Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

My personal opinion..... a degree of both. I think that a large degree is due to genes, but i think that the idea that environment can also affect it is valid up to a certain point. The ultimate question is does it even matter?

I have become sick of the entire subject. Every day I hear the same argument over and over. I live in California, a state that cannot make up its god damn mind about it, to the point that every election there is some kind of bill about it (4 out of 5 times it is about gay marriage). My personal opinion is that I do not see anything wrong with it... While I am not personally homosexual in any way, I have no problem with other individuals being homosexual, and ultimately I do not believe it is anyone else's concern.

---

At 10/6/08 12:45 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Use the search bar this has been done like 20 times.

Absolutely.

---

At 10/6/08 01:33 PM, Diederick wrote:

At 10/6/08 12:45 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Use the search bar this has been done like 20 times.

Absolutely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0 NY Just in case.

---

At 10/6/08 01:17 PM, Memorize wrote: By that logic, it doesn't matter what happens in a species, whether it be a genetic or psychological disorder or how infrequent it is, it's all "natural".

The normal route might be a healthy, straight, infant. But by your standards, natural would also apply to: disease ridden, crippled, mentally retarded, homosexual infant.

Yes, that is a natural occurence. As is eating your own children and many, many other things viewed as negative. That, however, isn't the point.

EVERYTHING is suddenly natural.

Or rather... only the things you want.

Oh no, I defy you to find anyone who claims that anything that happens in nature isn't natural.

How are the two pro-gay statement contradictory? All you did was re-word to say the EXACT same thing.

I really cannot see how you're not grasping the point; it's not the wording it is the intent that changes. The former is an incredibly myopic arguement that you have quite rightly refuted, the latter is a rebuttal to an equally myopic claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. The problem is the arguement you have refuted is a phantom, an illusion conjured by yourself for the express purpose of making a valid claim. I'd accuse you of scarecrowing-ing but your total imagining of this has wandered in to the realm of paranoid delusions.

Tell that to... the majority of you. Because you people constantly use it to set up the argument "it's normal, and it doesn't hurt anyone, therefore it should be allowed".

The problem is you're misinterpreting the 'it doesn't hurt anyone'; it is simply a poorly worded assertion that homosexuality is consensual and therefore does not merit social prejudice.

But still, the same logic applies to all of them. Bestiality is also found in nature, therefore qualifies as natural. It also hurts no one.

Tell that to the animal that cannot give consent and is, essentially, being raped.

Necrophilia happens in nature, therefore qualifies as natural. It also hurts no one.

Again: lack of consent. Oh and that is a rather silly claim anyway as it does hurt the bereaved.

---

At 10/6/08 01:49 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 10/6/08 01:17 PM, Memorize wrote: By that logic, it doesn't matter what happens in a species, whether it be a genetic or psychological disorder or how infrequent it is, it's all "natural".

The normal route might be a healthy, straight, infant. But by your standards, natural would also apply to: disease ridden, crippled, mentally retarded, homosexual infant.

Yes, that is a natural occurrence.

Did I call it or what?

lol

As is eating your own children and many, many other things viewed as negative. That, however, isn't the point.

Would eating your own children be regarding by the community as natural?

People are hypocrites. I guarantee that the same people who would call homosexuality normal/natural wouldn't say so of these other "occurrences".

EVERYTHING is suddenly natural.

Or rather... only the things you want.

Oh no, I defy you to find anyone who claims that anything that happens in nature isn't natural.

Alright. Go out to your neighborhood and ask people if they think that homosexuality is natural. Then ask them if a human mother killing her children, then shoving them into a freezer to later eat their body parts, is also natural.

K?

How are the two pro-gay statement contradictory? All you did was re-word to say the EXACT same thing.

I really cannot see how you're not grasping the point;

I get the point.

You're trying to have it both ways.

First, you say that homosexuality isn't a choice/they're born that way.

