Why being Gay IS a Natural thing

reply to post by caladonea

As I am writing this I am thinking; I may have my own answer...gay people are fighting for the basic human rights...that everyone in society should have.

And I support their cause, just because I believe strongly in basic human rights.

reply to post by Djayed


Right?, so being not in line with billions of years of evolution is natural even though it means a far lower chance of genetic survival and there fore the gene's that are expressed in this war are not past on and yet you assert it to be natural, wake up there have always be gay's but mostly they were bisexual like alexander the great and the Greek's but there is proof that the biochemical contamination of the worlds fresh water now contains chemicals that simulate female hormones in men and cancel those same hormones in women affecting the child in the womb.
Sorry I have nothing against gay's and know several, indeed I have a famous relative during the Victorian age whom was but it is not natural, in a man the waste disposal chute is meant for just that very purpose and in a woman well they are geared to be more sociable while the hunter is away so it is conceivable that butch female protectors may have evolved but that would not stop the passage of genes in a male dominated society.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by ThaLoccster

 

The question people, especially heterosexual people need to ask is When did you decide to like the opposite sex?

I can find early childhood memories of a strong attraction for the opposite sex.

Believe me, if I naturally had homosexual urges, I would be acting on them. My favorite hobby is getting off with a partner. I've never particpated in any kind of homosexual activity, despite the offers to do so. My body just don't get excited without the opposite sex.

Well said!!!

1. My first childhood attraction was toward the same sex
2. My first sexual experience was with a women and really embarrassing since all the hardware didn't function properly if you know what I mean
3. So really I couldn't pretend to be straight unless I had Viagra

Originally posted by Djayed

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by ThaLoccster

 

The question people, especially heterosexual people need to ask is When did you decide to like the opposite sex?

I can find early childhood memories of a strong attraction for the opposite sex.

Believe me, if I naturally had homosexual urges, I would be acting on them. My favorite hobby is getting off with a partner. I've never particpated in any kind of homosexual activity, despite the offers to do so. My body just don't get excited without the opposite sex.

Well said!!!

1. My first childhood attraction was toward the same sex
2. My first sexual experience was with a women and really embarrassing since all the hardware didn't function properly if you know what I mean
3. So really I couldn't pretend to be straight unless I had Viagra

I believe the first commenter has missed the point. I too can recall early childhood memories of an attraction to the opposite sex. What I cannot recall, and what I am encouraging others to attempt to recall, are memories of you deciding upon being attracted to that sex.

While possibly missing the point, you still summed it up fairly, as did the next commenter. You were always just naturally attracted to what you were attracted to, it wasn't a choice or decision you made.

reply to post by LABTECH767


But 'Homosexuality' is not defined by Anal Sex, whilst many engage in it, that is not 'Homosexuality', heterosexuals engage in it likewise

i concur, the earliest memory was me being drawn towards men, and being attracted towards men, likewise since i can remember i have always been overlyeffeminate i never made a 'choice' or decided i would be gay, i didn't know what gay was growing up, i just knew i was attracted to men

reply to post by LABTECH767


How does asexual reproduction fare in this arguement?

Many animals, as well as plants and other organisms, reproduce asexually without the need for fertilization. Some animals have reproduced asexually and through normal fertilization.

Below is one such instance:

www.regina.com...

Incidents of virgin births have often been attributed to an absence of males. But the mother's two virgin birth litters were produced while she was being housed with male snakes, and she had previously given birth to litters after mating with a male.

I don't believe examples from animals or plants are always relevant to humans, I only mentioned the above since "billions of years of evolution" was mentioned.

When a man lays with a man or a women lays with a women it is an abomination before the Lord.

In my opinion, man might want to be careful on how they rationalize their behaviour.

