Why being Gay IS a Natural thing

Originally posted by johngrissom
You peeps believe in science and survival of the fittest, but do you honestly think that survival of the fittest means homosexuality wins???????? No, it doesn't there is no reproductive value with homosexuality. Someone else mentioned that rape, murder and various other things were part of population control. Sort of it is because that's what survival of the fittest is. The ones that can survive have a better chance of helping the population survive. Get it? You believe in no God and choose science but then only believe in half of what is there.

Sounds to me...you atheist science believers are no better than religious believers.

What is wrong with this planet. Bashing others for their beliefs but then turning around and doing the same thing with their beliefs. I think there is a word for that...hypocrite

1. I believe in God
2. Yes I support natural selection...if you stick a fork in a toaster and die.....
3. Your last statement references intolerance....A bigot cannot claim intolerance...They should be tolerant for my intolerance just doesn't work...but that is off topic

Originally posted by Djayed
reply to post by daaskapital

 

That's my point Regarding the reproducing.....you would not be here right now commenting if we didn't have homosexuals all throughout history controlling population.....our cities would have been overcrowded hundreds of years ago .....and resources would have been gone before we had the technology to do anything about it.....

Okay...Homosexuality may very well help population control, but it still doesn't mean it is 'normal'.

What i'm saying is that while homosexuality is natural (to the extent that humans can show sexual attraction to one another: animals are so far unaccounted for (please read my first post to see why), it is not normal in the sense that homosexuals cannot reproduce.

I am not trying to cause great offence. Yes homosexuality is natural (as it occurs in humans). But no, it is not completely normal (as homosexuals cannot reproduce).

reply to post by daaskapital


Homosexuals can reproduce. Their stuff works just fine. It's a scientific fact that it takes an egg and a sperm to create life. You can't reproduce either, unless you mix your stuff with that of someone from the opposite gender, just like gay people...

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
It all comes down to how we perceive an act culturally. Because some asshat twisted gods' words to blast homosexuality does not make homosexuality inherently wrong, nor does it make cannibalism, rape, or murder inherently wrong.

Homosexuality is not harmless, and does have victims.

There is a culture war going on.

The culture that brought Western civilization to it's current position has been that of Christian behavior and the importance of family and individual responsibility.

Destruction of that culture is part of the system of control being utilized to weaken possible opposition to our Overseers.

reply to post by Djayed

Read the Christian bible from the 1500's it might change your opinions of those verses you are referencing the all mighty is against homosexuality....most of them originally meant evil acts....

The term homosexuality is a 19th century created term

Show me where "homosexuality" is in the bible? Man shall not lie with man as with women is more specific...

Your point is invalid.

There is a big difference between an act and what someone/something is.

Homosexual acts is an act... Lust is an act. It's a mental act as well as a physical one. You choose to 'think' about it.. Thinking is an act. Sometimes people who are white act black... It's still an act. Being homosexual comes from the act of being, act of thinking, act of longing for the same sex.

You're confused. You can't have the term without the action of it, otherwise the term would not exist. There has to be something to have a definition. It doesnt just poof into existance without something causing or relating to it.

Genes make up everything...eye color, hair color, etc, .even identical twins have differences...they are not even 100% alike....

Identical -- or monozygotic -- twins form when a single fertilized egg splits in two after conception. Because they form from a single zygote, the two individuals will have the same genetic makeup. Their DNA is virtually indistinguishable.

This is textbook... Go back to your science books and reread.

I was born homosexual...just as someone is born black...if you are not homosexual, you cannot say for fact that is not true. Some studies show they rate of homosexuals in a family depend on how many women are in that family. Research is still being conducted, but when it boils down to it, it is not a metal disorder per the medical community, and you are referencing that it is conditions which is mental.....

You're confusing something that is with something that's chosen. Homosexuality is not a race. You cannot compare it as such. You are bias because you are homosexual. I can say it's true based on evidence, the likes of which you did not produce to back up your own. You only put together your own personal baseless theories, based on the common missconceptions that plague the minds of homosexuals today, to prove themselves as though they had a leg to stand on. You can say that a black mustang is purple, but it doesn't make it true, even if you are colorblind. You follow?

If research is STILL going on after all these years and there is found no proof of it, then what would you conclude? That it's true? Cmon now.. Is that how you want to think? Just throw in a lil sugar and it becomes what you want it? It doesn't work that way.

Funny you should bring up about the studies of the amount of women around homosexuals... do you think the "woman" aspect might rub off on gays a lil? If you're always around a woman with no male role model, dont you think that this person would take after women more, even if they're not gay? I would think so.. It's a DUH! factor. It has nothing to do with the amount of women geneticaly in a family.. the amount of estrogen.. Duh!

Why do you think that people are so up in arms about children having homosexual parents as rolemodels?

Ever hear of the kids that loved their uncles enough to walk in their footsteps? Don't you know that children from divorced parents are more likely to do the same? Abusive fathers tend to make abusive sons and have daughters that unconciously look for abusive partners...

duh! duh!

Think about this for a minute. Step outside your gayness and look at it from a different perspective. I've tried to do the same the other way around and I just find it based on bias without any logical basis.


I might add to the woman vs homo argument. I found that in my whole family, and that's a lot of people... there is only 1 gay person and 1 lesbian in the whole family. We're talking out of a few hundred people here... Cousins, grandkids, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, 3 generations... On my wife's side... 1 lesbian and no gay persons... That's a pretty big family also.

