I've herd many times when it comes to homosexuality. The basis of the argument (actually a fallacy) that something is unnatural thus is bad.
Just cause something in not natural, how dose that make it bad? Why would something be bad simply cause it is not natural? And why would something natural be any better than something unnatural? | The Conspirator wrote: |
I've herd many times when it comes to homosexuality. The basis of the argument (actually a fallacy) that something is unnatural thus is bad.
Just cause something in not natural, how dose that make it bad? Why would something be bad simply cause it is not natural? And why would something natural be any better than something unnatural? |
In my opinion it is natural.
I believe this because it feels natural (I myself am gay. I like girls - in a way - but have yet to have a sexual relationship with one) and it also has been observed in nature - over 1000 species have been observed in same-sex activites.
To me this is more of an argument compared to a handful of very old books which class it as a sin - these books that were written by only a handful of people that are based on their opinions, not fact.
Last edited by wumingsden on Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:05 am; edited 1 time in totalPlus, nothing can ever truly be unnatural, the whole of existence itself being nature. If a bird builds a nest, it is natural. But if a man builds a house, it is deemed man-made and unnatural. why is there a need to seperate man from anything else. We are all a part of the natural universe, therefore we cannot do anything unnatural.
Besides, homosexuality dates back almost to the evolution of man, and before then the animals we are descended from. If two sheep are gay, is that unnatural?
| Liambaby wrote: |
Plus, nothing can ever truly be unnatural, the whole of existence itself being nature. If a bird builds a nest, it is natural. But if a man builds a house, it is deemed man-made and unnatural. why is there a need to seperate man from anything else. We are all a part of the natural universe, therefore we cannot do anything unnatural.
Besides, homosexuality dates back almost to the evolution of man, and before then the animals we are descended from. If two sheep are gay, is that unnatural? |
That example of the two sheep (although I don't know why you chose two sheep 
) is a prime example that being gay is not un-natural. Even if it was un-natural it doesn't make it bad because if we said everything un-natural was bad then just about everything would be a sin.
I only care whether something is natural/un-natural when it comes to the time when I chose to eat organic food (which is not very often).
Off-Topic. @ Liambaby, you have a very cute cat.It's my opinion that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural, but notice that I refuse to call it "bad." I, personally, have nothing against homosexuality.
In fact, that's one thing in Christianity that disappoints me. The sin of homosexuality is so elevated that it's blown totally out of proportion. Why are we not protesting murder? You see "Christians" (emphasis on the quotation marks) with posters reading 'God Hates Fags' - yet they themselves are sinners, and no better than homosexuals. That iritates me to no end.
Also, I think people fail to realize that references to homosexuality in the Bible (there are 2 that I can think of) are in the old testament, something that as a Christian, I place little emphasis on (because my belief is in the New Testament, the New Covenant with God).
To each his own.
You'll see that I have moderated slightly in my belief, simply because I am not the judge - God is. I don't automatically say "You're going to Hell because of ______________.", like too many Christians do. When they do that (a huge portion does) they are, in essence, saying they are at or above the level of God's judgement.
A well put point, Soulfire. Also, there is twice as much reference to not eating prawns in the old testament as there is to homosexuality. Go figure!
| Liambaby wrote: |
| A well put point, Soulfire. Also, there is twice as much reference to not eating prawns in the old testament as there is to homosexuality. Go figure! |
Take, for example, the following verses:
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
So, why are we not protesting Red Lobster and Long John Silver's? Why are we not bringing ALL of God's laws into the earth? Simple - because it's "socially acceptable" to eat creatures of the sea that do not have fins or scales.
And please note that I am not trying to argue against Christianity, but merely pointing out that we, as Christians, do not pay as much attention to the Old Testament - it's more of a history lesson, laws, and lineage. The New Testament is the faith.
Funny how things work. | Liambaby wrote: |
| A well put point, Soulfire. Also, there is twice as much reference to not eating prawns in the old testament as there is to homosexuality. Go figure! |
I am actually writing a article about being gay in my journalism class. Well .... I'm actually writing a few about ... being gay, what is a homophobe, does being gay make you more of a woman (not the exact titles but you should get the gift of the idea). I will post them if I ever decide to publish them 
In my opinion if something is abnormal then it probably is "bad". My reasoning for this is something which is abnormal is something that doesn't happen that often. If doesn't happen often because of a reason, maybe because it is bad.
Note that I don't think every abnormal thing is bad
Note that I do not think that being gay is bad
Note that I have never read the bible
Note that this is probably abnormal, I must be very bad 
| Soulfire wrote: |
Why are we not bringing ALL of God's laws into the earth? Simple - because it's "socially acceptable" to eat creatures of the sea that do not have fins or scales. |
Hmmmm .... I'm gathering being gay is not socially acceptable where you are?
Personally, I don't care what society does to me. I'm comfortable enough within myself to know that I'm doing nothing wrong and that is plenty enough. Acceptance from the closest people near me would help (and I kind of have it), but what other people think of me being gay is their opinion. Most are actually quite shocked when I tell them, although I wish it wasn't. Here society accepts us "straight-acting" fags than camp-acting ones, which is quite a shameSoulfire, its a shame you don't put more emphasis on the Old Testament, it can teach us so much about the faith we gain in the New Testament, but that is not the topic of this thread and therefore will be avoided for the time being.
To begin with I will state my beliefs as plainly as I can. I believe that homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that it is not how man is intended to live. I believe that there is nothing wrong with having homosexual feelings or desires. I believe that acting on these desires and feelings is wrong and a sin.
As a Christian, I do not condem homosexuals, but do realize there sin as I also realize the sin of adulterers. For me there a three categories of actions; bad, good, and sacred. Bad and good are pretty self explanatory, but sacred is where I want to put the emphasis. Sacred is better than good, it is an action that is so good that we revere it and hold a special place for it. Sex is a sacred action. It is not something that is merely good, it is more than that and should be treated as such. So to have sex outside of marriage is something that I find deplorable, it is a perversion of the nuptial meaning of our bodies as is homosexuality, masturbation, and other inappropriate forms of sex.
| MyNameIsJim wrote: |
Soulfire, its a shame you don't put more emphasis on the Old Testament, it can teach us so much about the faith we gain in the New Testament, but that is not the topic of this thread and therefore will be avoided for the time being.
To begin with I will state my beliefs as plainly as I can. I believe that homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that it is not how man is intended to live. I believe that there is nothing wrong with having homosexual feelings or desires. I believe that acting on these desires and feelings is wrong and a sin.
