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?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
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.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
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.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
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.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
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.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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.
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.
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.
Witches burning, gets a little toasty ....
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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?
i wasn't speaking on whether or not it should be regulated.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I have nothing against homosexuals. I haven't read the thread so I don't really know cornnifer's point of view or anything... but when he says that homosexuality is unnatural, meaning abnormal, I have to agree. If he means, natural in this way;
natural
adjective
1 as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people:
2 describes an ability or characteristic that you were born with:
But animals who appear to lack the ability to judge what is natural, moral, etc., engage in homosexual behavior. How do we explain that?
striclty speaking by a survival of the fittest mindset, if the trait is unnatural in animals it may show up from time to time due to genetic changes, mutations...but those 2 animals who are engaging in homosexual behavior won't be able to pass on that characteristic to the offspring (b/c a strict homosexual relation does not help with survival of a species)...unless they reproduce, which then they are not truly homosexual, rather bi-sexual. One could build the case that nature is designed against it.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
please, if you havn't already, do not get married... ever.
..and I got burned to the stake......(-: .....I do beleive in love....and committment..and trust...for ever...even. But the institution of marriage..and the ceremony.....especially in a church...sorry. Male and female humans will always be attracted to each other and there will always be the need to stay together..as doves do....allowing this right for gays will not diminish this..at all.
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.
so if a woman is attracted to her dog it's all good. as long as she goes to a man for sperm it's perfectly natural. she was just getting her rocks off.
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.
The best post on this thread. I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it.
Another thing, when people start of threads saying; "I have nothing against gays, but...." they usually have a lot of problems with gay people.
One last thing, being gay is not a lifestyle. A lifestyle is a choice. Homosexuallity is not a choice.
This sidewalk is for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
But animals who appear to lack the ability to judge what is natural, moral, etc., engage in homosexual behavior. How do we explain that?
as a rancher and farmer; i think i can explain it. when one of my animals goes into heat; they all go nuts. cows are jumping on other cows. the scent emitted is picked up by both the males and females and they react to it. when i milked cows; we didn't have a bull. we watched for a female to jump on a female and we knew she was ready to breed. we called the vet and he'd artificially inseminate. when bulls are kept in a seperate pasture and a cow goes into heat in a different pasture; the bulls will try to jump on eachother. they're simply reacting to the scent meant to trigger breeding.
does that help?
so if a woman is attracted to her dog it's all good. as long as she goes to a man for sperm it's perfectly natural. she was just getting her rocks off.
That's so absurd, it's laughable.
Comparing two members of the same human gender, to sex or intimate relationships with animals; is a despreate reach and cop-out. There are no legitimate comparisons. They are not even remotely related or relevent.
Comparing two members of the same human gender, to sex or intimate relationships with animals; is a despreate reach and cop-out. There are no legitimate comparisons. They are not even remotely related or relevent.
that's what her post was swaying towards. whatever gets your rocks off is ok and natural. you can always get a man or woman to "breed".
as a rancher and farmer; i think i can explain it. when one of my animals goes into heat; they all go nuts. cows are jumping on other cows. the scent emitted is picked up by both the males and females and they react to it. when i milked cows; we didn't have a bull. we watched for a female to jump on a female and we knew she was ready to breed. we called the vet and he'd artificially inseminate. when bulls are kept in a seperate pasture and a cow goes into heat in a different pasture; the bulls will try to jump on eachother. they're simply reacting to the scent meant to trigger breeding.
does that help?
I once read that 50% of all ranchers and farmers have had sex with farm animals.
yeah, we were designed to.....reproduce. brilliant.
i'm afraid i don't follow your line of sarcasm here. i didn't claim to be making some profound brilliant, nobel prize worthy observations. Nor did i insist upon design (although thats what i believe). In fact that was kind of the point. Its very obvious to any completely atheistic fifth grader that our bodies are evolved (if thats what you believe in) for heterosexuality. If you can't take even the briefest of looks at the naked human form and see that, i'm sorry for ya.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
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.
