Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/15/07 01:32 PM, SkyCube wrote:

At 1/14/07 05:44 PM, Experimental wrote: It doesn't matter if there's any bad to it or not. It's unnatural, you're going to have to prove otherwise and quit bullshitting around.

I never said it was natural.

Exactly. So you're going to have to come up with something better than "so what".

At 1/15/07 02:55 PM, Experimental wrote: Exactly. So you're going to have to come up with something better than "so what".

Um, natural just means occuring without inteference. I fail to see how homosexuality doesn't fall under that.

At 1/15/07 02:55 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/15/07 01:32 PM, SkyCube wrote:

At 1/14/07 05:44 PM, Experimental wrote: It doesn't matter if there's any bad to it or not. It's unnatural, you're going to have to prove otherwise and quit bullshitting around.

I never said it was natural.

Exactly. So you're going to have to come up with something better than "so what".

Is what two consenting adults do in the bedroom any of society's business? It may be unnatural but I think Skycube put it best. "So what?" It isn't our business and it will never hurt anyone.

At 1/15/07 03:12 PM, Freemind wrote:

Is what two consenting adults do in the bedroom any of society's business? It may be unnatural but I think Skycube put it best. "So what?" It isn't our business and it will never hurt anyone.

Because if you're going to make an arguement, it has to be better than "so what". It's a fragile and weak arguement if that's all you have.

"So what?" Can't come up with anything better?

At 1/15/07 02:03 PM, Sir-S-Of-ROFL wrote: Should a parent have the right to choose what their child turns out as?

Yes. They choose how a child eats, what the child does, where the child lives, where the child learns, what religion the child is taught, and what information the child can receive. I'm pretty damn sure parents have the right to control how their child develops.

At 1/13/07 10:22 AM, Kev-o wrote: Why can't this world just accept other human beings?

What types of human beings?

At 1/15/07 02:55 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/15/07 01:32 PM, SkyCube wrote:

At 1/14/07 05:44 PM, Experimental wrote: It doesn't matter if there's any bad to it or not. It's unnatural, you're going to have to prove otherwise and quit bullshitting around.

I never said it was natural.

Exactly. So you're going to have to come up with something better than "so what".

StealthBeast originally stated that gay sex is unnatural, in a way that implied that this means it is wrong. I pointed out that just because it is unnatural, it is not necessarily bad or wrong.

In this situation I think "So What?" is a very good argument. Because really, so what if it isn't natural? That doesn't make it wrong.

At 1/15/07 03:42 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/15/07 03:12 PM, Freemind wrote:

Is what two consenting adults do in the bedroom any of society's business? It may be unnatural but I think Skycube put it best. "So what?" It isn't our business and it will never hurt anyone.

Because if you're going to make an arguement, it has to be better than "so what". It's a fragile and weak arguement if that's all you have.

"So what?" Can't come up with anything better?

Alright, let me ask you this then. Do you think it is society's business what consenting adults do in the bedroom? How would you define natural? If there is infact a "gay gene", would that not be considered natural because it occurred spontaneously in our own physiology?

Anal sex must be natural - the prostate gland wasn't put there for nothing!

"Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams."

Best statistic ever.

At 1/14/07 01:58 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/14/07 01:06 AM, Experimental wrote: Wouldn't think honestly be one of those "who cares?" situation?

Basically it would, yeah. (I'm assuming "think" = "this"... if I am mistaken, do let me know)

If fixing a real problem has the side effect of lowering the homosexual population... BFD...

"fixing" homosexuality = better than just killing it.

Are you insinuating that I, or anyone else for that matter, advocate aborting based on sexual preference? Or that abortion would be the only alternative to this procedure?

Knowing your general tilt, I know this is a thinly veiled jab at the left... but I'm afraid I'm missing your "point".

Here's the point, he doesn't understand why a person is against the mother deciding the sexuality of the child, in other words, deciding the FUTURE of the child. [to some degree]. If that same person may also be in favor of a mothers right to abort the child also deciding their future [as in, no future] Which is worse? a fetus cant make either of those decisions. But lets say when a straight child turns 18 and he has to relive his child hood from birth, and his mother has the option of aborting him or making him homosexual, which would he/she choose.

At 1/13/07 10:33 AM, I-AM-PIRATE wrote: Homosexuality isn't a disease, you can't cure it.

see that's what homosexuals say but in some cases it has been shown to be a hormone imbalance causing homosexuality so in some cases, yes it is a disease and yes it can be cured.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be who you are, but who would choose to be homosexual? you cant easily have children and if you do they would be ridiculed, you yourself would be ridiculed, it causes a lot of heartache in a lot of different circumstances.

I personally have nothing wrong with gays, in fact i have a gay friend, so don't get me wrong, but just think about it who would choose it?

Being homosexual is gay.

lawl heeheehee it's not fun

At 1/13/07 10:17 AM, dave wrote:
What I find interesting is what I predict to be a hypocritical position in the group that would consider this bad. I suspect that the group that opposes a woman's right to cure her fetus of homosexuality would support a woman's right to an abortion. In essence, if motherhood will be too inconvenient, then killing the fetus is supported. However, if raising a gay child will be too inconvenient, "curing" its homosexuality is still opposed.

