Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/5/06 09:41 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Sodomy under any circumstance is wrong. For crying out loud, you liberals are inept.

Your name is Moral Libertarian.. Is it just me... or arent libertarians supposed to be PRO civil rights?

Yeah, you guys should become butt buddies for the cause of gay love. Who's catching?

Wow, another brilliant and thoughtful comment by a moral conservative...

Just for reference, Have you ever had oral or anal sex? Have you ever had sex at all?

Im not trying to get you mad, but Im just wondering. You call everything except coitus immoral... so Im wondering how immoral of a person you are..

At 1/5/06 09:41 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: I already said that love between two men isn't necessarily wrong. Gay sex is wrong no matter how you slice it. It is certainly wrong biologically, and IMO it's immoral too.

Are you saving yourself for marriage and only when you want to procreate?

Why don't you learn to read? Sodomy under any circumstance is wrong. For crying out loud, you liberals are inept.

Does it make you feel better about yourself when you label and insult others? Those are some great morals.

What are you talking about? Homosexuals are fine with me: they are sinners. but I'm a sinner too. Fornicators and sodomites are the same in my book. Toleration of everything leads to moral decay.

There are cultures that treat homosexuals just as they treat everyone else. I don't see them in shambles. In fact, I think in some ways they're better off since they don't feed their people a bunch of bullshit about how horrible they are for things that are natural. Growing up and living in a society that tells you that you're an immoral and bad person for simply being does wonders for the psyche.

I love my family members and I wouldn't have sex with them.

I'm guessing you're not in love with them.

Yeah, you guys should become butt buddies for the cause of gay love. Who's catching?

More insults. Beautiful.

but what is one of the men has a vagina and no penis. is it considered wrong then?

At 1/5/06 10:00 PM, Timmy_B wrote: Your name is Moral Libertarian.. Is it just me... or arent libertarians supposed to be PRO civil rights?

I am pro-privatizing marriage. I'm just telling you that I believe sodomy is wrong.

Wow, another brilliant and thoughtful comment by a moral conservative...

thank you.

Just for reference, Have you ever had oral or anal sex? Have you ever had sex at all?

I would never put my penis in someone's butt, ever. And no I'm not a virgin, and no I'm not proud.

Im not trying to get you mad, but Im just wondering. You call everything except coitus immoral... so Im wondering how immoral of a person you are..

Again, if you knew how to read, you'd see that I said, "I subscribe to the belief where God forbids sodomy but permits everything else between married couples."

At 1/5/06 10:08 PM, BadBit wrote: Are you saving yourself for marriage and only when you want to procreate?

Are you guys daft? You really don't read, do you? This is the third time in a row this has happened. Okay look here:

At 1/5/06 07:20 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: I like to take the Qur'anic perspective, which forbids sodomy but says that a man and a woman can approach each other in any manner they like otherwise.

See? I said it. Now shut your mouths.

Does it make you feel better about yourself when you label and insult others? Those are some great morals.

Seriously, learn to read though. Otherwise I wouldn't have to make fun of you.

What are you talking about? Homosexuals are fine with me: they are sinners. but I'm a sinner too. Fornicators and sodomites are the same in my book. Toleration of everything leads to moral decay.

There are cultures that treat homosexuals just as they treat everyone else.

The American public is one of them. We don't care.

I don't see them in shambles. In fact, I think in some ways they're better off since they don't feed their people a bunch of bullshit about how horrible they are for things that are natural. Growing up and living in a society that tells you that you're an immoral and bad person for simply being does wonders for the psyche.

Here's a common argument: "They can't control it, they are born that way." I don't buy that. You're not born craving sexuality whether you're straight or gay, and besides, I love to sin. It's the same with pornography. I love to look at pornography. Does that mean if I look at it, I'm doing the right thing? No. Same with stealing. I love the rush of sealing. Should I do it because I was born loving to steal? No.

Sin is sin, and it comes naturally to us but that doesn't make it right.

Yeah, you guys should become butt buddies for the cause of gay love. Who's catching?

More insults. Beautiful.

thank you.