As a Christian, I do not condem homosexuals, but do realize there sin as I also realize the sin of adulterers. For me there a three categories of actions; bad, good, and sacred. Bad and good are pretty self explanatory, but sacred is where I want to put the emphasis. Sacred is better than good, it is an action that is so good that we revere it and hold a special place for it. Sex is a sacred action. It is not something that is merely good, it is more than that and should be treated as such. So to have sex outside of marriage is something that I find deplorable, it is a perversion of the nuptial meaning of our bodies as is homosexuality, masturbation, and other inappropriate forms of sex. |
I have a question. You say that "homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that it is not how man is intended to live", what is your opinion of it happening in nature? In a previous post I briefly discussed the fact that homosexuality has been observed in over 1000 species, what are your views on this? I see being gay as natural because God created all living things the way he wanted, including people/animals that just so happen to be gay (note that I am not strictly Christiant, but its a point of view which religious gay christians share).The following is only my opinion. I have gay friends and accept them. But I don't think it's natural, safe, or productive.
That being said...
Being gay is only natural if you're gay.
Is being schizophrenic natural? Yes, it is defined by nature, but that doesn't mean it is normal. It is a medical condition, by the way, and very hard to cure.
Is being gay natural from an evolutionary point of view? No. It would be phased out genetically.
In my opinion, gayness is a perversion. Just like people who have sex with animals or children. There might be some Gays that have some sort of birth defect, but for the most part their sexuality has been perverted somehow. Perhaps by being raped as a child. (Wum, were you raped as a child?)
What's worse is that Gays want to push their Gay agenda on to the children, as well as their transgendered agenda. They want to teach my children that their male/female status is just their "birth sex", and their real sex can be either gender. Pretty sick stuff to be teaching little kids in my opinion. They will definately push a lot of kids into the perverted lifestyle who normally (naturally) wouldn't have gone there. Just like if you taught kids that it's "normal" to ****** your pet up the pooper. A lot of kids would go home and start ****** their pet up the pooper.
They only want to preach their perversion in a positive manner, too. They don't want to tell the kids that Gay men are more likely to get AIDS then straights, or that Homosexuals are more likely to molest children then straights.
I can't believe that our government is going to give them access to our children's minds by (among other things) removing reference to "mother" and "father" from text books.
Disgusting.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
Homosexuals are more likely to molest children then straights.
|
Can anybody say Catholic priest?
(No, most Catholic priests are not gay pedophiles, but some are)
Do you notice that they always molest boys and never girls?
Another example: Michael Jackson | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
The following is only my opinion. I have gay friends and accept them. But I don't think it's natural, safe, or productive.
That being said...
Being gay is only natural if you're gay.
Is being schizophrenic natural? Yes, it is defined by nature, but that doesn't mean it is normal. It is a medical condition, by the way, and very hard to cure.
Is being gay natural from an evolutionary point of view? No. It would be phased out genetically.
In my opinion, gayness is a perversion. Just like people who have sex with animals or children. There might be some Gays that have some sort of birth defect, but for the most part their sexuality has been perverted somehow. Perhaps by being raped as a child. (Wum, were you raped as a child?)
What's worse is that Gays want to push their Gay agenda on to the children, as well as their transgendered agenda. They want to teach my children that their male/female status is just their "birth sex", and their real sex can be either gender. Pretty sick stuff to be teaching little kids in my opinion. They will definately push a lot of kids into the perverted lifestyle who normally (naturally) wouldn't have gone there. Just like if you taught kids that it's "normal" to ****** your pet up the pooper. A lot of kids would go home and start ****** their pet up the pooper.
They only want to preach their perversion in a positive manner, too. They don't want to tell the kids that Gay men are more likely to get AIDS then straights, or that Homosexuals are more likely to molest children then straights.
I can't believe that our government is going to give them access to our children's minds by (among other things) removing reference to "mother" and "father" from text books.
Disgusting. |
| Quote: |
| I don't think it's natural, safe, or productive. |
About whether being gay is natural. Is it observed in nature in animals over over 1000 species? Yes. I rest my case on this subject.
About whether it is safe. I guess here you are speaking about sexual acts without going into too much detail. Anal sex is practised by gay and straight couples. Anal sex however is not completely safe due to STI's and STD's. These infections are more easily spread through anal sex if a condom is not used/if it splits. Either way, anal sex is unsafe, yes, but remember that this is not just done by gay people. Also note that not all gay people have gay sex, they base themselves being gay on their feelings.
Being gay does not mean being attracted to children, it means being attracted to people of the same sex that is of/around your age (or of course in some cases like gay pedophiles. It may also be important to realise that most pedophiles are straight). How you link being gay and being a pedophile is completely ridiculous in my opinion, unless of course you are able to tell me who I am and who I am not, attracted to.
About the whole AIDs thing.
| Quote: |
| Being gay is only natural if you're gay. |
True, but only to a certain extent. Some straight people think that it is also natural to be gay, and some gay people think that it is un-natural for them to have the kind of feelings that they have towards someone of the same-sex.
| Quote: |
Is being gay natural from an evolutionary point of view? No. It would be phased out genetically. |
Obviously, but does this make it un-natural? Some argue that this helped evolution due to it stopping a even bigger population.
| Quote: |
| Just like people who have sex with animals or children. |
Except in most countries what you mention is against the law.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps by being raped as a child |
... or perhaps not
| Quote: |
| There might be some Gays that have some sort of birth defect, but for the most part their sexuality has been perverted somehow |
Could you please define what you class as a birth defect? Do you mean it may somehow be genetic/genetically inherited?
| Quote: |
| What's worse is that Gays want to push their Gay agenda on to the children, as well as their transgendered agenda. They want to teach my children that their male/female status is just their "birth sex", and their real sex can be either gender. Pretty sick stuff to be teaching little kids in my opinion. They will definately push a lot of kids into the perverted lifestyle who normally (naturally) wouldn't have gone there. |
i disagree about gay people wanting to put the agenda of being gay in front of children. Its more to do with the children being brought up so it can accept that there are different people than themselves with their own feelings or in the case of gay people show them that there is actually nothing wrong with it. Being gay also does not mean you are confused about your gender, I am aware that I am a guy and I like other guys. OK, sure, some gay people act "camp" but some straight people also act "camp". When i tell people that I am gay they are very surprised, and I wish they wouldn't be. Because I am gay I have the stereotypical schema that I act gay, which is apparantly not the case. I've been told that I don't speak, walk, act, or have any other mannerisms that are portrayed in "camp" people (my mother still is a little confused as to how I can be gay). A child is not taught that being gay is ok which makes themself gay, there is no definately about it. The only thing that is achieved by teaching people at an early age about gay people is they may become more acceptable to such a custom.
| Quote: |
| They only want to preach their perversion in a positive manner, too. They don't want to tell the kids that Gay men are more likely to get AIDS then straights, |
Extremely untrue. Very young children do not have the reasoning of what happens in a gay relationship, just that two men/women love each other. You cannot expect them to be taught that its bad because it spreads HIV/AID's.
| Quote: |
| that Homosexuals are more likely to molest children then straights. |
And this reasoning comes from where?
| Quote: |
| I can't believe that our government is going to give them access to our children's minds by (among other things) removing reference to "mother" and "father" from text books. |
"Them" - Hello, earth to Keys, gay people are human too. It does not make you superior in any way what-so-ever.
