The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

I hope that "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." should be read as "God willing", otherwise the sentence holds a limit of feedom all by itself.

That argument has been made to explain that the pledge actually makes no sense now.



Back to the topic. The US holds its free speech very literal and does allow hate speech such as the crazy church people at the Web site you listed perform. If they believe God kills soldiers to punish the US for accepting homosexuality then they have the right to say so openly.


Are they right? Most level headed Christians will say no. It could be why their church has like 35 members.

 

[Denur]

It could be why their church has like 35 members.

Most (not all) are relatives too. I've heard some of their younger offspring (girls no more than 12 years old) rant about e.g. fags (excusé le mot) in a song. These young kids are being brainwashed! If this happend elsewhere (my country for example) almost the whole population would be in an uproar, demanding the youth council to take the children away from this and place them in a "normal" foster home. However, we do have a somewhat similar situation with our own Bible belt inhabitants: These faithfull people refuse to have their very young children inented (is that a good english word?) against all kinds of child diseases and some kids do die because of this. All because all is in God's hands. These horrible people are protected here too by the freedom of religion and their innocent children are the victoms.

 

[FoolKiller]

Most (not all) are relatives too. I've heard some of their younger offspring (girls no more than 12 years old) rant about e.g. fags (excusé le mot) in a song. These young kids are being brainwashed! If this happend elsewhere (my country for example) almost the whole population would be in an uproar, demanding the youth council to take the children away from this and place them in a "normal" foster home.

There is no such thing as normal....?

But they are no more brainwashed than children growing up in the homes of people who are politically active or opposed to abortion or vegetarians.

We only interfere when religious groups are commiting incest and abuse (forced marriages, rape, etc.). And the last time we did that with a real group of nutjobs they burned their building down around themselves.

These faithfull people refuse to have their very young children inented (is that a good english word?)

I think vaccinated would be the best term you are looking for, or maybe injected.

 

[Sureboss]

I'm really surprised anyone could say this.

We come from different cultures.

I assume that monkey chanting would be allowed in American sports stadia?

 

[Denur]

There is no such thing as normal....?

But they are no more brainwashed than children growing up in the homes of people who are politically active or opposed to abortion or vegetarians.

We only interfere when religious groups are commiting incest and abuse (forced marriages, rape, etc.). And the last time we did that with a real group of nutjobs they burned their building down around themselves.


I think vaccinated would be the best term you are looking for, or maybe injected.

"normal" is a subjective word, hence the quotes.

True thing about the brainwashed thing, but where does education/upbringing end and malicious (another subjective thing) interference begin?

That Waco encounter did give some nice thrilling TV footage though.

Yes, vaccinated was the word I was looking for. Thanx.

 

[Sniffs]

Deneur: oh, yes. we've lost some celebrities that way. it's called "faith healing". If i remember right, it was because of his religon that Jim Henson (creator of the Muppets) waited untill he was in a nasty condition before going to the hospital.

I believe it's excuse moi

the american right to "freedom to do what the bleep you want" apparently stuns most of the rest of the world, and is the main cause of american dissention internally. remember, we came up with this system because we are made of expatriates, or "burned" individuals from other cultures, religons, and "races". Americans are hot under the collar because those burns HURT.

the minute they pass NATIONAL laws reguarding sexual prefrence, Europe, Asia and Australia better prepare for an influx of people before they kick the US out of all national orginizations. If national laws are passed, I, for one, will be emigrating, socialisim and 20% taxes on everything be danged. sorry, but if they try and do to us what they did to Native Americans, African Americans, and other minority groups...well, that'll be the straw that broke the eagle's wings!

 

[FoolKiller]

First, this whole faith healing, put it in God's hands, religious fanaticism thing is ironically happening right now, as this story graced the cover of Fox News' Web site.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html

Police are considering charges after a girl died when her parents just prayed for healing. The outcome of this could have a major impact of the meaning of religious freedom and where the line is drawn on neglect.

And it can have other far reaching outcomes as well regarding parental rights, such as smoking in the vicinity of children, parents' ability to turn off life support, etc. Anything a parent does by choice that may even be perceived as causing a bad health situation could come into question.

I do not like it.

I assume that monkey chanting would be allowed in American sports stadia?

