Why homosexuality is not genetic

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Damn this Time difference!

Pity I missed the discussion between Benevolent Heretic and CogitoErgoSum1. Civilized, both good points, and many points I don't agree with. I'll try my best not to start the whole thing again, but I need to make a few points on some things said.


Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Geez people if we were living 17,000 years ago when humans lived in small clans this wouldn’t even be an issue, you would have been exiled, as you would have been a danger to the survival of the clan.

Ok, this argument has been taken out of the game by a few other posters, but I just want to add my two cents.
(American) Indian Tribes had lots of homosexual people in the tribes. And it was quite normal. No one was exiled and in some cases the "homosexuals" were honored.

In 1528-36- Spanish explorer Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca writes about finding effeminate Indians in what is now Florida.

1804-10- Nicholas Biddle of the Lewis & Clark expedition notes that among the Minitaree Indians the effeminate boys are raised as females. Upon reaching puberty, the boys are then married to older men. The French call them Birdashes.

The role of the homosexual in so-called primitive societies reinforces some of these concepts. In traditional Navajo culture (untarnished by Christian attitudes) there is the 'Nadle', a word meaning 'one who is transformed'. These were androgynous males of that society that is they had male and female qualities. Navajo families who had a child who behaved androgynously (have some female attributes) were considered to be very fortunate and felt that their success and fortune was assured. Most if not all of these androgynous children were homosexual. As adults, they became 'Nadle', were regarded as being sacred and holy and were given great respect. In other primitive societies, androgynous men were referred to as Berdache by early explorers. They were often regarded as shamans or sacred people. The Winktes (meaning half woman half man in the Dakota language), of an Indian tribe in South Dakota were healers, spending their time helping others, visiting and comforting the ill and the elderly. The Cheyenne berdache were regarded as noted and valued matchmakers. In Hawaii and Tahiti, androgynous males were and still are called Mahu, and in Samoa, they are called fa' afafine. In these cultures, such individuals take care of the elderly and the sick. The Nadle of the Navajo tribe were also regarded as being great with children, being very adept at parenting and nurturing. The berdache of most primitive societies often became parents through adoption of orphans, or aided other parents in the care of their children. Berdache were highly productive at both women's and men's work and became renowned at being cooks, producing handicrafts as well as having a good business or management sense. The berdache (read homosexual males) were also well known for being hard workers, productive, intelligent and sensitive. Likewise, the mythical Amazons (read female homosexuals) of Greek legend were admired for their skills in hunting and fighting as well as being leaders. Most of these societies recognized that the berdache and the Amazons (a term applied to very masculine females that were seen in these societies) were homosexual. However, this was not an issue. Sexuality was seen as a gift from the spirit world, whereas the social behaviours of the berdache were regarded as an asset. This is in sharp contrast to the Western 'civilized' world where homosexuality is condemned by the Church and by society in general! The Navajo's joy of having an androgynous child (homosexual) is in sharp contrast to the pain, anguish and rejection of most Western families when they learn that one of their offspring is homosexual!

It's all in the cultural programming...


Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
You need a man and a woman to produce offspring. Neither two men nor two women can achieve this. This point is important because it holds for the propagation of the human species.

Why are you so eager to propagate? Show me one human being that walks around thinking to himself (doubtfully herself) "Geez, I must create offspring! It's my natural purpose! I need to create offspring to ensure the survival of the human race!"
Humans are beyond that. Sure everyone would like a child to keep the family going. But that's a personal (selfish) desire; it has nothing to do with the better of the race. Humans seek happiness, the meaning of life, fun, love, companionship, fulfillment, and so much more. Their own mortality is a problem to them. Not the survival of the human race.


Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Animals lack reason; their means of expressing feelings, pleasure, pain, and desire are limited. Its purely sensorial and they do not have the same perception of humans...You guys bringing up the animal vs. human argument really need to do your research.

Really? It's a known fact that dolphins have sex for fun. Pigs have an orgasm that lasts for 30 minutes. (Now what would the point of that "gift" be if sex was only for propagation?)
Animals show and have feelings. Just take a look at your dog, and how he expresses his feelings. He may not understand his feelings, but he does feel it.