Then, if someone brings up the idea that it then could be a genetic or psychological disorder/defect, you suddenly switch to "Well, the environment plays a part too" (which many of you previously denounced).

it's not the wording it is the intent that changes. The former is an incredibly myopic arguement that you have quite rightly refuted, the latter is a rebuttal to an equally myopic claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural'.

By what is the standard, it is 'unnatural'.

Labeling it any other way just opens the door to hypocrisy.

Like pro-choice people claiming that the fetus isn't really alive so killing the fetus doesn't count as murder. Then they'll turn right around and support laws which would charge someone double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman.

The problem is the arguement you have refuted is a phantom, an illusion conjured by yourself for the express purpose of making a valid claim. I'd accuse you of scarecrowing-ing but your total imagining of this has wandered in to the realm of paranoid delusions.

The first argument wasn't made by me. Go ahead, pick up a History and take a look at the Gay Rights Movement.

I love how people get mad at me for what others say. Those 'others' being the people they support.

The problem is you're misinterpreting the 'it doesn't hurt anyone'; it is simply a poorly worded assertion that homosexuality is consensual and therefore does not merit social prejudice.

But still, the same logic applies to all of them. Bestiality is also found in nature, therefore qualifies as natural. It also hurts no one.

Tell that to the animal that cannot give consent and is, essentially, being raped.

And if someone gives consent to use their future corpse as a sex toy?

That would be consent, wouldn't it? LOL

Necrophilia happens in nature, therefore qualifies as natural. It also hurts no one.

Again: lack of consent. Oh and that is a rather silly claim anyway as it does hurt the bereaved.

See above.

Like I said. You're just wanting it both ways. You're a hypocrite at best. A pathetic one at that.

---

At 10/6/08 01:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/6/08 01:09 PM, Drakim wrote:

In Mez thinks:
Pro-gay-person: Homosexuality happens in nature, so it's natural and should be allowed in our society.

What actually is said:
Anti-gay-person: Homosexuality is unatural and shouldn't be accepted.
Pro-gay-person: Actually, homosexuality is found in nature and thus qualifies as natural.

...

How are the two pro-gay statement contradictory? All you did was re-word to say the EXACT same thing.

No, I did not. Seriously, you should be able to understand this. In the first statement, he makes claims to what we should do. In the second statement, he claims that it is natural. Those two are NOT the same. Nobody here ever claimed that what is natural equals what we should do. Murdering for resources is natural too, as an example, yet we don't want that to be something we deem acceptable.

"It happens in nature, therefore it's natural".

No, the whole argument started with the Christian saying "it's unnatural which shows it's wrong". Pointing out that animals do it too is only an argument to refute that Christian argument. Nothing more.

Mirror example:
Person1: Sulfur is not found in nature, thus we should not eat it.
Person2: Actually, you can find sulfur in nature, in places like meteorites, volcanoes and hotsprings.
Mez: Just because we find sulfur in nature doesn't mean we should eat it, it's poisonous for us!

Can't you see the flaw here? The Person2 never claimed we should eat it! He simply pointed out that the claim that you can't find sulfur in nature isn't correct! In the exact same way, nobody claims that homosexuality should be done because we can find it in nature. They are simply refusing the Christian who is saying that it's unnatural.

See? Notice how the real thing actually has nothing to do with "because it's in nature it's alright"? That's only something you have added so you are able to refute it.

Tell that to... the majority of you. Because you people constantly use it to set up the argument "it's normal, and it doesn't hurt anyone, therefore it should be allowed".

No, it's being used because Christians started saying "it's unnatural and sinful". If somebody is really saying "it happens in nature therefore we should do it too" then I agree that they are idiots, but that is simply not what most people are arguing. Really, if that's the case somewhere, please show me!

---

At 10/6/08 02:11 PM, Drakim wrote:

No, I did not. Seriously, you should be able to understand this. In the first statement, he makes claims to what we should do. In the second statement, he claims that it is natural. Those two are NOT the same.