I think you live in the US, is that correct? I don't think the removement of "mother" or "father" is happening here in the UK. I think it maybe a good thing as it will teach children from any early age that its ok to have two mummies or two daddies, however.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | Homosexuals are more likely to molest children then straights.
|
Can anybody say Catholic priest?
(No, most Catholic priests are not gay pedophiles, but some are)
Do you notice that they always molest boys and never girls?
Another example: Michael Jackson |
I personally think there is a link between people in religious sectors and gay pedophiles. They hide underneath all of the words that they believe in by not accpeting themselves for who they are, which is a dirty old pervated man who cannot accept that they are gay. They are set in the mind stage of acceptance and cannot move on. If they did then they'd be able to have a real relationship with someone of which is appropiate. Because they don't accept it they don't want anyone to know, their release being the poor children who they take it out on them.
Last edited by wumingsden on Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total | wumingsden wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | S3nd K3ys wrote: | Homosexuals are more likely to molest children then straights.
|
Can anybody say Catholic priest?
(No, most Catholic priests are not gay pedophiles, but some are)
Do you notice that they always molest boys and never girls?
Another example: Michael Jackson |
I personally think there is a link between people in religious sectors and gay pedophiles. They hide underneath all of the words that they believe in by not accpeting themselves for who they are, which is a dirty old pervated man who cannot accept that they are gay. They are set in the mind stage of acceptance and cannot move on. If they did then they'd be able to have a real relationship with someone of which is appropiate. Because they don't accept it they don't want anyone to know, their release being the poor children who they take it out on them. |
This is quickly turning into farce. If you really want to refute the ignorant and untrue statement that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, why not just do that by presenting the freely available statistics and the truckloads of professional research into the topic by such groups as the American Psychiatric Association? The fact that that statement is an ignorant lie repeated by flagrantly anti-homosexual groups, and that it has been known to be a lie since the 1970's, is public knowledge. Isn't that a more effective response to people making that claim than saying "yeah, well, your people ****** kids too"?
i mean, seriously, what kind of productive rebuttal is "fags don't rape children, Christians do" or "Michael Jackson"? -_-^I wasn't refuting it, I was agreeing with it...
OK, I think we all should try and get back on-topic a bit about whether things that are un-natural are bad, and whether being gay is un-natural.
I'm going to try and find some stats. on gay subjects, watch this space I don't have time to go thru and debunk the majority of your post, so I'll just destroy your premise that it's "natural", upon which you supposedly 'rest your case' in the hopes of ending the discussion...
| wumingsden wrote: |
| Quote: | | I don't think it's natural, safe, or productive. |
About whether being gay is natural. Is it observed in nature in animals over over 1000 species? Yes. I rest my case on this subject.
|
First, you don't have a 'case' to rest. It's not up to you if it's truely natural or not. It's only your opinion that it's natural. As I said, it's only natural if you're gay. And just because it happens in nature does not make it natural.
Just because many species, including humans, have gay members, it's not natural in that it does not allow for natural procreation. (The only reason for having sex in the first place.)
Procreation is the sole purpose for having genitalia, and unless you're a-sexual, anything other than heterosexual behavior is not natural.
Bottom line is that it's only natural as compared to something artificial (man made). When taken in relation to or in accordance with the nature of things, or based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind, or in conformity with the ordinary course of nature, being gay is definately NOT natural. You're just trying to make it natural. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
I don't have time to go thru and debunk the majority of your post, so I'll just destroy your premise that it's "natural", upon which you supposedly 'rest your case' in the hopes of ending the discussion...
| wumingsden wrote: |
| Quote: | | I don't think it's natural, safe, or productive. |
About whether being gay is natural. Is it observed in nature in animals over over 1000 species? Yes. I rest my case on this subject.
|
First, you don't have a 'case' to rest. It's not up to you if it's truely natural or not. It's only your opinion that it's natural. As I said, it's only natural if you're gay. And just because it happens in nature does not make it natural.
Just because many species, including humans, have gay members, it's not natural in that it does not allow for natural procreation. (The only reason for having sex in the first place.)
Procreation is the sole purpose for having genitalia, and unless you're a-sexual, anything other than heterosexual behavior is not natural.
Bottom line is that it's only natural as compared to something artificial (man made). When taken in relation to or in accordance with the nature of things, or based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind, or in conformity with the ordinary course of nature, being gay is definately NOT natural. You're just trying to make it natural. |
Its impossible for you to tell me what I'm feeling, and why I'm feeling it. You may think your better than other people, but in reality there is no difference. I said "rest my case" because that was the (hopefully) final thing that I was going to say about why I thought being gay was natural.
Did you know that its already possible/very soon able to create sperm from a single cell. For this reason I disagree that sex is just for reproduction purposes. The millions of other people that also have sex with having children not in mind would also disagree with you.
I personally disagree about the nature aspect. I think that in almost all cases things that happen in nature are in fact natural.
| Quote: |
| or based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind |
Gay people are human, unless I've missed an extremely important point i don't understand where you are coming from here. You say that its unnatural when its based on "innate moral feeling ...." - in my personal experience all my life I have been told that being gay is bad, is a sin, should not be allowed, etc, yet I have these feelings anyway. For this reason they must be innate, unless you have another explanation which you wish to express? | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| In my opinion, gayness is a perversion. Just like people who have sex with animals or children. |
How are they the same? I child can't consent, and animal can't consent, two adult men can. They are not the same.
| Quote: |
| Is being gay natural from an evolutionary point of view? No. It would be phased out genetically. |
Yet its still here. Homosexuality (more accurately bisexuality) exists in the animal kingdom, it could very well serve a purpose.
