemination (although, strangely enough, I know 3 Catholic couples who are currently undergoing infertility treatments ... what does that say?), you can ban adoptions by gay couples, you can do all sorts of things ... but you CAN'T, without becoming downright fascistic, bar them from reproducing. They'll always have each other, and a turkey baster will do the trick if they really can't stand the thought of sexual relations. Why try to regulate this? Why not just live and let live?

Evacuation Rules

onelongsong wrote:

two and only two now? i thought we were re-writing the laws and tradition. i still want to know why your singling out a lifestyle of one group of consenting adults while supporting another unconventional lifestyle?

There are two basic sexual preferences: gay and straight

polygamy, beastiality, pedohilia are sub-categories and they don't enter into the gay marriage argument becuase they apply to straight people as well. If people wanted to marry their dogs, they could use straight marriage as an argument as well as gay marriage. It's a typical homophobic red herring to assume this. Two same-sex people getting married will NOT "open the door" for people to marry their dogs, and it's digusting and insulting to say that it will. There are also lots of gay people who do NOT practice anal sex and a lot of straights who do, so to say that gay people "hurt" others by spreading disease is also digusting and ignorant. It takes a pretty small-minded person to come up with an excuse as pathetic as that.

Evacuation Rules

As for the gay adoption thing: there are so many unwanted children in the world, it makes me absolutley sick to my stomach that people would want to deny two adults the right to raise a *desperately needy* child simply because they are gay. Nobody is thinking about the child's needs and that is just aboslutley tragic. They would rather throw those children away than give them to a loving gay couple.

And I also just saw a story on the news about how lots of gays are being thrown out of the military just because they are *suspected* to be gay, or because other officers found out and exposed them. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is being ignored left and right by redneck army officials. You would think that Bush would want all the soldiers he can waste. It's kind of funny because they're actually doing gays a favor.