Yes, they are.

Because people, especially the gay movement crowd, will use that "natural" argument to support their stance that homosexuality should be accepted.

Homosexuality is as normal as someone being born crippled.

Doesn't mean I'm going to treat them differently, but it doesn't mean they're 'natural'. Saying that it's all "natural" is simply trying to be 'nice' so as to not hurt people's feelings.

Nobody here ever claimed that what is natural equals what we should do.

No. But they do then add on to that with "no one is being hurt" to come to that conclusion.

It's natural, no one is hurt, therefore...

Prostitution? No one is hurt.
Homosexuality? No one is hurt.
Necrophilia? No one is hurt.
Bestiality? No one is hurt.
Polygamy? No one is hurt.

See the pattern?

Murdering for resources is natural too, as an example, yet we don't want that to be something we deem acceptable.

And I never said that just because it's normal doesn't mean we should allow it. Of course that's normal. It's human selfishness at its finest! Just like... abortion (human selfishness at its finest!).

There's also a pattern in that. You're support anything that is advantageous and beneficial to you.

No, the whole argument started with the Christian saying "it's unnatural which shows it's wrong". Pointing out that animals do it too is only an argument to refute that Christian argument. Nothing more.

That explains the chanting.

Nice twist though.

You mean to tell me that when a gay rights movement starts yelling out "We're just like everybody else", that it isn't an emotional appeal to their needs?

lol

Mirror example:
Person1: Sulfur is not found in nature, thus we should not eat it.
Person2: Actually, you can find sulfur in nature, in places like meteorites, volcanoes and hotsprings.
Mez: Just because we find sulfur in nature doesn't mean we should eat it, it's poisonous for us!

Can't you see the flaw here? The Person2 never claimed we should eat it! He simply pointed out that the claim that you can't find sulfur in nature isn't correct!

Is my statement wrong?

In the exact same way, nobody claims that homosexuality should be done because we can find it in nature. They are simply refusing the Christian who is saying that it's unnatural.

But if it's found in nature, then we can also conclude that other non-threatening lifestyles can also be found in nature such as necrophilia. And if we go your route in consent and someone actually signs away their future lifeless corpse to be used for sexual practices, why should we stop them?

No, it's being used because Christians started saying "it's unnatural and sinful".

Sure, if they're religious.

Am I using religion? lol

If somebody is really saying "it happens in nature therefore we should do it too" then I agree that they are idiots, but that is simply not what most people are arguing. Really, if that's the case somewhere, please show me!

You people need to watch the History Channel more.

---

I barely skimmed this thread, but somebody will have to prove to me that necrophilia is found outside the human species. But of course it's found in nature. Humans are natural.

As for eating one's own young, yes, that is found in many species, and after looking at the financial news today, methinks baby-eating might be about to undergo a surge in popularity among humans.

It might not be such a bad idea, either.

---

At 10/6/08 02:05 PM, Memorize wrote: People are hypocrites. I guarantee that the same people who would call homosexuality normal/natural wouldn't say so of these other "occurrences".

Because, perhaps, pedophelia and the other sorts aren't part of it?
I've never been a fan of the nature's argument and anything along those lines.

HOWEVER--
there's no correlation of homosexuality with pedophelia and those other things.
You're just playing up a false dichotomy when it doesn't exist, just so you can use some emotional response instead a good point.

Frankly,
who cares if homosexuality exists in nature or not?

Heterosexuality in itself is an already complicated component of people... what makes naive people think that homosexuality, an even more complicated thing, is going to be an easy to explain with a simple response of, "Yes... biological." Or, "No... not biological."

---

At 10/6/08 02:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/6/08 02:11 PM, Drakim wrote:

No, I did not. Seriously, you should be able to understand this. In the first statement, he makes claims to what we should do. In the second statement, he claims that it is natural. Those two are NOT the same.

Yes, they are.

Because people, especially the gay movement crowd, will use that "natural" argument to support their stance that homosexuality should be accepted.