| Quote: |
| What's worse is that Gays want to push their Gay agenda on to the children, as well as their transgendered agenda. |
There is no agenda. The "agenda" argument is the prime argument of the irrational, that arguing has been used against Jews, blacks, Freemasons, or any one people won't to demonize. There is no "gay agenda"
| Quote: |
| They want to teach my children that their male/female status is just their "birth sex", and their real sex can be either gender. Pretty sick stuff to be teaching little kids in my opinion. They will definately push a lot of kids into the perverted lifestyle who normally (naturally) wouldn't have gone there. Just like if you taught kids that it's "normal" to ****** your pet up the pooper. A lot of kids would go home and start ****** their pet up the pooper. |
Sayings its not wrong to be homosexual, bisexual or to change your sex is not the same thing as saying bestiality is ok. Those are completely different things.
| Quote: |
| or that Homosexuals are more likely to molest children then straights. |
That is simply not true. Homosexuals have the same percentage of child molesters ad heterosexuals. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| and animal can't consent, |
orly? | The Conspirator wrote: |
I've herd many times when it comes to homosexuality. The basis of the argument (actually a fallacy) that something is unnatural thus is bad.
Just cause something in not natural, how dose that make it bad? Why would something be bad simply cause it is not natural? And why would something natural be any better than something unnatural? |
Please take this as only another opinion. I mean no hard feelings.
I think it is 'Bad' for the sole purpose that some important dude said it was bad in the Bible. Although I do not believe everything said in the Bible. I believe that if you are gay, you should fight against your temptations. | Rad Ultima 2 wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | I've herd many times when it comes to homosexuality. The basis of the argument (actually a fallacy) that something is unnatural thus is bad.
Just cause something in not natural, how dose that make it bad? Why would something be bad simply cause it is not natural? And why would something natural be any better than something unnatural? |
Please take this as only another opinion. I mean no hard feelings.
I think it is 'Bad' for the sole purpose that some important dude said it was bad in the Bible. Although I do not believe everything said in the Bible. I believe that if you are gay, you should fight against your temptations. |
That's fair, you have your own opinion. May I ask why you believe that being gay is a sin yet you don't believe everything in the bible - more specifically, why believe one part but not another? | wumingsden wrote: |
About whether being gay is natural. Is it observed in nature in animals over over 1000 species? Yes. I rest my case on this subject.
|
You are all wrong! 
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
First, you don't have a 'case' to rest. It's not up to you if it's truely natural or not. It's only your opinion that it's natural. As I said, it's only natural if you're gay. And just because it happens in nature does not make it natural.
Just because many species, including humans, have gay members, it's not natural in that it does not allow for natural procreation. (The only reason for having sex in the first place.)
Procreation is the sole purpose for having genitalia, and unless you're a-sexual, anything other than heterosexual behavior is not natural.
|
That's someone who indeed knows to rest his case!
On the other hand: oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc are all NOT NATURAL but tolerated. Therefore homosexuals (consenting adults) should be tolerated. It's their private business.
BUT their claim that homosexuality is just a "sexual orientation" like the natural one (heterosexual).... and not something abnormal is LUDICROUS. | smarter wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: |
About whether being gay is natural. Is it observed in nature in animals over over 1000 species? Yes. I rest my case on this subject.
|
You are all wrong!
|
Really. And do you have evidence that proves I am incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality:
| Quote: |
The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not scientifically observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior. Homosexual behaviour does occur in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented[3] (there are approximately 1,250,000 species of animal in the world). Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexual behaviour, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimises intraspecies aggression, especially among males.
* Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[4] German and Japanese zoos have also reported homosexual behaviour among their penguins. This phenomenon has also been reported at Kelly Tarlton's Aquarium in Auckland, New Zealand.
* Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behaviour, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season." [citation needed] Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle. (See also, Freemartin. Freemartins occur because of clearly causal hormonal factors at work during gestation.)
* Homosexual behaviour in male sheep (found in 6-10% of rams) is associated with variations in cerebral mass distribution and chemical activity. A study reported in Endocrinology concluded that biological and physiological factors are in effect.[5] These findings are similar to human findings studied by Simon LeVay.
"Approximately eight percent of [male] rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..."
* Male bighorn sheep are divisible into two kinds, the typical males among whom homosexual behavior is common and "effiminate sheep" or "behavioral transvestites" which are not known to engage in homosexual behavior. [6] [7]
Same-sex sexual behavior should only be identified as a sexual orientation with caution. In humans the behavior is considered distinct from the orientation - many heterosexuals engage in same-sex behavior at times, and many homosexuals have heterosexual lifestyles. In animals this distinction is still being explored. |
This is a lot of opinion and very little fact. Let me try to introduce some statistics and evidence-based studies to cut through some of the nonsense.
Firstly a summary :
| Quote: |
Studies show that there is no connection to homosexuality and child sexual abuse.
Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified, less than 1percent of the cases. (Jenny et al., 1994).
Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the 175 adult males in their sample – all of whom were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child – had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
In one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
“Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
The heterosexual partner of a relative is more likely to sexually abuse children than someone who is gay.
A 1994 study found that “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as a homosexual. (Carole Jenny et al., Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?; 94 Pediatrics 41; July 1994; study of 269 sexually abused children when an adult offender was identified.)
A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual.
Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women” (p. 259).
“It is meaningless to speak of fixated molesters in these terms – as heterosexual or homosexuals - they are attracted to children, not to men or women. (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978).
** Note: The term “fixated molesters” refers to adults exclusively attracted to children.
The experts agree that there is no link to homosexuality and child abuse.
The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all have policy statements stating there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse.
When asked about this question, the American Psychiatric Association wrote to the Senate stating: “While we are all concerned by the issue of sexual abuse, there is no credible evidence that lesbians and gay men are more likely to commit such offenses than others. Gay men and lesbians do not pose any particular threat to youth and should not be singled out or discriminated against in any manner. |
Now some proper sources:
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf
http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/articles/fdz.pdf
http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/articles/recoveredmemories.pdf
http://www.homeoffice.gov.ukhttp://mhawestchester.org/mhaeducation/incestmono7.asp
http://mhawestchester.org/mhaeducation/incestmono7.asp
http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/library/soma.htm
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/1/186
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6988/1175
OK...I think that is clear and unambiguous.
As for the 'natural' argument, it is meaningless. Natural means 'present in or produced by nature'. Homosexual behaviour is certainly present in nature - that is not in doubt. Therefore any talk of 'un-natural' behaviour is factually wrong. The presupposition seems to be that sexual activity is only natural if it is capable of producing offspring. This, even if accepted as a workable definition, which it should certainly not be, is also contradicted by several examples from the 'natural' world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobos#Sexual_social_behavior
http://www.edbydesign.com/books/0801854407.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/weektwelve.html
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/Werner/Werner20.htm
I think that covers the 2 main issues that seem to be the source of much nonsense and misconception
Regards
Chris | The Conspirator wrote: |
I've herd many times when it comes to homosexuality. The basis of the argument (actually a fallacy) that something is unnatural thus is bad.
