Being Gay isnt natural

reply to post by Haydn_17


Ok, not being gay, but being a male of the species, I can assure you that you are 100% mistaken. A person who is gay, or straight or bi or a-sexual is entirely natural. The perception that they are un natural is really incorrect here.

Since the beginning of time, mankind has had sex with, or tried to have sex with pretty much everything that walks, and in some cases swims, on this planet. So it should be no surprise that some people choose to maintain relationships with their own sex as their preference.

I believe that what someone does in their own homes, be it sex with another of the same sex, or sex alone with some kind of fruit (see Jim Carey in Me, Myself and Irene) is their own business unless that sex involves or hurts children. I don't agree that gay people should be raising children. Not because they are unfit, but because the schools and other students aren't prepared to accept same sex parents. This also falls in line that children should not have to suffer for their parents choices. In our society other children can be cruel, and will mentally abuse children with gay parents simply because they can.

Having said all of the above, I still maintain that there is nothing unnatural about people being gay any more than there is something unnatural abut someone masturbating.
Here is a question for the male homophobes.... Have you ever had an orgasm with a mans penis in your hand?

..Ex

reply to post by texastig


Um, we seem to have wondered somewhat off topic here! - this thread is not about the existence of a god! Let's just live and let live chaps - we're all inevitably going to have different opinions on things, but it's important to respect thay we each and every one of us has our own truth, and one version is no more valid than any other, so let's bare that in mind before laying into each other

Originally posted by v3_exceed
reply to post by Haydn_17

 

I don't agree that gay people should be raising children. Not because they are unfit, but because the schools and other students aren't prepared to accept same sex parents. This also falls in line that children should not have to suffer for their parents choices. In our society other children can be cruel, and will mentally abuse children with gay parents simply because they can.

Ok, I appreciated your liberalism up until this point! It seems that you are basically saying that because people aren't used to the idea of a gay parent/parents, then we shouldn't even try to redress this bigoted paradigm. SIxty years ago, many people believed women in the work place wasn't socially normal, but would you say that that was a bad thing?! We should be working to challenge these outdated patriarchal myths. It's like saying that if you have the ginger gene you shouldn't be allowed to reproduce because your child will be 'mentally abused' at school and have to 'suffer for their parents choices'. What gives someone the right to deny something like tht from someone just because it doesn't necessarily fit in with everyone's idea of a 'social norm'?

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Um, we seem to have wondered somewhat off topic here!

Then you need to tell that to everyone else that here.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
- this thread is not about the existence of a god!

I never said anything about the existence of God.

Originally posted by v3_exceed
A person who is gay, or straight or bi or a-sexual is entirely natural.

How can it be natural when the anus is not made for a penis?

Originally posted by v01i0

Originally posted by Haydn_17

So your telling me that if every Dolphin, monkey or whatever decided to be Gay it would ok? You would happily accept the demise of a species, by just following "there feelings"?

Not every dolphin is gay, the species go on. And even gay can have children if they have sex with opposite sex, y'know?

-v

Not to mention that the (human) species has made it along further enough that we no longer need to have sex to reproduce. Doesn't that in some way effect your views, not to mention we have all but completely over ran the planet. There's billions of us right now, we have about as much chance of total demise due to gay people as we do from lightning strikes, or car crashes, it ain't never happening.

I'm sorry, I just have to laugh at people who exclaim, "But animals do it too!". Well, animals eat their poo, their young and often practice incest as well. Is it then "natural" for humans to do it? It must be according to everyone else's comments here.

Yet, many people don't view this as "ok". Even the part of incest which really isn't hurting anyone. Gayness isn't natural, sorry folks. It just shows that even nature makes mistakes.

Double posted. Sorry and my avatar is all messed up now

reply to post by texastig


Well this is a public forum, so whilst addressing your point specifically, I think everybody else is getting the gist of where I'm coming from!

reply to post by Frontkjemper


And a dog turns and eats its own vomit.
and if you throw pearls of wisdom before a swine the swine will turn on you and trample you.