If abortion is legal, then certainly curing homosexuality in the womb should be also. Is there a circle to be squared here?

That is a very valid point and as long as abortion is legal then a parent choosing to do any type of procedure before birth should likewise be legal.

Also I personally believe that it is a loving thing to want your child to be straight , for many reasons it would make the child's life easier free from being harassed or possibly harmed from people going to extremes and hurting the person because of it's sexual preference.

and there is the wanting of your bloodline to go on and have Grandchildren.

I find it funny that that girl was opposing the study because she was concerned that the sheep did not want to be straight. First having gay sheep is probably not good for business for the farmer IN that it is probably harder to get them to breed.
;
and there is the whole not giving a rats ass what the animal wants-anyway I am sure it does not want to get made into a burger but do we listen . lol

Well troubles that is true, if i were a parent i would want my child to be straight [unless suddenly straight people were ridiculed and gay people were considered superior. If he/she was homsexual i would try not to give a second thought about them, and love them unconditionally.

About sheep breeding, farmers usually dont have animals mate to produce offspring. Usually he'll take the male with the most desirable coats and the females with the most desirable coats and inpregnate them sort of like how a fertility clinique does it.

It's wrong in the same way as giving your baby a tattoo, or the prospect of designer babies. It's not the parent's place to decide. Also, it is like choosing your babies eye colour. It's not an illness to be gay, nor is it an illness to have brown eyes, so I don't see the point.

At 1/17/07 12:56 PM, elkrobber wrote: It's wrong in the same way as giving your baby a tattoo, or the prospect of designer babies.

Wrong in the same way as curing your child of retardation, making sure it is born with four limbs, preventing it from having AIDS, or making sure it has a healthy brain?

These things are not wrong. Fixing defects is a long mile from designing new "better" features. You're right, parents don't have the right to decide this issue at all. They are obligated to fix the problems-- they can't decide to allow a child to be born maimed, retarded, or otherwised damaged when a cure is available.

At 1/17/07 12:56 PM, elkrobber wrote: It's wrong in the same way as giving your baby a tattoo, or the prospect of designer babies. It's not the parent's place to decide. Also, it is like choosing your babies eye colour. It's not an illness to be gay, nor is it an illness to have brown eyes, so I don't see the point.

But if the parents "aren't ready to have a child" it IS an illness to be a fetus.

Hurrah!

At 1/17/07 01:10 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/17/07 12:56 PM, elkrobber wrote: It's wrong in the same way as giving your baby a tattoo, or the prospect of designer babies.

Wrong in the same way as curing your child of retardation, making sure it is born with four limbs, preventing it from having AIDS, or making sure it has a healthy brain?

Those are extreme comparisons as homosexuality doesn't limit someone's life in the same ways as retardation, too few ( or too many >_>) limbs, or deadly diseases.

These things are not wrong. Fixing defects is a long mile from designing new "better" features. You're right, parents don't have the right to decide this issue at all. They are obligated to fix the problems-- they can't decide to allow a child to be born maimed, retarded, or otherwised damaged when a cure is available.

And here we get to the crux of the problem: Is homosexuality damage that needs to be fixed? Many homosexuals live perfectly normal lives. That can't be said about the other issues you've mentioned. The ones who do have trouble do so because of parental or societal indifference or hostility to their "condition". Maybe a more apt comparison would be a couple of mixed race using hormone treatments to ensure their child is born with the lightest possible skin color.

At 1/17/07 02:52 PM, Ravariel wrote: Maybe a more apt comparison would be a couple of mixed race using hormone treatments to ensure their child is born with the lightest possible skin color.

Sure. But skin color is "normal" when sided next homosexuality.

Just sayin'. Biologically speaking of course.

At 1/17/07 02:54 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/17/07 02:52 PM, Ravariel wrote: Maybe a more apt comparison would be a couple of mixed race using hormone treatments to ensure their child is born with the lightest possible skin color.

Sure. But skin color is "normal" when sided next homosexuality.

If by "normal" you mean "happens more often" then sure... having skin color is more "normal" than being homosexual.

But if we're using this as our benchmark for "normal" then where do we end up? Is it more normal to be asian than american? Should we all attempt to be asian because it's how the plurality of the population is?

See, I look at "normal" as naturally occurring without damage to the being. Homosexuality does so in about 10% of the population (give or take)... same for animal species. Homosexuals as far as I know are not prone to any hereditary illnesses that would constitute a valid danger to their existance, and as such, I much conclude that homosexuality is, indeed, normal and not a danger to the host (much like skin color, hair color, hight weight and vocal timbre).

At 1/17/07 03:16 PM, Ravariel wrote:

If by "normal" you mean "happens more often" then sure... having skin color is more "normal" than being homosexual.

Why is it that people can take something so simple and get something completely different out of it?

Normal is that skin color doesn't matter. Skin color is based on pigment and is hereditary. Whereas while humans are meant to be attracted to the opposite sex, homosexuals are not, therefore biologically "not normal".

Simple enough for ya?

It will fail, because political correctness always defeats science.