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

His point is actually very valid...
Homosexuality is a clinical term that was made in the modern age, there was no name (at least none I know of) for it back in the original Hebrew, or Latin. However, this was very much going on by the time that much of the Bible was penned. It was a very common practice among the Ancient Greeks and the Romans. There were specific religions (I believe Roman) in which at certain times the male priests would dress as women and have sex as part of their religious ceremonies. These things are clearly mentioned in the Bible.

However that said, again, those who follow the teachings of the Bible are free to disagree with such things, but they should not persecute those who choose to engage in them. Remember, even as a Christian, you are a sinner, and pointing out another’s sins is hypocritical. Sin is sin, regardless of what the sin actually is.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 6/29/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

I agree on the information you provided, including the sinning aspect. I admit, I'm not a very good Christian, but at the same time, I never claimed to be. My faith has been in question a time or two.

The exact.. specific point I'm getting at..

Yes, I agree that the term was not known until later. BUT.. The quote "Man shall not lie with man as with a woman" was known and was put in the bible as it is here. That can not be ignored. This says nothing about the term homosexual. The basis of this very quote is what I'm basing my argument on. It has nothing to do with the term exect that it means the same. How else does a man lie with women?

There is no confusing this specific quote with something that is or is not placed in the bible originaly.

I'm not ignoring the idea that the word homosexual was not known at some point as a term... It's beyond that. A known term or not, the quote is till there and has been there since the beginning.

reply to post by Djayed


In my opinion, your given attraction causes no harm to any other people, unless you're a heartbreaker .

I can't say that I know exacly how it feels to be stigmatized for sexual orientation, but I do have a good idea. During my 7th, 8th, and 9th grades of school, I was constantly called one of the many names that are synonymous with homosexual. I think that's what made me so mean. On the first day of my 10th grade year, I was suspended for getting into a fight. That was the day I decided to beat someone senseless for calling me faggot.

Edited for:

That was my very first fight.

reply to post by seabag

If homosexuality was natural it wouldn’t be taboo, would it? Homosexuality elicits an innate fear in humans…it’s part of our survival mechanism as a species. How is it that a little child is afraid of things even though they don’t know what they are? How is it that young birds know not to fall out of the nest?

If you look at the pre-Abrahamic cultures of the ancient world, homosexuality was not only acceptable but widely practiced.

If someone has a fear of homosexuality or of other races ect, it is likely a consequence of having ignorant, bigoted parents and the Social mores of their environment rather than an inbuilt saftey mechanism of the kind you mention...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by defcon5

 

I haven't starred a post of yours in a long time.

Also, if you look at the original Aramaic and Hebrew, the verse Rhenn quoted actually says, do not sleep with a man in the same bed as you sleep with a woman (rough translation). The bible is an interesting book, but it's followers sometimes forget the important stuff.

soooo what part of that don't you understand?

You do understand how letters/words of hebrew is used right? The term could very well mean either and both. Even.. as you mentioned above, it it's watered down to show what you think you have made it appear.

reply to post by Djayed

I am sorry it is you that is confused about how gentics work....I spend my free time reading science articles...that is a misconception.

www.nytimes.com...

You're going to argue TEXT BOOK with New York Times?


lol

Priceless!

You read articles from a magazine yet you ignore facts from a college text. Brilliant!

Originally posted by Djayed

Originally posted by caladonea

I am heterosexual and I do not announce this to society; I just am... who I am.

As I am writing this I am thinking; I may have my own answer...gay people are fighting for the basic human rights...that everyone in society should have.

My response was going to be just that!!

remember that term I asked you to define?

You made this post!!! You cant reneg and say this if you made the bloody thread!

Cmon man!

Originally posted by Djayed

Originally posted by theRhenn


Accept that people dont agree with you. Man, I sure wish everyone agreed with me! But it wont happen.

But that is not that case...most of Americans do accept Gay....Also I will say it again.....Bigots cannot claim Intolerance...and I can claim bigot for someone that doesn't have tolerance for who I am.... and they cannot legitimately claim Hypocrisy or intolerance...plain and simple....