By law, yes. But the stadium owner can have the people taken out as it is private property and private property rights trump free speech in such a case.

Deneur: oh, yes. we've lost some celebrities that way. it's called "faith healing". If i remember right, it was because of his religon that Jim Henson (creator of the Muppets) waited untill he was in a nasty condition before going to the hospital.

Dude, I've had pneumonia and until it really hits hard it just feels like a bad chest cold or the flu. Heck, I don't go to the doctor for a chest cold unless it gets bad or goes for a long time, and religion has nothing to do with it.

Also, from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Scientists_(religious_denomination)

Jim Henson-The rumor here isn't that he was a Christian Scientist per se. He actually was strongly of the faith until his 20s. The rumor being dealt with here though is the idea he stayed a devout member and that this is why he died young[98]. There is little or no evidence to support this, although his upbringing may have encouraged lack of interest in seeing doctors, and in fact most sources indicate he withdrew from the religion long before his death.

the minute they pass NATIONAL laws reguarding sexual prefrence, Europe, Asia and Australia better prepare for an influx of people before they kick the US out of all national orginizations.

I don't think this will happen. First, I think it will remain a states issue and then most are just regarding marriage. And some of those still allow for a civil union, which to me is just playing semantics so that religious people opposed to homosexuality don't feel like you stepped on their toes.

Even when any form of legal union is outlawed it is merely a matter of paperwork to give your significant other all the rights of marriage regarding you and your property. My cousin and her wife (I use the term even though it isn't "official" - they had a church ceremony) have done that so basically the only thing that they cannot do is claim as married on their taxes. Honestly, I believe that domestic partnerships should be allowed to do that even if homosexual marriage isn't allowed. Heck, even platonic long-time roommates should be able to claim taxes together because they are a two-person household.

Or we could just quit giving tax bonuses to people just because they got themselves shackled married.

 

[Sureboss]

By law, yes. But the stadium owner can have the people taken out as it is private property and private property rights trump free speech in such a case.

So it would be fair to say that although free speech is important, there are more important rights? And it seems that in many cases where one could express their right to free speech the chances are that there are other laws which could trump them?

 

[Denur]

That story about faith healing, where the 11 y.o. Madeline Neumann died, just hit the Dutch newspapers today.

Last month we had a documentary on Dutch public TV about the porn movie Deep Throat (followed by the movie itself). About the entire American adult nation went to see the movie (well, not quite, but millions did). But there were also a lot of people who complaint about this act of perversity, resulting even in police actions in NY City where theaters were forced to stop showing the movie. Later an anti-perversity law was passed and the main male actor was convicted and sent to jail. Later he was acquited though, because the law was passed after he had done his deed. Somehow I feel that this law is in conflict with the 1st Amendment. If a person does not want to see a porn movie, than don't, but do not prevent others from playing in such movie's or view them.

 

[FoolKiller]

So it would be fair to say that although free speech is important, there are more important rights?

It depends on the case. In this case you bought a ticket to a game in which rules for behavior were set up ahead of time by the private property owners. If you choose to purposely use offensive language you have violated rules you agreed to by purchasing said ticket. Upon that purchase you voluntarily gave up your right to free speech as the property owner sees fit.

Think of it like this: You have a right to smoke, but if you are in someone's house and they ask you not to smoke, but you refuse, they can ask you to leave. It is their household policy, whether you knew ahead of time or not, and you must oblige it. At which point you either leave, negotiate them letting you stay, or find yourself trespassing.

And it seems that in many cases where one could express their right to free speech the chances are that there are other laws which could trump them?

When you enter private property the rights of the property owner take precedence, to a degree of course.

Another situation where free speech would be limited is if it is intended to incite violence or cause a disturbance. At that point you are using your speech to motivate others to violate the rights of others.

 

[Sniffs]

Foolkiller: old habits, including religous ones, die hard. all I know is it was too early for Jim Henson.

I've had Pneumonia 4 TIMES, and I, too, know what it's like.

I was dying to haul my then partner up to vermont, but I couldn't talk him into it.

 

[Earth]

Homosexuality has never made sense to me

When I was 5/6 my mother told me about homosexuals and it just didn't make sense to me. That part of your body was for a totally different purpose and the whole idea was appalling to me.

