Why being Gay IS a Natural thing

reply to post by llmacgregor


Love that saying!

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I myself am bisexual and my parents are pretty damn straight for the most part. Did I choose to be bisexual? No. Oddly enough, I learned I am attracted to BOTH sexes at a rather young age. Nothing in the environment I grew up in made me one day decide "Oh I'm going to be bisexual from hereon out!" Certain experiences I've had merely confirmed my orientation but didn't make me bisexual or otherwise change my orientation as others would've suggested.


reply to post by pyramid head


I completely disagree with you when you say kids aren't sexually aware until puberty. Obviously we don't see kids making out all the time nor do we really witness them having sex on a regular basis. However, kids explore each other's bodies ALL the time when they're youngsters. Sexuality starts to develop younger, homosexual or not. No, kids aren't necessarily exposed to sex at all yet they get "curious" and such. Furthermore, how do you explain the people who started masturbating at an early age without ever having been exposed to that kind of activity? While all of this doesn't mean they wish to have sex, the point is that children start exploring sexuality and therefore becoming more sexually aware at a younger age than you wish to acknowledge.
Understanding Early Sexual Development
Children's Sexual Behavior and Body Safety: A Guide for Parents
Childhood Masturbation

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism--all naturally occurring also.

As are kindness, thoughtfulness, self sacrifice, etc. What's your point?

The point is obvious, yet some seem completely able to ignore it:

Just because something occurs in nature in multiple species does not make it good or desirable.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism--all naturally occurring also.

As are kindness, thoughtfulness, self sacrifice, etc. What's your point?

The point is obvious, yet some seem completely able to ignore it:

Just because something occurs in nature in multiple species does not make it good or desirable.

Like a tail!? Although not sure if I'd mind having a tail, what with all them automatic doors and such.

Originally posted by spirited75
Anita Bryant said onetime:

Homosexuals cannot reproduce
so they have to recruit.

Recruiting is UNNATURAL

I am sorry but I was never "Recruited" into being gay....through my life of torment being gay...I would choose to be straight rather then be tormented, or I wouldn't want anyone to face the type of discrimination that occurs against the homosexual community....from our neighbors at that....so I wouldn't want to "Recruit" someone to be gay....

UNNATURAL
A woman does not have a choice to be a woman any more then
a black man has a choice to be black.
NATURAL EITHER FEMALE OR BLACK
Homosexual on the other hand is
a behavior choice.
UNNATURAL

Actually is it exactly the same as being a women or black...Are you choosing to be straight right now? Is it that easy for you to have a relationship with the same sex?

I have no choice in the matter....and with you not being in my shoes, you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that isn't true.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism--all naturally occurring also.

As are kindness, thoughtfulness, self sacrifice, etc. What's your point?

The point is obvious, yet some seem completely able to ignore it:

Just because something occurs in nature in multiple species does not make it good or desirable.

You still do not understand the point of the post....

What you do not understand is that we used to be animals...part of the animal kingdom....we have instincts that are breed into us down to the genetic level.....The group of individuals that claim it is a choice state it is "Unnatural"...yet if you find it in nature..it is natural....and something that is hardwired into our species..

and let me say this....

Not our species as a whole or we would become extinct....it is to control our numbers..as a species.....

Originally posted by Djayed
What you do not understand is that we used to be animals...part of the animal kingdom....we have instincts that are breed into us down to the genetic level.....The group of individuals that claim it is a choice state it is "Unnatural"...yet if you find it in nature..it is natural....and something that is hardwired into our speci

Because you are a naturalist, and practice the religion of science and base your faith on evolution, you can say that it is natural. That is your simple explaination for immoral behavior.

Because my world view is in opposition of yours, I believe that there are behaviors that are immoral and unethical.

Our positions are irreconcilable.

reply to post by spirited75


You may not practice the "religion" of science but you so obviously enjoy the fruits of its labor!

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


and those are just as natural imo for the same reason. Nature's population control is bound to breed a few Hitlers or Ted Bundy's to help control the population. It's not about morality, it's about balance.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


A better arguement would be that mutations are naturally occuring and homosexuality is just a negative mutation because it's counter-intuative to reproduction and on some basis life.

Of course that's assuming that a mutation promoting a lack of reproduction and therefore life is a bad thing. Some death in nature is not only natural but in my opinion, a good thing. Life needs death. Just as there can be no death without life.

reply to post by GrimReaper86


Except there is an argument to that. Last year scientists found that the mothers and aunts of homosexual males also produced a higher number of offspring. This would indicate that the same gene that contributes to homosexuality in males also contributes to appearance, extrovertedness, or fertility (or all three) in females.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Rape, murder, theft, cannibalism--all naturally occurring also.

As are kindness, thoughtfulness, self sacrifice, etc. What's your point?

The point is obvious, yet some seem completely able to ignore it:

Just because something occurs in nature in multiple species does not make it good or desirable.

The common argument is not: gay = natural, natural = good, gay = good.

The common argument is: gay = unnatural, unnatural = bad, gay = bad.

The lineage of your logic still stands for the common argument, though. It makes no difference whether it is natural or not; that doesn't does not make it bad or detestable.

reply to post by LightOrange

The common argument is not: gay = natural, natural = good, gay = good.

The common argument is: gay = unnatural, unnatural = bad, gay = bad.

Exactly!

It's quite frustrating how it gets flipped back and forth throughout a discussion.

I'm on every homosexual thread because the topic matters to me. Like I said, you are here to make sure everyone knows you are distracted. That's great. Keep bumping these threads, friend.

There are more important things going on than homosexual controversy.

Because I point that out doesn't make me distracted.

So if someone has sex wearing a condom, or on the pill, it means the sex is completely purposeless? Really think about that.

