[Phantom_X]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Modern science is plagued with political correctness. Hence some scientists deny races exist, when everyone actually knows races are a biological reality. When it comes to homosexuality we see the same sort of PC agenda. Most scientists are too afraid to come out and say homosexuality has serious health risks involved (when we know there are) and so forth.

which scientists say that? Seriously, which scientists actually say that people have the same amount of melanoma and that races don't exist?

Many philosophers have questioned the idea of 'race' and rightfully so- because 'race' is a lot more than just 'skin colour', and in this sense relates to many philosophical questions (I won't go into this as its not part of the thread), but I highly doubt that objective scientific papers have ever argued something like this.

Perhaps, in the many years that biologists have studied human nature, they have changing positions of homosexuality? I doubt anything on the PC agenda, considering that most publishers of journals are (a) not political and (b) are critically asessed by numerous review boards before publishing. Perhaps its something to do with how silly it is to call some things 'natural' and others 'un-natural' when one has very little understanding of how nature actually works, or if they have this strange view that nature has remained the same throughout the earths existence with no changes whatsoever (ahem).

A quick google search has shown that there are over 100 papers related to the transmission of HIV through same-sex intercourse, so obviously the 'fear' is a lie. However- there are also health risks in heterosexual relationships, PARTICULARLY when a person has had sex with multiple partners (despite this, ironically, being 'natural' if one is to believe that man's purpose is to spread his seed through reproduction). In many ways, there are actually more health risks in heterosexual relationships than with homosexual ones.

[heyhey922]

(Original post by DYKWIA)
Can I marry a woman? Yes. Can a gay marry a woman?

America, pre 1967:

"Can a black man marry someone of their race? yes.
Can a white man marry someone of their race? yes."

No inequality!!

[willbee]

(Original post by paragus3)
I hate this "if both parties give consent blah blah nobodies business"
This topic is not about whos business it is, its obviously nobodies business. What the thread is asking for is EVERYONES opinion on weather they they think its moral or not.

And fyi if a 15 year old gives consent (it has happened b4) to a 60 year old pervert to have sexual relations does that then make it moral?

Did you even read what I posted?

A 15 year old by law cannot give consent. You cannot legally have have sex with anyone under 16. So by breaking the law, it would be immoral, yes.

[okonomiyaki]

Why would it be immoral?

It makes SENSE to me that people should not be persecuted for traits/behaviours which, to whatever extent, they cannot help, and cause no inherent harm to the people around them.

Sure, some people may keep their belief that their God has decreed some absolute rule that homosexuality is immoral. Fine. But these people shouldn't expect a pleasant reaction when they try to force this on those who don't share their views, or on bi/homosexual people seeking their own happiness.

eg. I hate marmite. Really. It smells bad, tastes bad etc. true story.
And I have friends/family that prefer to eat it! Shock horror!
Would it not seem ridiculous and incongruous if I began suddenly denouncing the immorality of Marmite and trying to confiscate/ban it or launch a hate campaign against marmite eaters? Of course! Because other people eating marmite does me no harm, and makes them happy.

[okonomiyaki]

(Original post by Jason2)
Also, homosexuality hurts me. It makes me feel physically sick.

Marmite makes me physically sick

[Tochai]

(Original post by Jason2)
Also, homosexuality hurts me. It makes me feel physically sick.

So ask him to be gentle next time. Job done.

[alex5455]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
only a matter of time before he appears to claim that homosexuals are trying to suppress his 'rights' by wanting the same rights.

guy has a tragic bunker mentality. It's like listening to an Arsene Wenger post match interview

he has been claiming that for months already

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
No its not natural. Biologists distinguish between homosexuality and ''homosexual behaviour'' in animals. The latter is not the former. The same way cannibalism is not ''cannabalistic behaviour'' when observed.

To comprehend, you have to study animal instincts. Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:



When animals are observed to indulge in homosexual acts, they think they are procreating (reproducing). Its just an error they are doing it with the same sex.

Two gay men who have intercourse quite obviously don't think they are making a child together.

Homosexuality is not natural.

Its rather interesting that doing a google search to find the paper where this was published and the first thing that shows up is Conservapedia. Really reliable and unbiased source there. And where does it lead back to? A NARTH publication. HAHAHAHAHA If you think you can use NARTH as a source and expect to be taken seriously you are mistaken. NARTH has a clear bias and does not have a proper peer review. Not to mention that they have history in using research incorrectly. This professor otherwise doesn't show up anywhere on google scholar, making me question his authority on the subject.

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
While there is a debate regarding monogamous and polygamous animals it is known more than 90% of birds are sexually monogamous. Therefore your claim ''rape'' is natural within the animal kingdom is completely contrary to the facts. In many lifeforms we see strict monogamous mating. And even if other animals are polygamous (some indeed are), their instinct is still reproducing.

Whatever way you look at it - homosexuality is not natural.

LOL just because some birds don't get raped means rape doesn't occur in nature? Do you know anything about dolphins? Or primates? They are commonly known to rape other animals. And also your evidence for homosexuality not being natural is non-existent.