It just doesn't make sense. There is alot of men living together who are buddies, but some live together as sexually active partners. Why you would want to satisfy your sexual needs with the same sex doesn't make alot of sense to me and is contrary to nature's natural course.

Some believe that if a youth says he has feelings for someone of the same sex he must be gay and that is the lifestyle he should choose. Do youths also at times have feelings for an adult teacher? Is everything a youth, or even an adult thinks/wants right especially if it is contrary to nature?

There are grown man who only want to have sexual relations with little children. They claim they love them, but does that make thier actions right?

I'm not a homosexual hater/basher. I don't care what they do, and you will never see me campaigning against them, or voting for or against them. They can do what they want as adults.

However, I disagree with the modern view that people should be encouraged to adopt the homosexual lifestyle if they start to feel feelings for someone of the same sex. Homosexuality is not natural, no matter what you may want to think, and encouraging someone who is thinking unnatural thoughts to act on those thoughts is wrong.

 

[Famine]

Homosexuality is not natural

Please define.

 

[Earth]

Please define.

The root word of natural is nature.

Two creatures of the same sex having sexual relations is contrary to nature. They were not designed that way. Therefore it's not natural.

You know let's lower the legal limit for consensual sex from 18 to 13. Afterall, women can have children at 13 so shouldn't they be ready for sex? And why should age matter? Oh and not just men with 13 year old girls, make sure you allow adult males to have sex with consenting 13 year old males as well.

Forget polygamy if I want to have 5 wives buzz off. It's our personal business. We are 6 consenting adults.

 

[Famine]

The root word of natural is nature.

Mais oui.

Two creatures of the same sex having sexual relations is contrary to nature. They were not designed that way. Therefore it's not natural.

Let us forego discussions of design right now - an oft-treaded path - and skip right to the point where you're dead, dead wrong.

Homosexuality amongst animals is well-documented, across very many species and both genders. Furthermore, if you ascribe to the view that homosexuality is genetic then it's pretty much at the root of nature - DNA.

So as far as I can see "it's not natural" is a dead-end. Homosexuality isn't "artificially" induced (with regards to man-made chemical induction - perhaps you may regard "nurture" as an artificial induction, which belies the animal kingdom's same-sex escapades) and occurs in "nature".

You know let's lower the legal limit for consensual sex from 18 to 13. Afterall, women can have children at 13 so shouldn't they be ready for sex? And why should age matter? Oh and not just men with 13 year old girls, make sure you allow adult males to have sex with consenting 13 year old males as well.

Forget polygamy if I want to have 5 wives buzz off. It's our personal business. We are 6 consenting adults.

Let's not forget adult women having sex with consenting 13 year olds of both genders too.

That notwithstanding, what does this have to do with homosexuality and its "natural" status?

 

[Sniffs]

oh boy...it's the "not natural" argument again.

here's a little FYI from the other side of the fence.

Some of us cannot, do not, will not, or should not breed!

sex is also for pleasure, not just gene distribution.

did you ever think that this, along with diseases, sterility, ect might be God's way of saying "Whoa, i didn't mean be fruitfull and multiplythis much!"

 

[Sureboss]

No one chooses what qualities they are attracted to.

 

[FoolKiller]

Homosexuality has never made sense to me

Obviously, you are not homosexual. People liking the taste of certain foods makes no sense to me either.

When I was 5/6 my mother told me about homosexuals and it just didn't make sense to me. That part of your body was for a totally different purpose and the whole idea was appalling to me.

Yeah, the whole sex talk confused me too. I mean, that's where I pee from.

Why you would want to satisfy your sexual needs with the same sex doesn't make alot of sense to me and is contrary to nature's natural course.

If by natural course you mean breeding, sure, but when sexual relations are also an emotional expression of love then it seems perfectly natural.

Some believe that if a youth says he has feelings for someone of the same sex he must be gay and that is the lifestyle he should choose.

Of course, that is assuming he chooses who he is attracted to.....

Do youths also at times have feelings for an adult teacher? Is everything a youth, or even an adult thinks/wants right especially if it is contrary to nature?

