It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most homosexuality is a choice

page: 50
76
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Barcs

I don't think humans should look at animals at all to determine acceptable human behavior. Why would you look to a less intelligent species to see what to do? It's like asking a 5 year old for dating advice.




Right. We look at less intelligent species to determine what NOT to do.

We don't want to be like them. Just because its natural for them, it doesn't mean it should be natural for us.

We have to rise above our animal nature.

We have to understand what the genetic apparatus is for, what it does, and how it should be used.

Animals don't know any better.

They don't study medicine, and biology, and physiology, etc..

Animals don't care.

If it feels good, it's an animal right.

But, humans are different.



So you are celibate then? Sex is just for animals, no? Unsociable unlike animals? Unable to adapt like animals? Wow. That's some superior life you've got there.




posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: pompel9

Oh brother. I'll just let others more qualified answer your questions. If you are actually interested then just do some research. It's simple really. Besides few proofs have already been posted in this thread. Many proofs elsewhere.


You are the one that claims this, so you should provide the proof.

I have looked at all the supposed "proofs" of homosexuality in nature, and I haven't seen any actual proofs. But I dare you to actually provide the proof.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: pompel9



If there were no straight people, you would never have been born.


A silly argument. Even if 100% of the population is homosexual, they would still reproduce.

There are around 10-15% people who are homosexuals which makes it normal. Some have argued that homosexuality is nature's way of controlling population growth (yes some research have shown that).


No they wouldn't. If there are 50 women and 50 men, all are homosexuals. No homosexual man will have sex with a woman, and no homosexual woman will have sex with a man.

This is basic biology. To make a baby, you need a man and a woman. A woman and a woman can not make a baby. A man and a man can not make a baby.
If you have some evidence to the contrary, then please post it.
edit on 5-10-2015 by pompel9 because: grammar



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: pompel9

I have looked at all the supposed "proofs" of homosexuality in nature, and I haven't seen any actual proofs.

Clearly you have not.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: pompel9

I have looked at all the supposed "proofs" of homosexuality in nature, and I haven't seen any actual proofs.

Clearly you have not.


Feel free to point out where the proof is then?



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: pompel9



This is basic biology. To make a baby, you need a man and a woman. A woman and a woman can not make a baby. A man and a man can not make a baby. If you have some evidence to the contrary, then please post it.

HEEEELLLLLLOOO?????

Many gay men have married and had children before they came out years later.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pompel9

Yes. Yes they would. Gay people are not hell-bent on the extinction of our species. If in this hypothetical situation there were only gay people they would either 'take one for the team' or even more likely they would use artificial insemination and surrogate mothers. Gay people make babies. That's a fact.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: pompel9



This is basic biology. To make a baby, you need a man and a woman. A woman and a woman can not make a baby. A man and a man can not make a baby. If you have some evidence to the contrary, then please post it.

HEEEELLLLLLOOO?????

Many gay men have married and had children before they came out years later.


To use your words. The are not gay, but bisexuals.

How can a gay man have sex with a woman, if he can not get sexually exited? Or to put it blunt, how can he have sex with a woman when he can't get the darn thing to stand.
edit on 5-10-2015 by pompel9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pompel9



To use your words. The are not gay, but bisexuals.

Keep moving the goalpost.

I'll let Lucid Lunacy reply to you.

Have a good night.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: pompel9

Yes. Yes they would. Gay people are not hell-bent on the extinction of our species. If in this hypothetical situation there were only gay people they would either 'take one for the team' or even more likely they would use artificial insemination and surrogate mothers. Gay people make babies. That's a fact.


I didn't know that stone-age people were so advanced.

How can you have sex with someone you are not sexually interested in. You can't force your d*** to stand. A woman can't force herself to get wet.
Please do explain how this is possible?

Bisexuals and straight people make babies. Homosexuals do not.
edit on 5-10-2015 by pompel9 because: Added line



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: pompel9



To use your words. The are not gay, but bisexuals.

Keep moving the goalpost.

I'll let Lucid Lunacy reply to you.

Have a good night.


Actually those are your words. I am not moving any goalpost. Feel free to point out where i supposedly moved the goalpost.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pompel9

I never brought up bisexuality. You did.

Apparently you have never masturbated before.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Interesting thought experiment. Clearly we have seen homosexuals have children with opposite gender, but in most if not all of those cases it is assumed that their partner is heterosexual and therefore attracted sexually to the gay person. That has to help with consummating the activity, if only by pure stimulation.

What if neither person is attracted sexually to the other, and there is no access to AI? What if they are in a society where there is no pressure to procreate or hide what they are (never 'in the closet')? Seriously, at 1.6% of the population, we aren't going to miss their genetic contributions. 20-30%, then yeah we'd notice it quite a bit.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: pompel9

I never brought up bisexuality. You did.

Apparently you have never masturbated before.


