Homosexuals

hippiemom · August 2006

JWBusher wrote:

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 ....

cornnifer · August 2006

hippiemom wrote:

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.

Collin · August 2006

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:

I have to disagree.

chopitdown · August 2006

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?

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.

callen · August 2006

cornnifer wrote:

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.

NMyTree · August 2006

Did I mention, I'm a Lesbian at heart?

onelongsong · August 2006

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.

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.

qwerty1 · August 2006

JWBusher wrote:

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.

onelongsong · August 2006

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?

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?

NMyTree · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong · August 2006

NMyTree wrote:

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".

Milhouse VanHouten · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong · August 2006

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

...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".

Milhouse VanHouten · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

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?

jeffbr · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

mick jagger banged a watermelon on stage in chicago. what's the fricken difference? the underlying theme was "whatever gets your rocks off".

No it wasn't. The underlying theme is consensting adults. I think you may be reading too much into the posts.

RainDog · August 2006

onelongsong wrote:

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.

A one in two chance here, folks. I'm just sayin'.

SVRDhand13 · August 2006

All men are created equal.

some are more equal to others.

thats the unfortunate truth.

cornnifer · August 2006

chiefojibwa wrote:

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.

onelongsong · August 2006

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

are you comparing mongamous gay couples and a washed up multi-millionaire nostalgia salesman fucking a piece of produce?

i think it happened in '71 or '72. he wasn't washed up then.

onelongsong · August 2006

SVRDhand13 wrote:

All men are created equal.

some are more equal to others.

thats the unfortunate truth.

God created all men equal; but smith and wesson made some more equal.

Homosexuals

Comments

Categories