If they feel something without being coerced into it how is it at odds with nature? If they have an attraction to a teacher and still feel that way when they reach the age at which they are expected to be able to handle their emotions and the consequences of following those emotions then, by all means, let them pursue that relationship.

There are grown man who only want to have sexual relations with little children. They claim they love them, but does that make thier actions right?

I fail to see the connection. Two consensual adults of whatever gender is no where near the same as a minor who cannot think through the outcome of responding to physical or emotional stimulus.

They can do what they want as adults.

I am glad to see you can separate your personal views from your legal views.

However, I disagree with the modern view that people should be encouraged to adopt the homosexual lifestyle if they start to feel feelings for someone of the same sex. Homosexuality is not natural, no matter what you may want to think, and encouraging someone who is thinking unnatural thoughts to act on those thoughts is wrong.

Well, the natural thing is up for debate (as in I disagree with your view), but I have yet to see someone who wasn't trying to take advantage of a youth try to tell them what kind of lifestyle they should pursue.

On the other hand, you also should not tell a youth who believes him/herself to be homosexual that it is wrong and unnatural and they would be wrong to explore that lifestyle as they get older. If someone is having feelings for someone of the same sex the situation should be the same is if it were the opposite sex. They can explore their feelings, but sexual relations are best left until they are older and less likely to be caught up in the thrill and excitement.

The root word of natural is nature.

nat·u·ral Audio Help /ˈnætʃərəl, ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

And as Famine pointed out it has been viewed in nature, so I guess you can say that it is natural.

Two creatures of the same sex having sexual relations is contrary to nature. They were not designed that way. Therefore it's not natural.

Yet, they do it.

You know let's lower the legal limit for consensual sex from 18 to 13. Afterall, women can have children at 13 so shouldn't they be ready for sex? And why should age matter? Oh and not just men with 13 year old girls, make sure you allow adult males to have sex with consenting 13 year old males as well.

What pedophilia has to do with homosexuality I cannot fathom. Pedophilia has to do with taking advantage of people without the maturity to think through their emotions properly.

And as you are suddenly talking about legal limits are you now campaigning against homosexuals?

And if before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth I am just asking. If you wish to maintain your stance that it should not be legislated then I suggest you avoid any comparisons to legal limits in other cases as your message gets a bit blurry.

Forget polygamy if I want to have 5 wives buzz off. It's our personal business. We are 6 consenting adults.

Switch the word polygamy to homosexuality and suddenly you are on topic and this is precisely how homosexuals feel.

For the record, my stance on polygamy is the same as homosexuality: When we are discussing consenting adults it is not anyone else's business.

 

[Denur]

@Earth regarding that homosexuality is a choice: Can you define for me what love is, how a person falls in love (not lust) with another person. I think that you will find that it is at least not something you consiously choose to do, but that it just happens to you. Gay people can also fall deeply in love with another boy or man (or girl/woman in case of lesbians). Yes, they really can!

You say that homosexuality is not natural, but that depends on how you define natural (you gave it a try). If you say that homosexuality doesn't make any sense, that it doesn't serve any purpose in nature. Yes, than I'm with you, because the primary goal for inter-animal/human relationships is breeding. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe you can explain me why God creates gay people (don't say that he doesn't, because that would only prove that you have not read well the above). Just give it some thought, will ya?



Just a little educational animal sex movie

 

[Earth]

Let us forego discussions of design right now - an oft-treaded path - and skip right to the point where you're dead, dead wrong.

Homosexuality amongst animals is well-documented, across very many species and both genders. Furthermore, if you ascribe to the view that homosexuality is genetic then it's pretty much at the root of nature - DNA.

So as far as I can see "it's not natural" is a dead-end. Homosexuality isn't "artificially" induced (with regards to man-made chemical induction - perhaps you may regard "nurture" as an artificial induction, which belies the animal kingdom's same-sex escapades) and occurs in "nature".

I've seen and heard of homosexual animals. Some bees begin to show homosexual tendencies when exposed to high heat. I've even seen our dalmation hump our german shephard for a brief period of time. I'm quite sure the dalmation was just trying to please itself after being held from any female dogs for all it's life. Just like many variables go into somoene's decision to adopt the homosexual lifestle I'm sure animals are not too different. And in nature I'm quite sure homosexuality is uncommon like it is in the human species because it is pointless.

