NationStates Jolt Archive

Any homosexual stimulation can be given by the opposite sex, but we've made it cool to be gay. Now everybody wants that shock value of being a homosexual, it's just attention seeking pathetic people. In time, being a straight will become in and magically all these feelings that can't be explained and that are part of them, will vanish.

"Now everybody wants that shock value of being a homosexual." - What a pathetically negative view. Just to clarify, I did not 'become gay' for shock value. I did not get any kicks out of seeing the hurt in my parents eyes when they found out, and i do not enjoy seeing the same look on their faces every time the subject arises. Do you think I WANT to make myself a minority and recieve all the hatred and bigotist homophobia? Let me answer that with a swift.. Duh NO!

"but we've made it cool to be gay" - Oh my god, how narcissistic. Heterosexuals (i hate to generalise, and i do not mean to offend anyone) have done NOTHING toward 'making it cool to be gay'. The people that have 'made it cool to be gay' are ironically... gay! Gay rights wasn't created by straight people!

"Any homosexual stimulation can be given by the opposite sex." - You will not hear from me how wrong you are in this statement, as any explanation would need to be quite graphic. Other people may feel at ease talking about explicit matters, but i personally do not. I will just state that you are wrong. I have very clear answers WHY you are wrong, but i will not put them here for minors to see.

"In time, being a straight will become in and magically all these feelings that can't be explained and that are part of them, will vanish." - Well, thankyou Dr Phil. I didn't realise that homosexuality was a 'fashion'. Now i know that, i can just wait until next season and then I can be 'magically' cured. (please note- this is sarcasm)

For the record, whoever thought that homosexuality is a genetic mutation.... are any gay person's parents gay? no. therefore you're retarded. :sniper:

Except not. Mutations have nothing to do with what the parents' genes are. The nature of a mutaion is that it is a change of DNA outside ot the twining effects of meiosis and the combination of parents' genes. D'uh. It's like if a stray neutrino or free radical changes a sex cell, and that cell becomes a new individual. The parent will not exhibit the new change, only the offspring.

Read some biology and psychology before contributing so ignorantly. Good day.

Homosexuality isn't a mutation. It may have started off as a mutation a long time ago, but now that mutation is a part of the gene pool.

Whenever people bring up the argument that homosexuality isn't natural due to evolution, I feel the need to remind that evolution didn't just stop at human beings. It's still going. We aren't perfect. And so you don't get the impression that homosexuality is a gene that needs to be weeded out, I also need to point out that it may be impossible to see the benefits of this gene until we reach some higher level. In other words, homosexuality may very well be benificial to the species, but we just don't see how yet.

Personally, I think that people who try to label homosexuality as unnatural are the same people that tried to blame AIDS on it. They're also the people that want to limit the rights of gays and dykes the same way that they wanted to limit the rights of blacks before the civil righte movement. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.What irritates me is that many/most people like to believe that evolution is over. They give proof by saying "we're the only species of humans left on the earth"... and this just confuses me to no-end. Just because we're the only ones now doesn't mean that mutations can't cause another species or changes in our species to occur. They only look at natural selection, and explain that since we're the only ones left, we must be the last. >.< That just irritates me.

And you're right about AIDS too. Anyone who has had male=male sex in the past TWENTY years is not allowed to donate blood or anything else to the medical research. I can understand a smaller time gap, or mandatory testing even... but I think that 20 years is just ignorant and kind of outrageous. ::shrugs:: Whatever. They're justitifed because they just want to prevent diseases and such from spreading.. but it just makes me wonder how many justifications they can get away with, since you can get aids from normal sexual intercourse as well.

For the record, whoever thought that homosexuality is a genetic mutation.... are any gay person's parents gay? no. therefore you're retarded. :sniper:

Hmm, a well thought out and eloquent retort - care to elaborate? ;)

For the record, whoever thought that homosexuality is a genetic mutation.... are any gay person's parents gay? no. therefore you're retarded. :sniper:
Uhm...aside from the fact that mutation has little to do with parents...

It is possible for gay children to have gay parents. Articial insemination for lesbians? Or...a gay male couple has one of the two's semen artificially inseminated into a friend? Or...a gay guy or girl who had a kid before they committed completely to homosexuality?

Does anyone have any figures on the gay percentage of various social classes - I once heard it claimed that it is a "decandence of the upper classes" (not that I agree). Is homosexuality more or less prevalent in the upper classes, or evenly distributed through all social classes?

Does anyone have any figures on the gay percentage of various social classes - I once heard it claimed that it is a "decandence of the upper classes" (not that I agree). Is homosexuality more or less prevalent in the upper classes, or evenly distributed through all social classes?

i'll try to get some stats, but the last material i read put it this way:

homosexuals, since they are less likely to have children, tend to have more disposable income. if two homosexuals get together and "marry" (though they can't do so legally, they can do so in spirit) they then are a two-adult household, usually with two incomes. they don't have any kids to support, most of the time, and if they try to adopt that takes longer than it would take the average hetero couple to get pregnant...this means they have more money built up when or if they have a kid.

thus, homosexual couples tend to have more expendable income than their heterosexual peers. this obviously isn't true for all, but it is one explanation for figures that show the average homosexual couple has a higher income than the average for heterosexuals.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 - There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1 Kings 14:22-24 - And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

Isaiah 3:9 - The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.


1 Timothy 1:9-10 - Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

2 Peter 2:6-9 - And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Jude 1:7-8 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.




Yes I'm sure homosexuality is really natural, let's all be gay and see if the species is carried on. Wrong!

Homosexuality means mating isn't occurring. And the primary biological reason for sex is to procreate. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's only fun so you do it more often to procreate more. If it hurt like hell nobody would do it and there would be no procreation.


I cannot believe a majority of people here find this perversion to be natural and acceptable.

*snipped the biblical references because they have nothing to do with a debate concerning the naturalness of homosexuality*

Yes I'm sure homosexuality is really natural, let's all be gay and see if the species is carried on. Wrong!

Homosexuality means mating isn't occurring. And the primary biological reason for sex is to procreate. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's only fun so you do it more often to procreate more. If it hurt like hell nobody would do it and there would be no procreation.

Why not? We've had homosexuals around for years and world population is soaring. I don't really see how having at most around 10% of the population in sexual relationships that do not lead to active procreation is hurting the species numbers. Indeed, there are most likely more infertile men and women than there are homosexuals. Are they not supposed to have sex as well?

As for your argument about it only being pleasurable to increase it's frequency, this is a logical leap that's unclear. For example, when cats mate, the male penis literally rips the hell out of the female cat's vagina. It's covered with barbs and is painful as hell for the female (and possibly for the male when she turns on him and beats the hell out of him afterwards). Yet again, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of cats around, nor many cats with working reproductive systems who beg off of a little slap and tickle. Certainly pleasure and pain are modifiers, but they're not the whole story. It hurts to exercise (not much, but some), so should we not do that as well because a little temporary pain is more important than the long term benefits of sensible exercise? It feels good to eat chocolate cake, so should we only eat chocolate cake?

i'll try to get some stats, but the last material i read put it this way:

homosexuals, since they are less likely to have children, tend to have more disposable income. if two homosexuals get together and "marry" (though they can't do so legally, they can do so in spirit) they then are a two-adult household, usually with two incomes. they don't have any kids to support, most of the time, and if they try to adopt that takes longer than it would take the average hetero couple to get pregnant...this means they have more money built up when or if they have a kid.

thus, homosexual couples tend to have more expendable income than their heterosexual peers. this obviously isn't true for all, but it is one explanation for figures that show the average homosexual couple has a higher income than the average for heterosexuals.

I think there was a study on this or something similar back in the early 90s, but I can't remember the specifics, so don't quote me. However, if I remember correctly, what they found was that homosexual urges were distributed freely throughout the populace, regardless of wealth or social standing. However, they were more likely to be acted upon or embraced depending on the subject's education level, income and social status. Roughly, the correlation found (and again, I may be completely mistaken on this) that with more education and wealth, there was a greater percentage of people identifying themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Interestingly enough, I also remember there being a cap in cases of wealth and social standing, so that the very wealthy or those of high social status and who were actively bred to that status were less likely to admit to full blown same sex desire.

Any homosexual stimulation can be given by the opposite sex, but we've made it cool to be gay. Now everybody wants that shock value of being a homosexual, it's just attention seeking pathetic people. In time, being a straight will become in and magically all these feelings that can't be explained and that are part of them, will vanish.

Well, that's just plain silly. Of course any homosexual stimulation can be given by the opposite sex. But if stimulations the only point in sexual intercourse, then you might as well be completely honest and say that any sexual stimulation can be given by anybody, so what's the point of fidelity or preference in partners. One's just as good as the other.

Besides, while friction may indeed just be friction, the key step in any sexual interchange is arousal. How many straight men out there will willing admit that the sight of a naked man turns them on? I'm going to go on record here as saying not many. However, for your assertation to be true, it would have to be possible because there is no inherant preference for one gender or the other as it's all about the sensation of the act itself and nothing leading up to it.

Congratulations, though, on attacking the institution of marriage as well as the emotion of love. You must just be a hoot at dinner parties.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

*snipped*

Yes I'm sure homosexuality is really natural, let's all be gay and see if the species is carried on. Wrong!

Homosexuality means mating isn't occurring. And the primary biological reason for sex is to procreate. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's only fun so you do it more often to procreate more. If it hurt like hell nobody would do it and there would be no procreation.


I cannot believe a majority of people here find this perversion to be natural and acceptable.People like you annoy me to no-end. Let me ask you something. Do you really live your life completely to the bible? Because there's a lot of shit in there I bet you don't practice. Oh... you don't believe me? Here, let me illustrate.

Remember all the flap about Dr. Laura and her anti-gay stance? Well, this was written as an open letter to her:

"Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as may people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyesterblend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

Jack"

If you are going to use the argument that the bible gives clear instructions that it is wrong, then you need to get a clue, or change your existance. You either use ALL of the bible as a strict guide on what you can do, or you use it as suggested reading. It is not a legislative book. Stop quoting it like it's directly from God, because it ISN'T. Humans wrote, and they're just as fallible as you and me.

I find it ironic that you quoted what you did, because some of these other quotes are right around where you took yours from.

I don't think it's natural

Heh, that's funny considering your nation's name.

Heh, that's funny considering your nation's name.They probably just got it from that one movie about spartacus, and don't even know anything about real Sparta. ::giggles:: But your comment was still dead on. XD

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


http://www.tuttowrestling.com/mankind.jpg

HAVE A NICE DAY! :)

I think it's probably natural. Homosexuality probably evolved as a way of bonding, thus improving survival chances of groups.

Okay, I have a question. Not being confrontational. Do you mean to suggest that bisexuality is the ground state, the uncollapsed waveform of possibility and that, by choosing a single sexual partner, regardless of urges one might feel later, this choice dictates one's sexuality throughout the rest of one's life?


No.

A homosexual person feels sexual attracted towards same gender. A hetrosexual person feels sexual attracted towards opposite gender. A bisexual person feels sexual attracted towards both genders. If they have or do not have sex with those they feel sexualy attracted to doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how few(or even none) men or how many women a homosexual man, who feels sexual attracted towards same gender, have sex with, he is still homosexual.

Imo, I might add.

I'm going to pose, in my finite wisdom, another question to answer the original.

What is nature? Nature can and has been defined many ways, but I will provide you with my definition of what nature is. Nature is the hard-coded genetic information in all living things which specifies how they will grow--such as our DNA. Nature does not exist as we believe it to exist as time does not exist as we believe it to exist.

[skip the following section if you do not wish to read my rant on time--I'll end it with more brackets] Time, as we know it, does not exist because it is simply a ratio of the rotation of our planet to the arbitrary divisions on a clock. We worked out a system which fit the movements of the heavenly bodies, and we designed the round clock to fit it, but we as a culture then assigned a special concept with this arbitrary measurement of rotation and now think that you can move forward and backwards in a thing called time. It's hard for our brains to imagine this concept that I shall present because we've all been raised differently(note I said raised--this will come into play in the next section)--we simply exist, and you can not move forward and backwards in a ratio of the rotation of the Earth to the movement of a hand on a clock(sounds rather absurd when I put it that way, right?). [done ranting]

Now, like time, nature can not exist. There is no solid proof that has convinced me that we are born with a "mind-nature" beyond the basic routines of trial and error. We learn everything that we do from others around us who came along before us as those people have learned from those who came be for them. This regression goes all the way back to the first humans who worked out a basic system of life through trial and error(some got Darwinized for the errors), and we learned from our mistakes, and when we tried new things which worked, others would copy it, and thus we evolved our "nature". Animals which have never seen the wild can not survive in the wild--why not? They are not born with a natural knowledge. Humans have been recorded as adapting the "nature" of dogs and other animals as well when they have not been around other humans.

That expository being made, I shall make the next point: everything is our nature. If our nature is the things we learn from those around us, then all the things we do are our nature. The nature of man is to be straight, the nature of man is to be gay, the nature of man is to kill, and the nature of man is to heal. It is completely outside the realm of reason for a person to be born with the disposition to homosexuality because homosexuality is an ideal which we have developed--you must be exposed to homosexuality from an outside source or discover it through trial and error, and then you must make an active choice to persue it before you are homosexual.

In conclusion, we are not born with our nature, but we make our nature as we go through our lives, and it is the nature of man to do everything, but we as individuals must decide what our nature is and in accepting it, find ourselves to be natural.

(I did a cursory scan of the previous posts and didn't find anything like this post, so if I accidently posted this concept after someone else has, I'm sorry--it's also my first post. w00t.)

Please visit http://life.short.be it's my site where I rant and rave about stuff like this as well as my friend's part of the site doin' the news.

Also, can we clear up this myth of the prevalance of homosexuality in animal species...yes, I myself have witnessed male dogs hump each other. I have never witnessed nor heard of a dog that, given a choice, would choose exclusively animals of the same sex. If I am wrong, please present me with some documented evidence. I'd say there are infinitely more dogs with a predilection to humping human legs than with a predilection to seeking out and copulating with dogs of the same sex.

Same with almost all animal species. Are there animals that engage in homosexual activity? Of course there are. Are there animals that engage exlusively in homosexual sex, given the availability of memebrs of the opposite sex? Probably, but these would are an extremely minute percentage - so rare as to be almost nonexistant. Far more common are animals with the drive to "stick it in anything that moves" (aka pansexual).

Also, I think it is somewhat ludicrous to draw parralels between animal behaviour and human behaviour. Yes, humans are animals too, but our communication skills, sentience and societal structures have warped our natural instincts so far that they are almost completely alien to those of any other animal on the planet.

P.S. This is exclusivley regarding the "naturalness" of homosexuality, not the morality. As a moral issue, I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals."Animals tend not to have many (as per your "minute percentage") completely homosexual members within certain species" ... I can think of a few reasons to draw this conclusion. Most animals tend not to have sex much at all (compared to humans), cos they dont get pleasure out of the act, they kinda arent interested in it for any other reason then "we need babies hunny, you have work to do". This is irrespective of how many times a particular animal has sex, most animal species just dont do it for the fun of it, like people do. Thus, tend only have sex with the "baby makers" - as most female species are refered to as (grrr). Also, if you think about the amount of people on this planet (LOTS), and the amount of a particular animal species there are in ratio to that amount of people (not so much), then your "minute percentage" in the animal world translates rather nicely to be roughly the amount of fully homosexual humans there are within our total population ... roughly, yes?

On the parralels point ... what would you like me to link it to then? Other humans? Easy, other humans have sex with/fall in love with members of the same gender. It is called homosexuality ... and far too many people have problems with it. It is seen everywhere, in every race, creed and religion ... for as long as people have wanted to "stick" anything, exclusively homosexual humans have exsisted.

It was normal/moral/natural back before anyone cared ... and now, because of a suite of reasons, every man and his dog have problems with it. Anti's ... please ask yourself ... Are they trying to have sex with you? No. Okay, are they having sex on your front lawn and/or forcing you to witness extreme acts of homosexuality? No. Okay, are they trying to tell you that you have to be homosexual or something of the like? No. Then whats the issue here?

*Screams* ... just because I can.

Everything is natural, otherwise it wouldn't be happening - if anyone disagrees with that, telegram me an intelligent response. No wait, that's suicide - start a new thread.

and no, i haven't read a single post before this one - 500 posts is 490 too many

The full nurture idea is not a useful one. We react to fire the same, we react to pain the same. The genetics of a creature will determine a large part of how the organism reacts, regardless of nurture. A battery chicken that knows nothing of moving around will still try to roost if it's set free.

There's a great deal of evidence that the hormonal balance in the womb has a strong influence on sexuality. There may be a small amount of leeway for nurture, but there's no indication of any environmental cause for homosexuality.

We don't decide to be homosexual and we don't share some single experience that sets us apart from the rest of the population. I never had any contact with a homosexual before coming out, so you can't say I learned it from someone.

I'm starting to get really annoyed with statements like this:

Yes I'm sure homosexuality is really natural, let's all be gay and see if the species is carried on. Wrong!

Why? Because they're totally meaningless!

The reason is simple: you haven't defined what natural means. Got that? In order to prove that homosexuality is not natural, you have to first tell us what "natural" means. Otherwise you haven't made a logical argument. Right? Good.

Now, the above statement does imply, from the conclusion, that "natural" means "conducive to breeding". Way to redefine the English language. I think that it's more generally accepted that "natural" means "as found in nature/inborn". Doesn't that seem like a sensible definition? I think so.

Now, assuming that "natural" means "as found in nature/inborn", I think we can agree that homosexuality is going either to be natural, a choice, due to environmental factors (such as upbringing, family status, traumatic experiences, weather, diet, etc), or a mix of all three.

First off, I'd say that it's clear that homosexuality is not a choice. I think that it is reasonable to define sexuality as "the sex[es] to which you are attracted". Working on that assumption, it is clear that homosexuality cannot be a choice because no-one chooses to whom they are attracted. Really; try it. All you sceptical heterosexuals out there, try being attracted sexually to someone of the same sex. Or to an animal. Or to a chair. It just doesn't work does it? Attraction is not something under the control of the conscious brain; it is hardwired into your subconscious.

Leaving aside that definition of homosexuality, let us look at another definition - sexuality as defined by sexual experience. If you have sex with members of your own sex, you are homosexual, with members of the opposite sex heterosexual, and with members of both sexes bisexual. Well, first off let's just ask where that leaves virgins. It, presumably, leaves them in some horrible limbo of indecision. Who they decide to have sex with will determine their sexuality for the rest of their lives, but before they lose their virginity they are sexuality-less. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? I mean, most of us were pretty sure of our sexuality before we had sex. Why is that? Well, by this definition of sexuality, we had chosen, for some reason, what our sexuality would be. But did you? Did you take into consideration societal pressures when making your decision, or was it something that you had no choice in? Do you seriously think that with enough effort you could change your sexuality? I didn't think so.