But that's beyond the point.

IMHO humans can no longer be compared to nature. There's nothing natural about humans.
Animals kill each other. That's natural. If one human kill another human, then it's frowned upon... (Unless it's war, then killing another human being is a good thing - but that's a whole other debate.)
Many animals have more than one spouse. In most countries this is illegal, if you're human.
Many animals have one-night stands during mating season. (And female spiders eat their spouses after mating - what's natural about that!?) Impregnating a woman, and disappearing after that is frowned upon in our cultures.
We can go on like this. Point is humans are no longer animals. Different rules apply. I do agree with you that people should stop riding the animals vs. humans argument. (Did I just contradict myself?
)


Originally posted by Crossbone
I think whats being said, to which I'd agree, is that people choose to be gay, like they would choose to purchase a pair of Nikes over addidas.

No, it's not what's being said. Homosexuality is not a choice! Yes, some people "choose" to be gay for attention, to shock or to experiment. These are the people who will most likely "turn straight" when they find out it's not working out for them.

I'll quote myself as to why homosexuality is not a choice, to save you the time of actually reading the whole thread.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
BUT I do know it's not a choice. Why in his right mind would someone "choose" to be frowned upon by society? Why would anyone choose NOT to live a normal life, marry a beautiful girl, and have a family of his own? (And vice versa for lesbians.) When a person realizes he (or she) is gay, the difficult part is accepting it. That's the only choice you can make. Accepting who you are and make the best of what was handed to you, or NOT accepting it, and going against "your nature". I can just imagine how frustrated, sad and miserable a homosexual person must be, trying to force a heterosexual life upon himself. That's the choice. Making yourself happy and accepting yourself. Or making society happy by being acceptable for them.


Let's quickly take a walk down memory lane...




1629- The first record of gender ambiguity by Thomas/Thomasine Hall in Virginia.
- On the Talbot, Reverend Francis Higginson records "5 beastly Sodomiticall boys" who confess to their alleged misdoings. Massachusetts supposedly hanged them, as any male over the age of 14 years could be hanged if caught or even suspected of committing sodomy.

1641- Massachusetts makes sodomy a capital crime, but excuses lesbianism as a crime. They cite Lev. 20:13, which condemns "man lying with mankind as he lies with a woman."

1647- Rhode Island makes sodomy amongst men a capital offense, but excuses lesbianism.

1660- New Netherland: Jan Quisthout vander Linde is drowned on suspicion of sodomy. Hendrick Harmensen, the boy supposedly sodomized, is whipped.

1896- For the first time on an American stage, two women kiss in a scene in A Florida Enchantment. At the intermission, ushers were sent up and down the aisles to offer ice water to people who felt faint.


Hanging young boys? Making a law against homosexuality but excludes women from the law? Does anyone agree with all these events from history? (And I just picked a random few. There's hundreds more...) No, society is a bit more educated than back them. (And anyone who likes the idea of hanging 14 y.o. gay boys is nothing more than primitive!)
See, with enough time, everyone will eventually get over the whole gay issue. If they would just allow the program the church and their parents programmed them with, to be erased.

In my opinion most gays (or a great percentage) are born homosexual. Either the homosexuality is there from the start or it lies dormant until your sexuality kicks in, round about the ages 10 to 13. I'm not saying homosexuality is a gene or not. I know it's not a conscious choice.

Everyone who is a parent should visit Govteen.com's GBLT forum (Warning: The site contains no graphic pictures but do contain sexual reference!). Look at how many of your teenage kids are homosexual or have homosexual tendencies... And you'll be shocked to read what your kids get up to! Sir Homophobe. Madam Homophobe. I will not be surprised if one of your kids is gay. You are just not allowing them to be themselves.

My problem with this discussion is that people are speaking up for or against homosexuals when they have no actual facts. They only argue based on what they've read, what other people have said or what they "make up in their minds". How can you say "homosexuality" is a choice, when you have no idea what goes on in the mind of a homosexual person? It's an opinion based on your own perception. Only a homosexual person will ever know if he/she ever made that conscious choice!
Homosexuality is an extremely complex subject. It's not just about sticking your whatsisname up another guy’s whatsitcalled. I can write pages and pages on the complexity. Take a look at the amount of books written on the subject of heterosexual relationships. Or even the quantity of books written on heterosexual intercourse.
Most people are basing their posts on the stereotypical ideas of gays and homosexuality. That's nothing more than ignorance. What happened to denying it?

