Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't have to produce anything, but none of us would be here if it didn't. For that reason, it should be regarded as superior to all other sexual variations which are incapable of producing children.
One personal attack after another without the slightest effort to justify your position with any sort of logic.
Really? Personal attack? I think you're just throwing Comm 101 phrases out hoping one or two will stick. Unfortunately, when you step up to the intellectual big leagues, you gotta bring a better game than this. Not a strawman in sight. I think you need to educate yourself on what these phrases mean before continuing.
The OP argued that:
1. homosexuality is abnormal (which means it's not in the majority - wow. shocking)
2. homosexuality is maladaptive (which means it's detrimental to society, which has been disproven by science over and over)
3. "All humans (gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor) are deserving of the same legal and civil rights."
The latter, which is the core motivation for this whole thread, forces people who wish to gain the same tax and other benefits of marriage to go against their nature, trick or convince someone of the opposite sex to give up their chance at true love, and to live a lie (which, by the way, is a sin according to the 10 Commandments (homosexuality is not mentioned).
It's not an equal right if someone can't participate in it.
It doesn't have to produce anything, but none of us would be here if it didn't. For that reason, it should be regarded as superior to all other sexual variations which are incapable of producing children.
What's the goal of this line of "reasoning"? If not to forbid participation in acts you deem "inferior", what is the point of ranking them? Should oral sex be banned because it's not at the top of your list?
I wish you liberals would stay out of people's personal lives and let them make their own decisions without your government interfering all the time.
"2005 survey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a rising incidence of anal relations in the American heterosexual population. The survey showed that 40% of men and 35% of women between 25 and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex"
Even if less than 1 percent of heterosexuals engaged in it, it would refute the argument that homosexuality is wrong because of anal sex.
The two exist mutually exclusive of one another. The argument against homosexuality holds no weight, evolutionarily or spiritually.
Genetics are responsible for the sex organs, their size, their shape.. etc
Genetics are not responsible for the use thereafter just like they're not responsible for speech even though they are responsible for lungs, vocal chords...etc.
I don't care if it's moral or not. You can't pass that down to children because that would be antithetical to the entire evolutionary argument.
Those that argue about why it hasn't been eradicated by now if it's against evolution, dismiss that homo sapiens are very very young in the evolutionary chain in terms of sentience.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 05-30-2011 at 02:38 PM..
Reason: Left out pertinent information
Oh but that Ruben tasted soooo good! And I've found that fruits and vegetables (other than things like potatoes that ripen IN the ground) that have fallen to the ground are usually way beyond ripe and into the beginning stages of rot.
My teeth tell a different tale.
Obviously humans are designed by nature to consume all sorts of foods to include a Reuben sandwich. The proteins, fats and salt in that sandwich taste good because they serve a natural purpose, that being preventing malnutrition.
Anal intercourse, and homosexuality for that matter, may feel physically and emotionally rewarding in the same way eating a Ruben does, but unlike eating a Reuben, it serves no biological function.
You have concluded that because you don't agree the OP is irrational and illogical, but you don't explain why.
I personally find homosexual intercourse to be unnatural for the same reasons as the OP. The human a$$ functions as a turd cutter. Why someone would want to try to use it for sex is beyond me.
I agree with the OP that natural function of the organs should be one of those lines we should not cross.
It is not the natural function of human fingers to type on a keyboard.
The opposable thumb did not evolve so we could masturbate, or paint, or play catch
It doesn't have to produce anything, but none of us would be here if it didn't. For that reason, it should be regarded as superior to all other sexual variations which are incapable of producing children.
as someone else pointed out there are enough straight people in the world to take care of continuing population as well as surrogates and IV fertilization. many people who do have children shouldn't. just because a body can doesn't mean it is superior. do you have a problem with straight couples that engage in either oral or anal sex? or just when gay people do?
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,833,234 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfs985
Actually, if you've been paying attention, I have kept an open mind throughout this discussion. Yes, I've had a little fun with some of the liberal loony tunes who provided emotional responses instead of logical responses. Can you find an example in this thread where I've been intolerant of any ideas other than my own, regarding religion, politics, or race? Or was that just an unfounded claim that you cannot back up with evidence.
Back to the original topic. I'm going to simplify things a little bit. A man is born with a reproductive organ. That reproductive organ is called a penis. A woman is born with a reproductive organ as well. That reproductive organ is called a vagina. When a penis is inserted into a vagina (I'll spare the details), conception takes place and if all goes well, nine months later a baby is born. The main purpose (but not only) for both the penis and the vagina is to reproduce. A man cannot reproduce with a man. A woman cannot reproduce with a woman. In order for the human species to survive, men must get together with women and "make babies". A homosexual can most certainly reproduce, although it is inimical in regards to their sexuality. A species full of homosexuals cannot ensure the survival of our species, unless they go against their nature. This is why I feel that homosexuality is counter to human nature and maladaptive. A man sticking his penis into a vagina is natural (and normal). A man sticking a penis into an anus (man or woman) is unnatural (and abnormal). This is reality, not bigotry.
Thank God they only stick it in pre-approved places. It would be abnormal if they didn't, I reckon.
That would be kind of cool. I'd be King of Abnormal. Or at least a Prince. What about tongues? Do tongues count? DO I have to give up my greatest weapon?
P,S. Gays don't always have - or enjoy - anal sex. I'm willing to bet most enjoy oral. Gay men look at a man and have the same feelings I have when I look at Miranda Kerr. If the guy is comparable to Miranda Kerr......... I hate Orlando Bloom so much.
Blacks don't just enjoy watermelon and fried chicken. That's reality. Not bigotry. Dang, kind of looks like bigotry, though, when you I said that.
P.S. Your posts make you look like a bigot, even if you claim not to be one.
That's Ok, we all got our own ideas. But you ask people to convince you of something you don't wan't to be convinced of, and that's just called trolling. You even admitted it in your first post. It's impossible to convince me of this...so please convince me of this.
So don't be surpised if the liberal minded have fun with a looney tune. At least it's not another birther thread. It's a gay bashing thread. Hooray.
Genetics are responsible for the sex organs, their size, their shape.. etc
Genetics are not responsible for the use thereafter just like they're not responsible for speech even though they are responsible for lungs, vocal chords...etc.
I don't care if it's moral or not. You can't pass that down to children because that would be antithetical to the entire evolutionary argument.
Those that argue about why it hasn't been eradicated by now if it's against evolution, dismiss that homo sapiens are very very young in the evolutionary chain in terms of sentience.
Huh? I never even mentioned genetics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