At 1/5/06 10:22 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Here's a common argument: "They can't control it, they are born that way." I don't buy that. You're not born craving sexuality whether you're straight or gay, and besides, I love to sin. It's the same with pornography. I love to look at pornography. Does that mean if I look at it, I'm doing the right thing? No. Same with stealing. I love the rush of sealing. Should I do it because I was born loving to steal? No.

So when were you given the choice of whether you would be attracted to females or males? Being gay isn't about the action of having sex with someone of the same gender. It's about the attraction.

If that attraction comes naturally how can the act of homosexual sex be unnatural?

At 1/5/06 09:41 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/5/06 07:43 PM, marshmallow979 wrote:

At 1/5/06 07:20 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

That's right, but gay relationships, just like straight relationships, often go deeper than sex, something you clearly aren't seeing.

I already said that love between two men isn't necessarily wrong. Gay sex is wrong no matter how you slice it. It is certainly wrong biologically, and IMO it's immoral too.

Wrong biologically? Why is sex for pleasure between a man and a woman for pleasure any better biologically? Wrong imorally? Because you're personal morals simply don't include any tolerance for gay people? That's totally ridiculous, you're prejudiced against them just because they do things differently than what you do, and you aren't open-minded enough to cope with that.

And of course anal sex with a women produces so much more fruitful results, right?

Why don't you learn to read? Sodomy under any circumstance is wrong. For crying out loud, you liberals are inept.

What makes sex with a man so much worse? Fundamentally it's the same thing as with a woman, there's absolutely no difference besides gender.
And also, calling liberals inept is as convincing as me calling conservatives inept, it proves nothing and shows you're ignorant enough to make a generalization like that.

And because I don't think Christianity works scientifically, of course that means I should unjustly oppose their way of life right?

That doesn't make any sense, but do what you like.

When you said homosexual sex doesn't work scientifically, I was giving an example of how that shouldn't lead you to conclusions, if you'll compare that statement and the one before more closely.

So basically it's the fundamentalist christian beliefs that are keeping you from respecting homosexual men as normal people.

What are you talking about? Homosexuals are fine with me: they are sinners. but I'm a sinner too. Fornicators and sodomites are the same in my book. Toleration of everything leads to moral decay.

So you're supposed to find things to be intolerant of to make you think you have morals? Because unjust intoleration leads to a life with even less morals.
And yes, clearly the fundamentalist christian side of this is keeping you from treating gay people as normal people, simply because if you take into account they're gay, you'll think less of them immediately. And also, you're assuming that they practice sodomy as opposed to anything less than that (i.e. just casual relationships).

Note that I am not saying that love between two men is wrong.

Well, hmmm... isn't that found foundation of homosexuality in men, the very subject you're opposing? So wouldn't that actually just conflict with what you said, since sex is considered an act of love?

I love my family members and I wouldn't have sex with them.

Of course not, it shocks me you would even respond like that, simply because you clearly aren't interpreting it right. Of course I'm not talking about the love you would have with your family, I'm talking about the aspect of love that's more sexual. And to repeat my point, you're simply contradicting yourself.

None of your arguments make any sense. All you've done is call me a homophobe, or religious or something...

Well, first off you are a homophobe, and secondly my arguments do make sense, or else you wouldn't have been able to logically respond to them.

Yeah, you guys should become butt buddies for the cause of gay love. Who's catching?

That isn't constructive at all, it's simply a childish insult. I'm straight, and this is a serious forum.

Really toadenalin, you might have to add a name soon, because you haven't been responding in a while. But maybe you're sleeping or something.

At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I put it to you that there is not ONE argument any of you can come up with to tell me why homosexuality is wrong.

1. Homosexuality in a species requiring Heterosexuality to reproduce does not lead to reproduction. Lack of reproduction means lack of population growth. Lack of population growth against dying population means shrinking population. Shrinking population means extinction.

In all mature countries, the reproductive rate is very low. In Europe, many countries have a negative population growth already. Homosexuality, by definition, removes population from the reproductive arena. Homosexuality or an increase in Homosexuality within these nations can only lead to further population shrinkage.

2. (related) Homosexuality means non-reproductive sex. Sex without reproduction is simply an "entertainment" and a "wrong" action in terms of every survival instinct. It does not lead to reproduction, the sole goal of all living organisms, thus it can not be natural. Bisexuality is natural because it still allows for reproduction. Homosexuality is literally a genetic death, and thus unnatural by every standard of the word.

