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.

 

Why being Gay IS a Natural thing

page: 28
27
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
If natural things stand on their own two feet,
then why does homosexual relationships
need so much propping up and artifical
support from the media and government.

Affirmitive action is a failure and look what
it put in the White House as the ultimate
action of affirmation.

All this artifical boosting and proping up of
gay lesbian homo, transgendered stuff
is because it is so unnatural it cannot
stand on its own two feet.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 

Strangely, I see the anti-gay reaction as one that cannot stand on it's feet.

Never-mind the religious figures who only leech off other people's money by preying on people's fears and insecurities.
If people stopped sending the homophobic gurus money, could they stand on their own feet?
What real job could they do?

They're basically telling everyone that heterosexuality is so fragile that simply seeing a gay person in entertainment or education will turn masses of straight kids gay!
Gay young people may still be cajoled into therapy, and even there the evidence of making a gay person straight after lengthy and sometimes torturous therapies fails to be convincing.
Beating us, rejecting us from families and church - has it it made us straight?
But oh no, the poor delicate heterosexuals must be totally protected from anything "gay" in culture.
Now who can't stand on their own two feet?

How pathetic is that?
It hardly makes heterosexuality out as a natural, God-ordained norm!
Rather, it makes heterosexuality seem like a constantly threatened preference that must constantly secure its boundaries with anxiety.

Not that there's affirmative action (AA) for white male gays in SA (they're lumped with other white men as "previously advantaged"), and I think AA now is wrong and can lead to dependency (although gay equality is not a call to affirmative action, at least not what I support).

On the other hand there was always some form of affirmative action that advantaged some groups, and the groups that moan about it now are in denial about their historical privilege.

Some people make peace with it and become a greater success than those who now have affirmative action, and will have their possibilities confined as pawns of a set salary and limited outlook.


edit on 6-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Abolish ALL marriage perks, period. There is no reason people need to get tax breaks etc, for being married. Give tax breaks for the first child of a union, married or not, and that is the end of it. If you can afford to have more than one kid without government perks, than by all means do so. If you cannot, than do not have more than one kid. Kinda off topic, but kinda not, as it is marriage perks that gay people are currently fighting for at the front line.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I bet you were the product
of a naturally functioning
heterosexual union between
a natural man and a natural woman.

And the chromosomes naturally from
your mother and the chromosomes from
your father naturally united and created
you.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by spirited75
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I bet you were the product
of a naturally functioning
heterosexual union between
a natural man and a natural woman.

And the chromosomes naturally from
your mother and the chromosomes from
your father naturally united and created
you.



And now he naturally has coital relations with other natural men.

Naturally, you seem confused over a very simple fact of nature.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by spirited75
 

Strangely,
How pathetic is that?
It hardly makes heterosexuality out as a natural, God-ordained norm!
Not that there's affirmative action (AA) for white male gays in SA (they're lumped with other white men as "previously advantaged"), and I think AA now is wrong and can lead to dependency (although gay equality is not a call to affirmative action, at least not what I support).


edit on 6-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


Hetero has via history proven itself to stand on its own.
How did you get here HALF old MAN?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


As I've mentioned previously genetics, and sexuality in particular, is not an all or nothing affair. It is possible to have genes that contribute to homosexuality without being homosexual. For example, if we look at the mothers and aunts of male homosexuals we found that they produce more offspring on average. In other words it looks like some of the genes that contribute to male homosexuality also contribute to the desirability of a female as a mate. One of the common arguments against homosexuality having a genetic basis is that since homosexuals can't reproduce the gene should have died out. This research shows however that in half the population at least some of the genes that contribute to homosexuality actually increase the chances for reproduction.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by spirited75
 


As I've mentioned previously genetics, and sexuality in particular, is not an all or nothing affair. It is possible to have genes that contribute to homosexuality without being homosexual. For example, if we look at the mothers and aunts of male homosexuals we found that they produce more offspring on average. In other words it looks like some of the genes that contribute to male homosexuality also contribute to the desirability of a female as a mate. One of the common arguments against homosexuality having a genetic basis is that since homosexuals can't reproduce the gene should have died out. This research shows however that in half the population at least some of the genes that contribute to homosexuality actually increase the chances for reproduction.


I do not believe your research at all, not one iota.
You have only been spouting things off of the top of your head.

If we look at the mothers and aunts and sisters of male heterosexuals we find that they produce more offsring on the average than ...
Are these gay rats that the research is about or what????



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spirited75
Hetero has via history proven itself to stand on its own.
How did you get here HALF old MAN?


