Being Gay isnt natural

reply to post by Haydn_17


Do you know anyone who is gay? Do you truly know them?

Are terms like Gay and Straight even worth using? Probably not, we are "human beings"

To be a human being means we are free to explore our own sensuality in whatever way feels right to us.

Spend more time inquiring into your OWN self, and perhaps stop worrying about the sexual expressions of other Selves because that is there business and those whom they share it with.

Sorry budday, but to be gay is a- okay

Definition of NATURAL
1: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted

www.merriam-webster.com...

natural, ingenuous, naive, unsophisticated, artless mean free from pretension or calculation. natural implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man-made world . ingenuous implies inability to disguise or conceal one's feelings or intentions . naive suggests lack of worldly wisdom often connoting credulousness and unchecked innocence . unsophisticated implies a lack of experience and training necessary for social ease and adroitness . artless suggests a naturalness resulting from unawareness of the effect one is producing on others .

if you look around all the time animals are always trying for both sexes to hump.

being gay is natural just open yer eyes.......

case closed

reply to post by Haydn_17

Being Gay isnt natural

I'd have to disagree.

Your observation regarding nature and the purpose of sex and procreation is spot-on. But homosexuality is no more unnatural than are birth defects and genetic abnormalities. They may not represent the human machine as it was meant to function, but these things do happen as part of nature.

Our society has long since moved away from ridiculing those with handicaps and disabilities. Homosexuality is - IMO - no different.

reply to post by Haydn_17


where did you ever come up with our core concept is to reproduce? You obviously haven't considered the vast amounts of money spent by heterosexuals just to avoid that slice of nature. All the people who participate in sexual congress do so in anticipation of pleasurable physical and mental sensations...The sad truth is that these sensations are very much the same, be you gay or straight.

Originally posted by slugger9787
I do not want anymore children so stopped having sex 10 years ago.

Um.....

I really hate to nitpick and all but...uh...

According to everything you have been saying and the OP's premise, choosing to no longer have sex in order to stop reproducing is not only NOT natural but it is the very antithesis of everything you claim is natural.

Amazing!

reply to post by rusethorcain


Definition of Natural:

natural

1. Fixed or determined by nature; pertaining to the constitution of a thing; belonging to native character; according to nature; essential; characteristic; not artifical, foreign, assumed, put on, or acquired; as, the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural colour. With strong natural sense, and rare force of will. (Macaulay)

2. Conformed to the order, laws, or actual facts, of nature; consonant to the methods of nature; according to the stated course of things, or in accordance with the laws which govern events, feelings, etc.; not exceptional or violent; legitimate; normal; regular; as, the natural consequence of crime; a natural death. What can be more natural than the circumstances in the behavior of those women who had lost their husbands on this fatal day? (Addison)

3. Having to do with existing system to things; dealing with, or derived from, the creation, or the world of matter and mind, as known by man; within the scope of human reason or experience; not supernatural; as, a natural law; natural science; history, theology. I call that natural religion which men might know . By the mere principles of reason, improved by consideration and experience, without the help of revelation. (bp. Wilkins)

From Biology online.

Remember, we're talking about how we're all really 'animals with the need to procreate' here. I think a biological and scientific definition should be prized more highly then Random-house on this one.

reply to post by Curiousisall


Yea, beyond that I highly, highly advice getting the tubes tied. This is not mean to be derogatory but, there's ways to not have kids while still having sex.

After reading the posts and the replies, that are given, I believe I can weigh in on this posting:
I believe that your argument is fundamentally wrong for the day and age. There are many people both men and women who are unable to produce children. This is a fact of the modern day and age, under your argument, then they too would be against humanity and nature, along with those people who choose not to have offspring or get married. So the question would have to be asked, would those who are naturally sterile, or who choose not to have children, who are not married, or have absolutely no interest in sex, would those kinds of individuals be considered against humanity and nature?
It is hard to tell what is apart of nature, as it seems that as soon as we have it figured out what is a part of the natural world, nature throws a curve ball that takes all by surprise. It is recorded in the natural world that among some species of reptiles and frogs that when there is too many of one sex, half of the population will change sex. Nature always seeks to keep balance in all things. It abhors a void, not will it stand for something to become too dominate in the environment. It can be surmised, that the population of the human species, has increased to a point where nature is taking care of such, by changing just enough people to not breed or produce offspring and keep the population down. There are several other factors to consider:
There has always been those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, and transgender since the dawn of time. It is only with the advent and rise of religion, where such has been considered to be wrong and immoral.
Many of the prior mentioned people do not understand why they are they way they were born that way, or why they see who they view as attractive to the other. To many, especially, in this day and age, view such as being natural.
Humanity is normally not viewed as you would have put such out, though you are correct. Many people often view and define humanity as our capacity for empathy towards all living creatures, to show compassion and understanding above all other things.

Originally posted by denynothing
We are all humans yes, and thats why we have civil rights for women and of color and of disability. You can tell when someone is a woman, or disabled, or of different color, because its natural. You can not tell someone is gay just by looking at them, unless you want to be a jerk and call a straight guy a homosexual just because thats what they look like. There needs to be a visual difference in a person to make it natural, no visual difference in a gay person, not natural.

Wow, my two sons are not natural!!!

They have handicaps, but they look no different to anyone else.
Does that mean they're not going to heaven, or does it just mean they're icky?

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

My children names are Chantel, Duane, Paul, Sara, James, Austin, Quentin, Roselyn, Madelyn and Shannon.
Chantel is 35, Shannon is 10.

Shannon, through Austin still at home.