That's so such an unreasonable argument. "It's the same argument because gay people will add something more to the argument." That logic could be used to make ANY argument moot. You just claim that X argument is unreasonable because people Y will add Z to it.

Homosexuality is as normal as someone being born crippled.

The issue is that "normal" doesn't equal "right" or "acceptable", and nobody claimed it either. The argument that homosexuality is natural because it's found in nature is a simple counter to the claim that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong.

Doesn't mean I'm going to treat them differently, but it doesn't mean they're 'natural'. Saying that it's all "natural" is simply trying to be 'nice' so as to not hurt people's feelings.

No, the problem here is that you think of "natural" as the same as "right". It's natural simply because it's found in nature, It has nothing to do with trying to be nice to somebody. It's a counter claim to the claim that it's unnatural, and therefore wrong.

It's natural in the same way being sick is a natural condition.
Unlike say, being burned by a laser, which is not natural.

Doesn't mean that either is wrong or right.

Nobody here ever claimed that what is natural equals what we should do.

No. But they do then add on to that with "no one is being hurt" to come to that conclusion.

If they do, then they are idiots. But that's not what the orginal argument was. The orginal argument was that Christians claimed it was unnatural thus wrong (which is really two claims in one, first that it's unnatural, then that unnatural things are wrong). The "gay found in nature" is simply a counter to that argument, not really an argument in itself. It's kicking the legs away from the argument that homosexuality is wrong, thus making it an invalid argument.

If somebody claims that homosexuality is wrong for reason X, and I say reason X is incorrect, does that mean I support homosexuality? Because that seems to be what you are claiming.

It's natural, no one is hurt, therefore...

Prostitution? No one is hurt.
Homosexuality? No one is hurt.
Necrophilia? No one is hurt.
Bestiality? No one is hurt.
Polygamy? No one is hurt.

See the pattern?

Yes, but can't you just accept that nobody here is claiming that? And that everybody here thinks that anybody who says such a thing is an idiot? This is nothing but a phanom argument. You made up a ridiculous enemy argument and shot him down. I don't understand why, as it's nothing more than fantasy play.

Murdering for resources is natural too, as an example, yet we don't want that to be something we deem acceptable.

And I never said that just because it's normal doesn't mean we should allow it. Of course that's normal. It's human selfishness at its finest! Just like... abortion (human selfishness at its finest!).

I could agree with you on that one. I think abortion, although not morally wrong by our society's code, is selfish, in the same way earning money is selfish.

There's also a pattern in that. You're support anything that is advantageous and beneficial to you.

Indeed I would. But I'm lucky enough that while most people are selfish, a truly selfish person would want to live in a non-selfish society, as it helps them the most (as opposed to a selfish society), thus, morals which are quite nice are promoted.

I'm not gay. I don't really have any direct reason for helping gay people, other than that I want to promote the idea of a society that doesn't care about things like how you like your sex. It's a selfish reason for helping gay people, but nice for them anyway. Everybody wins.

No, the whole argument started with the Christian saying "it's unnatural which shows it's wrong". Pointing out that animals do it too is only an argument to refute that Christian argument. Nothing more.

That explains the chanting.

Nice twist though.

You mean to tell me that when a gay rights movement starts yelling out "We're just like everybody else", that it isn't an emotional appeal to their needs?

If the gay movement does that, I'll be the first to smack them in the face. But that isn't an flawed argument, it's a misused argument, that comes from that people think "natural" means "correct". It's true, just look at TV ads or something like that. Saying that a product is natural is used as an "OMG, this product is good for you!" despite that being natural really helps nothing directly.

lol

Mirror example:
Person1: Sulfur is not found in nature, thus we should not eat it.
Person2: Actually, you can find sulfur in nature, in places like meteorites, volcanoes and hotsprings.
Mez: Just because we find sulfur in nature doesn't mean we should eat it, it's poisonous for us!