And even if you could, would you really want to be a homosexual? Statistically you'd be more likely to die young, have fewer long-term relationships, be the subject of homophobic prejudice and attacks, and experience mental health problems. Being a homosexual isn't cool, and it isn't easy. Even if it is becoming much easier to live peacefully as a homosexual now, how can we explain the homosexuals of previous generations? Or the homosexuals living in less liberal societies? Surely they'd have to have been suicidal to become homosexuals? No, I think it's pretty clear that they had little choice in the matter.

So that leaves us with the other two options: it is natural (caused by pre-birth biological factors - not including the actions of the mother, like consumption of drugs) or it is caused by post-birth factors (including the actions of the mother, like consumption of drugs or diet or whatever). Either way, it is out of our personal control.

The decision over whether homosexuality is caused by environmental or biological factors then comes down to science. At the moment, scientists suspect that the most important factor in determining sexuality is the size of part of the hypothalamus, a gland in the brain. This gland is supposedly affected by the hormone balance in the womb and an assortment of genetic traits, almost none of which have been properly pinned down.

The theory that homosexuality is caused by events in early childhood has largely been trashed - homosexuals have been found to come from all sorts of backgrounds - rich and poor, stable homes and broken homes, liberal families and conservative families. Homosexuality has also been recorded in numerous species of animal, and it isn't very likely that animals were affected by their economic circumstances or drug abuse by the mother, is it?

So, I think its fair to say that the cause of homosexuality is probably going to be found in our biology - whether it's caused by genetic flaws or the situation in the womb. And we defined pre-birth factors as "natural", didn't we? So I think, therefore, that we can safely say that homosexuality is natural.



Now, before people start exploding with rage and screeching "but natural homosexuality means the end of the species!", I have a final point to make.

The presence of homosexual animals in a species does not mean that the species will die out. It also does not mean that the homosexual genes will be wiped out. Thanks to the wonders of recessive alleles (look it up in a biology textbook) all sorts of useless or unpleasant genes get carried on through the generations - it is entirely possible (and quite likely) that homosexuality is carried on genetically by recessive genes. This means that millions of straight people could be "homosexual carriers" - they carry the genes necessary to make a homosexual child, but are not themselves homosexual.

Additionally, the human species has another way to help homosexual genes continue: culture. For thousands of years, homosexual behaviour was shunned as deviant, and still is in many parts of the world. Homosexuals had to hide their sexuality, or simply denied it to themselves, and still do. Ever hear a story about a guy who got married, had kids with his wife, and then came out and wrecked the whole family? It happens all the time - gay men frequently have children because they are in denial about their sexuality. As well as denial, gay men have another reason to have children: because society demands it of them. Plenty of homosexual men have "done their duty" in order to carry on the family name, or provide an heir to the family fortune (or even the country), whilst maintaining a friendly stable-boy on the side.

So no, homosexuality does not have to die out or cause a species to end. Even if the entire human race turned homosexual tomorrow, I'm pretty sure that plenty of people would deliberately have heterosexual sex in order to keep humanity going. Wouldn't you? I know I would.



Well, that's enough ranting and raving from me. I hope that shut a few people up.

Actually homosexuals are doing the world a SERVICE! You think that humanity is going to become extinct because of homosexuals? You thought wrong. Humanity will probably become extinct because of HETEROSEXUALS causing OVERPOPULATION.

Factoids From Population Connection.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that hunger is a daily concern for 13.8% of Americans
There will be 125 million births in the world this year. By the time this group is ready to start school, there will have been another 625 million births.
Every 20 minutes, the human population grows by about 3,000. At the same time another plant or animal becomes extinct (27,000 each year).
According to the U.N., if fertility were to stay constant at 1995-2000 levels, the world population would soar to 244 billion by 2150 and 134 trillion by 2300.
The population of the U.S. tripled during the 20th century, but the U.S. consumption of raw materials increased 17-fold.
US Census Bureau, UN Population Div, conservation.org April , 2004 Population Connection

The world is adding about 78 million more people every year, the population of France, Greece and Sweden combined, or equivalent to a city the size of San Francisco every three days.

Measuring from time of Christ Jesus, it took about 18 centuries for the earth to reach its first one billion inhabitants, one century to reach its second billion, one decade to get its last billion

You think, as many nations in the world are hungry at this moment, that the world can handle it if we keep growing at this rate?

You think that the human race is going to become extinct because of more people being homosexuals?

You better pray for more homosexuals, really fast, for the SAKE of humanity!

New Furbaria, it is often a genetic mutation that causes homosexuality. It can though be chosen as a lifestlye choice.

Homosexuality is a genetic mutation that occurs in nature. Why it happens is chance that a gene will be mutated to cause a chemical imbalance which makes a creature attracted to the same sex.

This is a misconception... it is not "often a genetic mutation" there are countless factors. more on this later, im trying to read through the last few pages

Ok so i read through the last few pages of this and i would like to take this opportunity to say a few last words.

People talked a lot about genetics, but it seems that many do not understand this concept fully, of mutation, and Mendel and Darwin. It's all rather complicated and i don’t blame you (took me 3 years of bio to have a good grip).

What i can say is from coursework in psychology and science as well as many articles and books regarding this subject. So here goes:

1) There is NO gay gene, or at least there hasn't been found one yet. Genetic longitudinal studies have mostly been proved inconclusive and many cannot be recreated to yield the same results. The implications of finding one can be both positive and negative, I think professionals need to focus on educating people that homosexuals are just like everyone else, curb the discrimination and misinformation. It’s not a negative thing, it is diversity and it brings flavor to our gene pool. Many gay, bi, lesbian people are happy. Let them be.

2) It is professional belief that homosexuality is caused by both genetic AND environmental factors via something called the diathesis stress model (which is one of the best working theories that i have found) This theory talks about predisposition and how the environment can have a play towards the development of a “condition”.

3) I feel that the word mutation, condition, abnormality carry very negative connotations, and i hate using them when discussing this topic because i don’t feel it is appropriate for homosexuality to be linked to anything negative (mainly because it makes people happy). However, the professional world hasn't come up with any other words. As for "natural" as numerous people mentioned what is natural can be looked at on several different levels- biologically, ethically, morally, philosophically... but homosexuality, in my opinion happens, and it doesn’t matter why (maybe just on a curiosity level), because i wouldn’t want to choose for my child to be gay or not, i think when you get into reasons it makes everything blurry. I would want said child to be happy with themselves, I want them to find happiness and not focus on whether something is “normal” in the eyes of society. The point im trying to make is that it's important to understand first and foremost one thing: that it happens and it’s not going anywhere. Let people experiment, isn't that what humans are good at??? ALL SEXUALITY is fluid, we should go with the flow and do what feels right, whatever that may be, the key is to enjoy it.

4) One last thing, someone mentioned that as people are more educated, wealthy they tend to have more homosexual encounters. The reason for that is very simple i think, because the more open-minded one is (through education) the more they are curious and want to experiment. Let them I say.

5) I hate labeling people anything, because automatically it becomes a judgment call that is the gift and curse of language. Just be open, you can’t change people who don’t want to change, people who enjoy their lives. Do us all a favor; enjoy yours and don’t pass judgment.

I take this opportunity to bow out of this argument and take on a new thread. Thank you all for listening. :)

I would like to at this point make a note ...

I have noticed throughout the entire time that I have been part of this thread the poll has been locked at 66% (give or take) for Natural and 33% (give or take) for Not Natural.

Of course, now that I have stated it, it will now change to something completely different.

I just thought it was interesting to note.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I cannot believe a majority of people here find this perversion to be natural and acceptable.

I just picked on Leviticus 18:22 because it was the first that caught my eye.
The problem with being a christian, isn't in the following the teaching - it's in the careful refusal to study your own material. Religion is the only field, it seems, where it is frowned upon to ignore the hype, and try to get back to the roots of meaning.

Leviticus 18:22 is taken to be a rallying cry against homosexuality, because of 1700 years of simple-minded drones, and the agenda of their puppet-masters.

If you have a 'proper' bible, you will notice that words are often italicised... that means they were ADDED into scripture, by King James translators. They were NOT in the bible as it was given to them.

In order to quickly remove your illusions, let's look at the Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22: "Shakab Zakar Mishkab 'ishshah Tow'ebah"
A quick translation gives us, literally: "(to lie down) (male) (bed) (woman or wife) (abomination)"
So, according to the original text, 'for a man to have sex with a woman (or his wife) is an abomination' - which is slightly different to the version you peddle, no?

By, the way... you know that 'abomination' means 'something that foretells bad luck', don't you?

I could carry on, but I'm sure all these other points have probably been covered in the other Christians hate Homosexuals threads.

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.

Regardless of what you said? Does this mean you read his post? It does make biological sense although perhaps not to you.

i think its a mix of one of two or both

1. mixxed upp chemics in brain.. or electrics perhaps :D

2. a messed upp head...

iam not against..

i think its a mix of one of two or both

1. mixxed upp chemics in brain.. or electrics perhaps :D

2. a messed upp head...

iam not against..

Almost all human thought is a result in mixed up chemicals (or homomones) in the brain y'know... As for a messed upp [sic] head mine is just fine thank you. Unless you consider the fact I find people of my own gender attractive a mental illness...

its most certainly misdirected sexuality, but it is naturally occuring, and therefore natural.

its most certainly misdirected sexuality, but it is naturally occuring, and therefore natural.

Maybe true, whether it is misdirected instinct or instinct where it is meant to be is irrelivent. Modern life only exists thanks to misdirected instinct.

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.

I don't really know... by your token, hetero rape would be correctly directed sexuality, and I personally have a lot less complaint about homosexuals than rapists.

And it IS naturally occuring, so it's also natural.

And it makes biological sense in several fashions, not least being a 'slip-gear' on the constant reproduction of a species that has long outgrown it's food supply.

Hmmm, so everything you said was easily dismissable, and wrong... what are you basing your argument on, again?

I don't really know... by your token, hetero rape would be correctly directed sexuality, and I personally have a lot less complaint about homosexuals than rapists.

And it IS naturally occuring, so it's also natural.

And it makes biological sense in several fashions, not least being a 'slip-gear' on the constant reproduction of a species that has long outgrown it's food supply.

Hmmm, so everything you said was easily dismissable, and wrong... what are you basing your argument on, again?

On the conterary. We should look rather to the question right or wrong than natural or unnatural.
It is wrong because it is not in any form helping to maintain the society. It has therefore no biological sense.
Furthernmore it is mainly happening in Western societis who have to happen a problem with declining birth rates (especially in Europe - also in North America (Canada) but not so much in christian America).
It seems on the rise in countries with already declining birth rates because it is promoted by gay lobbists and television.

By the way: the population growth has decreased tremendously in the last two decades (from more than 2% to only little more than 1% worldwide). It is not a main problem any more. Many nations are actually facing problems because of declining population (Russia) or are going to face them soon (Europe, Japan).
And the world food supplies are enough if not dictators and other evil doers, civil wars and other disruptions occur there would be enough food for 10 or 15 billion people and even more in the long-run anyway. So stop talking nonsense.

I think homosexuality is only a "misdirected sexuality" if your entire purpose in life is to breed. Which, I believe mine is not. While I do indeed intend to have children one day - I dont think I was put here to only have kids, and thats it. I believe I am here to experience life and love. I will not be labeled an 'incubator' just so people have an argument basis against homosexuality - "you cant make babies, so it must be evil and unnatural" *buzz* Wrong!

Another stupid thread. The poll is basically "are you liberal or conservative". We all know that there are more liberals on NS than conservatives...and look..."natural" is winning. Animals fuck family members...is that natural? Animals follow each other off cliffs to their death...is that natural?

Homosexuality is and remains unnatural regardless of what you said. It makes no biological sense. It is falsely directed sexuality.

Oh rubbish. It makes perfect biological sense. Nature doesn't encourage every species to breed indescriminately. Most species have any number of checks on their breeding ranging from outside environmental cues to internal genetic ones. With a soaring world population, it makes good natural economic sense to take 10% of the population out of the active breeding pool.

Oh rubbish. It makes perfect biological sense. Nature doesn't encourage every species to breed indescriminately. Most species have any number of checks on their breeding ranging from outside environmental cues to internal genetic ones. With a soaring world population, it makes good natural economic sense to take 10% of the population out of the active breeding pool.
On the conterary: My country - like all European countries are facing a declining birth rate and the prospect of a (small, but in the long-run big) population decline. If this continues Italy would only have 10 million inhabitants at the end of the 21 rst centrury (today 60 million) and Germany less than 70 million in 2050 (compared to 82 million today). Given the fact that this is going on hand in hand with an ageeing population the social security system may collapse in the next few decades.

The same is the case for Russia, Japan, in the longer perspective also for Canada and the US.

So: obviously the argument doesn´t work. On the conterary: we need more children not less. But as a matter of fact homosexuality is no the rise in those countries who have to face problems with declining population and not those who have still - although low - population growth.

Oh rubbish. It makes perfect biological sense. Nature doesn't encourage every species to breed indescriminately. Most species have any number of checks on their breeding ranging from outside environmental cues to internal genetic ones. With a soaring world population, it makes good natural economic sense to take 10% of the population out of the active breeding pool.


Me thinks we should eradicate various species for they too have non-reproductive members and altruistic behaviors. HAVE THEY NO BIOLOGICAL SENSE? :rolleyes:

Another stupid thread. The poll is basically "are you liberal or conservative". We all know that there are more liberals on NS than conservatives...and look..."natural" is winning. Animals fuck family members...is that natural? Animals follow each other off cliffs to their death...is that natural?

Shockingly enough, that whole "Lemmings following each other off a cliff" thing is not true.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C1074699%2C00.html

Me thinks we should eradicate various species for they too have non-reproductive members and altruistic behaviors. HAVE THEY NO BIOLOGICAL SENSE? :rolleyes:

Huh? I'm a bit slow this morning. Is this a support, extension or refutation of what I said?

On the conterary: My country - like all European countries are facing a declining birth rate and the prospect of a (small, but in the long-run big) population decline. If this continues Italy would only have 10 million inhabitants at the end of the 21 rst centrury (today 60 million) and Germany less than 70 million in 2050 (compared to 82 million today). Given the fact that this is going on hand in hand with an ageeing population the social security system may collapse in the next few decades.

The same is the case for Russia, Japan, in the longer perspective also for Canada and the US.

So: obviously the argument doesn´t work. On the conterary: we need more children not less. But as a matter of fact homosexuality is no the rise in those countries who have to face problems with declining population and not those who have still - although low - population growth.

No, you're misapplying it. Nature doesn't care about Europe. Nature cares about global carrying capacity and the fact that, on the whole, our population is rising (regardless of what it may be doing in specific areas), this is all that's necessary for the triggering of biological limitations on active breeding population.

Shockingly enough, that whole "Lemmings following each other off a cliff" thing is not true.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C1074699%2C00.html

Lol...well that sucks...

Lol...well that sucks...
Not for lemmings

No, you're misapplying it. Nature doesn't care about Europe. Nature cares about global carrying capacity and the fact that, on the whole, our population is rising (regardless of what it may be doing in specific areas), this is all that's necessary for the triggering of biological limitations on active breeding population.
No it isn´t. Population growth is already going down. Not for a biologic reason but for economic reasons. Economic development leds to more individualistic life styles and therefore to less children. You don´t need biology for that such a bit of social knowledge. Actually: this development goes so far that it creates another problem (falling populations in the most developed countries).
The less developed countries who are developing are seeing a reduction of population growth and with the further economic development it is furtherly going down. The average chines woman for example has today not more children than the woman in France (1,8). Simular development exists in other countries in South Asia (even if they don´t have a population controll policy).

The UN has therefore already reduced its population estimate for 2050 from 9,7 to 9,3 million. And it may need to furherly reduced. By 2050 they may even be a population decline. Some demographists expect actually the world population to decline from the year 2040 onward.
So: stop talking nonsense.


Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.

No it isn´t. Population growth is already going down. Not for a biologic reason but for economic reasons. Economic development leds to more individualistic life styles and therefore to less children. You don´t need biology for that such a bit of social knowledge. Actually: this development goes so far that it creates another problem (falling populations in the most developed countries).
The less developed countries who are developing are seeing a reduction of population growth and with the further economic development it is furtherly going down. The average chines woman for example has today not more children than the woman in France (1,8). Simular development exists in other countries in South Asia (even if they don´t have a population controll policy).

The UN has therefore already reduced its population estimate for 2050 from 9,7 to 9,3 million. And it may need to furherly reduced. By 2050 they may even be a population decline. Some demographists expect actually the world population to decline from the year 2040 onward.
So: stop talking nonsense.


Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.


Maybe homosexuality will be more rare then.

Maybe homosexuality will be more rare then.
Probably it is possible to find a cure for it till then.
I mean it is said that people chose a life style which makes them to outcasts of the society.

Huh? I'm a bit slow this morning. Is this a support, extension or refutation of what I said?

It's a clear 'refutation' of this 'no biological sense' rant. I could spend the better half of today walking you through gene theory with respect to populations, modes of speciation, adaptation and reproductive altruism but... it makes no biological sense. :rolleyes:

Although this is now accepted, I thing its not natural.
I could really go on about it, but whats the point.

On the conterary. We should look rather to the question right or wrong than natural or unnatural.
It is wrong because it is not in any form helping to maintain the society. It has therefore no biological sense.
Furthernmore it is mainly happening in Western societis who have to happen a problem with declining birth rates (especially in Europe - also in North America (Canada) but not so much in christian America).
It seems on the rise in countries with already declining birth rates because it is promoted by gay lobbists and television.

By the way: the population growth has decreased tremendously in the last two decades (from more than 2% to only little more than 1% worldwide). It is not a main problem any more. Many nations are actually facing problems because of declining population (Russia) or are going to face them soon (Europe, Japan).
And the world food supplies are enough if not dictators and other evil doers, civil wars and other disruptions occur there would be enough food for 10 or 15 billion people and even more in the long-run anyway. So stop talking nonsense.

1) No, Bad Dog. The thread isn't about wrong or right, it's about natural or unnatural. You may think right/worng more important - but the big argument AGAINST homosexuality usually comes down to 'how unnatural' it is.

2) Homosexuality can help maintain a society in several ways. By reducing the number of mindless-breeders, by preserving part of a diversified culture, by being good/intelligent/insightful people. You must be a fundamentalist, if your only goal for civilisation to make more little fundamentalists.