Just cause something in not natural, how dose that make it bad? Why would something be bad simply cause it is not natural? And why would something natural be any better than something unnatural? |
Yeah man, I mean tumors are natural... kinda... Cancer, again, natural... Actually we see them as unnatural so... that doesn't count. Anything that kills us other than death is natural... (ironic, no?) So how about asbestos, that's unnatural, kinda good and bad... Good insolation, bad about that lung cancer thing (remember, cancer, unnatural). Umm... genetically engineered tomatoes... natural or unnatural? I can't tell. Guys on guys, VERY UNNATURAL. Girls on girls, EXTREMELY NATURAL... I mean look at hyenas, they have fake penises. (the female ones, the males have real ones)true.
pacemakers aren't 'natural' but they aren't bad, are they?
same thing with genetically-modified food, c-section births, etc.
| QrafTee wrote: |
| Guys on guys, VERY UNNATURAL. Girls on girls, EXTREMELY NATURAL... I mean look at hyenas, they have fake penises. (the female ones, the males have real ones) |
That's probably the most ridiculous argument i've heard 
although I hear it a lot from my straight friends (not the hyenas part).
If you think girl/girl is natural then guy/guy must be natural, just your not attracted to it - this is about gay people as a whole, not just gay men.
Its focusing more on gay men because its not socially acceptable (it seems) and because I was the first to bring my "gay agenda" to the table to try and brainwash you all The first step is to come up with a clear winner for the definition of bad. For starters, most would probably consider it to be that which is immoral or without virtue. But what then does it mean to be moral and virtuous?
| diyautowiki wrote: |
| The first step is to come up with a clear winner for the definition of bad. For starters, most would probably consider it to be that which is immoral or without virtue. But what then does it mean to be moral and virtuous? |
In my opinion its when you don't hurt other people, or at least when you don't intend to hurt other people | wumingsden wrote: |
In my opinion its when you don't hurt other people, or at least when you don't intend to hurt other people |
So by "knowing" that you are clearly and intentionally undermining the very procreation of the human species by being gay, you admit that you're "hurting" humankind as a whole, (physcially, not emotionally or virtually or ethically), and that it's bad.
I'm glad you're finally starting to see the error in your ways. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: |
In my opinion its when you don't hurt other people, or at least when you don't intend to hurt other people |
So by "knowing" that you are clearly and intentionally undermining the very procreation of the human species by being gay, you admit that you're "hurting" humankind as a whole, (physcially, not emotionally or virtually or ethically), and that it's bad.
I'm glad you're finally starting to see the error in your ways. |
What? That is a ridiculous argument. In classical Greece homosexuality was excepted but common and through out the vast majority of history was excepted and were still here. Despite the existence of homosexuality, people keep having children and the human population has already reached 7 billion.
Homosexuality dose not hurt humanity. | The Conspirator wrote: |
Homosexuality dose not hurt humanity. |
And there's no argument about Global Warming either!
Con, you should go back from time to time and read some of the stuff you post. Especially the ones where you get all mad and start yelling.
Good stuff.Ok explain. How? How would homosexuality hurt humanity?
| Quote: |
| So by "knowing" that you are clearly and intentionally undermining the very procreation of the human species |
By that argument, contraception and masturbation would hurt humanity too. and they both have been around since before human civilisation (well, masturbation has) as has homosexuality and it hasn't hurt the reproductive rate of humanity. | The Conspirator wrote: |
Ok explain. How? How would homosexuality hurt humanity?
| Quote: | | So by "knowing" that you are clearly and intentionally undermining the very procreation of the human species |
|
Con, the sad fact is that if I have to explain how 'the birds and the bees' work to you, you're likely beyond any help or any amount of explaining.
But for the sake of the other, more rational and 'thinking' people here, I'll explain briefly what I mean.
Aids (it has already hurt humanity) and the lack of procreation due to 'normalcy' of being gay (which will hurt humanity). | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: |
In my opinion its when you don't hurt other people, or at least when you don't intend to hurt other people |
So by "knowing" that you are clearly and intentionally undermining the very procreation of the human species by being gay, you admit that you're "hurting" humankind as a whole, (physcially, not emotionally or virtually or ethically), and that it's bad.
I'm glad you're finally starting to see the error in your ways. |
You love to turn things around on it's head and I love it when you do. I find it so hysterically funny how your so hypocritical - you seem to do it a lot to other people yet when they do it to you you get so annoyed Nobody should ever accept everything - a difference of opinion is always needed otherwise what kind of world would we live in?
| Quote: |
| undermining the very procreation of the human species by being gay |
Hardly.
Studies show that some people feel that it's un-natural because they don't wish to feel the way they do. They themselves have feelings towards someone of the same sex.
Are you sure there isn't something you wish to tell us, Keys?
I personally feel extremely comfortable with myself and my sexuality. It's a small minority that have a problem with it.
I'll tell you a very funny thing that happened the other day, it's pretty long and may contain details that you find disgusting, but I'll post it anyway
The other day me and my (very, very hot friend) Tom was in town Victoria Centre - Image1 | Image2 | Image3. We had a few hours before we had to be back for our next lesson (Criminal Law) so we decided to go shopping and also look around the gyms as we both wanted to find a new one to join.
So, were walking through Market Square (Image1(old market square) | Image2 (at the moment) - It is however halfway through being re-designed) when we were approached by a rather maniatic, trampy-looking guy handing out leaflets shouting something similiar to "All Sinners Will Go To Hell". He singled us out and yelled out "homosexuality is a Sin". I wanted to ignore him so we were walking past him even when he was saying all this stuff. Tom however got really pissed off, turned me around, guided me towards this guy and kissed me. It was rather unexpected but it was very nice (and it lasted pretty long). The guy was so shocked he was spluttering his words, it was pretty hilarious to see. We left him thinking about what he was going to say. He shouter "you cannot do that". I yelled back "we can do what we like. Do you know what you need, a nice [a name of a sex-toy and an action which involved it]". We got a huge round of appluase. Town is usually very busy, but this day it was extremely busy so there was hundreds of people around. The next day the Town Crier (a man who shout's out recent news) told the story and it was also reported in out city newpaper. Thank god they didn't know it was me and Tom, my father would of killed me and my mother would of died of embarrassment.