Sorry.. I dont see your point. If it were genetics... You would think someone, somewhere in those 3+ generations spawned it.

I am going to say this again...

Homosexuality has a great deal to play wth reproduction....it controls it which in return assist with resources not being used.....

Homosexuality has been documented all throughout history...logically if you think about our population as it is now....you would not be sitting there behind your computer commenting on this post...our civilization would have ended due to the lack of resources available to support us.....there is a small population of homosexulss just for this cause... to control population...when populations rise...the amount of homosexuals rise to counter the population and their use of resources..

As natural as... downs syndrome. Defects exist. Being gay can be an innate OR learned defect. In this day and age, homosexuality is more of a learned fad, a product of living in EXCESS...

reply to post by theRhenn

Mainline Christian denominations in this country are bitterly divided over the question of homosexuality. For this reason it is important to ask what light, if any, the New Testament sheds on this controversial issue. Most people apparently assume that the New Testament expresses strong opposition to homosexuality, but this simply is not the case. The six propositions that follow, considered cumulatively, lead to the conclusion that the New Testament does not provide any direct guidance for understanding and making judgments about homosexuality in the modern world.

Proposition 1: Strictly speaking, the New Testament says nothing at all about homosexuality.
There is not a single Greek word or phrase in the entire New Testament that should be translated into English as “homosexual” or “homosexuality.” In fact, the very notion of “homosexuality”—like that of “heterosexuality,” “bisexuality,” and even “sexual orientation”—is essentially a modern concept that would simply have been unintelligible to the New Testament writers. The word “homosexuality” came into use only in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and, as New Testament scholar Victor Paul Furnish notes, it and related terms “presume an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychological and sociological analysis.” In other words, “The ancient writers . . . were operating without the vaguest conception of what we have learned to call ‘sexual orientation’.”1 (In the rest of this article I shall use the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” strictly for the sake of convenience.)

Proposition 2: At most, there are only three passages in the entire New Testament that refer to what we today would call homosexual activity.
None of the four gospels mentions the subject. This means that, so far as we know, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, and we simply have no way of determining what his attitude toward it might have been. Moreover, there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude. Further, homosexuality is not mentioned in ten of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul. It is only in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 that there may be references to homosexuality.2 The paucity of references to homosexuality in the New Testament suggests that it was not a matter of major concern either for Jesus or for the early Christian movement.

Proposition 3: Two of the three passages that possibly refer to homosexuality are simply more-or-less miscellaneous catalogs of behaviors that are regarded as unacceptable, with no particular emphasis placed on any individual item in the list.
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 says that certain types of people “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” The list of such people begins with fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers, and it ends with thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Near the middle—between adulterers and thieves—are the two Greek words translated in the New Revised Standard Version as “male prostitutes” (that is, homosexual male prostitutes) and “sodomites.” But no special emphasis is placed on these people; they are simply listed along with the others. Similarly, 1 Timothy 1:8–11 says that the law was given not for good people but for bad people, and it then provides a list, giving representative examples of who these “bad people” might be. Included in the list—this time near the end but again without any special emphasis—is the Greek word translated in the New Revised Standard Version as “sodomites.” In both texts, such people are mentioned simply in passing, in more-or-less miscellaneous catalogs of unacceptable behaviors, but with no special emphasis or attention called to them.
Such miscellaneous lists of “vices” are fairly common not only in the New Testament and other early Christian literature but also in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, and Jewish writings.3 They appear to have been somewhat stereotypical in nature, representing a kind of laundry list or grab bag of negative labels that could be trotted out and used for rhetorical purposes with little attention to individual items in the lists. As something of an analogy, I cite a passage from Arlo Guthrie’s famous ballad, “Alice’s Restaurant.” In speaking of his own arrest for littering and his assignment to “Group B” in the jail, Guthrie characterizes this group as follows:

reply to post by theRhenn



I can keep posting but follow this link and read

www.westarinstitute.org...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by daaskapital

 

Originally posted by daaskapital
Some of us are just saying that it isn't as natural, or normal as the OP claims it is.

I get that. But let's take my situation... I'm female and unable to reproduce. That's not "natural" or "normal" either, right? But now many times do we see someone in a thread make a point of saying that? How many times have I heard people tell me, "You're not normal" or "Infertility is not natural"? How many times?

Not one. Never. Nada.

And yet people have no compunction about telling gay people that their situation is "not natural or normal"...

What is your point in making sure that everyone knows you think being gay is "unnatural" or "not normal" if not to criticize or feel "better" than them? Real question.

Would you feel compelled to tell me that I'm not "normal"? Then why do you feel compelled to tell a gay person that?

Infertility cannot be compared to homosexuality. They are two different things.

Infertility can become from any situation; a natural one, or an unnatural one. One may be fertile once, but may no longer be fertile.

Homosexuality is the sexual orientation one has with their own sex. While it is natural in specific circumstances, it is not normal in the fact that two men cannot reproduce and two women cannot reproduce.

---

"What is your point in making sure that everyone knows you think being gay is "unnatural" or "not normal" if not to criticize or feel "better" than them?"

My point is just to comment on a public thread here on ATS. I respect homosexual people as i would anyone else. I have stated what i have stated because it is the observable truth.

Personally, i have friends who are homosexual, and i couldn't care one way or another about the issue.

Do you make it a point to share with them that they are "abnormal" or "unnatural"?

No i do not, mostly because the conversation has never really come up.