I fail to understand how you can make such claims that animals that display homosexual behavior are mistaken and think they are producing babies...what authority do you have to make such a claim. I can't find anywhere that agrees with what you say.

While homosexual acts are observed in other animals, homosexuality itself isn't (as already explained in detail). Same sex animals are not attracted to each other. Their instinct is reproduction and breeding with the opposite sex. It is only a cognition error observed in isolated cases which causes animals to engage in homosexual behaviour. A male Human who is ''sexually attracted'' to another male is not natural. This defies evolutionary biology. It is why I personally regard homosexuality to be a mental illness.

Your personal opinion is worthless as countless studies have shown otherwise. Again claiming its a 'cognition error' without any evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.

No. This is a whole different area and topic. It can be strongly argued though that non-reproducing intercourse between opposite sexes is in fact natural given the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Homo Sapiens.

Evolutionary homosexuality makes sense so, all of your claims seem to be falling apart....

[x]

Also to address your 'pc' comment, research (anything credible) isn't really subject to being 'pc' due to the intense peer review process. This is what gives all studies their credibility. It weeds out personal biases, and rigging of experiments for specific results etc.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
...to address your 'pc' comment, research (anything credible) isn't really subject to being 'pc' due to the intense peer review process. This is what gives all studies their credibility. It weeds out personal biases, and rigging of experiments for specific results etc.

Doesn't appear that way - it seems more that almost everything must be PC now in the professional world (which includes studies).

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Doesn't appear that way - it seems more that almost everything must be PC now in the professional world (which includes studies).

What makes you say that? What makes you think that researches are/have to conform to PC results?

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Doesn't appear that way - it seems more that almost everything must be PC now in the professional world (which includes studies).

wait, so because research isn't leading to rash conclusions, it must be filled with political correctness, despite that none of the journals are funded by the government or any government-afilliated organisation?

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
What makes you say that? What makes you think that researches are/have to conform to PC results?

Guess we are talking about two different issues - I am actually referring to PC in writing/referring to terms, not in interpretation of results.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Guess we are talking about two different issues - I am actually referring to PC in writing/referring to terms, not in interpretation of results.

Can you clarify? I'm not entirely sure what you mean...

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Can you clarify? I'm not entirely sure what you mean...

As an example, in a report 'gay' would be more commonly referred to as 'homosexual' as the PC brigade consider 'gay' non-PC.

A better example would be, you would be unlikely to see the term 'dyke' in a formal report as it is a very non-PC term.

[chocolatte_mocha]

Yes it is immoral... And another thing..not everyone is going to agree with this whole gay thing...it personally makes me sick to think that a man thinks its ok to bum another man... Mental... Why do people go on like heterosexuals have to fully support gays and their movement? When a heterosexual person says that they don't agree with it, you get gays and gay supporters ready to attack like we should automatically agree with it..come on..dont be silly...

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by tufc)
Because it's unnatural, and leads to unwholesome relationships.

You need to put a little thought into your responses before making them public. By the very definition of 'natural', if something can occur within the naturalistic framework, then it can be described as natural.

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by chocolatte_mocha)
Yes it is immoral... And another thing..not everyone is going to agree with this whole gay thing...it personally makes me sick to think that a man thinks its ok to bum another man... Mental... Why do people go on like heterosexuals have to fully support gays and their movement? When a heterosexual person says that they don't agree with it, you get gays and gay supporters ready to attack like we should automatically agree with it..come on..dont be silly...

You're aware that homosexuality is the attraction, not the acting upon the attraction, right? And you've offered no logically airtight arguments in favour of your argument that homosexuality (under any of your definitions) is immoral. Still, this lack of logical thought is to be expected from non-thinkers.

[Medved]

(Original post by chocolatte_mocha)
Yes it is immoral... And another thing..not everyone is going to agree with this whole gay thing...it personally makes me sick to think that a man thinks its ok to bum another man... Mental... Why do people go on like heterosexuals have to fully support gays and their movement? When a heterosexual person says that they don't agree with it, you get gays and gay supporters ready to attack like we should automatically agree with it..come on..dont be silly...

disliking something is your own business it's life we don't agree with something that's fine but there a huge difference between disliking something and deciding it is immoral. saying something is Immoral is saying it is wrong and should not be permitted. saying you dislike something is just your own preference.

we don't have to agree with it but our disagreement doesn't make it immoral our prejudices can make us believe it is.

as for myself i really don't bloody care what people do it's none of my dammned business lol

[tufc]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
You need to put a little thought into your responses before making them public. By the very definition of 'natural', if something can occur within the naturalistic framework, then it can be described as natural.

Then what Ted Bundy did was 'natural'.

[Medved]

(Original post by tufc)
Then what Ted Bundy did was 'natural'.

bloody hell evil kinevil couldn't have made that leap.

ok 1st ted bundy was a necrophile which means he had sex with the dead if you can find that in nature i'll buy you a pint.

second how do you compare a consensual act between two adults to the kidnapping rape and murder of innocent women

three are you trolling us here