Turn on thread page Beta

Sodemy/Homosexuality - natural or not watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kinkerz)
    Lol. But we're animals (and there are others) that also do it for pleasure. The 'main aim' for a fatal infection is death... does that mean you wouldn't take antibiotics?
    Not everyone ascribes to evolutionairy conclusions and again stop superimposing the actions of animals on humans, it's moronic. Secondly your example is pitiful and it's completely different to what were's discussing here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meloncoly)
    What does tolerance have to do with it being natural or not?

    Rape can cause reproduction so this must be natural right?

    We are animals, so the comparison is perfectly valid.
    I reckon I am taller and stronger then you. I'm going to come find you and eat you. Are you OK with that? Just like one animal would do to another in the wild.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -M$ [email protected])
    Animals? Name one No, I highly doubt that.
    • Penguins
    • Zebra
    • Baboons
    • Dolphins
    • Sheep
    • Buffalo
    • Duck
    • Foxes
    • Elephants
    • Horses
    • Gorillas
    • Elk
    • Cats
    • Pigs
    • Mice
    • Rabbits
    • Swans
    • Lions
    • to name a few.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well this is a stupid question.

    Of course it's natural because it happens naturally, and in nature. (With animals)

    What you mean to say is if it's natural in terms of our current morality.

    The fact that it does not help natural selection/continuation of species is another matter, and in this sense you could say that it's unnatural in an evolutionary sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Well I think "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" is a ludicrous argument, and so is "their children will have a crap chilhood" when clearly they're not. Also they don't turn gayer.

    Also the mouth/anus/in/out argument is simply not an argument, it's scientifically retarded.

    EDUCATE YOURSELF, THEN STEP UP YOUR ARGUMENTS.

    I'm convinced you can do much better than those already smacked down arguments, honestly. Saying that because food goes in the mouth and excrements come out of the anus = being gay is wrong, is a terribly illogical equation. By the way, not all gay people have anal sex. Does that surprise you? Does it surprise you that a gay relationship is equally based on feelings and love and other things as much or as little as a heterosexual relationship?

    Your heightened sense of morality seems to have been constructed on something very vague in your childhood, as you have such a strong disgust of gay sex and homosexuality generally without any logical reason; your reaction is purely automatic; realise that and challenge it, if you truly want to live rationally - of course you don't have to, but in all honesty it's better than not.
    Exactly this. Well said.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Not everyone ascribes to evolutionairy conclusions and again stop superimposing the actions of animals on humans, it's moronic.
    And you called my argument pitiful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Everything is not natural, I cannot go and rape someone and say atleast be lenient with me because it's "natural". Your definition of natural implies that it's right or moral when this is certainly not the case. Secondly just because homosexuality does occur amongst animals it does not as she stated mean that we hold animals to the same level of rationality and logic as we do. Animals eat their young and rape other animals, that in itself if we take your logic legimitizes and pacifies humans when they replicate such actions
    Clearly not because rape removes the self-determination of another person, of which I consider the fundamental human right. Whether something is perceived as 'good' or bad does not impact upon it being 'natural'. Moreover, the point as to the homosexual practices of some animals is relevant to show that it is not simply alien to humans, which the other user was implying.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZizAli)
    OK. Stand by your statements. Tell me you would agree for Eastenders to allow a story where two consenting characters decided that they wanted to experiment and turned to cannibalism. One ate the other. You would sit there with your kids and explain to them that this is a normal route in life, practised by animals and if you want to do it then I will fully support you?
    You're not SERIOUSLY equating the Eastenders storyline involving two gay characters to a storyline involving cannabalism, are you?

    Becuase you ought to realise, homosexuality isn't THAT hard to explain, my parents managed to explain it to me and my brothers perfectly well: "Well you know most men marry ladies and most ladies marry men? Well sometimes a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, and theres nothing wrong with that"

    My little brother is 9 years old and he knows what homosexuality is and is totally fine with it, as is the case with most children nowadays.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sorafdfs)
    Like terrorism?
    Whom justifies terrorism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Not everyone ascribes to evolutionairy conclusions and again stop superimposing the actions of animals on humans, it's moronic. Secondly your example is pitiful and it's completely different to what were's discussing here.
    We are animals.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Thought i would chime in.

    We live in a secular state. In a secular state, there is no good reason for homosexuals to be discriminated against. All the arguments given by the OP have been debunked, and rightly so.