Animals do not wear clothes, tattoo themselves,
animals eat their young and behave incestously.

The homosexuality in animals myth refers to the current interest on whether homosexual behavior is or is not zoologically "natural." This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation." Examples such as one male mounting another have been used as evidence in the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore should be permitted in human beings. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. [1]

Creation Ministries International wrote on this subject of whether or not there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom: "There is...documented proof of cannibalism and rape in the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t make it right for humans."[2] While some animals (like the lion) eat their young, neither supporters or opponents of "gay rights" have used this as an argument in favor of infanticide or cannibalism.[3] Thus, a healthy dose of wariness needs to be employed in making scientific claims about homosexual animals justifying homosexual humans.

A 1996 article published by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization committed to the treatment of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.[4] It notes that "homosexual scientist Simon LeVay" stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

“ Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. ”


Dr. Antonio Pardo CaballosIn addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

“ Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[5]


conservapedia.com...

Is your avatar and signature messed up?

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by v3_exceed


How can it be natural when the anus is not made for a penis?

Hmmm, now here I think you're making a MASSIVE assumption obviously not based on experience! I think you'll find that millions of people find that it fits very well actually!

Originally posted by texastig
Is your avatar and signature messed up?

Yes, it's quite odd - everyone's seems to be - don't quite know what's going on there!

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Hmmm, now here I think you're making a MASSIVE assumption obviously not based on experience! I think you'll find that millions of people find that it fits very well actually!

The colon wall is very thin and easily torn allowing feces into it thus causing sickness.

Originally posted by Indigogirl

Ok, I appreciated your liberalism up until this point! It seems that you are basically saying that because people aren't used to the idea of a gay parent/parents, then we shouldn't even try to redress this bigoted paradigm. SIxty years ago, many people believed women in the work place wasn't socially normal, but would you say that that was a bad thing?! We should be working to challenge these outdated patriarchal myths. It's like saying that if you have the ginger gene you shouldn't be allowed to reproduce because your child will be 'mentally abused' at school and have to 'suffer for their parents choices'. What gives someone the right to deny something like tht from someone just because it doesn't necessarily fit in with everyone's idea of a 'social norm'?

As usual someone missed the point. Kids shouldn't be paying for the choices of the adults. Just as poverty stricken people should voluntarily restrict the number of children they have the ability to care for, same sex couples should voluntarily opt out of child rearing for the sake of the child they would rear. Nature made it so that two individuals of the same sex could have sex, sure....but nature also made it so that two people of the same sex could not procreate. (certain species of frogs accepted) So you can't at one step say its "natural" then at the next go against nature and expect it to be "natural".

When I went to school, some boys dyed their hair purple. They got beat up all of the time. After they stopped dying their hair, they got beat up less. Is it wrong for the kids who beat these guys up to judge them based on their hair, sure but that didn't change that the hair dyed kids were getting beat up.

Now, since you brought it up, sixty years ago there were few women in the workplace, there was little unemployment and little social upheaval. Most people would consider that since women have been in the workplace there has been a collapse of the family unit, crime has increased a hundredfold and there is almost no personal social responsibility. (How many here have helped an old person lately?) To clarify, I didn't say BECAUSE women were in the workplace, I said SINCE. So really would the reverse change things today? probably not, but the point remains the same. Kids shouldn't suffer for the choices of their parents.

Imagine how the kids in general would react if a straight male parent were to show up in school wearing a pretty yellow sundress. Sure it's that persons RIGHT to dress how they want, but their child would first be ridiculed, they abused by the other students.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
What gives someone the right to deny something like tht from someone just because it doesn't necessarily fit in with everyone's idea of a 'social norm'?

In this case, NATURE has deemed that two parents of the same sex cannot procreate. There just might have been a reason for it. So until NATURE changes that opinion, I'm inclined to agree. My point remains, that kids shouldn't suffer for the choices of their parents.

..Ex

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Hmmm, now here I think you're making a MASSIVE assumption obviously not based on experience! I think you'll find that millions of people find that it fits very well actually!