Enough said.




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
There’s often a depressing inevitability to these kind of threads, titles that, in the process of scrutiny, completely fail to justify their claims, slippery slope objections that blatantly attempt to link homosexuality to nefarious activities/afflictions and, as has been pointed out, never equating it with more innocuous things such as male pattern baldness and left handedness, rather it seems there’s a concerted effort, conscious or otherwise, to lump homosexuals in with ‘crazy people’ (whatever that means) paedophilia, bestiality etc, a covert attempt at guilt by association.

Whatever the reasons for homosexuality, you can take it from me that to simplify it down to ‘a choice you make’ is misguided to the point of feeble minded and when people try to justify this it merely serves to reinforce my suspicion that some other agenda is in operation. It’s a lazy way to arrive at conclusions regarding the question of human sexuality, an area that is numinous, myriad and personal to each individual.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   


Originally posted by Gemwolf

Really? It's a known fact that dolphins have sex for fun. Pigs have an orgasm that lasts for 30 minutes. (Now what would the point of that "gift" be if sex was only for propagation?)
Animals show and have feelings. Just take a look at your dog, and how he expresses his feelings. He may not understand his feelings, but he does feel it.



Dolphins are the only other mammals I know of that have sex for pleasure. All other animals have sex purely to propagate the species; even pigs that have extended orgasms have sex for this reason. Animals have feelings sure, but they are far removed from the logical reasoning of humans, as I stated before their ability to reason and interact intellectually are limited.

I think everything has been said, there’s no proof homosexuality is genetic although there have been test linking the X chromosome in some fashion, but no conclusive proof. Everyone will have his or her own opinion and as we do more research perhaps we can re-visit this topic and discuss it once more.
Other than that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Dolphins are the only other mammals I know of that have sex for pleasure. All other animals have sex purely to propagate the species; even pigs that have extended orgasms have sex for this reason.

Did a pig tell you this? [I really don't want to know how or why pigs orgasms were tested..
]

Animals have feelings sure, but they are far removed from the logical reasoning of humans, as I stated before their ability to reason and interact intellectually are limited.

I seriously doubt most animals would even realise that copulation creates offspring let alone make a concious decision to reproduce.. more likely they do it for sexual pleasure. Humans have sex for pleasure and it has nothing to do with being more intelligent than other beings.. in fact it's our most primal instinct. If we could conciously decide to have offspring there would be no 'accidents', no unwanted children and many women would forgoe having kids altogether because of the pain involved. It's a biological failsafe for species that get too smart.

Regarding homosexuality.. mostly nature but perhaps nuture could influence it [in bisexuals anyway]. Homaphrodites exist, tomboys exist and there are real reasons why people have sex changes.. no-one could really say that someone wanting to be the other sex is based on imagination.. nor being attracted to the same sex. My own theory on it is that some sexual attraction to the same sex is needed to identify and ward off sexual rivals.. perhaps that part of the brain is more active than usual.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by riley]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I’m sorry, let me explain myself a little better regarding animals….. Ahem…. They are not making a decision to have sex to produce offspring, its purely instinctive…animals go into heat, senses and instinct take over from there.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   


Originally posted by Gemwolf

Dolphins are the only other mammals I know of that have sex for pleasure. All other animals have sex purely to propagate the species; even pigs that have extended orgasms have sex for this reason.


I am not a philosopher nor have I ever been interested in that area of study, but I believe your statement is what is called non-falsifiable. Until you can become any other animal, then that statement holds no credence.

I believe that the bonobo (our closest genetic relative - even more so than the generic chimpanzee) also is known to have sex for pleasure. ( I stay believe, not for uncertainty - there is documentation and evidence for this - I just cannot quantify the emotions of other species like your comment makes note of). Unlike normal chimps, this species is not aggressive. It is also common for groups of bonobos to pleasure one another sexually both with same sex and opposite sex partners.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
^ I thought some one might bring them up.