Me nor Tom act "camp" (it is not obvious that we are gay). Tom likes girls more than guys.
This incident goes to show that normal people do not think being gay bad. It only re-inforces the fact that the people that think it is a sin are the different one's.
P.S - The other night I had my very first sexual dream which involved a woman. I know what the meaning being it though was and it wasn't sexual ...
So no, I doubt I have learnt "the error in [my] ways".
Unfortunately the anti-biotics didn't work when I was about 6 years old (the age i started puberty and start having sexual feelings towards boys of my same age), so I'm still gay. My psychiatrist also is unable to turn me straight which is a shame as she is so pretty so I guess I have to live an immoral life till the day I die, which sadly isn't thought to be that long.
Edit: I wrote this post a few hours ago but only posted it till now therefore I did not read the above replies.
Hmmm ... Keys. You say you have to learn The Conspirator the "birds and the bee's" (is it natural for birds and bee's to get together). Anyways, did you actually know Keys that its entirely possible to get AIDs through straight sex? Or through oral sex (in extreme cases)? Or through the mixture of other bodily fluids? Or through needles? So, carry on trying to imply that being gay causes AID's, but we all know this is incorrect (and a huge sterotype of being gay). The only basis that this goes on is that through the 1970's a lot of gay/bi people didn't care who they got with and didn't use protection, therefore AID's spread pretty quickly to a lot of people.
I'll also update this again when i have time (if there are no replies) | wumingsden wrote: |
You love to turn things around on it's head |
I love to point out the other side of the argument.
My point about sex being for procreation are valid and trump all arguments claiming homosexuality is natural in the normal sense. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: |
You love to turn things around on it's head |
I love to point out the other side of the argument. |
I know. I think it's good that someone does. The world would be soooo boring if everyone thought about the same thing. Sometimes you can go OTT as your well aware of but a discussion on this level (and not flaming) is very nice.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| My point about sex being for procreation are valid and trump all arguments claiming homosexuality is natural in the normal sense. |
I disagree here. Most people have sex not for creating children, but for pleasure, therefore sex is not for procreation, but for enjoyment. I doubt that a lot of people can say that they only have sex to create off-spring, including you.
Animals also have sex for pleasure, not to produce children (see end of post)
Also, having sex is not needed to have children (IVF). IVF is not the most natural way to have children, but the means for us having IVF technology must of been given my God (if you believe God is the Creaor of Everything).
I say the same for being gay religious people who are not accpeting themselves. If you think God created everything then you must also accept that he created you. He created you how he wanted to, in an image of himself, therefore he wanted you to be gay.
P.S - I am not religious
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality wrote: |
Bonobos
The Bonobo, which has a matriarchal society, is a fully bisexual species -- both males and females engage in sexual behaviour with the same and the opposite sex, with females being particularly noted for engaging in sexual behaviour with each other.
Birds
Squawk and Milou Male chinstrap penguins, one of several homosexual pairs at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan. (Picture:Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times)
Squawk and Milou
Male chinstrap penguins, one of several homosexual pairs at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan.
Some black swans of Australia form sexually active male-male mated pairs and steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land.
In early February 2004 the New York Times reported that a male pair of chinstrap penguins in the Central Park Zoo in New York City were partnered and had successfully hatched a female chick from an egg. Other penguins in New York have also been reported to be forming same-sex pairs.
Zoos in Japan and Germany have also documented male penguin couples. The couples have been shown to build nests together and use a stone to replace an egg in the nest. Researchers at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found twenty such pairs at sixteen major aquariums and zoos in Japan. Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany attempted to break up the male couples by importing female penguins from Sweden and separating the male couples; they were unsuccessful. The zoo director stated the relationships were too strong between the couples.
Recently, a mated pair of swans in Boston were found to both be female. They too had attempted to raise eggs together. (365gay.com)
Studies have shown that ten to fifteen percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild prefer other females. |
Animals that have straight sex for pleasure:
| http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.htm wrote: |
Claim: Bonobos and dolphins are the only animals other than humans who engage in sex for pleasure.
Status: True.
Origins: The above claim is true for a very specific definition of "sex for pleasure," which in this case is copulation between the male and female of a species where such activity is completely separated from the purpose of fertilization. That is, in only a couple of animal species other than humans will males and females willingly (and regularly) engage in sex with each other even when there is no possibility that offspring will be produced as a result. (Note that this definition specifically excludes homosexual and masturbatory activity, as neither of those categories involves male-female pairings.)
|
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | Ok explain. How? How would homosexuality hurt humanity?
| Quote: | | So by "knowing" that you are clearly and intentionally undermining the very procreation of the human species |
|
Con, the sad fact is that if I have to explain how 'the birds and the bees' work to you, you're likely beyond any help or any amount of explaining. |
The birds and the bees have nothing to do with it. As wumingsden said sex if for more than reproduction, in fact sex to have children is far less common that sex for pleasure.
| Quote: |
| But for the sake of the other, more rational and 'thinking' people here, I'll explain briefly what I mean. |
AKA not you.
| Quote: |
| Aids (it has already hurt humanity) |
Anal sex dose have a grater chance pf spreading aids, lesbians don't have anal sex and it is anal sex, not being gay and strait people have anal sex too.
| Quote: |
| and the lack of procreation due to 'normalcy' of being gay (which will hurt humanity). |
How? As I've said, in the past is was excepted and in some places encouraged and they had children, they didn't die out. And there 7 billion people in the world, if the population keeps rising at the rates it is there will end up being too many people and even if the population dropped to 1% of the currant population there would still be more than enough people in the world to sustain a good gene pool.True Morality "defined" - someone who walk into Hooters for the wings.
Con, I'm going to adress one thing before moving on. If the population dropped to one percent of what it is now, that would be devistating for genetic deversity. If you disagree look at the research done on the 1979 population of Speke's gazelle. Decreasing population size would lead to high inbreeding, possible accumulation of recessive lethals, and lowered viability. Not to mention that it would segment society into local demes creating severe founder effects until sufficent mating between the demes occured, which would require the population size to be large enough for the demes to collide or there would be some interesting mating patterns involved.
The arguement that because most people are okay with homosexuality, then it is not bad is a fallacy. That is to say that because most people do X, then X is moral, right, justifiable, ect., while no assesment of the actual action has been made other than the fact that it is in common practice. The fact that the majority of people believed the earth was flat does not make it so. This can also apply to the idea that because other animals are homosexual it is right.