Show me proof of most. Like homosexuals, many heteros stay out of this crazed conversation that really dont agree with it. Just because people dont say something about an issue, doesn't mean they're not against it. When you show me something about the amount of people that are for/against this, I'll change my mind. Last I heard.. It was as divided as democrats and republicans. Right down the middle. Personaly, I see it brought to light as an agenda, as all political BS is. Half the world will always agree.

I think that the stigma around homosexuality was created by societies such as the Greeks, Romans, etc. Here is my theory. I believe that situations were likely to have happened, in which, a heterosexual was compelled to feel culturally bound to participate in homosexuality. That'd would be more than enough to make someone work homophobia into their religion.

reply to post by 200Plus

Originally posted by 200Plus
If Homosexuals can reproduce just like heterosexuals (your argument) does that also mean the current laws are just? After all, homosexuals can marry just like heterosexuals.

But they can't CHOOSE who they marry. They can choose who they reproduce with. But it's a good question.

I would say that reproduction is a scientific process that clearly takes two people of opposite gender. There's nothing the law can do to change that. It's a simple, irrefutable fact. USING that fact to discriminate against gay people is meaningless, because no two people of the same gender can reproduce.

Marriage is a legal contract and a privilege that does not require anything scientific, but rather is protected by the Constitution. Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage.

We all split hairs and define what's OK with us and what's not. And I find a strong line between the legal and scientific sides of this argument.

reply to post by theRhenn

You're going to argue TEXT BOOK with New York Times?

My other hobby, for over 10 years, was taking college and university courses. I remember learning many "facts" from my college textbooks, which are now obsolete.

Originally posted by theRhenn
reply to post by Djayed

 

I am sorry it is you that is confused about how gentics work....I spend my free time reading science articles...that is a misconception.

www.nytimes.com...

You're going to argue TEXT BOOK with New York Times?


lol

Priceless!

You read articles from a magazine yet you ignore facts from a college text. Brilliant!

Whatever text book you are quoting is not correct any longer.....Twins having exact DNA is a misconception....I pay money to read science articles written by scientists?!?!? I pay $85 a year for New Scientist Weekly...and $10 a year for Popular Science.....So I am going to lean towards the scientist that posts the articles and/or the papers they publish...I would post the one from New Scientist but you need to be a member to read the article online since ....it is not current news, but old news....so I am going to say whatever TEXT BOOK you remember reading that from is no longer in use today, unless you live in Texas or South Carolina....

EDIT
I did find a public article relating to how the Twins DNA starts the same but different, see below:

Petronis' team found that "identical" twins, who by definition share DNA, exhibit considerably different patterns of one kind of chemical modification across their genomes. These modifications, known as methylations, can affect gene activation, as well as DNA replication and recombination.

Link
I think where you are getting hung up on is this line " identical twins, who by definition share DNA,". the key word here is share DNA...that does not mean there DNA is identical...it might start out that way right when the embryo splits...but by the time of birth there DNA does differ some....

Originally posted by Djayed
I am going to say this again...

Homosexuality has a great deal to play wth reproduction....it controls it which in return assist with resources not being used.....

Homosexuality has been documented all throughout history...logically if you think about our population as it is now....you would not be sitting there behind your computer commenting on this post...our civilization would have ended due to the lack of resources available to support us.....there is a small population of homosexulss just for this cause... to control population...when populations rise...the amount of homosexuals rise to counter the population and their use of resources..

This is not logical. War, disease and famine regulate the population quite well. If not better then our homosexual brothers and sisters. As I said earlier. My dad is gay and I am here.

In all honesty it sounds like you are trying to put yourself above folks that choose a heterosexual lifestyle. IE, if it wasn't for us everyone would be dead. That is not the case.

I do not hate your lifestyle. In all honesty I could care less what one chooses. Your argument is grandiose and if it was not for an act of heterosexuality you would not be sitting behind your computer typing away.