Sodemy/Homosexuality - natural or not

Yeah, well, you can try and discredit me or you could reply to my last post and explain to me why I'm wrong, something which I'm yet to see. It means intolerant bigots like you by the way.

How exactly am I intolerant or a bigot?

I'm not rplying to your post until you explain your baseless ad hominem attack.

You had already chosen not to reply (I wonder why ) before I called you a bigot.

big·ot
(noun) a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

No, you have been making insinuations that I am somehow bigoted in a few posts now.

Could you explain WHY you are saying I am bigoted and intolerant?

You seem to think I have something against homosexuality....

Right, so you're just a troll. Good night dear.

This is a learned trait because it is developed through experience.

Yet again, upon what are you basing your (presumably well-informed) decision that sexuality is entirely nurtured? Yet again, you use it as a premise as though it is some kind of axiom, when in fact you have just made it up out of the blue.

I haven't made it up at all. It's a readily observable phenomenon based on the facts. Could you tell me how it is not so? Every respected scientist agrees with me on this one and it is the current scientific understanding.

Right,

I got in a debate with a gay friend of mine. He ASKED me what I thought of homosexuality (I have known him for years and never said anything about it before, because he never asked), but because he asked, I replied respectfully, but honestly and he hasnt spoken to me in months despite my numerous texts.

i basically said the following things, while always listening to when he would reply:

I think homosexuality is wrong. I never understood it, one of my friends summarised his opinion on sodemy:

"we have 'in' holes (mouth) and 'out' holes (anus) and we shouldnt get them mixed up. Why put something into a place where excrement comes out of" and also "god made adam and Eve, not adam and Steve", which is true. Which is why most gays are not religious, because most religions are against homosexuality.

I completely agree with my friends statements. Human waste comes out of the anus, and sodemites are sticking their penis into their. (BTW I think anal penetration of girls is just as disgusting and un natural). I have nothing against gay people, hence why I am trying to re-contact my friend. But if asked, be prepared for the truth. There is nothing natural about it and homosexuality imo is wrong. Also, if a gay couple amrried and adopted, that child is going to probably sway to feeling gay, and he defo wont have a normal childhood.

I was given the argument that we have receptors in our anus and therefore its only logical that we enjoy stuff getting put in our anus, which acually sickens me. Its not even an argument. I am sure we do have reseptors there, doesnt mean people should insert something up their!

I think that whenever someone says they dont think sodemy is natural or right, they are labeled homophobic, i have nothing against sodomites, they can do what they want i am more than happy with that, but I do not think its right and I do not think its natural and i think there is nothing wrong in saying that at all.

I was thinking about it more and a lot of my gay friends are either loners and/or over think things way to much and so I think that there reason for having no friends is because they are different (gay) or they thoughtt hemselves to believe that, because when he was on the bus saw another guy on the bus or somethign and therefore that person is gay (they analyse things way to much).

Another point I mentioned to him is that "gay" means happy and it was stolen to be used for Sodemy, to make it seem more normal, but there is nothing naturl about sodemy. It is even definined as "unnatural" sex

This is to be a constructive thread, no disrespect to anyone.

There is nothing wrong with me saying that i think sodemy (homosexuality) is wrong and unnatural, its freedom of speech.

Thoughts....

Keep it clean so moderators wont delete this freedom of speech and constructive debate

According to your personal definition. Not according to wikipedia's.

It's not a question of how many children they have, but of satisfying the urge to reproduce.

What I've said implies that humans can fulfill their erotic, emotional and genetic needs through a heterosexual relationship. You have made a jump in logic to assume that a relationship must be based on fulfilling erotic desires. You will note that after a child is born, a heterosexual relationship becomes more emotional rather than physical. This is due to the fact that the inherent desire to parent is being stimulated.



I only need to ask them what?

modern medicines n driving a car succeed in their function and purpose to save lives and for transport, whilst gay sex will NEVER reproduce children which is the main function of sex.

You have clearly not explain why some heterosexual couples then chose not to act on the 'genetic urges'. The onus is one you to answer this. It is not a requirement of a relationship to produce a child, and many couples who could afford to simply to not. In part, this is previous because couples needed many offspring to maintain their livelihood (e.g running a farm) whereas this is not so much of a requirement today. As opposed to being something innate, childbearing is a choice. And indeed, your argument falls apart when you claim a transition from emotional to physical after the first child is born - why then do couples have a second child?

Your argument is crackpot, at best.