Everything on this earth is natural, care to tell me how it isn't?
Everything on this earth is natural, care to tell me how it isn't?
I guess I was Comparing physical objects to human thoughts and emotions so it wasn't a very fitting example.
I like gay people, because chicks don't give you free steam gifts for flashing your genitals.
Homosexuality is a defect of some kind, just like pedophilia.
Humans are nothing more than advanced bacteria whos only purpose is to make more humans.
Homosexuality does not create new humans.
If you do not understand this or accept this truth, then you are ignorant.
However, in todays society we are so intelligent that we outsmart the biological system in some kind of way. So I don't really see anything bad with it.
We are also too many people in this world, so we don't need any more humans. Let the homosexuals have some fun people, peace out.
There isn't enough proof to say it's a defect, or that it isn't, as far as I know.
So, it's possible to say: Personal preference isn't a defect.
comparing homosexuals to pedophiles can only lead to misconception and false comparisons used to fuel hatred
And calling people ignorant for not agreeing to your completely irrational belief is what makes you ignorant.
I think defect was a poor word choice, Its just something different that ticks in peoples heads.
The brain is a fucking confusing piece of art.
But yes at this day in age who gives a shit? Being homosexual is A-Okay.
pedophiles are ok too
child molesters aren't though
not that they have to be pedophiles
(they can be anyone)
As I posted before:
There's plenty of academic support that homosexuality aids in survival of the species, just not directly. We're a complicated species. Birth control being more common might not reduce population growth at all, despite being the most obvious way to stop the breeding mechanism. Vaccines might, entirely because longer life span of individual children causes people not to create more to reduce competition. Homosexuality might be a similar mechanism.
Put another way, if it was a "defect", it wouldn't be a prominent part of our species.
and if it's biologically unsound, why hasn't natural selection wiped it out in these species
But humanity scrutinizing homosexuality because of religious stigmas doesn't make it unnatural.
An animals sexual behavior is determined by their neurology and biochemistry. It's the same thing with us.
This is understood by looking at things like sweat glans and pheromones.
Cats cum all over their territory to attract females.
If I came all over something I could say the same thing. But the observer is the one calling it unnatural in the first place.
We create social taboos because we're assuming that we're some kind of deviation from the animal kingdom, so we let ourselves get to our head and think we can call things unnatural.
It's not in our hands to determine whether something is inherently unnatural. If it's been occurring for thousands of years, that may be your first hint it's natural.
I think it would be perfectly alright if gay's weren't allowed to get 'married' per say, as long as they were granted partnerships with perfectly equal rights.
I wasn't trying to sway your opinion through buzz words or emotions, I was just telling you there are a lot of behaviors we have that can be attributed to the primal instinctual parts of our brain. How we instinctively respond to things. Human sexuality is just like an animal's sexuality, it's very complex. I think women bleeding out of their vaginas once a month is unnatural, but it doesn't apply to me. Just because homosexuality doesn't play a fundamental role in your life doesn't make same-sex attraction any less real for us. Periods and menstruating aren't choices, but they are the side effects of the female sexuality. Through evolution we have seen there are several deviations that can occur in a species, and something that occurred a long time ago was homosexuality. And obviously it's natural, because like Zeke said, it hasn't been weeded out of succeeding generations. And syndromes, disorders, cancers and whatnot have a likelihood of appearing in a person's life upon birth or during their lives. But that isn't too say it's going to happen. Not everyone's going to be gay/bi, just a fraction.
And as observers, we can call something natural or not. But backwards thinking has limited a lot of progression.
Like I think it's fucking ridiculous that gay rights is still an issue when our planet's natural resources could be used up by 2050.
Abortion rights and gay rights are such huge topics, and I don't know why (even though I'm gay). Humanity has their heads too far stuck up their ass, and are too busy scrutinizing eachother, to handle ACTUAL issues.
-snip double post I guess-
religious people often disagree on things, such as homosexuality
therefore just because some christians don't believe in gay marriage, that doesn't mean that those christians get to decide whether gay people can marry, it would be up to individual churches
Alright for some reason FP is messing up.
Would it have been better if I had said, "...as long as 'we' were granted partnerships..."? I'm having trouble understanding what the difference is between a partnership with completely equal rights is to that of marriage? If something like this were to happen, then there would be the social standards associated with marriage such as one adult being faithful to one partner. To me, marriage is only something associated with church and religion. Perhaps we need to separate marriage as a religious act and marriage as a legally binding contract?