The colon wall is very thin and easily torn allowing feces into it thus causing sickness.

I think you'll find that there's a lot of homosexuals AND HETEROSEXUALS who practice anal sex quite safely and suffer no health problems whatsoever!

Why does everyone have the same avatar.. Has me all sorts of confused.. I actually thought all of the posts were from one person until I looked closer?? OP did your plan work ?? Did you ungay the masses? I am still amazed by your comments earlier in the thread

"I Happily tolerate sitting next to gay people"
"I'm not intorerent, i watch tv shows with gays"

The underlying predjudice here is screaming to escape into outright bashing.. It is incredible that parts of our society never fail to judge someone who is different than they are. I have to believe, for some, this will never change.

It will take one of the homophobes kids being gay, before they gain any compassion for gays.. I would hate to think they would disown them..... would they?

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by v3_exceed
A person who is gay, or straight or bi or a-sexual is entirely natural.

How can it be natural when the anus is not made for a penis?

Although it's been pointed out already, the anus is a very stretchy kind of material. Men have frequently inserted their penis into the anus of women, and inserted a ton of stuff into their own anus's, as well as those of other men. (hospitals actually have a procedure for the removal of a light bulb from someones anus...how frequently does this happen that they would they need a procedure for this?)

Orally, I suspect that if blindfolded we as men would be hard pressed to identify the sex of a person who was orally pleasuring us at that time. Again, this is speculative as I am not gay, but I am a rational person.

So the above statement is moot.

..Ex

Originally posted by Indigogirl
I think you'll find that there's a lot of homosexuals AND HETEROSEXUALS who practice anal sex quite safely and suffer no health problems whatsoever!

Your not getting my point. The penis was made for the vagina.

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by Indigogirl

Nature made it so that two individuals of the same sex could have sex, sure....but nature also made it so that two people of the same sex could not procreate. (certain species of frogs accepted) So you can't at one step say its "natural" then at the next go against nature and expect it to be "natural".

I never said anything about procreation - I was talking about the right for gay individuals to raise a child. Millions of people raise children who are not biologically theirs through adoption or fostering etc. for many different reasons. For example, they may have been infertile. 'Nature' also includes homosexuals, so whilst they may not be able to reproduce, I do not accept that they should be described as unnatural.

Now, since you brought it up, sixty years ago there were few women in the workplace, there was little unemployment and little social upheaval. Most people would consider that since women have been in the workplace there has been a collapse of the family unit, crime has increased a hundredfold and there is almost no personal social responsibility. (How many here have helped an old person lately?) To clarify, I didn't say BECAUSE women were in the workplace, I said SINCE. So really would the reverse change things today? probably not, but the point remains the same. Kids shouldn't suffer for the choices of their parents.

I think this is a very simplistic way of accounting for the changes in society over the past sixty years! You then say that you aren't saying that this is becuase of women in the workplace, so why throw it in there? Are you trying to sew the seeds of association?
The fact remains that kids are ALWAYS going to get picked on at school for one thing or another. It's part of the growing up process and the shaping of an individual. Everyone will at some time in their life have been picked on for one thing or another - that's life. It is the perpetuation of ignorance and the fear of the change and evolution to family dynamics passed on from parents and the media to their children which is the source of bullying because of individual difference. The sooner we can stand up to this bogotry the better. Give kids the credit they deserve - if they come from a loving family - whether it be a hetero or homosexual unit - they will rise above the ignorance of those around them in the knowledge that they are loved unconditionally.

Imagine how the kids in general would react if a straight male parent were to show up in school wearing a pretty yellow sundress. Sure it's that persons RIGHT to dress how they want, but their child would first be ridiculed, they abused by the other students.

To be honest, again, I think this example just continues to promote a culture of ignorance and fear of anything seemingly out of the ordinary. Kids will only react to something like this if the adults around them treat it as something to be condemned. Does it really matter what anybody is wearing? Children do not need sheltering from diversity! Therefore my opinion remains that kids deserve more credit!