Can't you see the flaw here? The Person2 never claimed we should eat it! He simply pointed out that the claim that you can't find sulfur in nature isn't correct!

Is my statement wrong?

It is, because you are implying that Person2 is saying something he is not saying. You argue as if he was adding at the end, "that's why we should eat it", when he is clearly not.

In the exact same way, nobody claims that homosexuality should be done because we can find it in nature. They are simply refusing the Christian who is saying that it's unnatural.

But if it's found in nature, then we can also conclude that other non-threatening lifestyles can also be found in nature such as necrophilia. And if we go your route in consent and someone actually signs away their future lifeless corpse to be used for sexual practices, why should we stop them?

Because we don't approve of it in our society? I see nothing wrong with having moral codes.

I think you are missing my standpoint for arguing. I'm not saying "we MUST accept homosexuality". I'm simply trying to influence society in a way I like, by saying "I think we SHOULD accept society".

I don't think necrophilia is a thing our society should accept, for a number of reasons. I don't claim to have divine law on my side in the matter, but it's simply my opinion. My "vote" you could say.

No, it's being used because Christians started saying "it's unnatural and sinful".

Sure, if they're religious.

And the counter is to prove that it's not unnatural. But it doesn't mean you also add the argument that because something is natural means it's right. That's another, unrelated, argument.

Am I using religion? lol

Not really?

If somebody is really saying "it happens in nature therefore we should do it too" then I agree that they are idiots, but that is simply not what most people are arguing. Really, if that's the case somewhere, please show me!

You people need to watch the History Channel more.

Don't have it over here in Norway, I think

---

At 10/6/08 02:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Did I call it or what?

Congratulations! You can observe occurences around you.

Would eating your own children be regarding by the community as natural?

It occurs in nature ergo it is natural. Along with death, polio and cancer. I agree that natural doesn't equal positive; all right-minded individuals would which is precisely why noone is claiming anything different.

People are hypocrites. I guarantee that the same people who would call homosexuality normal/natural wouldn't say so of these other "occurrences".

Come now, let us not conflate normal with natural. They are not synonymous and to treat them as such is dishonest. When using normal one must account for context: it isn't normal behaviour for a human to kill their own children but it is normal for a hamster to. Filicide is, however, natural as it occurs in nature. Do you see the difference?

Alright. Go out to your neighborhood and ask people if they think that homosexuality is natural. Then ask them if a human mother killing her children, then shoving them into a freezer to later eat their body parts, is also natural.

That isn't natural at all; or have I overlooked that elusive shrub the refridgerator plant? Anywho you know very well the abhorrence of such an act would influence people's emotion to the extent that logical reasoning would be secondary; once you explained you were simply referring to the cases where in nature some species have been known to do so then they would be forced to agree.

I get the point.

If you do get the point you're a masterful illusionist.

You're trying to have it both ways.

No, no Drakim isn't. I'll repeat it once more: we are not asserting that natural equals good, merely refuting the arguement that it is unnatural. Your arguement would be better aimed at those claiming homosexuality is 'unnatural' as in doing so it is they who are making the claim that natural is always desirable.

First, you say that homosexuality isn't a choice/they're born that way.

Studies in the area suggest genetics, as with most things, is a causal factor, yes.

Then, if someone brings up the idea that it then could be a genetic or psychological disorder/defect, you suddenly switch to "Well, the environment plays a part too" (which many of you previously denounced).

You're not only putting words in the mouths of others, these people are not even present. Noone here has argued this; weighing in on a debate with your greivances about other people seems incredibly inane. Furthermore this has nothing to do with the arguement at hand other than a perpetuation of an inexplicable victim complex you seem to have engendered.

Anywho if it were a purely psychological disorder environmental factors would HAVE to play a role and if it is purely genetic it certainly is a defect but most likely one with a positive or, at least, not negative consequence else it would have disappeared. A study in the area, however, suggests that it might be a birth defect related to the production of a hormone (similar in structure to testosterone but without the masculating qualities) produced by women when stressed.