You don't have to lack sanitation or care, but what if you were in a rush. What if this skirmish started right as you were jerking someone off. Would you stop to wash your hands first? Logically no, and thats why I support don't ask don't tell. Because American troops don't need to die worrying about their squadmates hands or sexuality. Anything else is ok. I'm not a homophobe, get married, have your own little neighborhoods and parades, I just don't want it around me or my family or on TV in music, printed, taught or really talked about outside of adult circles.
But do what makes you happy that's what life is all about!
I really don't know if your born that way or not, I just heard Lady Gaga say it but I assume you have to be since honestly if I could switch and suck dick for hundreds to thousands of dollars as an escort or do a man without puking I'd probably do it without blinking.
(User was banned for this post ("Trolling or something" - PLing))
I have absolutely no problem with them, in fact I know one. And he's just like anyone else.
I'm not against gays and know a couple and treat them exactly as i would anyone else.
But i am against public displays of affection, not because of their sexuality, simply because i don't like straight couples doing it either, i'm not about to stop who ever it may be, but i'd be more comfortable if it was done behind closed doors.
That said, i find the openly gay people Very annoying.
You're gay i understand that i don't care, but i don't need / want you to keep telling me that at every opportunity seeming as though you're after acceptance.
Unless the exchange you're imagining is:
A homosexual person mentions it once, you through a hissy fit because they had the audacity to mention it, and then you categorize him as 'openly gay and thus annoying'.
I'm beginning to realize that the longer this thread gets, the stupider the trolls get. Is there some correlation between length of thread and stupidity of posts/arguments?
I personally live in an area that is a "stronghold" of Gay culture within the American South and regularly encounter people who are flamboyant, foppish and generally create the typified "negative" view of homosexuality.
That said, I also know several very respectable and homosexual individuals including on of my Professors.
The issue comes down to the fact that a loud portion of heterosexual people fear the percieved image of the "wanton homosexual" who doesn't have any sense of balance or decorum about themselves; IE wearing pink leather chaps and saying darling while groping innocents in the streets. This image has few things currently combatting it, and even the lable "homosexual" often implies a deal of infidelity, scandal or degeneracy.
Of course, this is primarily an American phenomenom. Other countries where Homosexuality is openly allowed (embraced is a difficult word, give me a moment), primarily in the "enlightened" arc of Europe do not seem to have deviants running amoc, raping their boys and seducing their daughters. However, at the same time, American repressionism tends towards the mainstream enforcing itself on the fringe. (The converse is that European repressionism is the Fringe attempting to supress the rest.)
A good example is comparitively the stereotyped 1950s versus the current 2000s. While the breadth of the mainstream is wider and many of the boundaries have changed both actually have many paralells in regards to things that are still considered "wildly taboo." Racism, Facism, Homosexuality, Provincialism, Exceptionalism, Industrialism and other "creeds" that are not generally Cosmopolitan, Corporate, Christian or Clean are all attacked rigorously by the majority of the population.
When I say majority by the way, I do not mean Occupiers, Teapartiers, Celebrities or Politicians but President Nixon's golden "Silent Majority." As it stands, the observable invisible silent majority sees no reason to pull for the fringes, as the Civil Rights movement or the America Out! movements did.
So, you have the publicly percieved and easily produced "loud, annoying, faggy" homosexual playing against the concious and active fears of the current primary majority. Since the primary majority does little to leave its comfort zone, and the homosexual community does little to advance itself (and to an extent cannot do much given the enormous social roadblocks!) we have what is "wrong" with "gays."
*Additional comment: Any commentary relating to the origins, developments, reasons and faculties behind Homosexuality as a natural/unatural behavior are difficult. If you take the time to observe studies relative to it, you'll find many are often admittedly flawed, reversed, biased, overgrown-relative-to-sample-size or counter-evidenced. Of course though, when we get word of mouth or absorb a percieved fact we refuse to let it go until we have the origin of our bias obliterated and that itself is the most difficult thing an argument can mount. It is sadly not a particularly crucial field of human behavioral science and often the only practitioners of the research are crusaders or inquistives rather than the invested and investigative body of eager researchers who produce the "wonders" of the world. Seriously, we have cancer to cure, we can figure out why fireman calenders make you feel funny later.
The who is the silent majority, who are infact currently possessed of a standard western religion. To argue practically, you must have them in mind.
And yes, thank god we traded that image in for sneering chinese industrialists profiteering off of starving factory drones. Each generation finds its bias.