I do not want anymore children so stopped having sex 10 years ago.

I ussed the natural family planning, when nature dictated the mate was fertile, then we cocreated one of the children.

Get it, the natural cycle of ovulation and the result of learning the natural cycle of this and using it to our collective benefit.

"the mate" ???
Slugger, no men refers to his wife as "the mate".

And people, real people, when they plan babies, don't go "cocreating" another baby as soon as the mother is fertile again. They space the babies out a little.

And, . . . please keep posting, the whole office here thinks your posts are just marvellous.

I only wish I were lucky enough to be gay. Even a little gay. Gay men have got it made. They have similar sex drives, no pms for each other to have to deal with, and diverse enough tastes that even a hairy fat man can get laid.

As far as natural, go live in a cave and eat berries if you value "natural" so much.

Originally posted by joechip
I only wish I were lucky enough to be gay. Even a little gay. Gay men have got it made. They have similar sex drives, no pms for each other to have to deal with, and diverse enough tastes that even a hairy fat man can get laid.

As far as natural, go live in a cave and eat berries if you value "natural" so much.

According to the people who believe being gay is a choice, you shouldn't have any problem becoming homosexual.

Originally posted by slugger9787
If there was no orgasm for a woman, during procreative activity, most women would not do the activity.
The pleasure ofsets the memory of the pain of pregnancy, labor and delivery.
Somewhere the message got confused. I never said a male orgasm helps a female.
And if there was no orgasm, or pleasure, what two adulty would bump and grind for hours?
They would not, so the pleasure entices humans to copulate to procreate.

A boy doing it alone tends to focus on orgasm.
However an adult couple tend to focus on the pleasure of the whole event, not just on the culmination, which they often delay as long as possible.

Why We Have Sex: 237 Reasons Revealed

People have sex for more than 200 reasons, ranging from "I was bored" to "I wanted to feel closer to God" to "I wanted to get a promotion," according to a new survey.

The combined results revealed 237 sexual motivations, which the psychologists, David Buss and Cindy Meston of the University of Texas at Austin, sorted into four major factors and 13 sub-factors:

Physical reasons—reduce stress (“It seemed like good exercise”); feel pleasure (“It’s exciting”); improve or expand experiences (“I was curious about sex”); and the physical desirability of a partner (“The person was a good dancer”).

Goal-based reasons—practical considerations (“I wanted to have a baby”); social status (“I wanted to be popular”); and revenge (“I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease”).

Emotional reasons—love and commitment (“I wanted to feel connected”); expression (“I wanted to say ‘thank you’”).

Insecurity-based reasons—self-esteem (“I wanted the attention”); a feeling of duty or pressure (“My partner kept insisting”); to hold onto a mate (“I wanted to keep my partner from straying”).

Notice a distinct lack of references to orgasm?
It's not surprising, because the standard sex act does little to help most women orgasm.

If orgasm was designed to make women get pregnant, why is oral stimulation the easiest way for many people, both male and female, achieve orgasm?
Did nature get it wrong?
Or does sex have a purpose other than procreation?

reply to post by Kailassa


yes i know that you have to space babies out, the difference in ages of our kids is 25 year divided by 10 is one every 2.5 years.

like i said, pregnancy labor and delivery, plus the episetomony stitches kinda demand that your dont get in too much hurry right after the last one is born.

when you played jump rope as a kid, you know how you have to time your entrance, kind of like that.

thank you for the positive feedback there missy. about your office thinking the posts are marvelous.
kinda nice to get a compliment once in a while.

Is this still going?

Obviously its full of homophobes and bigots using it as an outlet for spreading hate....at first I was understanding the OP, but after a few of the rants that went on, the agenda is clear.

Meh, Im done with this

reply to post by slugger9787


The Bonobo is nearly extinct due to man and I'll tell you right now its straight men, doing unnatural things like waging wars with guns in the jungle, don't try to all of a sudden to say that one thing between two human beings that can happen so naturally without aid of any tool of any kind (save protection for safety sake) is unnatural. Humans have brought themselves so far out of nature we are no longer the ones to ask what is natural and what is unnatural. Bonobos are a peaceful matriarchal society so similar to humans you wouldn't believe, IMO we have quite a bit to learn from our jungle dwelling cousins. I know we're not monkeys but then again we are apes, big white hairless apes.

reply to post by IAMIAM




Both scenarios are wrong. You try to twist the scenario one way or the other to defend your religious position on homosexuality. There is only one biblical position on homosexuality - and that's that it is a sin.

Originally posted by daggyz
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Both scenarios are wrong. You try to twist the scenario one way or the other to defend your religious position on homosexuality. There is only one biblical position on homosexuality - and that's that it is a sin.

Its funny isnt it, becasue in the bible, pedophilia wasnt frowned upon as much as homosexuality, in fact it happened quite a lot in there. Incest occured as well....and how the hell did Kane and Abel have kids (unless they slept with their mother)? Apparently they were the sons of Adam and Eve according to the bible

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Its funny isnt it, becasue in the bible, pedophilia wasnt frowned upon as much as homosexuality, in fact it happened quite a lot in there. Incest occured as well....and how the hell did Kane and Abel have kids (unless they slept with their mother)? Apparently they were the sons of Adam and Eve according to the bible

And don't forget Lot and his two teenage daughters.
Of course he said they got him drunk and made him do it, but we've heard that story before. You'd think most fathers would learn after the first one, but not Lot.

There used to be a special missionary version of the bible, leaving out all the references to incest,
because most native peoples had such strict codes against incest they would not convert to worship a god who allowed it.