3) I assume you are an american, and a christian. I could be wrong on both accounts, but you seem to have bought into the trash that gets direct mailed to bible-drones in the southern states. "especially in Europe - also in North America (Canada) but not so much in christian America". Where did you get THAT from?

4) It is on the rise in countries with declining populations, if even true, could be easily explained. Those nations are obviously intelligent enough that some attempt is being made to arrest out-of-control population growth. Those 'intelligent cultures' are also more likely to have a rational mindset, and so be more tolerant of minorities.

5) Your figures... are they erroneous, or just made up? The planet does not have enough naturally occuring food to satisfy the voracious human appetite at 4 billion people. At 6 billion, many are starving, and the only way the short-fall is made elsewhere is intensive farming, which is damaging to the land, and ultimately, not a long term solution. At 15 billion, humans will need either intensive factory farming, or we need to start eating each other.

6) I worked it out... that must be more bible belt propoganda about why it's still ok to mindlessly go forth and multiply... all that 'god will supply' stuff.

No it isn´t. Population growth is already going down. Not for a biologic reason but for economic reasons. Economic development leds to more individualistic life styles and therefore to less children. You don´t need biology for that such a bit of social knowledge. Actually: this development goes so far that it creates another problem...

So: stop talking nonsense.


Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.

I am worried about your lack of mathematical ability. The population is STILL rising, enough if the Rate of Growth drops. On a world with too many people, the rate of growth has to invert for it to do any good, i.e. to actually make the population drop.

Perhaps you'd like to help the worlds overwhelmed food resources, and agree not to breed?

"You can't go against Nature/You can't cuz when you do/Going against Nature/is part of Nature, too."

Love and Rockets

On the conterary: My country - like all European countries are facing a declining birth rate and the prospect of a (small, but in the long-run big) population decline. If this continues Italy would only have 10 million inhabitants at the end of the 21 rst centrury (today 60 million) and Germany less than 70 million in 2050 (compared to 82 million today). Given the fact that this is going on hand in hand with an ageeing population the social security system may collapse in the next few decades.

The same is the case for Russia, Japan, in the longer perspective also for Canada and the US.

So: obviously the argument doesn´t work. On the conterary: we need more children not less. But as a matter of fact homosexuality is no the rise in those countries who have to face problems with declining population and not those who have still - although low - population growth.

If there is a problem with declinging birth-rates, it is institutional. No government wants to look at decreasing taxable population.

If more people looked at themselves as 'citizens of the world', we would have less of a problem with our 'declining populations', but once again - government wants sovereignty and income.

How about, when Italy and France start suffering those 'horrendous casualties' you speculate, they amalgamate into one big nation?

How about, when Europe is down to half it's current population, they open their borders to free immigration of 300 million displaced africans/arabs and asians?

If America is in population trouble, why not remove their borders with Canada and Mexico, and let the population replenish itself?

Answer: because you buy into the narrow-mind-model. Homo = bad. Immigrant = bad. Anyone not like me = bad.

No it isn´t. Population growth is already going down. Not for a biologic reason but for economic reasons. Economic development leds to more individualistic life styles and therefore to less children. You don´t need biology for that such a bit of social knowledge. Actually: this development goes so far that it creates another problem (falling populations in the most developed countries).
The less developed countries who are developing are seeing a reduction of population growth and with the further economic development it is furtherly going down. The average chines woman for example has today not more children than the woman in France (1,8). Simular development exists in other countries in South Asia (even if they don´t have a population controll policy).

The UN has therefore already reduced its population estimate for 2050 from 9,7 to 9,3 million. And it may need to furherly reduced. By 2050 they may even be a population decline. Some demographists expect actually the world population to decline from the year 2040 onward.
So: stop talking nonsense.


First off, that's 9.3 BILLION not million.

Second, show me where 9.3 billion is a supportable number. Provide a link or a cite or something to indicate that 9.3 is okay.

Third, this does nothing to directly refute the possibility that one of the factors leading to any possible decline in population numbers is the triggering of more homosexual pairings in the population. In fact, it supports it. The inference is simple. More homosexuals. Less births. Is it the only reason, no, but so far you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to indicate that it isn't A reason.

Fourth, show me the decline. The UN revision from the 1998 projections is an alteration of ending numbers, not a decline in breeding. Show me the trend to prove that decline on a world scale, because we're still having more children than we know what to do with.

Fifth, cite something. Here are a few examples. I'll even include a cite to your 9.3 billion world pop figure, gratis.

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec16/b65lec16.htm

http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm


Homosexuality is misdirected sexuality.

You haven't provided any evidence or even rational argument for that statement.

we need more children not less.

we, beeing in your sentence the western world. Sure, so might be it. But Africa, China etc doesn't need more children, rather less.

But as a matter of fact homosexuality is no the rise in those countries who have to face problems with declining population and not those who have still - although low - population growth.

Again, western countries. I don't think you can back this up really. I bet it looks like the western countries have more homosexuals because they are openly homosexuals. And why are there more openly homosexuals in the western world? Because they are more tollerant. If you check both openly homosexuals, those who hide it and those who live in denial(the last ones getting rather hard) you will most likely find same rate of homosexuals in any part of the world.

Also, I would like to say that openly homosexual couples does rather often infact want to have a child in some way. However, in most contries the goverments stop them from that...

1) No, Bad Dog. The thread isn't about wrong or right, it's about natural or unnatural. You may think right/worng more important - but the big argument AGAINST homosexuality usually comes down to 'how unnatural' it is..
I´m not a dog. But it is unnatural and wrong. The one doesn´t exclude the other. But you seem rather fond of bestiality: I´m not.

2) Homosexuality can help maintain a society in several ways. By reducing the number of mindless-breeders, by preserving part of a diversified culture, by being good/intelligent/insightful people. You must be a fundamentalist, if your only goal for civilisation to make more little fundamentalists.
3) I assume you are an american, and a christian. I could be wrong on both accounts, but you seem to have bought into the trash that gets direct mailed to bible-drones in the southern states. "especially in Europe - also in North America (Canada) but not so much in christian America". Where did you get THAT from?..
You are wrong: I´m neither religious nor American. I´m from Europe actually. And the numbers tell the fact: the US has a much higher birth rate than Canda (1,5), or Europe on average (with the exception of Ireland and France though). So: obviously the more religious countries are more stable.

4) It is on the rise in countries with declining populations, if even true, could be easily explained. Those nations are obviously intelligent enough that some attempt is being made to arrest out-of-control population growth. Those 'intelligent cultures' are also more likely to have a rational mindset, and so be more tolerant of minorities.
..
The population growth is not out of control. Get yourself informed.

5) Your figures... are they erroneous, or just made up? The planet does not have enough naturally occuring food to satisfy the voracious human appetite at 4 billion people. At 6 billion, many are starving, and the only way the short-fall is made elsewhere is intensive farming, which is damaging to the land, and ultimately, not a long term solution. At 15 billion, humans will need either intensive factory farming, or we need to start eating each other.
..
The population estimate is an UN number. By the way: simular statements like yours were made in 19 the century Europe. For example Germany only had a population of 15 million and it was predicted that the population growth would lead to a chronical famine. The opposite was true though when the population grow to more than 60 million at the begining of the 20 th century and to more than 80 million till now.


6) I worked it out... that must be more bible belt propoganda about why it's still ok to mindlessly go forth and multiply... all that 'god will supply' stuff.
No, I´m not. I´m just realistic. The reasons for malnutrition is not the high population but economic underdevelopment and a completly underdeveloped agriculture. Look to China: 1949: 450 million people and at some times big malnutrition - today 1,3 billion people and a growing standard of living: So obviously the solution is to develop economies. Underdevelopment is the problem of developing countries not the already declining population growth.

It's a clear 'refutation' of this 'no biological sense' rant. I could spend the better half of today walking you through gene theory with respect to populations, modes of speciation, adaptation and reproductive altruism but... it makes no biological sense. :rolleyes:

Don't need to walk me through anything as I have degrees in both biology and chemistry and have done field work in population genetics. :)

Now, if I could just figure out where I want to get my PhD...

we, beeing in your sentence the western world. Sure, so might be it. But Africa, China etc doesn't need more children, rather less. ...
Chinas government is already losening its population control policy. So you are obviously not informed.
The only countries with high population growth are the muslim countries of the broder Middle East and North Africa. The rest of Africa isn´t because HIV/AIDS is expected to cause more deaths than the in your eyes "evil" population growth. So: stop using arguments that are not based on facts.


Again, western countries. I don't think you can back this up really. I bet it looks like the western countries have more homosexuals because they are openly homosexuals. And why are there more openly homosexuals in the western world? Because they are more tollerant. If you check both openly homosexuals, those who hide it and those who live in denial(the last ones getting rather hard) you will most likely find same rate of homosexuals in any part of the world.
...
I doubt you can prove your claims. As a matter of fact: A more and more agressive gay lobby tries to impose their will on a majority of normal people. That is not only immoral but undemocratic as well.

I don't think it's a choice you can make. However, you can, atleast subcontiones, choice to deny it. That would mean that straight people forces themself to believe they are gay and gay people who forces themselfs to believe they are straight. But that's not a choice about the sexuality, it just is.

So, genetic, hormonic or whatever, i still say it's natural.

Choose to deny it??

I don't know if your gay, straight, or asexual.

But your sexual drive is probably the strongest urge and the one thing that shapes personality more than anything else, including upbringing.

You cannot just choose to deny it!

A straight man cannot just close his eyes and pretend he is in the company of Monica Belluci, and be aroused while with a man.

I am sure it is the same for gay people too.

I doubt you can prove your claims. As a matter of fact: A more and more agressive gay lobby tries to impose their will on a majority of normal people. That is not only immoral but undemocratic as well.

Hmm...Conspiricy theories are never too original...

Chinas government is already losening its population control policy. So you are obviously not informed.
The only countries with high population growth are the muslim countries of the broder Middle East and North Africa. The rest of Africa isn´t because HIV/AIDS is expected to cause more deaths than the in your eyes "evil" population growth. So: stop using arguments that are not based on facts.


Ha! You're a fine one to talk about facts seeing as how you have yet to actually use them to correctly support any of your arguments.

The fact is, even with AIDS wiping out half of Africa and a presumed lesser birth rate in Asia (not a negative birth rate, just enough to bring population projections down by 0.5 billion by 2050), we're still pushing the carrying capacity of the planet. Period. Fact. End of line.

Even assuming your assertions are correct and world breeding rates are declining, you have not done a single thing to refute the contention that an increase in homosexuality or at least it's acceptance is one of the mechanisms by which this is being caused. My argument still stands even if your figures are right because your figures are predicated on the idea that there must be reasons for the slowing of birth rates. Homosexuality certainly slows birth rates (brings them bloody well to a stand still), so prove it's not a mechanism causing this general slow down.


I doubt you can prove your claims. As a matter of fact: A more and more agressive gay lobby tries to impose their will on a majority of normal people. That is not only immoral but undemocratic as well.

Why should La La have to? You've managed to get through this whole thread without a shred of evidenciary proof just fine.

Hmm...Conspiricy theories are never too original...
That is not a conspiracy theory: that are facts. Just look at the gay movement pushing for gay marriage against the will of the majority of the people. That´s undemocratic.
And it is immoral as well as marriage is the instituition in which one man and one woman are bound together, not man and man, man and child, man and man, man and dog, man and car or whatever.

Choose to deny it??

I don't know if your gay, straight, or asexual.

But your sexual drive is probably the strongest urge and the one thing that shapes personality more than anything else, including upbringing.

You cannot just choose to deny it!

A straight man cannot just close his eyes and pretend he is in the company of Monica Belluci, and be aroused while with a man.

I am sure it is the same for gay people too.

Denying it would be living a hetrosexuals life and have nothing but hetrosexual sex. Ever heard of the husband who all of a sudden turned gay? I bet there are just loads of such cases.

Don't need to walk me through anything as I have degrees in both biology and chemistry and have done field work in population genetics. :)

Now, if I could just figure out where I want to get my PhD...


I find that very hard to believe as you've made utterly no sound arguement based in biology or even rational thought to say "IT MAKES NO BIOLOGICAL SENSE". On the other hand I can put fourth a credible logical arguement that it does and I can cite references and it would all be based in accepted theory, not sophistry.

The fact is, even with AIDS wiping out half of Africa and a presumed lesser birth rate in Asia (not a negative birth rate, just enough to bring population projections down by 0.5 billion by 2050), we're still pushing the carrying capacity of the planet. Period. Fact. End of line...

What is the carrying capacity. There were less than 1 billion people in the world in the 19 th century and some "scientists" already said that this is at or near the carrying capacity. So obviously there is no such thing - or at least it is variable due to the technological advancement of man kind. I´ve given numbers to back that (Germany, China). So: where was the population growth "evil"



Even assuming your assertions are correct and world breeding rates are declining, you have not done a single thing to refute the contention that an increase in homosexuality or at least it's acceptance is one of the mechanisms by which this is being caused. My argument still stands even if your figures are right because your figures are predicated on the idea that there must be reasons for the slowing of birth rates. Homosexuality certainly slows birth rates (brings them bloody well to a stand still), so prove it's not a mechanism causing this general slow down..

Why should I??? You have to prove your claim. It wouldn´t make sense though because that would mean that nature is "intelligent" and homosexuality is on the rise when the population growth is high: I wouldn´t say that. Because we have heard that this things also happened in the past: so obviously this abnormality existed before the last 200 years.
Or can you prove it otherwise???
Furthernmore: the population decline in Europe is a big problem. So would according to your theory homosexuality go down now?????
There is not a single shred of evidence for your claims.
On the conterary. The population decline continues.

That is not a conspiracy theory: that are facts. Just look at the gay movement pushing for gay marriage against the will of the majority of the people. That´s undemocratic.
And it is immoral as well as marriage is the instituition in which one man and one woman are bound together, not man and man, man and child, man and man, man and dog, man and car or whatever.

HAHAHAHAHA! Have you noted the Religious Right are pushing for a ban on abortion AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. They are pushing for homosexuality to be banned utterly AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Of course gays are pushing for it, this is a free country they can push for whatever they want. And also marriage is legaly a law, what the institution is is irrelivent, the law is there to serve the people not the other way around.

That is not a conspiracy theory: that are facts. Just look at the gay movement pushing for gay marriage against the will of the majority of the people. That´s undemocratic.
And it is immoral as well as marriage is the instituition in which one man and one woman are bound together, not man and man, man and child, man and man, man and dog, man and car or whatever.

Actually, how many new laws do you think a majority of the nations population supports?

As an example, take a look at the US. There is a loud mass that wants guns to be easy to get etc. The lesser noicy and almost quiet mass either don't mind or are against it. To become a president of the US you must have the first mass in mind or they will vote against you. The second mass don't think this is the greatest issue and can therefor very well vote for you anyway. Eventho the second mass is a majority.

That's how democrasy works, make your voice heard and you can get it your ways.

Also, moral is kind of personal. I think it's immoraly to sentence someone to death. Alot thinks it's moraly justified. And I, personaly, don't see gay-marriage as something immoral.

That is not a conspiracy theory: that are facts. Just look at the gay movement pushing for gay marriage against the will of the majority of the people. That´s undemocratic.
And it is immoral as well as marriage is the instituition in which one man and one woman are bound together, not man and man, man and child, man and man, man and dog, man and car or whatever.

It seems more like the 'gay movement' you refer to, is pushing for an equality of marriage (not 'gay marriage, like they are taking marriage away from heterosexuals). It also seems that the right-wing (usually uneducated, and often religious) is the big opponent, and that is not the same thing as the majority. (In fact, in America, the last election elected a Republican, but the majority voted for a Democrat.)

Not everyone who supports the right of homosexuals to marry is a homosexual, so it's not just a 'gay' movement. Some people believe in equality. If you would oppose that basic right -then you are undemocratic.

I thought you said you were not religious? So why are you talking about the 'immorality' of gay marriage? The only reason that most western nations have a specifically 'heterosexual' marriage is because of the teachings of bible scholars for the last two thousand years.

They way I figure it, if people want to commit their lives to another person (regardless of gender) - or people (regardless of number), I think they should be able to. Christian marriage isn't working, look at divorce rates - it's an anachronism, it's based on lies, and for most of it's history, it's been ignored or irrelvent.

So long as all parties are of an age to consent, of a species to consent, and chose to consent - more power to them.

HAHAHAHAHA! Have you noted the Religious Right are pushing for a ban on abortion AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. They are pushing for homosexuality to be banned utterly AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Of course gays are pushing for it, this is a free country they can push for whatever they want. And also marriage is legaly a law, what the institution is is irrelivent, the law is there to serve the people not the other way around.
You can push for whatever you want but you won´t get it and that is good that way.
After all: marriage is between one man and one woman.

That the way it is an ought to be. Everything else is abnormal.

You can push for whatever you want but you won´t get it and that is good that way.
After all: marriage is between one man and one woman.

That the way it is an ought to be. Everything else is abnormal.

Not really. If you wish to do that you do it. Do not oppress others.

I would think it is, why would anyone choose to be homosexual with all the hate that they get?

Yes, aaaannndddd...yes!!

I would think it is, why would anyone choose to be homosexual with all the hate that they get?

Damn right!

Damn right!
Some people are masochists, though.

.
After all: marriage is between one man and one woman.

dont quote Bush.. it'll only make u sound worse..
marriage is where 2 people proov their love 4 eachother with a legal binding and devotion 2 eachother. love knows no gender, so legal proof of this love shouldnt either.

Some people are masochists, though.

Yes, do they choose to be so?

You can push for whatever you want but you won´t get it and that is good that way.
After all: marriage is between one man and one woman.

That the way it is an ought to be. Everything else is abnormal.

Fine. You're right. I'm spending far too much time on this nonsense for a work day. You win. It's unnatural.

However, in the words of Galileo Galilei: And yet it still moves.

You can push for whatever you want but you won´t get it and that is good that way.

If that's what you think then I dunno why this bothers you that much.

That is not a conspiracy theory: that are facts. Just look at the gay movement pushing for gay marriage against the will of the majority of the people. That´s undemocratic.


I mean, to your logic it wont happen. So why bother?

Fine. You're right. I'm spending far too much time on this nonsense for a work day. You win. It's unnatural.

However, in the words of Galileo Galilei: And yet it still moves.

*sigh* It's like talking to a brick wall...

Yes, do they choose to be so?
Who knows: probably a combination of choice and something in the brain or a child trauma like Sigmund Freud said as explenation for homosexuality.

Who knows: probably a combination of choice and something in the brain or a child trauma like Sigmund Freud said as explenation for homosexuality.