Perhaps the bonobo's most typical sexual pattern, undocumented in any other primate, is genito-genital rubbing (or GG rubbing) between adult females. One female facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences. (Laboratory experiments on stump- tailed macaques have demonstrated that women are not the only female primates capable of physiological orgasm.)

Male bonobos, too, may engage in pseudocopulation but generally perform a variation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together.


source




I guess the entire bonobo species is "not normal" eh?



[edit on 18-11-2005 by Halfofone]


[edit on 18-11-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
And on the whole "marriage is a religious institution so gays shouldn't be getting married" argument...

politics.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
^ I thought some one might bring them up.


Perhaps the bonobo's most typical sexual pattern, undocumented in any other primate, is genito-genital rubbing (or GG rubbing) between adult females. One female facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences. (Laboratory experiments on stump- tailed macaques have demonstrated that women are not the only female primates capable of physiological orgasm.)

Male bonobos, too, may engage in pseudocopulation but generally perform a variation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together.






I guess the entire bonobo species is "not normal" eh?




I guess we can throw all our reservations about NAMBLA out the window then..... Bonobos also express their sexual nature with juveniles. Again, keep comparing animals to humans.
Some things will be similar since we are indeed mamals, but......I just don't know what else to say....



From a biological perspective they are equidistant from us.....


[edit on 18-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
I’m sorry, let me explain myself a little better regarding animals….. Ahem…. They are not making a decision to have sex to produce offspring, its purely instinctive…animals go into heat, senses and instinct take over from there.

This happens in humans as well.. what is the difference? Why would animals have sex if they couldn't get sexually aroused? Thats like saying animals can't enjoy food or get hungry when they are starving.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
What about the hormones that a child is exposed to during fetal development?

Wondering what other people's thoughts are on this....

I wish that there had been more conclusive evidence on the studies that have been done in regards to the brian and sexuality.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I have compiled a number of interesting article on homosexuality. Many of them are from a Yahweh worshippers point of view, but there are others with diverse views.

Articles On Homosexuality

[edit on 11/23/05 by Frank4YAHWEH]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frank4YAHWEH
I have compiled a number of interesting article on homosexuality. Many of them are from a Yahweh worshippers point of view, but there are others with diverse views.

Articles On Homosexuality


Thanks for the link Frank, but once again, such as with most literature on homosexuality it's not really scientific, but based on someone's opinion or on a specific religion. Literature like that only causes more debate and more questions and in some cases more hate.

We're in need of an objective, neutral and scientific approach on it. Problem is, even scientists have their reservations. As long as that’s the case, any results will be inconclusive.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Two words can pretty much sum up this post:

Recessive
Dominant



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
First it seems that engaging in sex is a behavioural choice. Who we engage
in sex with is also choice. Therefore homosexuality is a choice. What
homosexuality does throw a light upon, is the notion of sex roles. Now a role
is something we volunteer to fill, also a choice. You can see it in the way
homosexuals behave, the dominant/submissive.

Personally I find the quality of thinking (if you want to call it that) of
homosexuals to be particularly lame. Their BRIDGE IS OUT. That's why so
many jokes are made, the languid feign of hands, etc. What you've got are
people engaging in behaviours based on subjective feelings. And don't look to
animals for your cues unless you figure that's all you are. Most spiritual
leaders throughout history condemn it and rightly so; it violates nature's
intended design. A penis isn't a fudge-packer unless you're looking to die from
a billion cooties crawling up your urethra. So we invent condoms to subvert
and prevent nature from killing you for committing unnatural acts, and we call
that "progress." The first and functional purpose for sex is reproduction. What
we make of it beyond that is a purely human invention.

Leviticus is pretty uncompromising. God told the jews to kill such persons "lest
ye learn their ways." Someone managed to insert a rider (sorry for the pun)
in a recent congressional bill that was supposed to 'penalize' (sorry again)
pedasters and child-molester. The 'rider' however included penalties against
hate speech against homosexuals! Now a goodly percentage of sex crimes
against children ARE committed by homosexuals, but to call them perverse,
well that might become a crime too! Talk about 'gagging' free speech. And
where is their agenda taking us, up or down, forward or back?