At 1/5/06 11:09 PM, Draconias wrote: 1. Homosexuality in a species requiring Heterosexuality to reproduce does not lead to reproduction. Lack of reproduction means lack of population growth. Lack of population growth against dying population means shrinking population. Shrinking population means extinction.

In all mature countries, the reproductive rate is very low. In Europe, many countries have a negative population growth already. Homosexuality, by definition, removes population from the reproductive arena. Homosexuality or an increase in Homosexuality within these nations can only lead to further population shrinkage.

First off, which of these European countries have a zero population growth? After that, how can you determine this zero population growth is due to homosexuality?

It's pretty hard to believe that homosexuality is the only cause of population shrinkage. More plausible situations: birth control, abortion, families deciding to have less children per house hold...

And even then,
a population doesn't simply die off willingly. It's constantly maintaining at a capacity limited by environmental factors (food, space, standard of living, etc.) I hardly believe an entire population will not want to have children. Even gay people have this desire.

Consider certain rurual towns in Africa. Families have up to a dozen children, but in several instances only one or two children survive. Certain ethnic tribes, I'm assuming, probably have less than a zero population growth... and it's not due to homosexuality.

And here's another point.
Just because a person is gay doesn't mean that person doesn't reproduce. Gay people have straight sex many times (for their own reasons, of course.)

2. (related) Homosexuality means non-reproductive sex. Sex without reproduction is simply an "entertainment" and a "wrong" action in terms of every survival instinct. It does not lead to reproduction, the sole goal of all living organisms, thus it can not be natural. Bisexuality is natural because it still allows for reproduction. Homosexuality is literally a genetic death, and thus unnatural by every standard of the word.

I don't like these Darwinistic line of thinking... but for the sake of argument, I might as well have a crack at it.

If a population over grows, it will deplete food, space and standard of living. If this happens, then comes the possibility of extinction occurs.

If every orgasm has the drive that's always saying, "Populate, populate... sex, sex... straight sex!" Extinction will become a problem.

So, biologically, homosexuality is a way for organisms to control a population to acceptable levels. Otherwise, we may become bunnies in a squre foot box. Homosexuality isn't a "genetic death", but a genetic program to protect humanity.

Yup.
And thus concludes on how gays saved the world...

MoralLib, you keep making the same arguments, but I've already refuted them. You're entitled to your own religious oppinion on teh morality of homosexuality, but there is no biological justification that anal sex is 'wrong' unless you brand all other uses of teh body that weren't intended, such as piercings, tatoos, rings, etc. wrong and abnormal.

At 1/5/06 11:09 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I put it to you that there is not ONE argument any of you can come up with to tell me why homosexuality is wrong.

1. Homosexuality in a species requiring Heterosexuality to reproduce does not lead to reproduction. Lack of reproduction means lack of population growth. Lack of population growth against dying population means shrinking population. Shrinking population means extinction.

Right, so clearly homosexual people are wiping us off the face of the planet, because there aren't any other means of reproduction. If you ignore a few options, of course.

In all mature countries, the reproductive rate is very low. In Europe, many countries have a negative population growth already. Homosexuality, by definition, removes population from the reproductive arena. Homosexuality or an increase in Homosexuality within these nations can only lead to further population shrinkage.

And of course we should be trying to raise the population, which leads to overcrowding and increased world hunger. Also, homosexuality in women doesn't mean they can't still produce babies, it just isn't done the traditional way.

2. (related) Homosexuality means non-reproductive sex. Sex without reproduction is simply an "entertainment" and a "wrong" action in terms of every survival instinct. It does not lead to reproduction, the sole goal of all living organisms, thus it can not be natural. Bisexuality is natural because it still allows for reproduction. Homosexuality is literally a genetic death, and thus unnatural by every standard of the word.

No, sex for pleasure (which is done by all orientations more than anything else) is not "wrong" in any sense of the word, it's just as "wrong" as playing a video game. The purpose is pleasure. Are you saying all forms of entertainment are wrong also?
Basically what I'm hearing here is that you're saying reproduction is absolutely the only thing that matters for the human race, because you've given no indication to think otherwise.