So I am traumatised according to you? Shut up, your just digging a deeper hole.

*sigh* It's like talking to a brick wall...

I sincerely hope you don't mean me. If you're referring to other posters, well, yes, you have a point.

This is a non-issue IMO. What does it change?

So I am traumatised according to you? Shut up, your just digging a deeper hole.
agreed. homosexuality is how u r, its biological, its brain and hormone related. it has nothing to do with choice and definatly nothing 2 do with being traumatised.

I sincerely hope you don't mean me. If you're referring to other posters, well, yes, you have a point.

Not you at all, your posts were intelligent and well crafted. However they were pearls to swine.

So I am traumatised according to you? Shut up, your just digging a deeper hole.
According to Sigmund Freud it is caused by an early childhood trauma.
I like Freuds concept. He is after all the founder of modern psychology.

agreed. homosexuality is how u r, its biological, its brain and hormone related. it has nothing to do with choice and definatly nothing 2 do with being traumatised.

Thanks.

According to Sigmund Freud it is caused by an early childhood trauma.
I like Freuds concept. He is after all the founder of modern psychology.
he also talks rubbish..

I´m not a dog. But it is unnatural and wrong. The one doesn´t exclude the other. But you seem rather fond of bestiality: I´m not.


Oh, nice riposte. I disgree, so now I have sex with animals? They tech you that in Debate 101? You are flogging a dead horse, since I think it has been pretty categorically proved that homosexuality is most definitely natural. You might not like it, that doesn't make it wrong. I wonder why you bought up bestaility?


You are wrong: I´m neither religious nor American. I´m from Europe actually. And the numbers tell the fact: the US has a much higher birth rate than Canda (1,5), or Europe on average (with the exception of Ireland and France though). So: obviously the more religious countries are more stable.


Canada also has much tighter immigration controls than America. So, obviously, countries with tighter immigration control have lower birth rates.
There are more french people per capita in Canada, than in America, so obviously french people have a negative effect on population growth.

If you are going to pick something that ridiculous, try to provide some evidence, not just the fact that two trends tend in the same direction.


The population growth is not out of control. Get yourself informed.


I'm sorry? Which European nation did you say you were from, if your population is controlled... Which one of the EU states has a government program to reverse population growth? Oh, None. Okay - which has adopted a national moral code that has effectively stopped the increase in population size? Oh, none. If it is not CONTROLLED, it is OUT-OF-CONTROL. The numbers increase, and they are still increasing. There is no balance system in action - so, it's out of control.


The population estimate is an UN number. By the way: simular statements like yours were made in 19 the century Europe. For example Germany only had a population of 15 million and it was predicted that the population growth would lead to a chronical famine. The opposite was true though when the population grow to more than 60 million at the begining of the 20 th century and to more than 80 million till now.


And huge industrialisation of farming, and the mass-production of artificial fertilizers, and the intense over-farming of land have been required to feed our world population so far. Look at the Fenland of rural England... 100 years of over-farming has reduced the average depth of farmable soil over the fenlands by about 6 feet. How long do you think that can continue?

Unless we discover some radical new process for obtaining food (and the most promising theory is being artificially aborted right now, in the form of GM crops), our growing population is going to be demanding more and more food from an agricultural system that is going to tend towards lower and lower productivity.

I'm not even going to start on water. Maybe you should research how growing populations are going to get their water? Trust me, your argument is already in tatters.


No, I´m not. I´m just realistic. The reasons for malnutrition is not the high population but economic underdevelopment and a completly underdeveloped agriculture. Look to China: 1949: 450 million people and at some times big malnutrition - today 1,3 billion people and a growing standard of living: So obviously the solution is to develop economies. Underdevelopment is the problem of developing countries not the already declining population growth.

No point arguing this. I've already explained about soil erosion, and I've mentioned the limited water supply. If you can't work it out from there, I doubt I can explain it to you.

According to Sigmund Freud it is caused by an early childhood trauma.
I like Freuds concept. He is after all the founder of modern psychology.

You like it because you are bigot.

Freud is/was an ass! Give me a break. His methods have NOT all been accepted in his field. What Freud did was to challenge the thinking at the time and that is all. According to this lunatic we are all in love with our mothers. Thanks but no thanks!

As for marriage between a man and a women?? Yeah, us heterosexuals have done wonders to the sanctity of marriage. 50% divorce rate. Yay!

Sorry but marriage is love, and love knows no bounds.

According to Sigmund Freud it is caused by an early childhood trauma.
I like Freuds concept. He is after all the founder of modern psychology.

Although Freud was pretty much discredited during his own tenure... try Jung for a more informed approach.

According to Freud, the reason you like this detailed debating is because you never got over the feelings of emptying your bowels....

Guys maybe we should give up, this guy is obviously bigoted and/or retarded. Our words will fall upon deaf ears.

According to Sigmund Freud it is caused by an early childhood trauma.
I like Freuds concept. He is after all the founder of modern psychology.

No, more like one branch of it.

While on the subject I think he has been prooved wrong many times. And from what I heard his patients very often commited suicide after they had been treated by him. And compaired to either schrinks numbers, the amounts of suicides of his patients was alarmingly high.

I'm sorry? Which European nation did you say you were from, if your population is controlled... Which one of the EU states has a government program to reverse population growth? Oh, None. Okay - which has adopted a national moral code that has effectively stopped the increase in population size? Oh, none. If it is not CONTROLLED, it is OUT-OF-CONTROL. The numbers increase, and they are still increasing. There is no balance system in action - so, it's out of control.
And huge industrialisation of farming, and the mass-production of artificial fertilizers, and the intense over-farming of land have been required to feed our world population so far. Look at the Fenland of rural England... 100 years of over-farming has reduced the average depth of farmable soil over the fenlands by about 6 feet. How long do you think that can continue?
Unless we discover some radical new process for obtaining food (and the most promising theory is being artificially aborted right now, in the form of GM crops), our growing population is going to be demanding more and more food from an agricultural system that is going to tend towards lower and lower productivity.
I'm not even going to start on water. Maybe you should research how growing populations are going to get their water? Trust me, your argument is already in tatters.
.
Believe it or not: France has already several decades ago started to encourage families to get more children. One example is the whole-day school and a good infrastructure of child care instituitions. That was and is designed to encourage more children and population growth. It worked: France has today 1,89 children per woman and with that almost as much as Ireland. Though, not enough. To keep the population stable you need 2,1 per woman (without immigration). Germany has increased benefits for families since 1980s to get more population growth (thus with little succes). Scandinavian countries have improved the infrastructure for child care as well - for the same reason of course. So: get yourself informed. Many countries are seeing the population decline and the ageing population (BOTH) as a worrying development and try to encourage change there.
The rest of your argument contains the same silly predictions of European scientists in the middle of the 19 th century who predicted the same for the begining of the 20 th century. As a matter of fact: the situation was then better than to there time. Anything else????

Guys maybe we should give up, this guy is obviously bigoted and/or retarded. Our words will fall upon deaf ears.
naw, im sticking up for my people, and for my girlfriend and our relationship. i say we fight till this guy gives up..

On the conterary: My country - like all European countries are facing a declining birth rate and the prospect of a (small, but in the long-run big) population decline. If this continues Italy would only have 10 million inhabitants at the end of the 21 rst centrury (today 60 million) and Germany less than 70 million in 2050 (compared to 82 million today). Given the fact that this is going on hand in hand with an ageeing population the social security system may collapse in the next few decades.

The same is the case for Russia, Japan, in the longer perspective also for Canada and the US.

So: obviously the argument doesn´t work. On the conterary: we need more children not less. But as a matter of fact homosexuality is no the rise in those countries who have to face problems with declining population and not those who have still - although low - population growth.

You never actually read anyone who replies to you, do you? The population decline in Western countries has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with the fact that these are all developed countries and, in developed countries, heterosexual couples tend to have less children. In a less-developed country, families need lots and lots of kids to help take care of the farm or go out and get jobs to support the family or stick around and help take care of the rest of the babies. In developed countries, this is not necessary and having lots and lots of kids is generally frowned upon. In the last generation, many people came from families of 10-15 kids. In this generation, most people are in families of 2-4 kids. This is a social occurence in heterosexual couples and has nothing to do with "the rise of homosexuality."

I believe the question "is homosexuality natural or not" is irrelevant.

So what if homosexuality is natural or so what if it's not. As if only "natural" things can be exepted, as if all "natural" things are "good", as if we can judge "homosexuality" by its degree in being natural.

We are humans and there are a lot of things "unnatural" about us... In my opinion that is exactly what makes us human. I believe you can call that "culture".

Defiantely not natural. It's a deficiancy in the brain or something to that effect. And I'm not homophobic, alright? Come round, look at my CD collection. You'll find Queen, George Michael, Pet Shop Boys. They're all bummers

Ok let us play the morality game:


1) Does it hurt anyone? No.

2) Are there children involved? No.

3) Is it public(generaly)? No.

4) Are both/all parties consenting? Yes.

And so we can conclude that homosexuality is fine.

Defiantely not natural. It's a deficiancy in the brain or something to that effect. And I'm not homophobic, alright? Come round, look at my CD collection. You'll find Queen, George Michael, Pet Shop Boys. They're all bummers

Whether or not it is a deficiancy in the brain or not is still unproven.

its not a 'deficiancy' .. its just been shown that a part of a gay males brain is similar to a hetro females, and a part of a lesbians brain is similar to that of a hetro males. nothing 'deficiant' about it.

if its not natural then what, do gay people choose to be gay, and if so why whould someone choose to be something that our society hates.

its not a 'deficiancy' .. its just been shown that a part of a gay males brain is similar to a hetro females, and a part of a lesbians brain is similar to that of a hetro males. nothing 'deficiant' about it.

Those tests are still under way actauly, that was an early release but I think it would make sense. Do I think like a woman? Well I am bi so I don't know if that is the same...I am not in favour of doing loads of housework...

if its not natural then what, do gay people choose to be gay, and if so why whould someone choose to be something that our society hates.

Which society are you in? Only the nasty rightists in my society hate gays...

Those tests are still under way actauly, that was an early release but I think it would make sense. Do I think like a woman? Well I am bi so I don't know if that is the same...I am not in favour of doing loads of housework...

well it seems logical.
and i dont think many woman favour doing housework, i think they do it half the time because no one else will. although i wouldnt know, being a lesbian and all.. i supose.. im confused.

Believe it or not: France has already several decades ago started to encourage families to get more children. One example is the whole-day school and a good infrastructure of child care instituitions. That was and is designed to encourage more children and population growth. It worked: France has today 1,89 children per woman and with that almost as much as Ireland. Though, not enough. To keep the population stable you need 2,1 per woman (without immigration). Germany has increased benefits for families since 1980s to get more population growth (thus with little succes). Scandinavian countries have improved the infrastructure for child care as well - for the same reason of course. So: get yourself informed. Many countries are seeing the population decline and the ageing population (BOTH) as a worrying development and try to encourage change there.
The rest of your argument contains the same silly predictions of European scientists in the middle of the 19 th century who predicted the same for the begining of the 20 th century. As a matter of fact: the situation was then better than to there time. Anything else????

As I said. Governments don't want a population to fall - because they want an increasing revenue pool. That's not the same thing as it being GOOD.

I don't see how any of the German, French or Scandanavian examples actually show a country CONTROLLING it's population either.

You might consider a) responding to the actual points made, and b) getting YOURSELF informed. I am consoling my self in the knowledge that you are probably not really all that naive, you probably just go to a school that teaches the party-line, and have insufficient life experience to make value judgements.

As I said: Government doesn't want a reducing population - that's why they oppose a sensible, supportable number of citizens.

As I said: The only reason the 19th century predictions haven't come to hoorible reality is the fact that we've slowed (not stopped) the attrition rate on resources. Farmland depreciates. Water resources are finite. Go read up the subject and get a clue.

And how do I know you haven't already read up the subject? Tell me how our emerged societies are going to meet their water demands ten years from now, let alone 50.

well it seems logical.
and i dont think many woman favour doing housework, i think they do it half the time because no one else will. although i wouldnt know, being a lesbian and all.. i supose.. im confused.

Heh...At least you have an excuse to swill beer and watch football. I do not like being very hairy but apart from that I do not think I am very feminine...

Heh...At least you have an excuse to swill beer and watch football. I do not like being very hairy but apart from that I do not think I am very feminine...
i dont like beer and football though.

i dont like beer and football though.

Then you are obviously not a real lesbian then...Actualy neither do I...SO you like shaving?

Then you are obviously not a real lesbian then...Actualy neither do I...SO you like shaving?
how does that make sence..?
shaving.. naw..

@Grave N idle,

I´m from Europe and I´m a cynical European. There is enough water here. I don´t care about the rest of the world. That´s their problem. If immigrants want to come we just patrol the mediteranean and send them back. We can defend ourself against them, like the US building a wall on the border to Mexico or Israel in Palestine (although for another reason I know).
I´m not a member of any party though.
And I´m tired of this discussion.
I actually don´t think that there is a link between homosexuality and population growth since it also existed in Roman and Greece times (antice). I just wanted to flame. Well, it obviously worked.

But I don´t consider it unnatural though because it doesn´t serve reproduction which is the reason for sexuality. It is in that way misdirected sexuality and therefore unnatural.

wow, this has turned into quite a debate. Anyway, on the subject of homosexuality, in the case of butt sex I'm not exactly sure about wether or not it is natural, but when it comes to love I do think its natural. It is natural for humans to be co-dependant on something, and for most people that co-dependance is to another person. This is where the love comes in. You love the person/people you are co-dependant on because you don't feel you can live without them, thats why its co-dependance. I personally don't think you can change who you love or pick who you love so you just love the person who can most satisfy your co-dependant needs. Sometimes thats a man, sometimes thats a women. And now back to the sex. That is just a way to express your co-dependance and if the person you are co-dependant on doesn't have a vagina then you stick it somewhere else.

You never actually read anyone who replies to you, do you? The population decline in Western countries has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with the fact that these are all developed countries and, in developed countries, heterosexual couples tend to have less children. In a less-developed country, families need lots and lots of kids to help take care of the farm or go out and get <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=jobs&v=56">jobs</a> to support the <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=family&v=56">family</a> or stick around and help take care of the rest of the babies. In developed countries, this is not necessary and having lots and lots of kids is generally frowned upon. In the last generation, many came from families of 10-15 kids. In this generation, most people are in families of 2-4 kids. This is a social occurence in heterosexual couples and has nothing to do with "the rise of homosexuality."

I actually agree with you, I just wanted to flame a bit. Though this is a problematic development because it leads to declining population. Big social problem here in Europe because of that because the social system may collapse if there are not enough young people.


But none the less I consider it unnatural because it doesn´t serve reproduction which is the reason for sexuality. It is in that way misdirected sexuality and therefore unnatural.

@Grave N idle,

I´m from Europe and I´m a cynical European. There is enough water here. I don´t care about the rest of the world. That´s their problem. If immigrants want to come we just patrol the mediteranean and send them back. We can defend ourself against them, like the US building a wall on the border to Mexico or Israel in Palestine (although for another reason I know).
I´m not a member of any party though.
And I´m tired of this discussion.
I actually don´t think that there is a link between homosexuality and population growth since it also existed in Roman and Greece times (antice). I just wanted to flame. Well, it obviously worked.

But I don´t consider it unnatural though because it doesn´t serve reproduction which is the reason for sexuality. It is in that way misdirected sexuality and therefore unnatural.

There isn't enough water. You have no information. That's probably why you're "tired" of the debate. If you had any serious concept, you'd know how much water civilised countries use in relation to those 'third-world' nations... you'd have some appreciation for how limited water resources are - even in Europe, and how expensive other methods of water resourcing are. Have you any idea of the expense of producing desalinated seawater? And there is not a nation that yet supplies potable AND non-potable water supplies, so every gallon of water processed in your nation has the cost of drinking water, but about a 99% chance of ending up in a factory, or your toilet.

Your answer to immigration is walls and border patrols... I was thinking you must be French, but the people I knew in France were opposed to all the trimmings of Nazism - so, maybe not.

You have a lot of opinions, my friend. And not much evidence. Which might be fine, if you just sat hating people quietly. But when you bring your misanthropy into the open, expect to be attacked.

Oh, and before I get too bored with you - reproduction is clearly NOT the SOLE reason for human sexuality. Go read a biology book.

There isn't enough water. You have no information. That's probably why you're "tired" of the debate. If you had any serious concept, you'd know how much water civilised countries use in relation to those 'third-world' nations... you'd have some appreciation for how limited water resources are - even in Europe, and how expensive other methods of water resourcing are. Have you any idea of the expense of producing desalinated seawater? And there is not a nation that yet supplies potable AND non-potable water supplies, so every gallon of water processed in your nation has the cost of drinking water, but about a 99% chance of ending up in a factory, or your toilet.
Your answer to immigration is walls and border patrols... I was thinking you must be French, but the people I knew in France were opposed to all the trimmings of Nazism - so, maybe not.
You have a lot of opinions, my friend. And not much evidence. Which might be fine, if you just sat hating people quietly. But when you bring your misanthropy into the open, expect to be attacked.
Oh, and before I get too bored with you - reproduction is clearly NOT the SOLE reason for human sexuality. Go read a biology book.
.
Oh, thank you. Because you don´t like my opinion you call me a Nazi. That shows how much quality you judge on your own argument if you insult me like that. BTW, not every country is wasting so much than the US in energy and water - for example Europe and Japan. So don´t bother me with that. Sweep before your own door.
Secondly I believe that every country has THE RIGHT to conduct its own immigration policy. The US has this right and exercises it towards Mexico. European countries do that as well, regardless if it Britain, France, Germany, Austria or Italy (which has just recently pushed out Africans which were brought by a stupid refugee help organisation under false pretext that they were from Sudan - as a matter of fact none of them was from that country).
There are 2 billion people below the poverty line - should we let them all into Europe???? That would be importing desaster, destability and poverty.
We have a right to regulate immigration and to reduce it to a minimum if we wish to just as the US has it towards Mexico.
And I´m not French - I´m from an even more "evil" country. But anyway: Even France is cracking down on illegal immigration and islamis. For example France banned the scarf in schools. I´m applauding this French decision and would like my country to do the same.
But probably you see this step against radical islam also as intolerance and "nazism", do you?????