Whatever you want to do in the privacy of your home, leave me out of it.
God and nature will have their way with you either way. Just don't ask the
rest of us to feel sorry when you get yours, because that the rest of us can
see your behaviour as unhealthy doesn't make it our fault.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Homosexuality is genetic.

The nervous system of homosexual men is less strong than the nervous system of straight men.

The consequences of this are:

1) homosexual men feel less strong than straight men.

2) homosexual men can not express their inner instincts like normal men; their body is not as responsive as the body of straight men; their instincts are the same with those of straight men, but the body does not have a way to express those instincts.

3) homosexual men, since they can not attract females (because their body language is not persuasive enough, even from the early age) turn themselves into the female they want.

4) homosexual men abolish the capability of normal erection after their anus is penetrated by a foreign body. The point of pleasure that exists in every human male, the prostate glands, can no longer push the pleasure forward to the penis, and thus homosexuals need anal sex to get an erection.

Of course all the above have psychological consequences as well.

It is very easy to tell homosexuals from straight men, even if both behave 'the same': homosexuals exhibit an inhibition in their movements that is not visible in straight men.


[edit on 24-11-2005 by masterp]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp


4) homosexual men abolish the capability of normal erection after their anus is penetrated by a foreign body. The point of pleasure that exists in every human male, the prostate glands, can no longer push the pleasure forward to the penis, and thus homosexuals need anal sex to get an erection.


That is absolute BS, where did you get that from?

You got any proof of that absurd claim?

[edit on 24/11/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by masterp


4) homosexual men abolish the capability of normal erection after their anus is penetrated by a foreign body. The point of pleasure that exists in every human male, the prostate glands, can no longer push the pleasure forward to the penis, and thus homosexuals need anal sex to get an erection.


That is absolute BS, where did you get that from?

You got any proof of that absurd claim?


I was going to say exactly the same thing. BS in the top degree. Homosexuals do NOT have any erection problems (other than the same ones heterosexual men could have)! And the misconception that all homosexual men have or even like anal sex is completely wrong. And like many other closed minded people your post includes only males. Where does female homosexuality fit into your "homosexuality is genetic" theory!?



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Sir, your post is just oozing ignorance. I suggest you get better informed on topics like sexuality, homosexuality, romance and human psychology.


Originally posted by thrival
First it seems that engaging in sex is a behavioural choice. Who we engage in sex with is also choice. Therefore homosexuality is a choice.

It has been said a million times, and not just only in this thread. Homosexuality does not equal sex! If you think homosexuality is all about sex, then you're just advertising your ignorance. Sex is a part of a relationship - heterosexual or homosexual - whether the relationship lasts only one night or a lifetime. If you bothered to actually read this thread to this point, you would have found more than enough reason(s) why homosexuality is NOT a choice!


Originally posted by thrival
Personally I find the quality of thinking (if you want to call it that) of
homosexuals to be particularly lame. Their BRIDGE IS OUT.

I challenge that statement. You think my quality of thinking (yes, that's what I call it) is "particularly lame"?
This is hilarious. For someone who makes an uninformed post like this to make a statement like that. I would like you to point out exactly where there's a problem with the quality of my thinking. I've got 270 posts at this exact moment. You're welcome to read through all of them and point out any lame quality of thinking.
And yes, if you haven't caught on by now, I am one of the homosexuals with a particularly lame quality of thinking.


Originally posted by thrival
That's why so many jokes are made, the languid feign of hands, etc. What you've got are people engaging in behaviours based on subjective feelings.

Yes. Good point. That is also why there are so many blonde jokes, Irish jokes, Jewish jokes, women (sexist) jokes, mother-in-law jokes, Bill Clinton jokes, Redneck jokes, Yankee jokes... Should I go on? It's called stereotyping. And if you missed it. Humans make jokes about everything. From the death of Lady Di, the death of the Pope to tragedies like 9/11.
There's a long list of reasons as to why we make jokes about everything. But the main reason is, we have a sense of humour, and we enjoy laughing. What does gay stereo type jokes have to do with gay genes. Nothing.