At 1/5/06 11:39 PM, fli wrote: Yup.
And thus concludes on how gays saved the world...

Finally some support from somebody who knows what it's like to be gay.

There really isn't any argument against gays that can't be refuted if you look at all sides of the issue.

Are we talking about the sexual preference or the sexual acts?

There ARE homosexuals who may never engage in homosexual intercourse with another male partner at any time in their life.........

I can argue that Rome never fell, and Washington D.C. is the new "Rome" for all intensive purposes. Would I be correct? Probably not, but I could certainly make it look good......

Everyone else already shot you off your high horse, I hope you recover from that nasty fall and come out a little more knowledgable.....

have a nice day

At 1/5/06 11:51 PM, Imperator wrote:

have a nice day

What exactly are you saying, and to who? Me?

To the topic Starter.

Sorry for the confusion!

At 1/5/06 11:46 PM, Quanze13 wrote: MoralLib, you keep making the same arguments, but I've already refuted them.

Really? Must have missed that. It would certainly be a first, wouldn't it? Let's see:

At 1/5/06 08:19 PM, Quanze13 wrote: This is true. However, if homosexual sex is wrong or 'abnormal' because the anus wasn't meant to recive semen in a reproductive purpose, then that makes all sex using contraception 'abnormal' and 'wrong.'

Sorry, don't see how that makes any sense whatsoever. Refutation generally involves a coherent point: what you've listed is just a giant fallacy.

You're saying that if sodomy is wrong, so is birth control. There are certainly people who would argue that, and I myself am not sure where I stand on the issue. I'm attempting to keep my points completely secular, mostly because you don't care about how I feel religiously, so let's go through all the manners that sodomy is completely and totally unnatural:

There are no natural lubricants in the rectum: it is actually sticky, narrow, and prone to tearing if not careful or not lubricated liberally (maybe the Creator is trying to tell us something by designing the anus in this manner).

No enema, douche, or excessive wiping will eliminate all the infectious bacteria from the anus, which will result in urinary tract infections and make it the easiest way to transfer sexual diseases.

Unlike oral or vaginal sex, anal sex is the only form of sex that requires lubrication and condoms to be absolutely safe. Two virgins practicing anal sex will have to put condoms on just like two experienced anal-sexers will. Two virgins married can have sex in any way they want other than anal and they will be relatively free of risk of diseases or infections.

I've heard from a variety of women who have tried anal that it hurts the first couple times, maybe more.

If you won't listen to God when he says it's wrong, at least listen to the way we're designed. And stop using logical fallacies.

Taking it one step further. The fleshy lobes at the base of the ears weren't meant to hold sharp strands of metal with vaious precious or semi-precious stones on their ends. Does that mean that wearing earrings is wrong and abnormal?

Maybe. Perhaps mutilations are wrong. What does that have to do with gay love? When you insert a sharp strang of metal into your ear, do you get a urinary tract infection? Is it like poking at a bunch of poop with a stick?

The digits on the end of the hand were not meant to hold bands of tempered metal around them, does that mean that wearing rings is wrong and abnormal? the 'intended purpose' argument is quite moot.

Now you're just being an idiot. And I suppose next you're going to say, "The cups that women wear over their breasts weren't put their by God, does that mean that wearing bras are abnormal?" Whatever. If weaseling your way out of a debate through a bunch of faulty comparisons is good enough for you, God speed.

Please, keep refuting me. You've got some great material.

I'm not going to be able to have an erection for weeks because of this debate.

No need to be a dick about it Lib, I try to have a civil discussion with you, and you manage to turn it nasty and personal. Can you try to be at least a little professional and a bit less childish? Is that at all possible for you? You still haven't disproven the point I made. If you insist that the anus wasn't speciffically designed for sex, and anal sex is wrong, then you must also acknowlege that since the earlobes weren't designed for earrings, those are also wrong, since the flesh wasn't designed for tatoos, those are also wrong, etc etc etc ad nauseam. Your point is moot -- just because an organ wasn't made to function a certain way doesn't mean that that use of it is morally wrong.