Oh, thank you. Because you don´t like my opinion you call me a Nazi. That shows how much quality you judge on your own argument if you insult me like that. BTW, not every country is wasting so much than the US in energy and water - for example Europe and Japan. So don´t bother me with that. Sweep before your own door.
Secondly I believe that every country has THE RIGHT to conduct its own immigration policy. The US has this right and exercises it towards Mexico. European countries do that as well, regardless if it Britain, France, Germany, Austria or Italy (which has just recently pushed out Africans which were brought by a stupid refugee help organisation under false pretext that they were from Sudan - as a matter of fact none of them was from that country).
There are 2 billion people below the poverty line - should we let them all into Europe???? That would be importing desaster, destability and poverty.
We have a right to regulate immigration and to reduce it to a minimum if we wish to just as the US has it towards Mexico.
And I´m not French - I´m from an even more "evil" country. But anyway: Even France is cracking down on illegal immigration and islamis. For example France banned the scarf in schools. I´m applauding this French decision and would like my country to do the same.
But probably you see this step against radical islam also as intolerance and "nazism", do you????? Germans!

You shouldn't let them in for no reason, but hell, if you are rich and owned a mansoin, and your neighbor is starving, wouldn't you give him some food?

France forcing people to not wear head scarves in public schools is just wrong. Next thing you know, they'll start putting bans on other clothing items, even if not religious. What people need to remember is that not all muslims are terrorists. That's like saying all southerners are white supremacists. There is a small minority that bastardize Islam, and make it a living hell for other Muslims.

How the HELL did this thread get to these topics?

France forcing people to not wear head scarves in public schools is just wrong. Next thing you know, they'll start putting bans on other clothing items, even if not religious. What people need to remember is that not all muslims are terrorists. That's like saying all southerners are white supremacists. There is a small minority that bastardize Islam, and make it a living hell for other Muslims.
How the HELL did this thread get to these topics?

Oh yes. Why don´t we allow female teachers to wear the Burqa???? And hell, I have an idea - in order to avoid "discrimination" of muslim women why don´t we make the burqa compulsory for women, heh???
OH God, your left-wing multi-cultural advocates are really fucking stupid. Should we wait and see the further rise of Islamism in Europe??? And just don´t pretend it isn´t there because it is there: in France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Netherlans, Austria.
We need to crack down on them. I don´t have anything against Islam. But those muslim here have to adapt to our culture and to interprete their religion in a way that is in accordance with democracy and pluralism. And there is a not unsignificant minority that doesn´t do that. We have to crack down on them. Who isn´t willing to integrate should leave the country.

Oh yes. Why don´t we allow female teachers to wear the Burqa???? And hell, I have an idea - in order to avoid "discrimination" of muslim women why don´t we make the burqa compulsory for women, heh???
OH God, your left-wing multi-cultural advocates are really fucking stupid. Should we wait and see the further rise of Islamism in Europe??? And just don´t pretend it isn´t there because it is there: in France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Netherlans, Austria.
We need to crack down on them. I don´t have anything against Islam. But those muslim here have to adapt to our culture and to interprete their religion in a way that is in accordance with democracy and pluralism. And there is a not unsignificant minority that doesn´t do that. We have to crack down on them. Who isn´t willing to integrate should leave the country.

Care to explain how a girl wearing a headscarf hurts anyone else? Suppose I decided that I didn't want much of my body to show and I started to only ever wear long sleeves and long pants, would that somehow be discriminatory against you? Get one thing straight, democracy does not mean mindless drones.

Care to explain how a girl wearing a headscarf hurts anyone else? Suppose I decided that I didn't want much of my body to show and I started to only ever wear long sleeves and long pants, would that somehow be discriminatory against you? Get one thing straight, democracy does not mean mindless drones.
Where are you from??? My goodness, don´t be that naive. The scarf is a used as a symbol of radical islam. I personally wouldn´t even go so far than France though. It may be enough to ban the scarf for teachers on public schools. Well: and for public servants. BTW: that would also mean other religious symbols - but they are not commonly weared anyway so it would mainly effect islam. Religious and state should be seperate.
If you want it differently: there is the posibility for private schools.

Additionally: do you happen to know that Turkey has much stricter laws to ban the scarf (students, public buildings, e.g.). They knew why: in order to keep the religion out and to allow modernisation of the country. And that´s the reason Turkey is much more developed than the Arab countries which have more or less fallen into a new wave of Islamism since the 1970s.
And we have to defend ourself against that - especially if they want to export that to Europe.

Where are you from??? My goodness, don´t be that naive. The scarf is a used as a symbol of radical islam.

I'm not the one being naive here. The scarf is not a symbol of "radical Islam." It is a requirement of orthodox Islam. I have only known a few girls who wore them but they were definitely not "radical." In some Christian religions, a woman is not allowed to cut her hair or wear makeup because that is part of their religion. In orthodox Islam, a woman is to cover her hair. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

Religious and state should be seperate.

By not allowing someone to follow their religion, you are banning the free practice of that religion. Thus, church and state are much more separate if the government doesn't try to force it one way or another.

Whether or not it is a deficiancy in the brain or not is still unproven.


Perhaps , i just thought i'd join. As you can probably tell my earlier post was a bit of a "rip Take". Fans of The Office will notice it.

Anyhooooo i would also add that i put it down to a deficiancy in the brain. Proven or not that's what i think it is.

I'm not the one being naive here. The scarf is not a symbol of "radical Islam." It is a requirement of orthodox Islam. I have only known a few girls who wore them but they were definitely not "radical." In some Christian religions, a woman is not allowed to cut her hair or wear makeup because that is part of their religion. In orthodox Islam, a woman is to cover her hair. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kybernetia
Religion and state should be seperate.
By not allowing someone to follow their religion, you are banning the free practice of that religion. Thus, church and state are much more separate if the government doesn't try to force it one way or another.
.
You are naive. The scarf is used as a symbol by the Islamic movement. And the try to get their people into state service, supporting suites before courts to push scarf-wearing teachers into school. Certainly a great encouragement for students which are forced to wear the scarf by their parents and where is the only partner to talk to.
The conterary is true to what you say. By seperating religion and state and by banning religious symbols from state instituitions we enshure the freedom of religion. Otherwise there is always a relgion that feels discriminated against. The state employess have to represent the state and not their religion. If those two things get mixed up there is going to be a lot of quarell about it. Therefore it is necessary for state servants to comply with the rules and to be loyal to the state. If they are not ready to do that - well than the have no place in state service.
That is the position in Turkey and in France and I have the greatest sympathy for that. Other European countries should take over this rules.

Freedom of religion doesn´t mean freedom to be intolerant and it doesn´t mean to allow children and students to be forced to continuingly looking to a religious symbol in the class room - regardless whether it is a croass at a wall or the scarf of the teacher.
That offends people - in the first case a minority in the other the majority - and is unaccapteble. That is in fact undermining the freedom of religion because it forces people to attend school under religious symbols which are not there. That is a violation of basic rights of non-muslim students and their parents as well..

Kybernetia, by your rants about church-state separation I would've expected you to be a very underinformed Atheist. But none of us are that stupid. Or hate homosexuals, for that matter. If we did, we'd be no better than all of those religious extremists, like...you!
There are some very very ignorant people on this thread. There are some who are well-informed and logical. There are also a few who should really get off of NS and go back to working on that biology/psychology/world economics/whatever paper that they seem to be writing here.
Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not (usually) the result of childhood trauma. Evidence indicates that it is a genetic (I hate the word mutation, but I suppose it's the only one that works) on the X chromosome somewhere (XP something? XQ something? Someone here must know). Those of you who hate homosexuals, you simply fear that which you don't understand. Get informed. Get less afraid. Do something, please.

-Mentho

Kybernetia, by your rants about church-state separation I would've expected you to be a very underinformed Atheist. But none of us are that stupid. Or hate homosexuals, for that matter. If we did, we'd be no better than all of those religious extremists, like...you!
There are some very very ignorant people on this thread. There are some who are well-informed and logical. There are also a few who should really get off of NS and go back to working on that biology/psychology/world economics/whatever paper that they seem to be writing here.
Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not (usually) the result of childhood trauma. Evidence indicates that it is a genetic (I hate the word mutation, but I suppose it's the only one that works) on the X chromosome somewhere (XP something? XQ something? Someone here must know). Those of you who hate homosexuals, you simply fear that which you don't understand. Get informed. Get less afraid. Do something, please.

-Mentho

Well ignorance is bliss as they say...Except for those on the receiving end like those tied to stakes like coyotes and beaten to death by idiot red necks in Texas just because they are gay. It seems people just want to keep their stupid ideas and refuse to believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice we make but something that we feel and can not alter.

You are naive. The scarf is used as a symbol by the Islamic movement.

The "Islamic movement"? Are you really that much of a conspiracy theorist? Are we in the Spanish Inquisition here?

And the try to get their people into state service, supporting suites before courts to push scarf-wearing teachers into school.

If you were part of a minority, you would try to get "your people" into state service too, in order to get your minority represented. There is nothing insidious about that. And they are probably supporting suits so that women who wish to follow their religion can do so and still teach - I have no problem with that.

Certainly a great encouragement for students which are forced to wear the scarf by their parents and where is the only partner to talk to.

Not sure what this is supposed to say.

The conterary is true to what you say. By seperating religion and state and by banning religious symbols from state instituitions we enshure the freedom of religion. Otherwise there is always a relgion that feels discriminated against.

Wrong. If the state itself puts symbols up, it is discriminating against other religions. However, if an individual happens to follow a religion, that discriminates against nobody. If the teachers to which you are referring enter the school, and can be shown to give special preference to Muslim children, they should be fired on that basis. However, you should not be forced to do something that goes completely against your religion just to live in the society that the majority have made.

The "norm" these days is to have sex with whoever you want, even if you don't know them well. However, my religion says that I shouldn't have sex with anyone that I am not in a committed relationship with. Should I be forced to have sex with every guy I find attractive just because that is the "norm"? Of course not. And for a woman who believes in orthodox Islam, we are talking the same thing here. Forcing her to go in public without her head scarf is like forcing me to have sex with lots of guys.

The state employess have to represent the state and not their religion. If those two things get mixed up there is going to be a lot of quarell about it. Therefore it is necessary for state servants to comply with the rules and to be loyal to the state. If they are not ready to do that - well than the have no place in state service.

Entering state service does not mean that you give up all individuality. Listening to you, I feel like asking "Where are your papers, comrade?" Why don't you go orgy porgy? Again, I ask would you kick someone out of state service if they never wore a short sleeved shirt or a short skirt, because they do not conform to your norm?

Freedom of religion doesn´t mean freedom to be intolerant

Freedom of religion does include freedom to be intolerant, which is something you are doing quite well.

and it doesn´t mean to allow children and students to be forced to continuingly looking to a religious symbol in the class room - regardless whether it is a croass at a wall or the scarf of the teacher.

A cross on the wall implies that the government condomes Christianity. A head scarf on a teacher, as long as she explains that she wears it due to her own beliefs and that no one else has to wear it, does not. A head scarf on a student has absolutely nothing to do with government-mandated religion.

And, as many people have already said, you have no right to not be offended. If you don't like the black/white/asian/middle eastern/native american/hispanic/gay/straight/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Wiccan/pagan/atheist/republican/democrat/tory/whig/american/europian/african/asian person sitting next to you or the cross/head scarf/flag/purse/skirt/shirt/toenail ring they are wearing/carrying person sitting next to you, that is your problem, not theirs.

That is in fact undermining the freedom of religion because it forces people to attend school under religious symbols which are not there. That is a violation of basic rights of non-muslim students and their parents as well..

Again, if the *state* is not placing those religious symbols there, it has no bearing on anyone else. You have no "basic right" to not have a Muslim person around.

Wow 42 pages of worthless debate. Let me guess (as there is no way I am goign to read it all): God hates fags, the bible says this and that and no it does not say this and that and yes it does too and no it doesnt you were reading it wrong... but the old testament, but the new testament, but its just a book of words made by men and not god, population will dwindle because if one person turns gay the entire planet will, i dont want to see two guys kissing in public, incest will run rampant, beastiality will be the next big movement and blah blah blah - *yawn*

There are natural instances of homosexuality in hundreds of non-human animals. Can't it then be the case that some homosapiens are naturally homosexual?

No Sumamba, it's not possible that it's natural. If that were the case then two dudes would be able to have as many babies as a straight dude and his baby momma. Due to the fact that it's unnatural, homosexuals are cursed with the inability to reproduce without exhibiting straight behavior. It's almost a manner of factoring them out of society, which is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. If gays were meant to have children then fetuses would be popping out of male urethras. Ouch. While it's not natural, it is acceptable. It's a decision people make, but they must accept the sacrifices that come with it. And if it's not a choice, Fitness= 0%. They will be naturally weeded out.

No Sumamba, it's not possible that it's natural. If that were the case then two dudes would be able to have as many babies as a straight dude and his baby momma. Due to the fact that it's unnatural, homosexuals are cursed with the inability to reproduce without exhibiting straight behavior. It's almost a manner of factoring them out of society, which is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. If gays were meant to have children then fetuses would be popping out of male urethras. Ouch. While it's not natural, it is acceptable. It's a decision people make, but they must accept the sacrifices that come with it. And if it's not a choice, Fitness= 0%. They will be naturally weeded out.

Been argued, been refuted, you're wrong.

And the world food supplies are enough if not dictators and other evil doers, civil wars and other disruptions occur there would be enough food for 10 or 15 billion people and even more in the long-run anyway. So stop talking nonsense.There's more than just food supplies to worry about. Our other resources are running out too.

There's more than just food supplies to worry about. Our other resources are running out too.

also, there ISN'T enough for that many people...the ecosystems of the planet would be critically unbalanced by that many more people, and available fresh water would give out long before we could reach such populations. but hey, nice to know there are still people dumb enough to deny over-population; my IQ just went up a few more points by comparison :).

No Sumamba, it's not possible that it's natural. If that were the case then two dudes would be able to have as many babies as a straight dude and his baby momma. Due to the fact that it's unnatural, homosexuals are cursed with the inability to reproduce without exhibiting straight behavior. It's almost a manner of factoring them out of society, which is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. If gays were meant to have children then fetuses would be popping out of male urethras. Ouch. While it's not natural, it is acceptable. It's a decision people make, but they must accept the sacrifices that come with it. And if it's not a choice, Fitness= 0%. They will be naturally weeded out.


Don't you love modern science?

Two women can have kids together. Who knows, maybe guys'll be next.

No Sumamba, it's not possible that it's natural. If that were the case then two dudes would be able to have as many babies as a straight dude and his baby momma. Due to the fact that it's unnatural, homosexuals are cursed with the inability to reproduce without exhibiting straight behavior. It's almost a manner of factoring them out of society, which is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. If gays were meant to have children then fetuses would be popping out of male urethras. Ouch. While it's not natural, it is acceptable. It's a decision people make, but they must accept the sacrifices that come with it. And if it's not a choice, Fitness= 0%. They will be naturally weeded out.

Don't worry I won't reduce myself to your level. Well, I accept your unstated apology.

Are you saying that Animals that exhibit homosexual behavior do so because they made a choice to be homosexual? Or are you saying that Humans are not animals so therefore cannot naturally be born homosexual like animals are?

If it is unnatural for animals, even though hundreds of specied have been found to exhibit homosexual behavior then they must be gay for some other reason, so what could that be? Got an answer for that one smart guy/girl/reptilian?

Besides, your argument is old and has been refuted a billion times. Is that the best you can come up with? There are plenty of straight people who are together who are not going to or who dont want to have children. I am one of them. The human race wouldnt die out even if 80% of humans were gay.

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.


then tell me why homosexuality exists in nature?

there is in fact a whole species of lizards that are all genetically female and reproduce asexually. but! they require sexual stimulation in order to reproduce. gues what kind of sexual stimulation they get... lesbian!

Don't you love modern science?

Two women can have kids together. Who knows, maybe guys'll be next.

Actually, they can't. No one can currently create a viable human being through any other means than having a sperm cell fertilize an egg cell. But that is entirely besides the point anyways.

then tell me why homosexuality exists in nature?

there is in fact a whole species of lizards that are all genetically female and reproduce asexually. but! they require sexual stimulation in order to reproduce. gues what kind of sexual stimulation they get... lesbian!

Yup, and evolutionarily, they are believed to have decended from a lizard species that had both genders. So maybe this ability developed out of homosexual tendencies in some of the females? hehe

With all the prejudice against them, you think people choose to be homosexual? Of course it's natural... it may be different, but the whole world is, guess what, naturally different!

Actually, they can't. No one can currently create a viable human being through any other means than having a sperm cell fertilize an egg cell. But that is entirely besides the point anyways.

Isn't some Italian group claiming to have cloned a human being?

That is not a conspiracy theory: that are facts. Just look at the gay movement pushing for gay marriage against the will of the majority of the people. That´s undemocratic.
And it is immoral as well as marriage is the instituition in which one man and one woman are bound together, not man and man, man and child, man and man, man and dog, man and car or whatever.Polls show it's about 55% to 45%, and that's just a small sample. That's not a clear majority. It's damn close.

What is the carrying capacity. There were less than 1 billion people in the world in the 19 th century and some "scientists" already said that this is at or near the carrying capacity. So obviously there is no such thing - or at least it is variable due to the technological advancement of man kind. I´ve given numbers to back that (Germany, China). So: where was the population growth "evil"



Why should I??? You have to prove your claim. It wouldn´t make sense though because that would mean that nature is "intelligent" and homosexuality is on the rise when the population growth is high: I wouldn´t say that. Because we have heard that this things also happened in the past: so obviously this abnormality existed before the last 200 years.
Or can you prove it otherwise???
Furthernmore: the population decline in Europe is a big problem. So would according to your theory homosexuality go down now?????
There is not a single shred of evidence for your claims.
On the conterary. The population decline continues.Ok. You are dumb. Seriously. You fail to grasp the difference between a population GROWTH decline, and a population decline. The population in Europe is still expanding, it is just not expanding as fast. That is not a problem. There is no shrinkage of the population occuring in Europe. There is NO problem.

And my god, because people from the middle ages were wrong once about how much the world could support, means that there obviously is NO amount that the world can't support? What kind of logic is that? That's crazy talk! Those scientists didn't even know about half of the world! How can you expect them to give credible reports, compared to what we can do now. You're ridiculous. You have to prove your argument as well. You can't just state things and act like it all makes sense.

I like the trannyes!!!! :cool:

I'm guessing that most of the people responding to this thread are under 25 years old, which would mean that most are democrats, which makes this argument useless because the majority is going to be for liberal, and support gay rights...a little unfair, but i enjoy reading the debate

Is Heterosexuality Natural?

Ok. You are dumb. Seriously. You fail to grasp the difference between a population GROWTH decline, and a population decline. The population in Europe is still expanding, it is just not expanding as fast. That is not a problem. There is no shrinkage of the population occuring in Europe. There is NO problem.