Oh and one more thing, stop using wikipedia as the definative source on everything. I hate to break it to people, but wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source, if you're going to use an online source it should just be online documentation of a credible source such as a medical journal or perhaps (for statistics at least) the census bureau or other official government websites.
| Quote: |
| The first step is to come up with a clear winner for the definition of bad. For starters, most would probably consider it to be that which is immoral or without virtue. But what then does it mean to be moral and virtuous? |
I would think that what is moral and virtuous within a given society would be those actions which:
1. Promote harmonious life within that scociety and
2. Are necissary for the survival of that scociety
That said, I read about a study on over-population done with mice, and I'm sorry but it was a long time ago that I read it, so I do not remember the source.
Anyway, When mice were forced to live in overpopulated conditions, the researchers noticed an increase in both homosexual activity and violence.
It would seem to me that these were virtuous in that circumstance because both actions, over time, would result in a lessening of population, eventually easing the overcrowded conditions.
In a world that is overcrowded, as ours is (or soon will be) I see nothing immoral about a loving relationship that does not produce offspring.
Besides, whether it is a Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman, or mixed group of five adults who love each other, if they are not hurting you, why is it any of your business?
The argument I have heard that allowing Gay marraige would "destroy the foundations of marraige" is pure claptrap. Can anyone say how a gay married couple moving in down the block would truely affect the marraige of a straight couple on the same block? My guess is that it would have no effect whatsoever. | MyNameIsJim wrote: |
| Con, I'm going to adress one thing before moving on. If the population dropped to one percent of what it is now, that would be devistating for genetic deversity. If you disagree look at the research done on the 1979 population of Speke's gazelle. Decreasing population size would lead to high inbreeding, possible accumulation of recessive lethals, and lowered viability. Not to mention that it would segment society into local demes creating severe founder effects until sufficent mating between the demes occured, which would require the population size to be large enough for the demes to collide or there would be some interesting mating patterns involved. |
The currant human population is over 7,000,000,000. 7,000,000,000-1%=6930000000, 7,000,000,000÷2=3500000000, 7,000,000,000-90%=700,000,000. A good gene pool requires several hundred people, that can and has been sustained globally with less than a million. And as I've said, it's been excepted in the past and human population didn't drop at all.
| Quote: |
| The arguement that because most people are okay with homosexuality, then it is not bad is a fallacy. That is to say that because most people do X, then X is moral, right, justifiable, ect., while no assesment of the actual action has been made other than the fact that it is in common practice. The fact that the majority of people believed the earth was flat does not make it so. This can also apply to the idea that because other animals are homosexual it is right. |
No one is arguing that (and your right, it is a fallacy) we ague that it dose not do any harm to any one thus is not wrong.
| Quote: |
| Oh and one more thing, stop using wikipedia as the definative source on everything. I hate to break it to people, but wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source, if you're going to use an online source it should just be online documentation of a credible source such as a medical journal or perhaps (for statistics at least) the census bureau or other official government websites. |
And what should I use? Google? Google is full on unreliable and biased sites. The real encyclopedia sites cost money to use. Thus for reliable, accurate and unbiased sites, all you have left is wikipedea. | The Conspirator wrote: |
Google is full on unreliable and biased sites. ...
Thus for reliable, accurate and unbiased sites, all you have left is wikipedea. |
OMG. Here we go again. Don't use google, it's all biased. Use wiki, where you can write your own entries to suit your needs.
:clapping: | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: |
Google is full on unreliable and biased sites. ...
Thus for reliable, accurate and unbiased sites, all you have left is wikipedea. |
OMG. Here we go again. Don't use google, it's all biased. Use wiki, where you can write your own entries to suit your needs.
:clapping: |
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6317246.html
Basically good but far from perfect. Where on google you have millions of sites the vast majority are highly biased and very unreliable. You can find, anything to support anything on google.
Wikiopedia though it has its problems is far more reliable.I would tend to agree about Wikki. It is a useful source and as long as you proof read any link before posting there is seldom a major problem.
Of course it is true to say that it does not have the bona-fides of a professional journal or specialist publication, for sure, but as a general source of information it is generally OK. I use it frequently with the aforementioned proviso - read the content before posting the link. I also try to provide either balancing or complementary sources rather than just use the one source...
Regards
Chris
S3, your criticism is legitimate but what you fail to take into account is the article i site are not just some guys posting. Take the article on homosexuality, it didn't just came from one guy, there is a long discution section where people discuss and debate changes to the article and there is a long list of sourses. That doesn't make the article perfect, like Bikerman said you should check the sources and mistakes are inevitable (especially in Wikipedia) but compared to google, Wikipedia is better.
Just look homosexuality up on google, almost half the links say that its a sin, immoral or can be cured. Compare that to the homosexuality article at Wikipedia, it presents multiple view points as well as homosexuality in history as well as homosexuality in nature.
Now look at the Wikipedia article on satanism, though it needs more sources, it presents an accurate description of satanism as well as links to satanism related articles and other forms of satanism. Now look at google, over half the results paint satanism as an evil devil worshiping cult that hurts children and animals. That is simply not so, that is not what satanism is.
Wikipedia is far more reliable than google. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| S3, your criticism is legitimate |
I am aware of that.
| Quote: |
| Just look homosexuality up on google, almost half the links say that its a sin, immoral or can be cured. Compare that to the homosexuality article at Wikipedia, it presents multiple view points as well as homosexuality in history as well as homosexuality in nature. |
You're kidding, right? Google is half and half on it, and wiki has multiple viewpoints? And history? And nature?
Um, ever think of putting "history" in your gay searches at google? I bet you get more info than you'll ever get from wiki, because wiki WILL BE IN THE GOOGLE RESULTS!
:sigh: Some people just don't get it.
| Quote: |
| Wikipedia is far more reliable than google. |
Wrong, google includes wiki, wiki does not include google, therefore, Con, you can get more information PRO AND CON from google.
Last edited by S3nd K3ys on Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in totalYou missed my point, google has many, many unreliable sites. Look at the google search, you will see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
The adjective homosexual is also used for same-sex sexual relations between ... Egalitarian homosexuality is becoming the principal form practised in the ...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm
homosexuality and bisexuality: all aspects; all viewpoints.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
Philosophical issues in homosexuality and queer theory; by Brent Pickett.
http://www.narth.com/
NARTH provides psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil ...
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/homo.htm
Find intriguing essays on homosexuality, both personal, political, philosophical, and religious!
http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. ... Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the ...
http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/
Exodus International, umbrella referral organization for other organizations that help men and women deal with homosexuality in a Christian way. ...