At 1/6/06 12:56 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Unlike oral or vaginal sex, anal sex is the only form of sex that requires lubrication and condoms to be absolutely safe...

Wait...
The mouth is used for 1.) to eat, or 2.) to speak.

Just because it can lubricate a penis doesn't mean a penis belongs there (unless you're going to eat it.

Otherwise,
One could argue that since all males have prostates that becomes stimulated during sex (and more so during anal sex)... then messaging it with a penis is okay.

At 1/6/06 01:07 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/6/06 12:56 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Unlike oral or vaginal sex, anal sex is the only form of sex that requires lubrication and condoms to be absolutely safe...

Wait...
The mouth is used for 1.) to eat, or 2.) to speak.

Just because it can lubricate a penis doesn't mean a penis belongs there (unless you're going to eat it.

Sure. I'm not going to argue whether or not oral sex is permissible because using this line of reasoning you would assume that it's wrong. That's why the Catholic Church forbids it.

Otherwise,
One could argue that since all males have prostates that becomes stimulated during sex (and more so during anal sex)... then messaging it with a penis is okay.

That argument stripped down to a nutshell is basically, "If it feels good, than it must be right." fli, I wish for the life of me that that was how the world worked.

I do feel like a douchebag and I feel the need to make this disclaimer when I'm arguing with you even though you've heard it 1000 times: I don't dislike you, or don't disrespect you (well, any less than I normally disrespect you) because of your sexuality. And frankly, if you were straight, you'd be a different person so I don't want you to change or anything. So please don't be offended.

At 1/5/06 03:24 PM, BadBit wrote:

At 1/5/06 02:51 PM, Jinzoa wrote: two simple reasons why it could be wrong:

2. Biologically it is just wrong and not ment to happen.

a. ) where do you derive intent for the body from, and where its limits are?
b.) how do you explain that homosexual behavior has been documented in more than 450 species of animals? (Columbia University Article on Homosexuality in Animals)
c.) if the body was not intended for that use, does that mean that using the body for anything other than basic necessities for survival is wrong? are people who do not procreate just as bad in your eyes? people were not designed to fly, deep sea dive, travel at high speeds, etc ... flying across the country for a business deal or to visit your family doesn't satisfy base neccessities for life (food, water, air, sun, reproduce) ... so is that wrong and not meant to happen?

a) The human body has many limits yes at no one knows what they truley are but i derive the intent of the body form by looking at evolution, animals and early humans used their bodies the way they were ment to(naturally as in nature intended) to survive and by ejaculating in someones asshole aint gonna produce babies....if the whole world was homosexual then i doubt anyone would survive..

b)the animal part on homosexuality can be said they might have hormonal imbalances, they might not be able to identify the opposite sex(highly doubtfull of course) or that maybe the low ranking animals in a group or pact are forced to result to it come breeding time as all the dominant and alpha males have gotten all the mates. It is hard to say though but as we know you can not really say an animal chose to be homosexual due to the fact they would not know the difference due to logic limits unlike a human.

c.the human brain had evolved for the survival of our species, we are now dependant on our brains logic for survival. Information we use and master it to not die out, basically if people do not procreate that is not naturally wrong as although the body is able and naturally allowed to do it, it is just as natural if they do not do it. flying at high speeds nowadays and planes etc is not wrong as the brain through logic has evolved and allowed us to survive. Wanting something is a result of desire which is a result of our evolution, heck even animals want things like more food than they need so wanting is natural thus having these planes and stuff to make it easier to survive and meet ones wants are natural.

The thing with homosexuality is that although our brain has evolved for survival i do not see our genitalia evolving for the use of homosexuality showing it does go against what nature intended.

At 1/6/06 01:30 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/6/06 01:07 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/6/06 12:56 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Unlike oral or vaginal sex, anal sex is the only form of sex that requires lubrication and condoms to be absolutely safe...

Wait...
The mouth is used for 1.) to eat, or 2.) to speak.

Just because it can lubricate a penis doesn't mean a penis belongs there (unless you're going to eat it.

Sure. I'm not going to argue whether or not oral sex is permissible because using this line of reasoning you would assume that it's wrong. That's why the Catholic Church forbids it.