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.
~Ron Burgundy
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.
~Ron Burgundy
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.
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.
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.
i wasn't speaking on whether or not it should be regulated.
natural
adjective
1 as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people:
2 describes an ability or characteristic that you were born with:
I have to disagree.
naděje umírá poslední
striclty speaking by a survival of the fittest mindset, if the trait is unnatural in animals it may show up from time to time due to genetic changes, mutations...but those 2 animals who are engaging in homosexual behavior won't be able to pass on that characteristic to the offspring (b/c a strict homosexual relation does not help with survival of a species)...unless they reproduce, which then they are not truly homosexual, rather bi-sexual. One could build the case that nature is designed against it.
..and I got burned to the stake......(-: .....I do beleive in love....and committment..and trust...for ever...even. But the institution of marriage..and the ceremony.....especially in a church...sorry. Male and female humans will always be attracted to each other and there will always be the need to stay together..as doves do....allowing this right for gays will not diminish this..at all.
so if a woman is attracted to her dog it's all good. as long as she goes to a man for sperm it's perfectly natural. she was just getting her rocks off.
The best post on this thread. I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it.
Another thing, when people start of threads saying; "I have nothing against gays, but...." they usually have a lot of problems with gay people.
One last thing, being gay is not a lifestyle. A lifestyle is a choice. Homosexuallity is not a choice.
as a rancher and farmer; i think i can explain it. when one of my animals goes into heat; they all go nuts. cows are jumping on other cows. the scent emitted is picked up by both the males and females and they react to it. when i milked cows; we didn't have a bull. we watched for a female to jump on a female and we knew she was ready to breed. we called the vet and he'd artificially inseminate. when bulls are kept in a seperate pasture and a cow goes into heat in a different pasture; the bulls will try to jump on eachother. they're simply reacting to the scent meant to trigger breeding.
does that help?
That's so absurd, it's laughable.
Comparing two members of the same human gender, to sex or intimate relationships with animals; is a despreate reach and cop-out. There are no legitimate comparisons. They are not even remotely related or relevent.
that's what her post was swaying towards. whatever gets your rocks off is ok and natural. you can always get a man or woman to "breed".
...except that her example was limited to sexual relations between human adults, not human adults and animals.
mick jagger banged a watermelon on stage in chicago. what's the fricken difference? the underlying theme was "whatever gets your rocks off".
are you comparing mongamous gay couples and a washed up multi-millionaire nostalgia salesman fucking a piece of produce?
No it wasn't. The underlying theme is consensting adults. I think you may be reading too much into the posts.
A one in two chance here, folks. I'm just sayin'.
some are more equal to others.
thats the unfortunate truth.
2010: Newark 5/18 MSG 5/20-21 2011: PJ20 9/3-4 2012: Made In America 9/2
2013: Brooklyn 10/18-19 Philly 10/21-22 Hartford 10/25 2014: ACL10/12
2015: NYC 9/23 2016: Tampa 4/11 Philly 4/28-29 MSG 5/1-2 Fenway 8/5+8/7
2017: RRHoF 4/7 2018: Fenway 9/2+9/4 2021: Sea Hear Now 9/18
2022: MSG 9/11 2024: MSG 9/3-4 Philly 9/7+9/9 Fenway 9/15+9/17
i'm afraid i don't follow your line of sarcasm here. i didn't claim to be making some profound brilliant, nobel prize worthy observations. Nor did i insist upon design (although thats what i believe). In fact that was kind of the point. Its very obvious to any completely atheistic fifth grader that our bodies are evolved (if thats what you believe in) for heterosexuality. If you can't take even the briefest of looks at the naked human form and see that, i'm sorry for ya.
i think it happened in '71 or '72. he wasn't washed up then.
God created all men equal; but smith and wesson made some more equal.