How many of these documented homosexual animals carry out the lifestyle for their entire lives? I'm going to geuss not very many if any at all

I don't believe it is genetic at all. I remember seeing on the news the results of a new study that said your being homosexual depended on the color of your hair and the number of syblings you have among other factors. The people who release these studies should get out more.

Let's not forget adult women having sex with consenting 13 year olds of both genders too.

That notwithstanding, what does this have to do with homosexuality and its "natural" status?

Humans can have very unnatural feelings. Everything they may think/want is not always right or should be encouraged.

If a so called emotionally immature boy of 14 years of age can be encouraged to act out feelings he has toward the opposite sex where do you draw the line? It seems in today's society it has been erased

If by natural course you mean breeding, sure, but when sexual relations are also an emotional expression of love then it seems perfectly natural.

Their expressions of love tend to destroy their body physically. I won't get detailed, of course, but having sex in this unnatural way causes bleeding and easy transfer of STDs.

And as Famine pointed out it has been viewed in nature, so I guess you can say that it is natural.

How has it been viewed in nature? I'm not an expert on this subject, but Famine appears to be, so I will let him answer how homosexuality has been viewed in nature. First off which animals commence in homosexual activities, and how and for how long? It's been well documented in nature is quite vague. But in the end, if some animals, which I'm sure are in the extreme extreme minority commit homosexual acts does that somehow make it natural for humans?

@Earth regarding that homosexuality is a choice: Can you define for me what love is, how a person falls in love (not lust) with another person. I think that you will find that it is at least not something you consiously choose to do, but that it just happens to you. Gay people can also fall deeply in love with another boy or man (or girl/woman in case of lesbians). Yes, they really can!

When I was in second grade I was very fond of this boy called Kevin. I even wrote a letter to him one day after he was absent to show how much I missed him. Although I never had any homosexual thoughts, its easy to see how one can fall that way. But does that mean it is right?

You say that homosexuality is not natural, but that depends on how you define natural (you gave it a try). If you say that homosexuality doesn't make any sense, that it doesn't serve any purpose in nature. Yes, than I'm with you, because the primary goal for inter-animal/human relationships is breeding. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sexual relations between a male and female human is also for showing each other love. The problem is when two males or two females try to show eachother love sexually they run into alot of problems and are forced to use their genitalia in improper ways. How the males don't get heppatitis I'm not sure

Maybe you can explain me why God creates gay people (don't say that he doesn't, because that would only prove that you have not read well the above). Just give it some thought, will ya?

We're all born cold wet and naked. The life we live from then on is based on many variables. God does not create gay people anymore then he creates bad or good people.

 

[FoolKiller]

Humans can have very unnatural feelings. Everything they may think/want is not always right or should be encouraged.

If a so called emotionally immature boy of 14 years of age can be encouraged to act out feelings he has toward the opposite sex where do you draw the line? It seems in today's society it has been erased

You are correct, when desires violate the rights of others they should be discouraged.

What the coercion of someone immature has to do with homosexuality between consenting, mature adults is beyond me.

Their expressions of love tend to destroy their body physically. I won't get detailed, of course, but having sex in this unnatural way causes bleeding and easy transfer of STDs.

I will just say that bleeding and STD transfers happen in heterosexual situations as well.

And you seem to forget that not all homosexuality is male/male.

How has it been viewed in nature? I'm not an expert on this subject, but Famine appears to be, so I will let him answer how homosexuality has been viewed in nature. First off which animals commence in homosexual activities, and how and for how long? It's been well documented in nature is quite vague. But in the end, if some animals, which I'm sure are in the extreme extreme minority commit homosexual acts does that somehow make it natural for humans?

So, after defining natural we get picky?

Considering that life-long monogamy is not the norm in nature I guess we can call marriage completely unnatural?

When I was in second grade I was very fond of this boy called Kevin. I even wrote a letter to him one day after he was absent to show how much I missed him. Although I never had any homosexual thoughts, its easy to see how one can fall that way. But does that mean it is right?

Sweet story, but I think you missed the point. If you had strong feelings of more than a friendly nature after puberty then I think you would have any kind if argument. But then I doubt you would be taking the side you are.