And my god, because people from the middle ages were wrong once about how much the world could support, means that there obviously is NO amount that the world can't support? What kind of logic is that? That's crazy talk! Those scientists didn't even know about half of the world! How can you expect them to give credible reports, compared to what we can do now. You're ridiculous. You have to prove your argument as well. You can't just state things and act like it all makes sense.

why don't people understand that a population decline is a good thing? besides. the population isn't dropping, just the rate of increase is leveling out. simple replacement rate if not a negative growth rate is what we need. and guess what. even if we needed to expand, the straight people could breed enough to cover it.

and the bible proclaims only pederasty as immoral, not homosexuality. check the original text and stop listening to king james and tammy baker.

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.

i agree

I am wondering what the big deal is...homosexuals MAKE IT a big deal...who cares how you like to have sex???

" A heterosexual guy with a lot of estrogen at some point might find himself checking other guys out, or a woman with high testosterone levels might be eyeing other women."


Actually its not tesosterone or oestrogen that denotes sexual orientation (oestrogen haas nothing to do with it) teststerone acts on sexual desire therefore a person with low tesosterone would still fancy women but have low sex drive high tesosterone high sex drive.

Its wonderful hearing all the its not natural its a biochemical imbalance (contradicts itself there). If it exists in nature then its natural. I was quite homophobic but does it really matter what people do in there private lives as long as they dont harm anyone.

Yeah, I must admit I've never seen this topic go anywhere but down the toilet. But I must confess, all I have to do is consider a couple of guys together doing their 'thing,' and I am grossed out beyond all reason, I mean, it's like suggesting someone eat their own vomit. well, maybe not that gross, but pretty gross. I'll probably have to build a bigger wall around Doctonia now.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess most of the people commenting are anti-Bush??? haha

Homosexuality is not natural, it may feel natural but its not,

your Anus is for passing waste

From any point of view religious or pagan style its not natural how can it be the idea of it being so is absurd.

Im not anti gay, but its not natural, there not evil or such but its quite clearly not right.

The ultimate purpose of sex is to reproduce, homosexuaklity does not result in that.

i object to the word sex being used with reference to gays, Sexual intercourse is Penis and Vagina. Gay dont have sex they have sodomy

I know someone who was homoseksual, He couldnt live with the fact that he was one. And asked help at a local community for homoseksuals. And they told him thats its possible to cure him. So he would like women instead of men. When i heard it was possible i was really shocked and several questions rise. So its more a state of mind, some kind of "decease" that can be cured. And believe it or not, but the man really turned straight.

i completely agree

Ok. You are dumb. Seriously. You fail to grasp the difference between a population GROWTH decline, and a population decline. The population in Europe is still expanding, it is just not expanding as fast. That is not a problem. There is no shrinkage of the population occuring in Europe. There is NO problem.

Actually it is a problem. The rate of population growth is slowing down because people (especially women) are wanting fewer children and also much later in their life. I assume you know what a population pyramid looks like for an MEDC? Well, if this decline in growth continues a population pyramid for an MEDC will look inverted because there will be more elderly people in the population than those of "working age". This will cause industry to suffer because there will be less able people working and so it will affect economy. Also more money will have to be used to provide services for pensioners (including the pensions themselves) such as 'homes', housing, doctors, etc. Guess where that money will be coming from? The younger generations. This means that things such as education and leisure will suffer providing us with fewer oppertunities. This will be a major problem for the US especially since over 50 million baby boomers will be retiring over the next 4 years.

Relating this to homosexuality, I think the number of poeple who are homosexuals compared to those that are hetero is too small to encourage a dramatic decline in population (I read somewhere that 10% of all men in the world are homosexuals- but, admittedly, i can't see how this is known). Homosexuality is completely natural. Various species have shown this (in the Netherlands- i think- there is a Gay Zoo so the public can see how true it is), and nature always finds a way for a species to continue (asexual breeding for example).

I agree that in a sexual way its not natural... but it's something that a homosexual person cannot help... and it occurs throughout history. This means that it is at least a natural part of human society.

Humans at this point in evolution are social creatures of society... how is it that high healed shoes and blue eye shadow can turn some people on...? its because weve learned to appreicate other forms of beauty in socety. It is impossible for a heterosexual man to say that he has no idea what another good looking male looks like. It is there for justifyable for anyone to be attracted to anyone... Weve combined sex with to many other aecatic vitues, its something that has gone much farther then reproduction...
It is there that i impose that bisexuality is natural for all poeple, it is simply your mind set that forces you to choose one or the other
Enjoy life and if you fall in love hold on to it.
Respect the rights of yourself and the rights of other people, if the world worked on those principals and the belief in progression, and preservation (environmentally and historically/culturally) we would life in a perfect world

Defiantely not natural. It's a deficiancy in the brain or something to that effect. And I'm not homophobic, alright? Come round, look at my CD collection. You'll find Queen, George Michael, Pet Shop Boys. They're all bummersUhm, just cause you listen to bands with gay members or whatever doesn't conclusively prove you're not homophobic. I mean, it's not like you interact with those guys on a daily basis or something. You can like their music but still be homophobic.

I'm not saying you are, but I'm just saying that saying that you listen to gay music really don't help your case.

No Sumamba, it's not possible that it's natural. If that were the case then two dudes would be able to have as many babies as a straight dude and his baby momma. Due to the fact that it's unnatural, homosexuals are cursed with the inability to reproduce without exhibiting straight behavior. It's almost a manner of factoring them out of society, which is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. If gays were meant to have children then fetuses would be popping out of male urethras. Ouch. While it's not natural, it is acceptable. It's a decision people make, but they must accept the sacrifices that come with it. And if it's not a choice, Fitness= 0%. They will be naturally weeded out.If all straight parents did a good job parenting, you might have a point. However, heterosexual couples have done a good job raping, molesting, and abusing their children enough. Why not give some other couples that might possibly love and not hurt their children a chance.

I'm guessing that most of the people responding to this thread are under 25 years old, which would mean that most are democrats, which makes this argument useless because the majority is going to be for liberal, and support gay rights...a little unfair, but i enjoy reading the debateAny more assumptions and generalizations you'd like to make while you're at it? If everyone under 25 is democrat, then that might be saying something about our government. But no, you're wrong. A lot of young people are republicans as well, so don't act like people being young automatically equates "liberal hippie".

hmm strange... a bunch of newbies who can't spell all show up at the same time agreeing with each other about how it's not natural... lol


no... there's nothing fishy about that.

I am wondering what the big deal is...homosexuals MAKE IT a big deal...who cares how you like to have sex???Obiviously people who hate gays enough to beath them to death and leave them dangling on a fence post in Montana to die of their injuries (Matthew Shepherd) make it a big deal too. Homosexuals make it a big deal because if nothing is done about it, it just goes on like this. And people like you don't CARE because it doesn't directly affect you. You won't care about anything until it directly affects you. And then you'll scream and whine and wonder why no-one came to help you.

Homosexuality is not natural, it may feel natural but its not,

your Anus is for passing waste

From any point of view religious or pagan style its not natural how can it be the idea of it being so is absurd.

Im not anti gay, but its not natural, there not evil or such but its quite clearly not right.

The ultimate purpose of sex is to reproduce, homosexuaklity does not result in that.

i object to the word sex being used with reference to gays, Sexual intercourse is Penis and Vagina. Gay dont have sex they have sodomyWell then, you are only allowed to have intercourse now when you're planning on having kids. And no masturbating either. That's evil.

And for your information, your argument about the anus not being for sex doesn't include lesbians. Last I checked, they don't engage in anal sex.

And it IS sex. It's the act of intercourse between two people, sharing a private moment together, no matter what YOUR definition is, it doesn't change the fact that most of the world still regards it as sex.

Ok. You are dumb. Seriously. You fail to grasp the difference between a population GROWTH decline, and a population decline. The population in Europe is still expanding, it is just not expanding as fast. That is not a problem. There is no shrinkage of the population occuring in Europe. There is NO problem.

And my god, because people from the middle ages were wrong once about how much the world could support, means that there obviously is NO amount that the world can't support? What kind of logic is that? That's crazy talk! Those scientists didn't even know about half of the world! How can you expect them to give credible reports, compared to what we can do now. You're ridiculous. You have to prove your argument as well. You can't just state things and act like it all makes sense.


funny thing. in the middle ages, same-sex marriages were conducted by the church.

Actually it is a problem. The rate of population growth is slowing down because people (especially women) are wanting fewer children and also much later in their life. I assume you know what a population pyramid looks like for an MEDC? Well, if this decline in growth continues a population pyramid for an MEDC will look inverted because there will be more elderly people in the population than those of "working age". This will cause industry to suffer because there will be less able people working and so it will affect economy. Also more money will have to be used to provide services for pensioners (including the pensions themselves) such as 'homes', housing, doctors, etc. Guess where that money will be coming from? The younger generations. This means that things such as education and leisure will suffer providing us with fewer oppertunities. This will be a major problem for the US especially since over 50 million baby boomers will be retiring over the next 4 years. Yeah, well, it's a bigger problem in the US because Social security will surely be discontinued. There wouldn't be a problem if the government hadn't used the Social security money as an extra bank account to spend money from. That's why it's going to die out. So we're paying for our parents, and no-one will pay for us. Whatever.

But a population decline happens, and the economy will need to change, as it always has. But it's not going to spell complete doom for the world. Eventually, it'll rebound, but I don't think it's going to be a huge problem.

Watch Japan. They're currently experiencing a shrinking population, as there are more dying than being born. We'll see what happens there, and that'll show us how we can expect things to go elsewhere in the world.

You do have a lot of points, and you could possibly be right about things going completely wrong, but I'm choosing to hope for the positive. ::laughs:: That doesn't mean I'm right though, so I'll just watch what happens in Japan.

Isn't some Italian group claiming to have cloned a human being?

A guy who thinks the aliens told him how to do it claims to have cloned three human beings. However, his only proof is a picture of three women holding babies (and I think we all know that three women holding babies in no way indicates cloning). Not to mention that, simply based on current statistics in cloning mammals, he would have had to impregnate (at the very least) 300 women to get those three babies in the end.

A Korean group has cloned a human embryo and gotten it to develop to the stage at which stem cells can be extracted. Up until then, no one had been able to get it past the 8-cell stage. However, in primates, embryos created in the same manner and allowed to continue developing have not been shown to become fully viable.

A guy who thinks the aliens told him how to do it claims to have cloned three human beings. However, his only proof is a picture of three women holding babies (and I think we all know that three women holding babies in no way indicates cloning). Not to mention that, simply based on current statistics in cloning mammals, he would have had to impregnate (at the very least) 300 women to get those three babies in the end.

A Korean group has cloned a human embryo and gotten it to develop to the stage at which stem cells can be extracted. Up until then, no one had been able to get it past the 8-cell stage. However, in primates, embryos created in the same manner and allowed to continue developing have not been shown to become fully viable.

Ah, thanks for the info.

actually, you are totally wrong on that count. the fastest growing demographic for AIDS infection in the United States is young black heterosexual women. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that "Sisters" account for more than half of the new HIV infections among women.

in Europe, the fastest growing group of infectees is heterosexual men under 30, with heterosexual women being the next fastest.

in Africa, women are more likely to have AIDS than men period, regardless of sexual orientation. among young people (15-24) this ratio is as much as 2.5:1. women are contracting AIDS much more quickly than men because of misinformation telling people that condoms don't protect against HIV, or that condoms are laced with HIV, leading men with HIV to avoid using condoms with their wives. since young women are usually married off to older, more sexually experienced men, such women are contracting AIDS at alarming rates."

In the States and Europe it's also got a lot to do with the fact that per sexual intercourse with an HIV infected person (defining intercourse as either sodomy or vaginal penetration with a penis,) a woman and homosexual man are far more likely to contract the disease than a straight man because of obvious logistical differences.

Who is to dictate what a body part is for or what the purpose of "sexual intercourse" is in any objective manner? The anus does pass waste, well done. Are we to ignore the prostate gland in there too? Or the fact that both men and women can be brought to orgasm through being anally penetrated? No matter if the prostate were there or not, the fact that people have done it and are probably doing it right now makes it a natural act. It's inescapable.

As for homosexuals not being natural since they wouldn't be able to breed, the whole point of altruism in species, intentional or not, is that in sacrificing your own ability to reproduce it may well allow the genes of your family to be passed on - which by de facto means many of your own genes will be passed on since you'll invariably share many of them. It follows that genes which benefit the population's ability to reproduce but not necessarily the individual can most certainly be passed on. Homosexuality helps limit the growth of the population and slows the consumption of resources and thus is benefitial to the population as a whole. Although obviously many couples can have babies or raise children through other means.

Homosexuals aren't natural because obviously humans are a magical, ethereal entity which don't belong in the natural world. Our power of choice? Our incredible ability to construct tools, create frameworks of behaviour and science, and shelter? Our ability to explore our own bodies and each others', of expressing our emotions in ways the other would understand? Alright, and relieving pent up sexual frustration. We should declare them unnatural! You know, in spite of common sense, because of a book lacking so much as provenance or because of a visceral, powerful and unanalysed hatred and disgust of how other people conduct their affairs in loving -- or at least consentual relationships. Because those are the best sources to decide and construct frameworks of ethics and morality, not to mention make level headed rational decisions!

Our compassion and love and complexity of feeling and thought are all completely and utterly abnormal in the context of the species around us and should be rigorously stamped out. You know, because the fact that something is in a minority somehow makes it unnatural.

Because we're so damned special that we're actually capable of doing something unnatural in a universe comprised solely of natural events, of natural organisms and natural actions. It must be true, you know, somehow.

Oh, thank you. Because you don´t like my opinion you call me a Nazi. That shows how much quality you judge on your own argument if you insult me like that. BTW, not every country is wasting so much than the US in energy and water - for example Europe and Japan. So don´t bother me with that. Sweep before your own door.
Secondly I believe that every country has THE RIGHT to conduct its own immigration policy. The US has this right and exercises it towards Mexico. European countries do that as well, regardless if it Britain, France, Germany, Austria or Italy (which has just recently pushed out Africans which were brought by a stupid refugee help organisation under false pretext that they were from Sudan - as a matter of fact none of them was from that country).
There are 2 billion people below the poverty line - should we let them all into Europe???? That would be importing desaster, destability and poverty.
We have a right to regulate immigration and to reduce it to a minimum if we wish to just as the US has it towards Mexico.
And I´m not French - I´m from an even more "evil" country. But anyway: Even France is cracking down on illegal immigration and islamis. For example France banned the scarf in schools. I´m applauding this French decision and would like my country to do the same.
But probably you see this step against radical islam also as intolerance and "nazism", do you?????

Sorry, I didn't say you were a Nazi - I said that the French people I knew were opposed to "all the trimmings of Nazism" - like that whole militaristic nationalism thing. It's no surprise that France has accepted so many migrant peoples over the years, to deliberately avoid that kind of stigma - admitted, they treat them like crap once they get there, vis-a-vis the ghettoes.

You say "sweep before your own door"... and I wonder where exactly you think my door is? Having lived for a quarter century in one of those 'unwasteful' European nations, I can verify that you are talking rubbish, as the costs of water production, and the available drinking water supplies are as rarified there as they are in your (obviously) much-hated America.

And, with civilisation comes an increase in water demands - with industry comes water demands. I recommended you do the required reading - but you obviously haven't. Yes - even Europe has water shortage, despite being one of the most water-fertile regions of our planet. Or are you telling me you've never heard the words 'water-restriction' or 'hose-pipe ban'.

And you seem to be having a real problem with 'illegal immigration'... earlier in the thread you were in a panic because Europes' population is disappearing (you seem to believe), and yet now you don't want to let those pesky foreigners in... you can't have it both ways.

Or maybe, foreigners are the wrong 'sort' of people... no wonder you jumped all over the word nazism in my last post... perhaps I WAS a little close to a nerve?

Your argument that that would bring 'desaster (sic), destability (sic) and poverty' is obviously ridiculous - they would just take the jobs vacated by all those people who (you seemed to be arguing) will be missing in the next generation.

Oh look, you're now attacking Islam... carrying out your own little purification crusade there, aren't you.

Oh yes. Why don´t we allow female teachers to wear the Burqa???? And hell, I have an idea - in order to avoid "discrimination" of muslim women why don´t we make the burqa compulsory for women, heh???
OH God, your left-wing multi-cultural advocates are really fucking stupid. Should we wait and see the further rise of Islamism in Europe??? And just don´t pretend it isn´t there because it is there: in France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Netherlans, Austria.
We need to crack down on them. I don´t have anything against Islam. But those muslim here have to adapt to our culture and to interprete their religion in a way that is in accordance with democracy and pluralism. And there is a not unsignificant minority that doesn´t do that. We have to crack down on them. Who isn´t willing to integrate should leave the country.

I see you are attacking the left-wing multi-culturalists. I think you are going to find that the political line you are trying to cross is far more moderate than you seem to think.

Why SHOULDN'T we see the rise of Islam in Europe? Why are you so afraid of other cultures and other philosophy?

You obviously DO have something against Islam, otherwise you would be willing to live and let live? In my experience, most Muslims in Europe do adapt to the culture - they still might not want their daughters marrying non-Muslims, but they are far from the first religion or culture to try to preserve its' own 'blood'. In not allowing them the freedom of expression for their religion, you would deny them a basic democratic right... so long as they learn enough of the language to survive in the streets, and so long as they pay taxes to your government, what does it matter that they kneel and pray to Allah rather than Jehovah?

I have alluded to your suggested political bias before - but this is just ridiculous..."We have to crack down on them. Who isn´t willing to integrate should leave the country". Have you any idea who that sounds like?

No Sumamba, it's not possible that it's natural. If that were the case then two dudes would be able to have as many babies as a straight dude and his baby momma. Due to the fact that it's unnatural, homosexuals are cursed with the inability to reproduce without exhibiting straight behavior. It's almost a manner of factoring them out of society, which is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. If gays were meant to have children then fetuses would be popping out of male urethras. Ouch. While it's not natural, it is acceptable. It's a decision people make, but they must accept the sacrifices that come with it. And if it's not a choice, Fitness= 0%. They will be naturally weeded out.

Do you realise how much you hurt your case by using phrases like "baby Momma"?

First) Just because you ARE homosexual, doesn't mean you CAN'T reproduce with a partner of the opposite sex. Just because something doesn't 'work' for you, doesn't mean you can't do it if you need to/want to.

Second) Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to adopt? I have known several, and they have been some very caring and compassionate parents... at least their children came along because they 'wanted' them - whereas most children nowdays seem to be the results of unplanned pregnancy.
Maybe we should forbid parenting rights to people who say things like'baby momma', since they obviously lack the education to raise children.