To answer the point directly flip-flopping is always a bad thing however in this case it is most likely an emotional reaction due to the connotations of the term 'defect' or 'disorder'. It does not, however, prove anything beyond that some people are idiots and if we're using this to slight an entire group then I claim the right to persecute every chrisitian due to the actions of the Phelps family.

By what is the standard, it is 'unnatural'.

Except that it clearly isn't as it occurs in nature and has been a recorded part of human sexuality as far back as ancient greece. Now who's attempting to have it both ways? Your entire arguement rests on that natural isn't always good but if you then claim homosexuality is unnatural you can't slight it for what happens in nature.

Labeling it any other way just opens the door to hypocrisy.

No, labelling it the other way and then claiming nature is always good AND THEN denying that abhorrent practices aren't natural would be hypocritical. So essentially if everyone acts in exactly the same manner you ascribe to them we're opening the door to hypocrisy; unfortunately for you (and I suspect fortunately for the good of the world) people are not subject to your beliefs or whims.

Like pro-choice people claiming that the fetus isn't really alive so killing the fetus doesn't count as murder. Then they'll turn right around and support laws which would charge someone double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman.

I'm sorry, we're now discussing abortion? Honestly man your arguement is nothign but a rather dull rhetoric listing your grievances against sections of society. Grievances based upon the way you think they act due to a generalisation on such a level it'd make Rousseau proud.

The first argument wasn't made by me. Go ahead, pick up a History and take a look at the Gay Rights Movement.

Is that so? It's odd that I've never encountered that 'nature' arguement as anything but a rebuttal to a claim made by ignoramuses.

I love how people get mad at me for what others say. Those 'others' being the people they support.

I'm not angry at you in the slightest. Perplexed, perhaps, but not angry.

And if someone gives consent to use their future corpse as a sex toy?

Unfortunately the corpse belongs to the closes surviving family member, not the deceased. If, however, you get consent from the bereaved and you lived in a country that didn't have laws about desecrating corpses then there's no reasonable arguement not to allow it. It repulses one on every level due to necrophilia not being a normal human behaviour but logically it's sound.

Like I said. You're just wanting it both ways. You're a hypocrite at best. A pathetic one at that.

No, like you said the imaginary people not present in this arguement acting in the exact manner you say they should (you might as well conjure up their behaviour patterns while you're at it I suppose) are hypocrites. Pathetic ones at that; which strikes me as a very cruel thing to call your creations. Still, you know what they say: the imaginary apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

---

At 10/6/08 03:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

That's so such an unreasonable argument. "It's the same argument because gay people will add something more to the argument." That logic could be used to make ANY argument moot. You just claim that X argument is unreasonable because people Y will add Z to it.

"We're just like everybody else!"

Sound familiar?

Homosexuality is as normal as someone being born crippled.

The issue is that "normal" doesn't equal "right" or "acceptable", and nobody claimed it either. The argument that homosexuality is natural because it's found in nature is a simple counter to the claim that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong.

Is being born cripple normal?

No, the problem here is that you think of "natural" as the same as "right".

I never said that. It's different depending on the case.

Just as human selfishness. It's normal, hence why they come up with excuses for pro-abortion while accepting laws to charge double homicide when killing a pregnant woman.

Why? Because they want only what benefits themselves.

It's natural simply because it's found in nature, It has nothing to do with trying to be nice to somebody. It's a counter claim to the claim that it's unnatural, and therefore wrong.

And by that logic, ANYTHING can be found ANYWHERE making EVERYTHING natural.

US defense systems going down: Normal
1 man managing to kill millions: Normal
Two headed animal: Normal
Extra limb: Normal
A mother killing her newborn infant and eating it: Normal
A parent throwing his/her kids off a bridge into the water: Normal

Makes me wonder why we have 'insanity' cases.

It's natural in the same way being sick is a natural condition.

Sure.