Sexual relations between a male and female human is also for showing each other love. The problem is when two males or two females try to show eachother love sexually they run into alot of problems and are forced to use their genitalia in improper ways. How the males don't get heppatitis I'm not sure

I won't even go into how many different ways I know of heterosexuals using their genitalia, many of which are very similar in how homosexuals do as well. If that is the best argument you have for being unnatural then you have a lot of heterosexual couples to go after as well.

 

[Denur]

@Earth: you were fond of your friend, maybe he was even your best friend. But did it hurt deep inside when you were not with him. I don't think it was love, just a very good friendship. Please try again in defining "love". I ask this, because I think it is essential to this discussion.

 

[Famine]

I've seen and heard of homosexual animals. Some bees begin to show homosexual tendencies when exposed to high heat. I've even seen our dalmation hump our german shephard for a brief period of time. I'm quite sure the dalmation was just trying to please itself after being held from any female dogs for all it's life. Just like many variables go into somoene's decision to adopt the homosexual lifestle I'm sure animals are not too different. And in nature I'm quite sure homosexuality is uncommon like it is in the human species because it is pointless.

How many of these documented homosexual animals carry out the lifestyle for their entire lives? I'm going to geuss not very many if any at all

[...]

How has it been viewed in nature? I'm not an expert on this subject, but Famine appears to be, so I will let him answer how homosexuality has been viewed in nature. First off which animals commence in homosexual activities, and how and for how long? It's been well documented in nature is quite vague. But in the end, if some animals, which I'm sure are in the extreme extreme minority commit homosexual acts does that somehow make it natural for humans?

Oh come on. I have to provide you with all known occurrences of gay animals now? Is that even relevant? You said that homosexuality wasn't natural because it doesn't happen in nature. Fact is that it happens an awful lot in nature, instantly denying your point that it's not natural.

Still, just for you, I know that it has been documented in dogs, sheep, goats, cows, dolphins and our closest genetic ancestors - the bonobo. For how long? The entire adult life of the animal (except bonobos, where it stretches to youngsters too).

I don't believe it is genetic at all.

Luckily your beliefs are irrelevant.

I remember seeing on the news the results of a new study that said your being homosexual depended on the color of your hair and the number of syblings you have among other factors. The people who release these studies should get out more.

I'm not familiar with those studies. However, last time I checked both hair colour and fecundity were genetic in basis (though chemically alterable).

Out of interest would this be the same news from which you got the information that science says mankind is the last species to have arisen? I only ask because if it is, switch news channels.

Humans can have very unnatural feelings. Everything they may think/want is not always right or should be encouraged.

Aaaaand?

If a so called emotionally immature boy of 14 years of age can be encouraged to act out feelings he has toward the opposite sex where do you draw the line? It seems in today's society it has been erased

Could you fill in some blanks every now and then please? If you could give me a hint as to what either of the previous two quotes has to do with consensual adult homosexuality and your claim that it is "unnatural", that'd be just swell.

Their expressions of love tend to destroy their body physically. I won't get detailed, of course, but having sex in this unnatural way causes bleeding and easy transfer of STDs.

Oh yes, since straight sex never confers STDs or causes bleeding. I won't get detailed, of course, but try having sex with a virgin female. Or being around childbirth - especially one requiring an episiotomy (apologies to our female readers).

How the males don't get heppatitis I'm not sure

In order to catch hepatitis, there needs to be a carrier and no barrier. You don't just GET hepatitis from having sex with someone of the same gender.

 

[buickgnx88]

That is the one thing I dispise reading, when someone starts with homosexuality and somehow extends the concept to include incest and even beastiality.

 

[Famine]

That is the one thing I dispise reading, when someone starts with homosexuality and somehow extends the concept to include incest and even beastiality.

I can't say as any of the three bother me so much (so long as, in the former and middle cases, both parties are consenting adults).

 

[Earth]

Famine can you to sum up your views on homosexuality so I can see where you are coming from?

 

[Famine]

I can do it in three words.

I don't care.

 

[Earth]

I can do it in three words.

I don't care.