It's called lust.

Even if we make a choice not to reproduce, most people still want the pleasures of the flesh. Its totally natural, and people still feel the need for it.

But it serves no purpose greater than self-gratification.

More posting of opinions as fact.

Saying that sex is intended for reproduction is not opinionated. It's pitiful that anyone would consider that a legitimate argument.

Your post is opinion, based on nothing but conjecture. Scientific Inquiry continues to topple opinions such as yours, but the willfully ignorant continue to refuse to see.

Scientific inquiry? What would you know about that?

You think that homosexuals are unable to reproduce through gay sex, and that sex is intended for reproduction, are both opinionated and wrong. Two very simple, factual statements.

Omg... WHO CARES?! These threads go on and on and on... And they pop up every week or two.

I feel the same way, more or less... but here I am, defending myself against anyone who calls anyone who's not pro-gay an evil bigoted cult worshiper. I'll be sure to leave this thread alone after this last reply.

So, to all you crybaby name callers, I say...

Get over it.

Yup, for my beliefs, I am a crazy, conservative, bible-thumping bigoted cult-worshiping homophobic beast.

But if we simply don't advocate your lifestyle, you have the clearance to call us every name in the book.

The other way around? Somehow, its a hate crime.

Harassing someone for their sexual preference is a hate crime... but harassing someone for their religion?

Oh, that's okay. Because religions and God are evil and bigoted.

Before you pro-gays start throwing names around, don't whine when your little liberal feewings get hurt when someone retaliates at you. If you're big enough to call me uncalled for names, you can damn well receive em too.

Bye bye. Have fun whining over a media-spawned distraction that doesn't matter.

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX

There are more important things going on than homosexual controversy.

What reason do you have to believe this member and others don't acknowledge and care about other modern issues?

It's called lust.

Or an expression of intimacy or love....

But it serves no purpose greater than self-gratification.

So non-reproductive sex serves no purpose other than essentially masturbation.

Well I don't agree. I imagine many people in relationships don't agree with you either! Bonding and intimacy is a valid social anthropological purpose.

Harassing someone for their sexual preference is a hate crime... but harassing someone for their religion?

That's not analogous.

One is integral to the very nature of someone. The other is belief, and beliefs can and do change.

don't whine when your little liberal feewings get hurt when someone retaliates at you.

I promise I won't. Go ahead and retaliate.

Have fun whining over a media-spawned distraction that doesn't matter.

Up to 30,000,000 homosexual and bisexual in the States. Who knows how many heterosexual people that support LGBT (more than there are LGBT people I am sure). I would say it matters a great deal to people, and if the media was out of the picture (pun), it still would.

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX


LMAO.

All I see is:

X.x.Badasss.1992.x.X says:

My dad can beat up your dad
X~~~~x~~x~~~~X

2013 and we're still going through the phase where kids parrot their parents' shallow-as-hell views behind the keys of a message board and act as if the adults care to hear it anymore.

Sex is absolutely not excusively for reproducing. If it was, we wouldn't have invented birth control in the first place. People still will have sex with one person who they love and use birth control so as not to reproduce. Childbirth is actually probably the lowest of the reasons that people have sex these days.

Forgive me if I find it hilarious that you say me having sex with my boyfriend of 12 years is "lust" simply because we can't afford to support any more kids. As if I'm supposed to let my genitals shut down and rot away in the name of not concatenating my views with your innaccurate understanding of what "lust" is.

Go outside and develop a life if this topic is unimportant to you.

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX


Yup, for my beliefs, I am a crazy, conservative, bible-thumping bigoted cult-worshiping homophobic beast.

But if we simply don't advocate your lifestyle, you have the clearance to call us every name in the book.

The other way around? Somehow, its a hate crime.

Harassing someone for their sexual preference is a hate crime... but harassing someone for their religion?

Oh, that's okay. Because religions and God are evil and bigoted.

big·ot
/ˈbigət/

Noun
A person who is bigoted.
Synonyms
zealot - fanatic

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

See here is what makes you a bigot, and I put the definition for help. You want to impede your EQUALS rights based on your beliefs. I am your equal, we are both citizens of the US (If you are in the US). You are no better then me in any way...yet we do not have the same rights, and apparently you would keep it this way. This classifies you as a bigot, and bigots do not get to claim intolerance or bigotry I would consider that a double negative.

With your logic we should support people like Hitler, right? Following your logic we should be tolerant of his intolerance??

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX


It is no more a sexual preference to be gay than it is a sexual preference to be straight!

Yeah, get over yourself!

Talk about LMFAO

Originally posted by LightOrange
As if I'm supposed to let my genitals shut down and rot away in the name of not concatenating my views with your innaccurate understanding of what "lust" is.

I may need to frame this post!!

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

A better arguement would be that mutations are naturally occuring and homosexuality is just a negative mutation because it's counter-intuative to reproduction and on some basis life.

Of course that's assuming that a mutation promoting a lack of reproduction and therefore life is a bad thing. Some death in nature is not only natural but in my opinion, a good thing. Life needs death. Just as there can be no death without life.

Couldn't homosexuality actually be a good thing, as it could be nature's way of "controlling" population growth, assuming most homosexual people don't actually end up reproducing with someone else? And what about the people who are infertile or are unable to reproduce on their own (needing assistance to do such)? Are you going to call them a negative mutation too? Are people who choose to not have children or who just aren't made to be parents considered a bad mutation too? Come on, people are more than just baby popping machines.

reply to post by rainprincess64


Obviously you didn't recognize the context of my post. I did say "assuming it's a bad thing"...which was in response to the person's negative attitude I was responding to. I don't consider it a bad thing. Merely a balance. In fact I say it's a good thing at the end of my post...if you didn't notice...