    Personally, as a Christian, i do not believe that it is a morally correct thing to do. I fully accept that that is my individual moral standpoint, and i don't expect others to share it. I wouldn't treat homosexuals any differently than i would treat others, i wouldn't be disapproving but, if asked, i would kindly give my opinion. I can't just flat out lie just to please someone. I think that the OP is fully entitled to his opinion (even though the reasons that he used to support his opinion are a little obtuse and ill informed, which is probably the reason for the altercation with his gay friend) but i do not think that labelling him a homophobe is wise. He says that he was gentle and cared about his friend's feelings and this doesn't strike me as the way a homophobe would put his point across.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZizAli)
    OK. Stand by your statements. Tell me you would agree for Eastenders to allow a story where two consenting characters decided that they wanted to experiment and turned to cannibalism. One ate the other. You would sit there with your kids and explain to them that this is a normal route in life, practised by animals and if you want to do it then I will fully support you?
    Or would you file a complaint to the BBC and cover up the eyes of your kids at the sheer filth and disgusting material being shown?
    Please stop this freedom for all, do what you want promotion. Clearly there needs to be order and limits.
    Your views are skewed by modern society. Humans have a well documented history of cannibalism, it is just unecessary today and society will punish you for it. We cannot advance to a stage in society where there wont be homosexuals.

    Comparing homosexuality with cannibalism is completely stupid and using ******* Eastenders as an argument makes you look like an idiot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Clearly not because rape removes the self-determination of another person, of which I consider the fundamental human right. Whether something is perceived as 'good' or bad does not impact upon it being 'natural'. Moreover, the point as to the homosexual practices of some animals is relevant to show that it is not simply alien to humans, which the other user was implying.
    The issue here is not consent, it's the psyche of the rapist whom believes it's natural for him to act in the way that he does, why should we punish something they can't control if rape is then considered as natural?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Whom justifies terrorism?
    ....Terroism is rarely mindless violence. It is usually to achieve some political aim. Terroism is also subjective. A Afghani individal may see the Americans as terroists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZizAli)
    OK. Stand by your statements. Tell me you would agree for Eastenders to allow a story where two consenting characters decided that they wanted to experiment and turned to cannibalism. One ate the other. You would sit there with your kids and explain to them that this is a normal route in life, practised by animals and if you want to do it then I will fully support you?
    Or would you file a complaint to the BBC and cover up the eyes of your kids at the sheer filth and disgusting material being shown?
    Please stop this freedom for all, do what you want promotion. Clearly there needs to be order and limits.
    If a significant part of our species practiced consented cannibalism and it reflected the consented practices of a significant part of our population, then yes, I would have no trouble explaining to my children that many people performed it. I would be careful not to bias them though in their view of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    The main purpose of sex is for procreation, it has been since life began. Contraception and its usage is a recent a phenomena.
    Yeah...it's just, I mean I've not had that much sex, but i'm pretty sure none of it was for the purpose of procreation, god-willing, not even accidently. I mean, I would go as far as to say, procreation could just about be the worst purpose for sex, I would actually not have sex if the purpose was for procreation. Even if Megan Fox threw me to the ground and said "I'm hoping to conceive from this act" just before she mounted me, I would say 'sorry Foxy luv - i'm just not into that sort of thing"

    PS Please consider the fact I just finished watching Transformers 2, shes overrated for sure, but even with the admittedly strange orange skin - I still would, though I guess her personality wouldn't be the same in real life and to be honest, it's her character that most people probably find attractive :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Typical inbred quasi-monarchist anti-semetic pseudo-autistic pro-fascist homophobic dog. You're an unnatural abomination, who's lifestyle goes against that prescribed in the holy book of snellzark. Your way of living goes against all that is right and i cannot in the least empathise with you. Still, wanna be friends?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kinkerz)
    And you called my argument pitiful.
    I called your example pitiful genius, and yes

    Yes so do them
    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=660
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meloncoly)
    Your views are skewed by modern society. Humans have a well documented history of cannibalism, it is just unecessary today and society will punish you for it. We cannot advance to a stage in society where there wont be homosexuals.

    Comparing homosexuality with cannibalism is completely stupid and using ******* Eastenders as an argument makes you look like an idiot.
    I'm just saying. Homosexuality was illegal in the UK 50 odd years ago. Now it is the main story on EastEnders. Who knows, when Cannibalism becomes legal once everyone else has jumped on the 'freedom of rights' bandwagon then how justifiable will that be with the equation of 'animals do it, so it's natural'.

    And don't try and insult me. You're better than that. Keep your mild language to yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tericon)
    ....Terroism is rarely mindless violence. It is usually to achieve some political aim. Terroism is also subjective. A Afghani individal may see the Americans as terroists.
    To kill innocents is mindless violence and can never be justified.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.