Originally posted by thrival
And don't look to animals for your cues unless you figure that's all you are.

This point has been discussed and concluded in this thread. I will not linger on it again.


Originally posted by thrival
Most spiritual leaders throughout history condemn it and rightly so; it violates nature's intended design. A penis isn't a fudge-packer unless you're looking to die from a billion cooties crawling up your urethra. So we invent condoms to subvert and prevent nature from killing you for committing unnatural acts, and we call that "progress." The first and functional purpose for sex is reproduction. What we make of it beyond that is a purely human invention.

Also have this point been discussed to a point of boredom in this thread alone, not to mention other similar ones. Again you think homosexuality is all about sex.
You also forget about millions of heterosexual men who have anal sex with their wives. This isn't "natural". You also forget about billions of men and women who have oral sex. Where is the natural reproduction in that?
Was having sex for pleasure "purely human invention"? Did a caveman one day decide... "Hey, this having sex for procreation is getting old... Why not make it fun? Wait, I got one... Let's invent an orgasm!"
You say that we shouldn't compare ourselves to animals ("And don't look to
animals for your cues unless you figure that's all you are"), yet you point out that we should only have sex for reproducing. Like animals? Survival of the species?


Originally posted by thrival
Leviticus is pretty uncompromising. God told the jews to kill such persons "lest ye learn their ways."

Funny you should mention Leviticus. Funny that you don't mention that in the same scripture it says that you must not eat pork. Funny you don't mention that the same scripture says that parents should kill their child, should the child swear at them. Funny that you don't mention that in the same scripture it says that a brother should marry and care for his brother's widow (i.e. when the brother died)... Funny that you don't mention that "you shall not divorce" is one of the Ten Commandments, yet it is not frowned upon. Funny how you want to apply only certain rules from the Old Testament and completely ignore those that doesn't fit your bill.


Originally posted by thrival
Now a goodly percentage of sex crimes against children ARE committed by homosexuals, but to call them perverse,

Err... I suggest that you go google some stats on this point you touched. Most sex crimes are committed by heterosexuals. Married men. We've got two terms. Homosexual. A person who is attracted to the same sex. Paedophile. A person who is sexually aroused by children. I don't see how you can mention them in the same sense.
And let's compare the stats off how many heterosexual men rape women, with the amount of homosexual rapes? Hmmm... I wonder who is perverse now? (No, I'm not saying heterosexuals are perverse. Just making a point.)


Originally posted by thrival
Whatever you want to do in the privacy of your home, leave me out of it.

I wouldn't want you in my home. Hate is not welcome in my home.


Originally posted by thrival
God and nature will have their way with you either way. Just don't ask the
rest of us to feel sorry when you get yours, because that the rest of us can
see your behaviour as unhealthy doesn't make it our fault.

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Nature is not "out to get" homosexuals.
As for God that might be out to get homosexuals? God is willing to love murderers, rapists, whores, thieves and other "sinners". Why would God "hate" me because I love another person? I made my peace with God. Now, I wonder if you would want to go to heaven, if you knew I was going to be there, as well as millions of other Christian homosexuals?

Dear Sir,
Mr Thrival, I beg of you. Please post again. I had an absolute ball pointing out exactly how little you know about this topic you so baldly stepped into.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Homosexuality is such a rough subject...Speaking strictly from reproductive standpoint, Heterosexuality is the natural order of life. If every animal and person on earth was gay, there'd be nothing because after awhile every species would die out due to lack of reproduction. Male and female species all throughout nature were given a certain set of reproductive units for a reason, to continue the natural proccess of breeding in life. So in a way, homosexuality does go against nature...but that doesn't mean it's bad or that it's something you can control. I don't think that homosexuality is either genetic or non genetic. Ask anyone why they like a member of whatever sex they like, and the answer will almost always be the same...because they just do. I can't explain why if i see a hot girl (jessica alba hehe) i get smitten...and i'm sure it's the same way for a gay guy seeing another guy. It's just something that happens in your brain that makes you that way. So yeah, of course being gay isnt' genetic..it's just a unique occorence in some people.





top topics
 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join