Don't like it when it comes back at you, do you?

Oh - and I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of it... these points have been rehashed, on this thread, a dozen times, and your point is as redundant now as it was then.

Do you realise how much you hurt your case by using phrases like "baby Momma"?

First) Just because you ARE homosexual, doesn't mean you CAN'T reproduce with a partner of the opposite sex. Just because something doesn't 'work' for you, doesn't mean you can't do it if you need to/want to.

Second) Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to adopt? I have known several, and they have been some very caring and compassionate parents... at least their children came along because they 'wanted' them - whereas most children nowdays seem to be the results of unplanned pregnancy.
Maybe we should forbid parenting rights to people who say things like'baby momma', since they obviously lack the education to raise children.

Don't like it when it comes back at you, do you?

Oh - and I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of it... these points have been rehashed, on this thread, a dozen times, and your point is as redundant now as it was then.


It really is not worth it, common sense has no effect on some...

I'm a lesbian, feels natural to me.


Well yeah...lesbianism is great (offers a hope of conversion), but gays are the filth of the earth and should be publicly horse whipped all the way to the gallows.

No dude, don't hold it in...tell us what you really think! ;)

Well yeah...lesbianism is great (offers a hope of conversion), but gays are the filth of the earth and should be publicly horse whipped all the way to the gallows.Erm, right. Care to say why? Or are we to take your word as truth for all of the human race?

Well yeah...lesbianism is great (offers a hope of conversion), but gays are the filth of the earth and should be publicly horse whipped all the way to the gallows.

Going to give a reason why? If you say "Because they are disgusting" or some dumb piece of shit like that the I will say that I find you utterly vile and but I do not want you flogged or whipped because of you opinions.

I believe the question "is homosexuality natural or not" is irrelevant.

So what if homosexuality is natural or so what if it's not. As if only "natural" things can be exepted, as if all "natural" things are "good", as if we can judge "homosexuality" by its degree in being natural.

We are humans and there are a lot of things "unnatural" about us... In my opinion that is exactly what makes us human. I believe you can call that "culture".


The question does not bare weight on "morality" because nature and moral have nothing to do with one another.

About the morality of gay people, since that seems the issue here : if they are happy about who they are and they dont hurt anyone, then what the hell are we talking about ?

Please oh please, stop talking about the decreasing world population because of gay people !
I believe there are other things that are taking care of that ! War, starvation, etc.

You say that like decreasing world population is a bad thing...

Well yeah...lesbianism is great (offers a hope of conversion), but gays are the filth of the earth and should be publicly horse whipped all the way to the gallows.

Here's how 'debate' works...

If you have an opinion, you present that opinion, and the evidence that you think supports your case.

Then, the other 'debaters' test your evidence, and offer rebuttals, or accept it. They may then post their own opinion and/or evidence.

At this point, you may test the evidence they presented.

You don't want a forum, you want a soapbox.

I'm not even going to bother debating the content of your 'ejaculation', since it would take a fair amount of evidence to even begin to back up your claims.

But, then - it doesn't sound like you'd be willing to let something facts get in the way of good, solid hatred.

But, then - it doesn't sound like you'd be willing to let something facts get in the way of good, solid hatred.

Alas, methinks this is the case...

Homosexuality is not natural, it may feel natural but its not,

your Anus is for passing waste

From any point of view religious or pagan style its not natural how can it be the idea of it being so is absurd.

Im not anti gay, but its not natural, there not evil or such but its quite clearly not right.

The ultimate purpose of sex is to reproduce, homosexuaklity does not result in that.

i object to the word sex being used with reference to gays, Sexual intercourse is Penis and Vagina. Gay dont have sex they have sodomyLast year (as part of a sexual education course) I was informed that sexual intercourse is now refered to as "any act of penetration, oral, anal, vaginal - with either digits or the penis" ... that is what the definition is today.

"Your Anus is for passing waste" ... so you are against anal sex as a whole? And only against male homosexuality? Typical.

"The ultimate purpose of sex is to reproduce" ... the next time I hear this I am going to scream! I AM NOT A BABY MAKER DAMMIT! I AM A PERSON! I whole heartedly object to having someone tell me that my whole purpose in life is to be an INCUBATOR! If you honestly believe sex is just to reproduce, I'll line up the hundreds of thousands of infertile men and women out there in the world (and throw in those people who make the decision not to have children just for good measure) and you can tell them they have no purpose in life and that they can never, ever have sex ... and why not tell them that they are unnatural too while your at it. By your logic, they are all quite clearly 'being absurd' and 'not right'. Lets see how they feel about your point of view.

This argument has been used, and used, and used ... and today I pronounce it dead. No more with the "sex is just to reproduce" crap! I am a woman, a person, a free damn spirit - all of this before anything else, including being a "baby maker". I dont care what you or anyone else thinks my purpose is, I have a few views on that of my own.

Last year (as part of a sexual education course) I was informed that sexual intercourse is now refered to as "any act of penetration, oral, anal, vaginal - with either digits or the penis" ... that is what the definition is today.

"Your Anus is for passing waste" ... so you are against anal sex as a whole? And only against male homosexuality? Typical.

"The ultimate purpose of sex is to reproduce" ... the next time I hear this I am going to scream! I AM NOT A BABY MAKER DAMMIT! I AM A PERSON! I whole heartedly object to having someone tell me that my whole purpose in life is to be an INCUBATOR! If you honestly believe sex is just to reproduce, I'll line up the hundreds of thousands of infertile men and women out there in the world (and throw in those people who make the decision not to have children just for good measure) and you can tell them they have no purpose in life and that they can never, ever have sex ... and why not tell them that they are unnatural too while your at it. By your logic, they are all quite clearly 'being absurd' and 'not right'. Lets see how they feel about your point of view.

This argument has been used, and used, and used ... and today I pronounce it dead. No more with the "sex is to reproduce" crap! I am a woman, a person, a free damn spirit - all of this before anything else, including being a "baby maker". I dont care what you or anyone else thinks my purpose is, I have a few views on that of my own.



*applauds* Well said. Pity you are not a real lesbian ;) (jk). I agree with you totaly.

Well yeah...lesbianism is great (offers a hope of conversion), but gays are the filth of the earth and should be publicly horse whipped all the way to the gallows.

right.. so you are being perverted towards lesbians which i take as a personal insult as well as a general one, and you are wishing to hurt and outcast some of the most inventive and kind men there are because you are a narrow minded fool?
if not, thats how it comes across.

and to add to that, homosexuality gives a mixed gender look on life, or something like that, and homosexuals are proven to be very creative, such as Shakespeare and Elton John, and so bring the human race forward in many senses. also homosexuals do tend to be kinder because they know what its like to be hurt by others and dont tend to wish this same pain upon others. a pain brought about by selfish ignorant humans such as yourself.
and yes this isnt true for all homosexuals, ofcourse everyone is their own person and therefor different. but still, there is no reason to say such cruel things about innocent human beings. how would you feel if there was a place where hetrosexuals were treated this way? sexuality matters not, these people love and this love can only be a good thing. they dont hurt people, it is the homophobic, religious, political, selfish fools who hurt people.

okay, okay..i seem to have dug myself a hole and jumped in. Homosexuality in my opinion is un-natural, and yes...this thread is all about personal opinions so nothing will be solved by it... all you`ll get are various points of views... for this i have a couple of arguements...

1) - Homosexuality is a a sin - a sin is described as a transgression of gods law (I know ppl are athiests and do not recognise this, and no i am not a bible basher,,i just believe that there is a more powerful bieng in this universe)

2) - Evolution....i know adoption is an option, but.....with the ever increasing trend of this lifestyle there will be a drop on married (straight couples) who are willing to put children up for adoption, also if the ever increasing trend of homosexual couples adopting we will become a world of loveless bastards (to use the correct word)

okay, okay..i seem to have dug myself a hole and jumped in. Homosexuality in my opinion is un-natural, and yes...this thread is all about personal opinions so nothing will be solved by it... all you`ll get are various points of views... for this i have a couple of arguements...

1) - Homosexuality is a a sin - a sin is described as a transgression of gods law (I know ppl are athiests and do not recognise this, and no i am not a bible basher,,i just believe that there is a more powerful bieng in this universe)

2) - Evolution....i know adoption is an option, but.....with the ever increasing trend of this lifestyle there will be a drop on married (straight couples) who are willing to put children up for adoption, also if the ever increasing trend of homosexual couples adopting we will become a world of loveless bastards (to use the correct word)

1)Transgression is irrelivent. The goverment in the western world is secular so they should not be flogged due to your crappy religious beliefs.
2)Loveless?! WTF?! Why the HELL would homosexuals adopt if they did not want to be loving parents? Also the drop in couples willing to put children up to adoption is already happening due to contraceptives, lack of family pressure and artificial insimination offers an alternative to adopting anyway and is becoming more and more widespread.

Also what the hell was that about filth of the earth and public flogging you bigoted fuck?

1)Transgression is irrelivent. The goverment in the western world is secular so they should not be flogged due to your crappy religious beliefs.
2)Loveless?! WTF?! Why the HELL would homosexuals adopt if they did not want to be loving parents? Also the drop in couples willing to put children up to adoption is already happening due to contraceptives, lack of family pressure and artificial insimination offers an alternative to adopting anyway and is becoming more and more widespread.

Also what the hell was that about filth of the earth and public flogging you bigoted fuck?


Tut-tut....i was nice and diplomatic no swearing involved...and what do you do...I will not drop down to your base level of arguement.

as for the loveless thing i could`ve worded better...i meant people will have more babies for money so they can offer them to same sex couples, i know it is happening now, but i can foresee it will increase.

Tut-tut....i was nice and diplomatic no swearing involved...and what do you do...I will not drop down to your base level of arguement.

Sorry but some people find being called the filth of the earth and being told that someone wants them to be publicaly flogged quite offensive...


as for the loveless thing i could`ve worded better...i meant people will have more babies for money so they can offer them to same sex couples, i know it is happening now, but i can foresee it will increase.

I doubt it. Birthgiving is a big experience and I doubt too many people will ever consider it just to make money. Perhaps a small increase but I doubt it will be much of a bad thing or get too large.

You say that like decreasing world population is a bad thing...

Well, I didnt want to go further into that, because that question is not really the topic-issue...

But to answer you : I didnt mean to come over as if there should be more and more people wandering around this earth (but just for the record, I strongly believe in a good life for all the people that are already here !)

All I meant to say was that homosexuality is certainly not the biggest reason for decrease.

you said something about homosexuality being a sin.. against gods laws.. as a minor Satanist this means very little to me, but even many important religious people are now begining to think the bible isnt all 'gods word' although personally i think none of it is..
anyway, oppinions or not, these oppinions bring about the abolishment of basic human rights. surely that cant be a good thing? we are people too, we dont hurt anyone, we are no different from everyone else other that the fact our gender and sexuality dont match in the way people seem to think they should.

Well, I didnt want to go further into that, because that question is not really the topic-issue...

But to answer you : I didnt mean to come over as if there should be more and more people wandering around this earth (but just for the record, I strongly believe in a good life for all the people that are already here !)

All I meant to say was that homosexuality is certainly not the biggest reason for decrease.

Sure, I agree. I think that the numbers of homosexuals have always been the same but mroe were probably closeted hundreds of years ago but were still unlikely to give birth or father children.

I read a study once that said homosexuality is virtually unknown* in isolated, tribal societies, and that it was endemic of larger cities...

...I don't how valid this study was, though, from memory it was pretty old (50s or 60s).


*yes, we all know about the such-and-such tribe that is the exception to the rule

I read a study once that said homosexuality is virtually unknown* in isolated, tribal societies, and that it was endemic of larger cities...

...I don't how valid this study was, though, from memory it was pretty old (50s or 60s).


*yes, we all know about the such-and-such tribe that is the exception to the rule

Studies can be wrong.

I still see people connecting "natural" to "moral".
You really can not prove, state that anything natural is good, or anything unnatural bad.

It is another thing when you believe that what is in the Bible, should be followed to the letter.
That is purely about ethics and as such one can state that homosexuality is "bad".

But that is a belief and should be considered as such, certainly not as science nor as "the truth".

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.

If I may say so, this is a typical 'tabloid newspaper' oversimplification of evolution. In fact under some, not uncommon, circumstances it's perfectly easy for homosexuality to be not only natural, but positively selected for.

Say you have a group of animals living in a difficult environment, where there's constant pressure to gather enough food for the group to survive. Also suppose, as with primates, that the food gathering capacity of females is reduced while they have dependent young.

Now, if the group of animals are related, again in the manner of a primate troup, then they will share a lot of common genes. This is altruism as outlined by Dawkins - it's worth looking after your nephews because they share a quarter of your genes, and it's worth looking after the young in your troup as a whole because they share some proportion of your genes. That is, in a troup of related animals you can ensure that your genetic material is passed on even if you don't have young of your own.

So, say we have circumstances where it's difficult for a pair of animals, one male and one female, to gather enough resources to ensure that they can feed themselves and their offspring. If all the animals in the troop are paired then the reproductive rate of the troop will be reduced.

Compare this to cirumstances where there are a few 'non-reproductive' adults in the troop who gather resources which they contribute to the troop as a whole. They ensure that more young survive, and also that their own genetic material is passed on by proxy. The higher overall reproductive rate will ensure that this group of animals is selected for over the first troop.

Now of course you could do this by having a dominent male who reproduces and other, hetrosexual, males who are forced not too. However this does have something of an implication for the use of available reources as the males will tend to keep resources for themselves so that they can challenge for the right to reproduce.

A better strategy would be to have non-dominent males who don't want to compete for the right to reproduce. Homosexual males are ideal. Interestingly this theory predicts that homosexual males will be more common than homosexual females simply because one hetrosexual male can reproduce with more than one female so there is no overall loss of feudicity, whereas a homosexual female would impact this.

Of course, the optimal balance between dominent reproductive hetrosexual males, subservient non-reproductive males and homosexual males will depend on all sorts of environmental and social pressures, hence the incidence of homosexuality would be expected to vary with different species and sub-species. Indeed an even more adaptive strategy would be to have bisexual males - say who were normally hetrosexual but could be homosexual if resource constraints made that optimal.

OK, bottom line. Homosexuality is probably perfectly natural and in some circumstances a good evolutionary strategy.

Tut-tut....i was nice and diplomatic no swearing involved...and what do you do...I will not drop down to your base level of arguement.

as for the loveless thing i could`ve worded better...i meant people will have more babies for money so they can offer them to same sex couples, i know it is happening now, but i can foresee it will increase.

Hmmm... actually your opening gambit was "...but gays are the filth of the earth and should be publicly horse whipped all the way to the gallows."

Not really TOO diplomatic, I would argue. Kind of costs you the moral highground, too - when you open a conversation by saying that a group of people should be brutally beaten and then executed.... wait, that rings a bell... brutally beaten and hanged.... You think Jesus was a homosexual?

okay, okay..i seem to have dug myself a hole and jumped in. Homosexuality in my opinion is un-natural, and yes...this thread is all about personal opinions so nothing will be solved by it... all you`ll get are various points of views... for this i have a couple of arguements...

1) - Homosexuality is a a sin - a sin is described as a transgression of gods law (I know ppl are athiests and do not recognise this, and no i am not a bible basher,,i just believe that there is a more powerful bieng in this universe)

2) - Evolution....i know adoption is an option, but.....with the ever increasing trend of this lifestyle there will be a drop on married (straight couples) who are willing to put children up for adoption, also if the ever increasing trend of homosexual couples adopting we will become a world of loveless bastards (to use the correct word)

Actually, neither of your points are arguments against whether homosexuality is Natural or not.... just wanted to point that out.

1) Homosexuality is a sin based on your reading of a holy book. If you look back in this thread, and other similar threads, you will find abundant refutation of the text on which that 'morality' is based. So - if you DO believe the bible, the interpretation on scripture is wrong. If you DON'T believe the bible, the scripture is irrelevent... If you just "believe that there is a more powerful bieng (sic) in this universe...", then why bring up the bible? Why mention "gods law"?

2) You are unfortunatey basing your figures on the assumption that homosexuals CANNOT have children (which of course, they can - through IVF and through intercourse with the opposite sex), and the assumption that children are the sole province of married heterosexuals. You ignore the fact that increasing numbers of children are being born to (underage) unmarried heterosexuals, bisexuals and those of confused gender.

Oh, and you misused 'bastard' - since the children wouldn't have to be born out of wedlock.

And, if homosexuals were 'loveless', why would they want to marry each other?

Who gives a flying fuck about "natural"?
If humankind was to live "natural" we would all be nude hunter/gatherers afraid of thunderstorms and ferocious beasts.
And yes, there would be no Bible, so morality based on the scripture is "unnatural" too.

I read a study once that said homosexuality is virtually unknown* in isolated, tribal societies, and that it was endemic of larger cities...

...I don't how valid this study was, though, from memory it was pretty old (50s or 60s).


*yes, we all know about the such-and-such tribe that is the exception to the rule

There has actually been a theory posited that the flamboyant "storytellers" in many tribes were actually homosexual. These men generally never married and were seen as wise men who kept the history of the tribe. Eventually, the men would take on an "apprentice" who would come and live with them, learning the history of the tribe so that they could be the next storyteller.

Over all, it does not come down to the bible or personal oppinions, its the way the brain works. And as stated before, the gay mans brain is very much the same to a straight woman and vicea versa. The time when you can know is when hormones hit, no other time. It is not a choice, therefore natural.

I know someone who thinks that way. Personally I think it isn't natural either just based off that reasoning though. If someone really pisses me off I just say its a sin against God lol

If you said that to me, it would only make me laugh at you more, lol

1) - Homosexuality is a a sin - a sin is described as a transgression of gods law (I know ppl are athiests and do not recognise this, and no i am not a bible basher,,i just believe that there is a more powerful bieng in this universe)

Awesome! So you're not a bible basher. That means your beliefs on "God's law" are, incredibly, even less well sourced than Christians' and probably defined to justify your own emotions.

2) - Evolution....i know adoption is an option, but.....with the ever increasing trend of this lifestyle there will be a drop on married (straight couples) who are willing to put children up for adoption, also if the ever increasing trend of homosexual couples adopting we will become a world of loveless bastards (to use the correct word)

Naturally, because a.) adopted kids clearly aren't loved by their parents and b.) sterile heterosexuals don't have this problem either. Nor is adoption the only option for a homosexual couple to have kids; one of the partners could deliberately have sex with a person of the opposite gender whom agrees to carry the baby for the couple, for instance, a practice which is already performed by some hetero couples when one of the couple is barren.