At 1/17/07 03:20 PM, Experimental wrote: Normal is that skin color doesn't matter. Skin color is based on pigment and is hereditary.

There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality has bases in genetics as well. Not relevant.

Whereas while humans are meant to be attracted to the opposite sex, homosexuals are not, therefore biologically "not normal".

Ok. So what detriment does this "abnormality" actually cause? Through in-vitro, "slumming" and surrogates, as well as adoption, children are perfectly able to be bred and born and raised by homosexuals, so that's not an issue any more. And other than Will and Grace, what other terror have they plagued us all with?

It is biologically "not normal" to be born without the CCR5 (think I got that right) receptor on your T-cells, either. Know what that causes? Immunity to HIV. Biologically "normal" and "not normal" are myths. There are so many variations of biology... it's like finding that one person who personifies "average" intelligence. This "abnormality" happens in 10% of the population... the only thing abnormal about it is that it doesn't happen the other 90%. The CCR5 receptor bit is around a 1% ocurrence... does that mean we are "meant" to get HIV?

Basically, something happening less often does not make it any less natural than any other biological process.

this is just another steping stone to an engineered society.

i fear for the future.

At 1/17/07 01:10 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/17/07 12:56 PM, elkrobber wrote: It's wrong in the same way as giving your baby a tattoo, or the prospect of designer babies.

Wrong in the same way as curing your child of retardation, making sure it is born with four limbs, preventing it from having AIDS, or making sure it has a healthy brain?

You missed my point. Research into preventing and treating illnesses, diseases, and major disformity (in my opinion, a cleft pallette is not a major disformity) is fine by me. What I was saying was that changing things about your child that won't disadvantage it in life, or cause any pain, is immoral.
There is nothing unhealthy about being gay, therefore it is unnesecary and merely the whim of the parent, a power which to them should not be granted.

At 1/17/07 03:20 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/17/07 03:16 PM, Ravariel wrote:

If by "normal" you mean "happens more often" then sure... having skin color is more "normal" than being homosexual.

Why is it that people can take something so simple and get something completely different out of it?

Normal is that skin color doesn't matter. Skin color is based on pigment and is hereditary. Whereas while humans are meant to be attracted to the opposite sex, homosexuals are not, therefore biologically "not normal".

Simple enough for ya?

SERIOUSLY NOW!!!!!! I WANNA KNOW!!!!! WHERE IN ALABAMA IS THERE AN INTERNET CONNECTION???? FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, YOURE ALL SITTING THERE PICKING BANJOS!!!!!!!

At 1/17/07 03:16 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/17/07 02:54 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/17/07 02:52 PM, Ravariel wrote:

See, I look at "normal" as naturally occurring without damage to the being. Homosexuality does so in about 10% of the population (give or take)... same for animal species. Homosexuals as far as I know are not prone to any hereditary illnesses that would constitute a valid danger to their existance, and as such, I much conclude that homosexuality is, indeed, normal and not a danger to the host (much like skin color, hair color, hight weight and vocal timbre).

;
Well by the numbers you give then 90% of the population is straight and so that is the majority and since we live in a society were the majority rules then we get to decide .

And except for a strange few , most parents would prefer there offspring to be heterosexual. Do any poll you want comen sense would tell you that. SO therefore if there is a scientific way to ensure your child will be healthy and heterosexual,

I am sure the loving parents to be wile getting that ultrasound and smiling at what they created together as a heterosexual couple will say Doctor give my wife that pill or vaccine to to let our baby grow up healthy ,happy, and so one day will be able to give us grandchildren with there heterosexual spouse, as We are right now.

At 1/18/07 11:02 AM, elkrobber wrote:

There is nothing unhealthy about being gay, therefore it is unnesecary and merely the whim of the parent, a power which to them should not be granted.

And why should these parents be denied their rights just because you find it immoral?

At 1/18/07 11:09 PM, troubles1 wrote: Well by the numbers you give then 90% of the population is straight and so that is the majority and since we live in a society were the majority rules then we get to decide .

If you want everything to be by majority, then the Chinese would decide everything. There are more of them than anyone else... and majority rules...

No. Majority may rule, but they do not get to choose everything for everyone.

And except for a strange few , most parents would prefer there offspring to be heterosexual. Do any poll you want comen sense would tell you that. SO therefore if there is a scientific way to ensure your child will be healthy and heterosexual,

It's the will of the few that needs protecting.

I am sure the loving parents to be wile getting that ultrasound and smiling at what they created together as a heterosexual couple will say Doctor give my wife that pill or vaccine to to let our baby grow up healthy ,happy, and so one day will be able to give us grandchildren with there heterosexual spouse, as We are right now.

This argument is so far off the mark of what we were discussing, I gotta put us back on point. This isn't about people wanting to have steraight kids, or the majority deciding what should be done for everyone. Ours was an argument about the "naturality" of homosexuality.

I already mentioned that I don't really know which way to fall on this subject. On one hand, who am I to tell another how to raise their child (within the confines of the law)... on the other hand, this seems like only the first step towards "designer" humans. And there's a whole can of worms that gets opened once we go there.