Oh dear. Are you one of those with the "gay island" fallacy?

How does it go, again?

If you put all the gay men on an island, they wouldn't be able to reproduce.

Tell me, if we put all the straight men on an island, how many babies would they make?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 


The gay island "solution" cracks me the hell up.

Imagine their disappointment after they spend all the time and resources to gather up all 'the gays' and isolate them, only to discover the heterosexuals are continuing to birth homosexual and bisexual people at the same rate.




posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 


Oh man I just wet myself laughing at that
better get my bits checked.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 

I was replying to your post at the top of the page, which seemed to make a political point about gay relationships and some kind of support they are given by the government and the media, and which also mentioned affirmative action.
I took "standing on your own two feet" as a financial metaphor.

My response was against those hetero-sexists who regard being straight as ridiculously fragile, and they are the ones undermining heterosexuality.
I did not attack heterosexuality at all, just some pushers of an oppressive version of it.

Yes, not all people can be fruitful and procreate, including people who are exclusively gay.
Neither do nuns, priests, monks, spinsters and many straight couples by choice.
Many others could do so much more, from a purely physical perspective.
But only gay people are singled out as vandalists against reproductive biology?

I suppose the rest got here by wind pollination.




edit on 9-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by spirited75
 

Strangely, I see the anti-gay reaction as one that cannot stand on it's feet.

Never-mind the religious figures who only leech off other people's money by preying on people's fears and insecurities.
If people stopped sending the homophobic gurus money, could they stand on their own feet?
What real job could they do?

They're basically telling everyone that heterosexuality is so fragile that simply seeing a gay person in entertainment or education will turn masses of straight kids gay!
Gay young people may still be cajoled into therapy, and even there the evidence of making a gay person straight after lengthy and sometimes torturous therapies fails to be convincing.
Beating us, rejecting us from families and church - has it it made us straight?
But oh no, the poor delicate heterosexuals must be totally protected from anything "gay" in culture.
Now who can't stand on their own two feet?

How pathetic is that?
It hardly makes heterosexuality out as a natural, God-ordained norm!
Rather, it makes heterosexuality seem like a constantly threatened preference that must constantly secure its boundaries with anxiety.

Not that there's affirmative action (AA) for white male gays in SA (they're lumped with other white men as "previously advantaged"), and I think AA now is wrong and can lead to dependency (although gay equality is not a call to affirmative action, at least not what I support).

On the other hand there was always some form of affirmative action that advantaged some groups, and the groups that moan about it now are in denial about their historical privilege.

Some people make peace with it and become a greater success than those who now have affirmative action, and will have their possibilities confined as pawns of a set salary and limited outlook.


edit on 6-7-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

Very nicely put! I always thought it was funny of people to assume that just being exposed to a homosexual lifestyle will turn kids into homosexuals. Really, do they fear that being heterosexual will no longer be the "main fad"? Being heterosexual always has been and always will be what the majority of any species' members will be. It's silly to really care about who people screw provided it's all consentual and no one is being hurt. I could not have put this better myself



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Okay this may offend some people, but I agree that gay is natural. I am not gay, and honestly I don't have very many gay friends, but I do recognize that homosexuality is in other species of animals. If animals are gay, then it has to be natural. I can't imagine our society having too much influence on the sexual preference of animals in the wild, can it? doubtful.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NikTheGreat
 


I disagree that gay is natural.
The gay behavior that you
describe in the animal kingdom
is not sexual in nature.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


Everyone defines natural how they want to. For me there is nothing that exists in the Universe that isn't natural. As it all exists in nature. Either way this fixation from people about whether it's natural or not is ridiculous. As if "unnatural" alone is a cogent argument. It's not. At all.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I don't care what anyone says, as far I'm concerned being queer isn't natural! Perhaps at the time of birth a soul can enter the wrong body. I say that because I once knew a brother and sister who not only were they twins, they were as queer as three dollar bills! As far as homosexuality in the animal world goes, it's usually the dominant male that does all the mating, so perhaps the males who have to go without are figuring "Oh well, any ol' port in the storm!"



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Bkrmn
 


^Twins. Both gay. Think about that and revisit your point.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spirited75
reply to post by NikTheGreat
 


I disagree that gay is natural.
The gay behavior that you
describe in the animal kingdom
is not sexual in nature.


Actually it is...there is a difference between dominate behavior and homosexual behavior. The animals have been documented as having a sexual relationship and depending on the animal some times exclusive sexual relationship with the same sex.

If you google it, you can find a lot on the subject!



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join