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.
^ not true...although its a natural act, its not the norm, thus it wont affect the entire population.
and also nature likes to always find a way to survive, some species of frogs for instance change their sex according to the situation...
^ was an example of species not going exticnt over something as simple as same-gender sex. stop pointing out the little thing and start paying attention...oh i forgot you think fox news rules...
Since when did humans decide that everything in their life can be controlled? Since when did we decide that we are not creatures of nature, on the same level as animals? We ARE animals. The only difference is we are the most intelligent species and we are a civilized species for the most part. Homosexuality between 2 consenting adults harms nobody.
Its funny how gay-haters ALWAYS (without fail) try to compare homosexuality to some discusting and disturbing crime such as eating other people. My short answer is NO, eating people is not normal. Hope you think so to.
Humans are part of the animal kingdom, but we are NOT on the same level as animals of other species. Humans are primates. Humans are in the animal "Kingdom" of taxonomy. If you're not a bug, or a germ, you're an animal on earth.
You are not as a tiger, or a bear, or dog, or long necked crane, you are homo-sapien. Never forget that.
To reiterate, I pointed out that there are more people having sex with the opposite sex than same sex, so those who are not reproducing are not doing any harm, as plenty of other people are taking care of the reproducing. That's if you think it's important to continue the human race. Homosexuals who are not having children are neither helping nor hurting that cause.
I don't see any reason to expect fewer children in homosexual families than straight ones. People who want kids have them. I also don't see any harm in a homosexual unions. Destructive of what, besides the peace of mind some people feel entitled to?
what is destructive is not sex. what is destructive is sport sex.
dangerous too.
if you can get past the hostility towards religion you can see there are many practical elements that promote safety and stability in religion, at its best, religion teaches how to succeed. TV and hollywood teach how to fail.
To reiterate, I pointed out that there are more people having sex with the opposite sex than same sex, so those who are not reproducing are not doing any harm, as plenty of other people are taking care of the reproducing. That's if you think it's important to continue the human race. Homosexuals who are not having children are neither helping nor hurting that cause.
So, homosexuality is neither productive nor counterproductive.
Is homosexuality a state of sexual neutrality and stagnation removing the socio-emotional relationship component out of it. Speaking soley on the basis of creation versus stagnation.
If in nature, there must be in balance, female and male, positive balanced by negative. What is the balancing nature of masculine with masculine, or feminine with feminine?
How is this concept reconciled in homosexuality?
Is it reconciled in homosexuality by one side assuming the feminine and the other remaining masculine to achieve an artificial balance in males, and in females one remaining feminine while the other adopts an artificially masculine persona?
^ was an example of species not going exticnt over something as simple as same-gender sex. stop pointing out the little thing and start paying attention...
Which has nothing to do with humans and traditional marriage.
Quote:
oh i forgot you think fox news rules
Off toipc, but yes, compared to the other obviously left-leaning stations like NBC and CNN, yes I do think Fox News rules.
what is destructive is not sex. what is destructive is sport sex.
dangerous too.
Sport sex??? I assume you mean having sex for reason other than procreating. Now that is just funny...if this is what you mean, are you saying that others should not have sex outside of strictly just to have children? Do you have sex just for the hell of it, w/out any intention of producing babies? If so, what's your point w/this?
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.