Otherwise,
One could argue that since all males have prostates that becomes stimulated during sex (and more so during anal sex)... then messaging it with a penis is okay.

That argument stripped down to a nutshell is basically, "If it feels good, than it must be right." fli, I wish for the life of me that that was how the world worked.

But that's not what I'm argueeing. You said (along these lines) that the mouth's spite is lubricant, thus biologically oral sex "isn't wrong" (in the biological sense I'm sure you were saying.)

Then you compared it to anal sex, mentioning that the rectum rips easily and can't be comfortably penetrated without lubricant (unlike the mouth).

I went along with similar line of thinking. Males have prostates meant to carry urine from the bladder, and to make the seman fluids. Yet it becomes stimulated with penetration.

I don't know how to make it clearer-- I'm using your type of argument, but instead of mouth I used anus, and instead of saliva I used prostate. And thus it boils down to this.

Either both of us are wrong, or both of us are right.

I do feel like a douchebag and I feel the need to make this disclaimer when I'm arguing with you even though you've heard it 1000 times: I don't dislike you, or don't disrespect you (well, any less than I normally disrespect you) because of your sexuality. And frankly, if you were straight, you'd be a different person so I don't want you to change or anything. So please don't be offended.

Well... we're not talking about my sexuality, aren't we?
You don't need to feel anything... BTW. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable either...

If you've seen my post history, I've been particularly good at not getting overtly upset even with personal issues.

Only person who can pop my top is Damien... and I've popped his top a few times too.

in religioun it says it is wrong, and i wont argue with the religious point of it, i have learnd that you can never win in a argument in religion.

but me, i dont think homosexuallity is wrong. people have said it is wrong because it is gross. that is an opinion only.

then there are that say that it is a sin, and that goes with the religious point, so i wont go there.

then there are that say that "gays are trying to make us all gay"
that is by far the most ignorant thing i have ever heard. only people that are not that bright think that way. the people that speak but dont think.

Unlike oral or vaginal sex, anal sex is the only form of sex that requires lubrication and condoms to be absolutely safe.

About as wrong as possible.

The ONLY way to be absolutely safe is abstinence, no if's and's or but's attached.

At 1/5/06 09:41 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: It is certainly wrong biologically, and IMO it's immoral too.

Why?

Honest question.

Why don't you learn to read? Sodomy under any circumstance is wrong. For crying out loud, you liberals are inept.

Again, why? And I'm not talking about procreationally.

Meh, ignore my last post... way too late to be of any use to the debate... missed an entire page of replies when I started typing.

I might skip over the whole grey-area of right and wrong, if that alright. I'll say that if you can get five people to agree that you have an argument I (or someone else) cannot come back from, you win. Right and wrong are subjective, but five people agreeing isn't, so I reckon its the fairest way.

At 1/5/06 11:07 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Then this would be a homosexual relationship that was wrong!

I think this may be a verbal fallacy - I meant 'wrong' as in 'morally wrong' - sin-, whereas you use wrong here as 'incorrect'. While I conceed that you are right - this is an 'incorrect' use of homosexuality as a term. But you haven't really engaged with the issue, so I don't think I can honestly say you've made a world-shattering argument.

At 1/5/06 02:51 PM, Jinzoa wrote: 1.The religous people(not everyone) and their homo bashing saying it is afront to god.

I don't feel this is a very powerful argument. Firstly, there are many sections of the Bible which even very comitted Christians would question. Secondly, any non-religious homosexuals are not bound by religious law (just as Christians are not bound by Jewish law). Finally, any Christian will tell you that EVERYONE is a sinner, but if you "look at pornography" or "steal" it does not make you an afront to God (at least, not to my knowledge)

2. Biologically it is just wrong and not ment to happen.

This is an example of a Naturalistic Fallacy - MoralLib did the same thing, but did it in a slightly more intelligent and complicated way.

This argument has been very compellingly put down by people posting before me, so I'll be brief.
1) Some species of animals (higher mammals) do have sex for pleasure

2) No animal lives in a house made from bricks. Humans do. Houses are therefore automatically unnatural. From this argument, you can see unnatural does not mean immoral.

i find nothing wrong with them. but that is because i use my brain and think logically and dont instantly come to conclusions and dont let my emotions get in the way.