Yet you will combat, quite vigorously, the views of others on a subject you don't care about. It's quite easy to attack others and defend yourself when you dont stand for or believe in much of anything that pertains to the subject.

My personal opinion on the subject is that the whole idea of homosexuality doesn't make sense to me because humans obviously weren't designed for homo relations. You can make a big deal out of what unnatural means all you want. The point is, and you cannot try and twist/skew this, that males were not designed to be with males and females were not designed to be with females. Go ahead and point to DNA and whatever you know that's all hogwash. No one is born gay. Are you telling me someone who has gay sketched into their DNA would refuse to go with women if he never saw a guy in his life? Give me a break

Others will say if two people love eachother then let them love eachother no matter what sex they are.

They can love each other all they want, yet options like child bearing will never be possible to them. There is however adoption.

2 men or 2 women adopting a child. All I can do is shake my head. Say what you want, I really don't care.

If you believe there is nothing wrong with that type of stuff then so be it.

I have morals and guidelines I run my life by. Your morals (I'm talking to everyone in this thread) and guidelines most likely differ from mine. Allow me the right to speak my thoughts and don't try and suppress me just because my opinion is different from yours

 

[FoolKiller]

I have morals and guidelines I run my life by. Your morals (I'm talking to everyone in this thread) and guidelines most likely differ from mine. Allow me the right to speak my thoughts and don't try and suppress me just because my opinion is different from yours

The problem is that you called it unnatural and even assumed to know if a homosexual person chose to feel that way or not, while yourself not being homosexual.

As that can be offensive to certain people and you make broad assumptions based on zero experience you have people challenging your statements.

To add: I understand that it does not make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me, because I am not gay. That does not make it wrong or unnatural or whatever way you want to put it. Just like I don't like the taste of liver, so I don't understand people that willingly eat it, but it does not make it wrong or unnatural or whatever.

What I do think would be wrong or unnatural would be to willingly chose to live a life that is shunned by many societies, and individuals within the societies that don't shun it as a whole. That makes no sense to me. Why would anyone chose that for life?

 

[Famine]

Yet you will combat, quite vigorously, the views of others on a subject you don't care about.

When they spill over into a subject I do care about - subjugating others for no clear logical reason - then yes, I will combat quite vigourously.

It's quite easy to attack others and defend yourself when you dont stand for or believe in much of anything that pertains to the subject.

It's quite easy to attack others and defend yourself when you don't understand the topic at hand and have no logical thought processes behind your opinion.

My personal opinion on the subject is that the whole idea of homosexuality doesn't make sense to me because humans obviously weren't designed for homo relations.

Again, they were not designed for anything.

You can make a big deal out of what unnatural means all you want.

You made the "unnatural" assertion and, when asked to clarify the position, came up with a definition which was easily rebutted.

The point is, and you cannot try and twist/skew this, that males were not designed to be with males and females were not designed to be with females.

Again, they were not designed for anything.

Plus it happens regardless. And not just in humans.

Go ahead and point to DNA and whatever you know that's all hogwash.

Of course it is. Anything that disagrees with your position would be.

No one is born gay.

Maybe they are. Are you a molecular biologist?

Are you telling me someone who has gay sketched into their DNA would refuse to go with women if he never saw a guy in his life?

Here's a thought: If you have to start a sentence with "Are you telling me...", chances are you've misunderstood something quite major.

Give me a break

You're welcome to one any time you want.

Others will say if two people love eachother then let them love eachother no matter what sex they are.

They can love each other all they want, yet options like child bearing will never be possible to them. There is however adoption.

2 men or 2 women adopting a child. All I can do is shake my head. Say what you want, I really don't care.

It seems an awful lot like you do care.

If you believe there is nothing wrong with that type of stuff then so be it.

Fortunately what I "believe" is irrelevant. We won't revisit the discussion on the nature of belief.

I have morals and guidelines I run my life by. Your morals (I'm talking to everyone in this thread) and guidelines most likely differ from mine. Allow me the right to speak my thoughts and don't try and suppress me just because my opinion is different from yours

Am I suppressing you? Do you see sections of your post disappearing as I forbid you from expressing your opinion?

Or do you see your opinion being challenged with rationality? It seems awful weak if you have to resort to the typed equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "La la la la la la la la la!".