How many of those do you think are reliable and unbiased? Only a few and thats just the first page. First off, let me apologize for bringing up the wiki debate, but can we just accept the fact that both google and wikipedia are reliable and unreliable in their own right. And now back to the topic...
If we are going to argue the point that homosexuality is benificial by effecting the population in situations of overcrowding, I will again present evidence the contrary. While it is true that populations have survived when greatly restricted in size (yes less than 100), it has caused genetic variation to diminish and created severe founder effect (Templeton). Founder effect is caused when a population is decended from a few common ancestors, all the members of this population would all have the genes of the few (read: limited genetic variation) founders of the population. This can lead to varied effects such as latent hermaphradism in some Mederterainian islands and various genetic disease accumulation (again see Templeton).
As far as the mice are concerned, I don't doubt that violence and homosexuality increased however I find linking behavior studies of animals and humans a bit of a stretch. It is our very difference from these animals that allows us to make rational decision that can allow us to find better solutions, or at least should allow us to.
1. Templeton. Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory. 2006
Sorry I use printed sources, you might be able to find his papers on the Washington University website.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Wikipedia is far more reliable than google. |
i don't mean to be mean, but you have issues. or you have stock in yahoo search.
you can't 'discredit' a search engine. did you hear yourself saying google gave half bad results (in your opinion they were "bad") on gay issues and you're saying it's biased or can't be used? come on man, its clearly giving you both sides. why is that bad? because it's giving people the opportunity to see both sides of the argument, like global warming, and that doesn't bode well for "your argument" on the subject?
youre so funny! how can i possibly take you seriously? Google, Yahoo or any other search engine doesn't give you both sides. People lie and other people perpetuate those lies as well as myths (lies and myths exist on all sides of every argument) on the internet. Wikipedia has a proses and rules and people discus the the articles and sources, there is no such thing on google. Google merely takes the search term(s) and finds the sites that have the best matching descriptions.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Google, Yahoo or any other search engine doesn't give you both sides. |
OMG. Here we go again.
MODERATORS?!?!? Con has gone into vapor lock again and refuses to accept the truth!!!
If I didn't have such a good sig, you'd be in it again! Seriously, why do you keep insisting nobody else has any credit except YOU and YOUR sources?
Is that the only way you can win a debate? Becasue you damn sure can't do it with FACTS,.
:sigh:
| Quote: |
| Results 1 - 30 of about 36,400,000 English pages for gay is good. |
| Quote: |
| Results 1 - 30 of about 24,700,000 English pages for gay is bad. |
Let's please stop talking about the accuracy of wikipedia .v. Google, just all of you understand that there are good and bad points to each search method.
The thread title is "Its not natural." And that makes it bad? and not Which is more reliable?: Wiki .v. Google so please try and stay on topic, otherwise this thread will be locked.
| wumingsden wrote: |
Let's please stop talking about the accuracy of wikipedia .v. Google, just all of you understand that there are good and bad points to each search method.
The thread title is "Its not natural." And that makes it bad? and not Which is more reliable?: Wiki .v. Google so please try and stay on topic, otherwise this thread will be locked. |
There's only one person saying google doesn't give good results, how about addressing him directly, since it seems to be a habit for him, instead of including everyone who is defending the truth?
This isn't, as you know, the first time con has tried to do this sort of thing. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| wumingsden wrote: | Let's please stop talking about the accuracy of wikipedia .v. Google, just all of you understand that there are good and bad points to each search method.
The thread title is "Its not natural." And that makes it bad? and not Which is more reliable?: Wiki .v. Google so please try and stay on topic, otherwise this thread will be locked. |
There's only one person saying google doesn't give good results, how about addressing him directly, since it seems to be a habit for him, instead of including everyone. This isn't, as you know, the first time con has tried to do this sort of thing. |
Please, Keys, I really do not wish to get involved in such a pathetic discussion. You are also saying that wiki isn't reliable, which also isn't true.
If this thread contains another "they did this", or "they did that" then this thread will be locked without the consideration of other members of staff's opinions, which Keys, you are very well aware of I do. Nothing more about the discussion that gay is good/bad because google/wiki is/isn't reliable.
Back on discussion, otherwise this thread will be lockedBeing gay is not natural and those involved in it do not deserve to have the same priviliages/rights as a married couple.
Last edited by S3nd K3ys on Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Oh yes, calling a moderator a lier for stating what you have stated.
Answer this question, how dose it being "natural" make it wrong?
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Oh yes, calling a moderator a lier for stating what you have stated. |
When someone claims something is true when it is easily verifiable that it's NOT true, like I never said wiki was "not reliable", I'd say that constitutes a lie.
| Quote: |
| Answer this question, how dose it being "natural" make it wrong? |
It's NOT natural. I already showed that. And it's "wrong" to think you should get to call it a marriage if two gays want to live together. Marriage is for creating a family (procreation) | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Being gay is not natural and those involved in it do not deserve to have the same priviliages/rights as a married couple. And I did NOT say wiki was un-reliable. Please re-read my posts before lying about me in public then threatening to close the thread if I refute your lies. |
Because the rights and privileges afforded to a married heterosexual couple are natural of course. Right?
i mean, we see it all the time in nature that two dingos walk down the aisle together, with dingo daddy giving away his dingo daughter, then of course the dingos sign a natural legal dingo form with dingo witnesses to make the marriage official in the eyes of the dingo government. All of this is done, of course, with the official blessing of the natural dingo church. Then come all the rights and privileges - natural ones of course. The newlywed dingo couple gets to share savannah property and are recognized as a single ecomonic unit by the dingo government - the natural one, of course. And when one dingo spouse dies, the other dingo becomes the legal heir to all of their possessions, including the dingo social security cheques - check that, the NATURAL dingo social security cheques - they were getting.
Hey, i'm all for it. You say that homosexual couples are not entitled to certain rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples because the former are not natural but the latter are? Alright fine. But then, logically, the only rights and privileges that we can deny them are... natural ones that are naturally due to heterosexual couples only.
Whoops. There are no rights and privileges that heterosexual couples get naturally. Every right and every privilege they have are artificial rights and privileges afforded to them by society.
Well, i guess fair's fair. Maybe we should take all of those rights and privileges away from heterosexual couples and give them all to homosexual couples. After all, heterosexual couples, being natural, are entitled to their natural rights and privileges. So homosexual couples should get the unnatural rights and privileges, if their relationship is unnatural. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Oh yes, calling a moderator a lier for stating what you have stated. |
When someone claims something is true when it is easily verifiable that it's NOT true, like I never said wiki was "not reliable", I'd say that constitutes a lie.
|