At 1/6/06 07:15 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/5/06 02:51 PM, Jinzoa wrote: 1.The religous people(not everyone) and their homo bashing saying it is afront to god.

I don't feel this is a very powerful argument. Firstly, there are many sections of the Bible which even very comitted Christians would question. Secondly, any non-religious homosexuals are not bound by religious law (just as Christians are not bound by Jewish law). Finally, any Christian will tell you that EVERYONE is a sinner, but if you "look at pornography" or "steal" it does not make you an afront to God (at least, not to my knowledge)

well of course it is not a powerful argument as i just gave to examples.

At 1/5/06 02:51 PM, Jinzoa wrote: two simple reasons why it could be wrong:

i state why it COULD be wrong, i am not against homosexuals or anything like that, i just gave two simple reasons on why it could be wrong in peoples opinions.

2. Biologically it is just wrong and not ment to happen.

This is an example of a Naturalistic Fallacy - MoralLib did the same thing, but did it in a slightly more intelligent and complicated way.

This argument has been very compellingly put down by people posting before me, so I'll be brief.
1) Some species of animals (higher mammals) do have sex for pleasure

2) No animal lives in a house made from bricks. Humans do. Houses are therefore automatically unnatural. From this argument, you can see unnatural does not mean immoral.

read the post above you i posted.

1. yes animals have sex for pleasure like humans as you say there is nothing wrong with that, they have evolved logically like us to have wants and desires. Having these wants and desires are natural as we have evolved to have them so it is only natural to fulfill them. Assuming that the animals you mention are Homosexual then as i said in my previous post it could be to Hormonal imbalances, Cant tell opposite sex(highly unlikley) and lower ranks in a pact or group are forced really to breed with the same gender as they have the urges come around breeding time. This is as the higher ranking dominant and alpha males of the groups get the females.

Although the species with our logic like dolphins as you mentioned have evolved to gain desires they have gained the ability to choose mates although i very doubt that they care they are male as they do not have the logic we have to discuss the real implications of male and male.

2.read my previous post again.

At 1/6/06 02:04 AM, Jinzoa wrote: c.the human brain had evolved for the survival of our species, we are now dependant on our brains logic for survival. Information we use and master it to not die out, basically if people do not procreate that is not naturally wrong as although the body is able and naturally allowed to do it, it is just as natural if they do not do it. flying at high speeds nowadays and planes etc is not wrong as the brain through logic has evolved and allowed us to survive. Wanting something is a result of desire which is a result of our evolution, heck even animals want things like more food than they need so wanting is natural thus having these planes and stuff to make it easier to survive and meet ones wants are natural.

The thing with homosexuality is that although our brain has evolved for survival i do not see our genitalia evolving for the use of homosexuality showing it does go against what nature intended.

People in Britain are pretty homophoebic, they call things like toasters Gay?

My brother walked in this morning to get some breakfast and I purposly turned of the toaster. He came up to it and went "Mummmm! The fucking Toaster isnt working, its being well Gay!" at that point he stole my toast and I threw a spoon at him. Dont ask why I had a spoon with toast.

Anyway, people probably all the time say "OMG your being well GAY!" But whats this obsession with a word aboit being Happy for one reason. Or being in a man to man relationship which can lead to intercourse. What with people calling other people Gay for no reason even if they are not gay?

At 1/6/06 09:55 AM, HomeGrownTurnip wrote: People in Britain are pretty homophoebic, they call things like toasters Gay?

My brother walked in this morning to get some breakfast and I purposly turned of the toaster. He came up to it and went "Mummmm! The fucking Toaster isnt working, its being well Gay!" at that point he stole my toast and I threw a spoon at him. Dont ask why I had a spoon with toast.

Anyway, people probably all the time say "OMG your being well GAY!" But whats this obsession with a word aboit being Happy for one reason. Or being in a man to man relationship which can lead to intercourse. What with people calling other people Gay for no reason even if they are not gay?

i agree with you there being british as we all do have a tendancy to call things that are being stupid or idiotic gay. This is rather like a tradition really if you think about it.