Yes you did. In this post (one of several):


originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Vroomfondel



Either way, why cant some people be hard wired with an additional switch that lets them choose what they want when they want?

If we can accept the idea that people can be hard wired in two different configurations, why not three?

No one is saying that they can't choose. The third one you mentioned is what is called bisexuality.

[edit] By choosing I mean you can't choose to be who you are attracted to. You can choose the BEHAVIOR not the ATTRACTION.



If at Heaven's gate we find out I was right, so be it. And if we find out I was wrong, so be it.

And if we find out that nobody was right or wrong?


Masturbation does not make babies.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: pompel9

The context wasn't stone-aged people. You said if everyone was gay then there would be no baby-making. That's beyond absurd. There is zero chance gay people would willingly allow our species to end via a complete cessation of reproduction. You're also apparently unaware that gay people reproduce all the time via the aforementioned methods.

None of this talk is of any real consequence. There is not going to be any shortage of heterosexuals making babies. There is going to continue to be heterosexual people, and gay people, and new babies being brought into the World. In fact, the global population is projected to increase dramatically. Gay people are not holding that back. According to UN projections and US Census Bureau the world population may rise to 16 billion by 2100:




posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
We don't want to be like them. Just because its natural for them, it doesn't mean it should be natural for us.


That doesn't make sense. If something happens in nature, it happens in nature. Natural for us is kind of a misnomer.


We have to rise above our animal nature.


Yeah sure, we should totally abandon eating, sleeping and teaching our young as well, it's part of our animal nature! I still don't think you understand the nature of this argument.


Animals don't know any better.


Humans don't know any better, either. In fact you have no basis whatsoever for thinking homosexuality is a negative animal instinct or whatever relation you are making to animal behavior to claim it is wrong.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: pompel9

originally posted by: TheLamb
Why is that at straight bars and pubs fights always break out yet at gay places there's never a murmur? Football is predominantly straight yet it's marred with violent, racist drunks. ISIS is straight. The Nazis were straight. Why do so many gays go into the caring professions and become eminently qualified and respected doctors and nurses? Why are homosexuals so much more into raising money for charity? If being gay is a choice then it would seem to me to be the better one than being straight from a historical and sociological point of view. Why be straight?



If there were no straight people, you would never have been born.

So I am evil, because I am straight? And you wonder why there are many people that do not like homosexuals.


I think people not liking homosexuals came first. The history books are hardly packed with gays starting wars with anti-hetero rhetoric. This entire thread is offensive to gay people. It's well established that the vast majority of gays and lesbians believe homosexuality isn't a choice. But why take our word for it? What do we have to contribute? It shows a complete lack of respect and equality by straight people who have no comprehension what being gay is all about. They might be empathetic because of gay relatives and friends but they are not in a position to comment any further. Homosexuality in animals is a single line statement and only one of the many arguments against it being a choice. It's not one we revel in but we are forced into using it as a defence on account of the general ignorance there is in straight society towards the gay minority. We are made to justify our existence at every turn when all we want is to be treated like everyone else. Why don't you just accept who we are and what we believe we are as we do you?



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: pompel9

Sighs. I am talking about the conversation between YOU and ME.

That reply I made about bisexuality was in a reply to someone else in regard about choice (the topic of this thread, you know?)


Masturbation does not make babies.

Silly man. I am talking about homosexual men being perfectly capable of having sex (or reproducing) with women be it fantasizing about other men, having threesomes, insemination, etc. etc.

You are the one who claimed that it's impossible.



edit on 10/5/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: pompel9

The context wasn't stone-aged people. You said if everyone was gay then there would be no baby-making. That's beyond absurd. There is zero chance gay people would willingly allow our species to end via a complete cessation of reproduction. You're also apparently unaware that gay people reproduce all the time via the aforementioned methods.

None of this talk is of any real consequence. There is not going to be any shortage of heterosexuals making babies. There is going to continue to be heterosexual people, and gay people, and new babies being brought into the World. In fact, the global population is projected to increase dramatically. Gay people are not holding that back. According to UN projections and US Census Bureau the world population may rise to 16 billion by 2100:





How can we exist now. If there were only homosexuals in the stone-age. The facts is, we wouldn't have been here now discussing this.

Not to mention that was picked from my reply to a member that says all straight people are evil. This persons thinks all will be good if there are only homosexuals. In fact if there were only homosexuals, the human species would have been extinct after one generation.

You are looking at this from the point we are now. I am looking at the human history. Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally.

They do not reproduce simply because a gay couple will then have one biologically father and not two (as that is impossible, sperm from two men can not join with a single egg).
In either case, they need a woman (which are by the way disgusting to them).

But feel free to show that two male animals can procreate. Hint: they can not.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: pompel9



But feel free to show that two male animals can procreate. Hint: they can not.

Hint: we already know that.



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join