A lot of the worst things in the world have been done in the name of "Evolution" by people who don't in the slightest bit understand it; pseudosciences constructed to condemn certain ethnicities, for example. I demonstrated how homosexuality can be beneficial to a population and the fact that it exists makes it a part of evolution. Deliberately wiping it out could be, and most certainly will be detrimental to the rest of society, especially if it's a growing trait as you suggest.

And yes chaps, keep suggesting that a choice can be unnatural even though that contradicts all common sense.

Let's assume God exists!

Even if God truly does loath homosexuals or homosexuality, why the heck should we agree with His system of ethics? Because He created us? Because we go to Hell if we don't? Do you similarly agree with all of your parents' opinions too, or with someone who holds coercive forceful power over you? Do people who force you to agree on threat of punishment really strike you as the morally decent type?

And even if He did loath homosexuality, how would that make the trait "unnatural" -- it's still a part of this universe, isn't it?

Let's assume God exists!

Even if God truly does loath homosexuals or homosexuality, why the heck should we agree with His system of ethics? Because He created us? Because we go to Hell if we don't? Do you similarly agree with all of your parents' opinions too, or with someone who holds coercive forceful power over you? Do people who force you to agree on threat of punishment really strike you as the morally decent type?

Hehe, that's so true. Will be intresting to see replys on that.

homosexuality is yummmy

carry on. :fluffle:

and dont forget to respond to the last important point made:

Let's assume God exists!

Even if God truly does loath homosexuals or homosexuality, why the heck should we agree with His system of ethics? Because He created us? Because we go to Hell if we don't? Do you similarly agree with all of your parents' opinions too, or with someone who holds coercive forceful power over you? Do people who force you to agree on threat of punishment really strike you as the morally decent type?

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.


Well thats pritty close I listened to this radio braod cast and its stated that 65-70% of homosexual men had poor realations with their fathers, homosexual women a problem with their mothers. The other percentage is that they had many or seriously bad realations with the opisite sex and doesn't want to have anything to do with them. So basiclly its emotional scarring wich i belive is calssified as a mental embalance. It made alot of sense I for one dont agree with homosexuality but I don't have enough against it to not allow them to love who they want.

Well thats pritty close I listened to this radio braod cast and its stated that 65-70% of homosexual men had poor realations with their fathers, homosexual women a problem with their mothers. The other percentage is that they had many or seriously bad realations with the opisite sex and doesn't want to have anything to do with them. So basiclly its emotional scarring wich i belive is calssified as a mental embalance. It made alot of sense I for one dont agree with homosexuality but I don't have enough against it to not allow them to love who they want.And if you heard it on the radio, it must be true.

Well thats pritty close I listened to this radio braod cast and its stated that 65-70% of homosexual men had poor realations with their fathers, homosexual women a problem with their mothers. The other percentage is that they had many or seriously bad realations with the opisite sex and doesn't want to have anything to do with them. So basiclly its emotional scarring wich i belive is calssified as a mental embalance. It made alot of sense I for one dont agree with homosexuality but I don't have enough against it to not allow them to love who they want.

Yes, but here's a question: did these bad relations happen before or after the parents found out they were homosexual?

Withdrawn!

IF GOD HAD INTENDED FOR PEOPLE TO BE HOMEOSEXUAL THEN HE WOULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE! IT IS INTENDED TO BE ONLY MAN AND WOMAN. SOME PEOPLE JUST APARENTLY WHEN THEY WERE IN PUBERTY ENDED UP LIKE THIS,

A GUY SUCKIN ANOTHER GUYS DICK

A GIRL CLEANING OUT ANOTHER GIRL

THEY DID THAT AND THEN SINCE THEY WERE IN PUBERTY IT TRICKED THEIR MIND INTO THAT! :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:

You tell us Goed, when did your familial relations go downhill?

Pfh, shortly after I was born.

Honestly, you're asking the wrong person about family problems :p. Mine have ALWAYS hated me, and I've decided that, seeing as there's nothing I can do about it, I don't care.

I LIKE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND NOT MAKE ANY ACTUAL POINTS BECAUSE I ARE STUPID!

Jibe withdrawn then. I'll still rip on you for supporting the queers, but real family problems don't need picking on.

Believe me, it's not a choice.

I'm thinking that for the people who are attracted to people of their own sex, it's as natural as breathing.

They're not hurting anyone, guys. Just think about it for a minute. Homosexuals couldn't care less about you, and certainly don't see you as a prospect for a sexual encounter. What exactly is the problem then?

Desire may not be a choice, but acting on it is.

Willpower to resist desires we know are wrong is the difference between humans and animals.

I'm attracted to the 15 year olds at the Catholic girls school down the street, like 90% of other men, but by and large we manage to avoid acting on it. I like to drive 120 on the highway, and as long as I'm at it I'd like a large pizza for dinner every night too.

If it feels good do it is the road to ruin.

Desire may not be a choice, but acting on it is.

Willpower to resist desires we know are wrong is the difference between humans and animals.

I'm attracted to the 15 year olds at the Catholic girls school down the street, like 90% of other men, but by and large we manage to avoid acting on it. I like to drive 120 on the highway, and as long as I'm at it I'd like a large pizza for dinner every night too.

If it feels good do it is the road to ruin.

OK, I don't neccessarily agree with the sentiment of your post, but you are spot on about the schoolgirls! Damn! :)

Here's a sage quote on the matter though:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - Alistair Crowley

Homosexuality is natural
-animals do it (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html#main) SOURCE#2 (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html)
-its genetically pesisposed in humans (http://www.gaysouthafrica.org.za/homosexuality/studies.asp)

OK, I don't neccessarily agree with the sentiment of your post, but you are spot on about the schoolgirls! Damn! :)

Here's a sage quote on the matter though:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - Alistair Crowley

That's actually a quote by Anton Lavey. It's also utter bollocks.

Desire may not be a choice, but acting on it is.

Willpower to resist desires we know are wrong is the difference between humans and animals.

I'm attracted to the 15 year olds at the Catholic girls school down the street, like 90% of other men, but by and large we manage to avoid acting on it. I like to drive 120 on the highway, and as long as I'm at it I'd like a large pizza for dinner every night too.

If it feels good do it is the road to ruin.

An it harm none, do as ye will.

Going after a 15 year old girl will hurt her. Two adults having consentual sex won't.

And trust me, I once tried to eat pizza and only pizza for dinner at one time (I work there, so I get a nice discount. Cheap pizza = happy Kyle). YOu get sick of it, FAST.

That's actually a quote by Anton Lavey. It's also utter bollocks.

Actually it's Crowley.
http://tim.maroney.org/CrowleyIntro/Do_What_Thou_Wilt.html

And is it me or is this thread going around in circles?

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC
If I'm such a sinner, bog off and let God do the judging

And trust me, I once tried to eat pizza and only pizza for dinner at one time (I work there, so I get a nice discount. Cheap pizza = happy Kyle). YOu get sick of it, FAST.

Gawd, I remember trying that meself. The first time it's great.. but after a few dinners, I couldn't stomach the sight of another cheese and tomato slice.

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC
/me perches on your head. *cherp*

IF GOD HAD INTENDED FOR PEOPLE TO BE HOMEOSEXUAL THEN HE WOULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE! IT IS INTENDED TO BE ONLY MAN AND WOMAN. SOME PEOPLE JUST APARENTLY WHEN THEY WERE IN PUBERTY ENDED UP LIKE THIS,

A GUY SUCKIN ANOTHER GUYS DICK

A GIRL CLEANING OUT ANOTHER GIRL

THEY DID THAT AND THEN SINCE THEY WERE IN PUBERTY IT TRICKED THEIR MIND INTO THAT! :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:Your excessive use of emoticons doesn't skew the fact that you're still ridiculous. So, you're saying that God would have made everyone the same? Why isn't everyone black with brown eyes and 6 foot then? Should we kill all the white people and asians and latinos? God invented a thing called diversity. And critical thinking and intelligence. You should look into those latter two.

Originally Posted by Cerealean
IF GOD HAD INTENDED FOR PEOPLE TO BE HOMEOSEXUAL THEN HE WOULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE! IT IS INTENDED TO BE ONLY MAN AND WOMAN. SOME PEOPLE JUST APARENTLY WHEN THEY WERE IN PUBERTY ENDED UP LIKE THIS,

A GUY SUCKIN ANOTHER GUYS DICK

A GIRL CLEANING OUT ANOTHER GIRL

THEY DID THAT AND THEN SINCE THEY WERE IN PUBERTY IT TRICKED THEIR MIND INTO THAT!

What do you care what people do in their own homes, with consent? I think that if you apply that logic to what everyone else does, then you should allow the rest of us to observe your sexual practices, that is, if they extend past the long-term relationship you have with your right hand.

IF GOD HAD INTENDED FOR PEOPLE TO BE HOMEOSEXUAL THEN HE WOULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE! IT IS INTENDED TO BE ONLY MAN AND WOMAN. SOME PEOPLE JUST APARENTLY WHEN THEY WERE IN PUBERTY ENDED UP LIKE THIS,

A GUY SUCKIN ANOTHER GUYS DICK

A GIRL CLEANING OUT ANOTHER GIRL

THEY DID THAT AND THEN SINCE THEY WERE IN PUBERTY IT TRICKED THEIR MIND INTO THAT! :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:

Do you think that God intended you to be so stupid? If we "Apparently ended up like this" then that has everything to do with God. Oh and it does not start with puberty, apparently our actual brain structure is slightly different to yours (assuming you are not a closet case that is). Also I will have you know that I am in puberty (close to the end though luckily) and my mind has not benn "tricked" it has always been like this.

I can't believe people bother answering the obvious trolls...

I had my first homoerotic dream when I was four. :cool:

That's actually a quote by Anton Lavey. It's also utter bollocks.
Um, Anton Lavey is a just a poor-man's Crowley...Crowley made that quote about 50+ years before LaVey...seriously, look it up...

Sorry, just saw that someone already addressed this on the last page

I can't believe people bother answering the obvious trolls...

Bah, I am a real billy goat...

No, not just you though - I mean it's fine if you want to, but I think this is the type of reaction these trolls are looking for. Even bad attention is still attention.

No, not just you though - I mean it's fine if you want to, but I think this is the type of reaction these trolls are looking for. Even bad attention is still attention.
So true. It like, makes no ...biological sense. :D

DId you just quote your...

**pauses**

**looks at names. Again. And again**

...Whoh, you two need to stop posting in the same threads @_@

DId you just quote your...

**pauses**

**looks at names. Again. And again**

...Whoh, you two need to stop posting in the same threads @_@

Yeah! Bring back the OLD fuglies!

What do you care what people do in their own homes, with consent? I think that if you apply that logic to what everyone else does, then you should allow the rest of us to observe your sexual practices, that is, if they extend past the long-term relationship you have with your right hand.

Now now, that's rather presumptious...


...


... he might be left handed.

Yeah! Bring back the OLD fuglies!
I doubt you'd remember the 'old' fuglies and I'd have to get a mod to revive it. :/

Now now, that's rather presumptious...


...


... he might be left handed.

Or have no hands at all and use his feet...Or do a Marilyn Manson...

If it feels good do it is the road to ruin.

Then you say no to sex leading to an orgasm? Or are you one of those "Do as I say, Not as I do" kinds of persons?

Then you say no to sex leading to an orgasm? Or are you one of those "Do as I say, Not as I do" kinds of persons?

You know I think that "It feels good is the road to ruin" is a very stupid thing to say. Why are you doing all this stuff? To please God? Why? Oh yeah, because it feels good. To get into heaven? Why? Oh yes, paradise, that feels good too. I am a hedonist in this way too, I seek all the pleasure I can get without harming myself or others. At least I am honest about it...

Now now, that's rather presumptious...


...


... he might be left handed.

I stand corrected. ;)

I've heard there are men who don't have to use hands or feet at all. It must be nice to be that limber, even if it wouldn't be my choice of activity if I were.

I stand corrected. ;)

I've heard there are men who don't have to use hands or feet at all. It must be nice to be that limber, even if it wouldn't be my choice of activity if I were.

Er...What?...Oh. Ewww... :eek:

I stand corrected. ;)

I've heard there are men who don't have to use hands or feet at all. It must be nice to be that limber, even if it wouldn't be my choice of activity if I were.

I've seen photos. It looks pretty damn uncomfortable to me. Luckily (or not), I lack the necessary equiptment, being female, so I don't have to worry about whether or not to try it.

You know I think that "It feels good is the road to ruin" is a very stupid thing to say. Why are you doing all this stuff? To please God? Why? Oh yeah, because it feels good. To get into heaven? Why? Oh yes, paradise, that feels good too. I am a hedonist in this way too, I seek all the pleasure I can get without harming myself or others. At least I am honest about it...

agreed

You know I think that "It feels good is the road to ruin" is a very stupid thing to say. Why are you doing all this stuff? To please God? Why? Oh yeah, because it feels good. To get into heaven? Why? Oh yes, paradise, that feels good too. I am a hedonist in this way too, I seek all the pleasure I can get without harming myself or others. At least I am honest about it...
Though if you life a promisque life style you are much more likely to get infected with HIV/Aids and/or other sexually transmitted diseases and to transmitt it to others and by doing so harming them. That is also the case if you are homosexual since you are much more likely to get these diseases.

Though if you life a promisque life style you are much more likely to get infected with HIV/Aids and/or other sexually transmitted diseases and to transmitt it to others and by doing so harming them. That is also the case if you are homosexual since you are much more likely to get these diseases.

Oooooooh, so close!

But, no.

Homosexuals are more likely to contract AIDs *because* they are more promiscuous (in general). And *that* is due to all the bigeoted fucks who refuse to accept their loving relationships - which leads to depression and low morale, which leads to loose sexual morals (NOT in all cases, but that does seem to be the trend)

Though if you life a promisque life style you are much more likely to get infected with HIV/Aids and/or other sexually transmitted diseases and to transmitt it to others and by doing so harming them. That is also the case if you are homosexual since you are much more likely to get these diseases.


1)Did you even bother READ what I posted? I said I would not harm myself or others in my pleasure seeking. Therefore I would use a condom. Also homosexuals include lesbians (homo meaning same not man) which hardly ever catch STDs and hetros are twice as likely to get AIDs than homos.

2)I am bi but any partner of mine will be vetted for STDs prior to intercourse. I may be aedonist but I am not stupid.

IF GOD HAD INTENDED FOR PEOPLE TO BE HOMEOSEXUAL THEN HE WOULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE! IT IS INTENDED TO BE ONLY MAN AND WOMAN. SOME PEOPLE JUST APARENTLY WHEN THEY WERE IN PUBERTY ENDED UP LIKE THIS,

A GUY SUCKIN ANOTHER GUYS DICK

A GIRL CLEANING OUT ANOTHER GIRL

THEY DID THAT AND THEN SINCE THEY WERE IN PUBERTY IT TRICKED THEIR MIND INTO THAT! :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:
Erm, if God had made everyone homosexual in the start then we would have the human race anymore (as everyone anti seems to keep pointing out) ...

But this is the way I see it - God made some people and what not and told them they had to make more people so that he wouldnt be stuck looking at the same buch of people for the rest of forever (back before God was nice enough to introduce the fun 'death' thing) ... so once they made a whole shitload of people he decided, thats cool I've got tonnes of people to look at now (maybe more then I wanted), go have sex in the way you choose now - the way I stopped you from doing in the first place so I wouldnt be bored. Have fun.

However, in saying that, homosexuality has exsisted back as far as humans can remember. There were homosexuals around doing there thing before there was even mention of Church. Only recently (last couple hundred years) has it become "wrong" and such for two people to be homosexual.

On your notes of in puberty ... erm, well, before I was in puberty I was interested in girls. We are talking from a very young age here, also back before I even knew what homosexuality was. I wasnt raised in any way that would direct me to a homosexual choice, etc ... I have just always liked girls - but I also very slightly liked guys. I went through puberty (just stepped out the other side), and only then did I develop any considerable interest in guys (Oh no! Apparently I was tricked into this choice cos of puberty - my so-called "right choice" for sexual activity). Now, I am bisexual. I am attracted to both sides.

... if you are homosexual since you are much more likely to get these diseases.Erm, says who?

Homosexuals only got a major increase in HIV and AIDS at one point because they (unlike heterosexuals) didn’t have to use contraception because there was no risk of accidental pregnancy.

--This also makes me wonder if those purist Christians who never use condoms and such are more likely to get those diseases? Worth a thought...--

Homosexuals are now the sexually active group on the most drastic decrease of attainment of those mentioned diseases.

That is also the case if you are homosexual since you are much more likely to get these diseases.

That's 100% bullshit anti-homosexual propaganda. Show me some figures stooprting that.

Homosexuals are now the sexually active group on the most drastic decrease of attainment of those mentioned diseases.

Which is mostly because back in the days when Reagan was still lying through his teeth about only junkies and "fags" getting AIDs and suppressing info that said otherwise (cheers for that you brave, brave man) the gay community was getting to grips with AIDs and already doing there best to combat it. Inbetween the promiscuity alot of gay mags had (and still have) many AIDs treatment and testing clinic addresses and numbers, ways to get hold of contraceptives etc. They gay community is smaller and more closely knit and has had alot more time than the strait one to sort itself out and hence the numbers are sliding down. Lesbians are usualy pretty safe when it comes to STDs however the amount of oral that they do means herpes is a slight problem (as well as a big problem for those who get it of couse...).

before i vote i need to know whethere by natural u mean its acceptable and ok or do u mean they are like that from birth?

before i vote i need to know whethere by natural u mean its acceptable and ok or do u mean they are like that from birth?


By natural we mean is it natural. Does it happen because nature has deemed it to exist (like those bones holding your body together) for some purpose or is it (like the computer you are typing on) made by humans.

before i vote i need to know whethere by natural u mean its acceptable and ok or do u mean they are like that from birth?Its a matter of debate at the moment. Take it however it seems to you.

Its a matter of debate at the moment. Take it however it seems to you.

Well yes that is MY definition of natural but some people here seem to have some weird one that seems to say that not even something that happens in nature is natural and that only...Erm...I have not a clue what they think is natural but it is certainly something stupid.

I provide links for my claim - or rather the fact that I´m stating that homosexuals have a very, very high risk to contracting Aids due to their lifestyle. Promiscuity and homosexuality are the main factors for the spread of Aids in the Western world.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/jsochapter29.htm

http://www.mdccc.org/PAGES/Articles/Just%20the%20Facts%20AIDS%20and%20the%20Homosexual%20Lifestyle!.htm

http://www.natap.org/2003/reuters/040203_2.htm