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.
The OP provided what he/she THINKS is 'logical reasons' for his/her position. Some of us are trying to understand his/her "logic" and simply finding it impossible, since they keep repeating the same argument without explanation. (Or at least an explanation that makes any better sense than the first post.)
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$$ functions as a turd cutter. Why someone would want to try to use it for sex is beyond me.
The problem we have when we throw away the concept of normal to suit the desires of the abnormal is we are left with no real definitive line between what is OK and what is not. In fact, there isn't even a way to define normal to include the abnormal without having conflicting standards by which some are included and others not.
I agree with the OP that natural function of the organs should be one of those lines we should not cross.
Essentially every higher animal species has some form of non-reporductive segment in it (be they gay black swans, infertile female worker bees, etc). To call them a "scourge on life sustinence (sic), just like any other disease or natural catastrophe" and to conclude that since they "dont procreate, then they arent contributing to life" and are "merely diluting the concentration of reproduction on earth" shows an extreme ignorance of population biology and the natural world in general.
No, the redundant reliance on the mating patterns of birds/"black swans" as validation for human sexuality did that...lol
You have concluded that because you don't agree the OP is irrational and illogical, but you don't explain why.
I personally find homosexual intercourse to be unnatural for the same reasons as the OP. The human a$$ functions as a turd cutter. Why someone would want to try to use it for sex is beyond me.
The problem we have when we throw away the concept of normal to suit the desires of the abnormal is we are left with no real definitive line between what is OK and what is not. In fact, there isn't even a way to define normal to include the abnormal without having conflicting standards by which some are included and others not.
I agree with the OP that natural function of the organs should be one of those lines we should not cross.
I've explained why the OP is wrong and illogical. The individual is promoting the idea that every minority segment of a population should be eradicated or suppressed for being slightly different from the norm. What sort of a barbaric civilization would that be? It would be like saying "Only white people should be allowed to participate fully in American society because they are the normal population and every other population is abnormal."
Have you, by chance, read any of Hitler's writings? You might find some compelling support for this value system.
Your argument about anal sex is also wrong, considering 40% of heterosexuals engage in it and almost all heterosexuals use their reproductive organs for pleasure without reproducing. So, you really need to separate the physical act from the emotional attraction, since your argument is illogical. When you do that, you find that homosexuals are just as naturally driven to their attraction as heterosexuals.
These arguments remind me of the people who tried to argue why black people are not really human. Just like those people, you're on the wrong side of history.
Closet homosexuals lead a life of lies because of how we are portrayed in the media, threats of violence could occur, peer pressure, and buying into the religious belief that "gay life is sinful". Reading the hateful messages on this forum is enough to make somebody not want to come out. It's a shame too as they are destroying their wives and kid's lives to some extent by living a lie.
Yep I'm sure we'll be able to move a ton of people to the solar system in 2060 if at all. That's a pretty odd defense. I'm not insulted in the least about the population control thing. I'm doing my part to not overcrowd the earth which is sorely needed! LOL at us not contributing to life. Let me guess all we do is have gay sex 24 hours a day, go around flaunting our "lifestyle" in the faces of folks coming out of church, try to molest every kid we see, try to hit on or turn straight guys gay, and don't partake in any "straight" activities?
I suppose the folks who can't medically have children aren't contributing to life either? What about folks who get married and decide not to have kids? What about older folks meeting at the later stages in life and can't have kids? We are doooooomed!
I dont know about all that, but the bolded part is interesting...Obviously not all gay people are child molesters, BUT, one could make the case that by emotionally traumatizing their victims, and leaving them often sexually dysfunctional, that child molesters are helping to control the population. Or that straight people who murder people are simply helping to control the population. I mean, anything that detracts from the proliferation of life could theoretically construed as population control really. Obesity, which raises the risk of pregnancy complications would then become a measure of population control.
Secondly, I think its sad how you judge people who dont choose to live their lives as you do. If some people dont want to be openly homosexual, by their own accord, then that is their decision, and that is a perfectly equal alternative to being openly homosexuality. That you look down upon them for the way they choose to be makes you no less bigoted and judgmental than anyone else you claim hates you for what you are or what you do.
I dont know about all that, but the bolded part is interesting...Obviously not all gay people are child molesters, BUT, one could make the case that by emotionally traumatizing their victims, and leaving them often sexually dysfunctional, that child molesters are helping to control the population. Or that straight people who murder people are simply helping to control the population. I mean, anything that detracts from the proliferation of life could theoretically construed as population control really. Obesity, which raises the risk of pregnancy complications would then become a measure of population control.
Secondly, I think its sad how you judge people who dont choose to live their lives as you do. If some people dont want to be openly homosexual, by their own accord, then that is their decision, and that is a perfectly equal alternative to being openly homosexuality. That you look down upon them for the way they choose to be makes you no less bigoted and judgmental than anyone else you claim hates you for what you are or what you do.
I was being slightly sarcastic with the part you balded but unfortunately that is how some feel about us.
The situations you listed about pc have victims.....there are no victims with gay couples not having children.
You believe it's acceptable for a gay man to trick a woman into falling in love with him, getting married on a lie, and living life together with the man most likely never being fully happy. Usually there comes a breaking point where the man can't take it anymore and tells his family he's gay. What emotional distress!
And why is saying "it's a shame it happens" looking down on them? Really. LOL at spinning things in a stupid manner.
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$$ functions as a turd cutter. Why someone would want to try to use it for sex is beyond me.
The problem we have when we throw away the concept of normal to suit the desires of the abnormal is we are left with no real definitive line between what is OK and what is not. In fact, there isn't even a way to define normal to include the abnormal without having conflicting standards by which some are included and others not.
I agree with the OP that natural function of the organs should be one of those lines we should not cross.
You have just basically validated my statement that we as human beings are nothing more than "procreating" machines! Homosexuals don't define themselves by "sex" but who they are attracted too.
Just because you can slip your penis into a vagina doesn't make you "normal"!
I personally find homosexual intercourse to be unnatural for the same reasons as the OP. The human a$$ functions as a turd cutter. Why someone would want to try to use it for sex is beyond me.
And that has what to do with homosexuality? More heterosexuls have anal sex than gays, and not all gays partake in that activity. Condemning hundreds of millions of people based on that is stupid.
Not to mention, you might want to investigate the biology of the rectum. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why that area of the body has sense receptors that only respond to sexual stimuli, and of course why the prostate is in its particular location. Did God/nature put the prostate there so doctors could have easy access?
I was being slightly sarcastic with the part you balded but unfortunately that is how some feel about us.
The situations you listed about pc have victims.....there are no victims with gay couples not having children.
You believe it's acceptable for a gay man to trick a woman into falling in love with him, getting married on a lie, and living life together with the man most likely never being fully happy. Usually there comes a breaking point where the man can't take it anymore and tells his family he's gay. What emotional distress!
And why is saying "it's a shame it happens" looking down on them? Really. LOL at spinning things in a stupid manner.
What other connotation could "its a shame" have? That means that you're projecting your definition of a shameful practice upon that person -- To shame someone means to look down on them. How do you spin the definition of shame?..lol
What I think is acceptable has nothing to do with anything. Its not my decision, its up to the individual to determine what is right or wrong for that person, not me or you.
However, I do think its duplicitous to conveniently change your rationale from one of population control based on existentialism to suddenly a legalistic one based on our moral code which is what dictates whether someone is a victim or not. Although, one could even question who is being victimized through obesity anyway?
Last edited by solytaire; 05-30-2011 at 12:11 PM..
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.