Unlike say, being burned by a laser, which is not natural.

Unless it happens, making it (by your standards) natural.

Doesn't mean that either is wrong or right.

It means you're a hypocrite.

If they do, then they are idiots. But that's not what the orginal argument was.

Maybe not to you. But it is to many of them.

:The orginal argument was that Christians claimed it was unnatural thus wrong (which is really two claims in one, first that it's unnatural, then that unnatural things are wrong).

Well, considering that the human body is specifically set up for 2 sexes to procreate, wouldn't logic dictate that it is wrong?

The "gay found in nature" is simply a counter to that argument, not really an argument in itself.

That's assuming that everything found in nature is normal.

If somebody claims that homosexuality is wrong for reason X, and I say reason X is incorrect, does that mean I support homosexuality? Because that seems to be what you are claiming.

Don't you?

Yes, but can't you just accept that nobody here is claiming that?

You said "consent". People can give consent to necrophilia and polygamy.

Explain the normal human response to those then.

And that everybody here thinks that anybody who says such a thing is an idiot? This is nothing but a phanom argument. You made up a ridiculous enemy argument and shot him down. I don't understand why, as it's nothing more than fantasy play.

Considering that people do have those views and arguments, wouldn't that make it normal/natural and not phantom?

I'm not gay. I don't really have any direct reason for helping gay people, other than that I want to promote the idea of a society that doesn't care about things like how you like your sex. It's a selfish reason for helping gay people, but nice for them anyway. Everybody wins.

Except nature by its very code.

Or rather, more specifically, the human species at least.

It is, because you are implying that Person2 is saying something he is not saying. You argue as if he was adding at the end, "that's why we should eat it", when he is clearly not.

Are there not people who do say that?

Because we don't approve of it in our society? I see nothing wrong with having moral codes.

You're just being selective in your moral code.

I don't care about homosexuality, but I'm not going to drive myself into a fantasy world of considering it normal or natural.

---

At 10/6/08 03:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/6/08 03:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

"We're just like everybody else!"

Sound familiar?

Yes, and? How does that relate to what we are talking about now?

Homosexuality is as normal as someone being born crippled.

The issue is that "normal" doesn't equal "right" or "acceptable", and nobody claimed it either. The argument that homosexuality is natural because it's found in nature is a simple counter to the claim that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong.

Is being born cripple normal?

It's normal in the way that it's natural. Or are you saying there was unnatural forces at play for making somebody being born a cripple?

No, the problem here is that you think of "natural" as the same as "right".

I never said that. It's different depending on the case.

You heavily implied it over several of your post, by constantly assuming that when people say it's natural, they mean it's right.

Just as human selfishness. It's normal, hence why they come up with excuses for pro-abortion while accepting laws to charge double homicide when killing a pregnant woman.

The double homicide thingy was something pushed into law by President Bush, a conservative.

Why? Because they want only what benefits themselves.

How does the double homicide give more benefits to liberals?

It's natural simply because it's found in nature, It has nothing to do with trying to be nice to somebody. It's a counter claim to the claim that it's unnatural, and therefore wrong.

And by that logic, ANYTHING can be found ANYWHERE making EVERYTHING natural.

No, it wouldn't. For example, a meteor bringing tons of radioactive waste into a jungle is not natural.

And anyway, what's your argument here really? "If we assume that actions done by natural, then ANYTHING can be classifed as natural"?

I mean, animal actions and behavior isn't really a far stretch for defining what's natural and not.

US defense systems going down: Normal
1 man managing to kill millions: Normal
Two headed animal: Normal
Extra limb: Normal
A mother killing her newborn infant and eating it: Normal
A parent throwing his/her kids off a bridge into the water: Normal

This is getting hard to argue with as you switch between natural and normal as if the words was the same. Normal in the context of what? Normal, if you didn't know, is a relative word. You can't say that something is absolute normal. It's normal in a context, like, a tree in the forest is normal. A tree in a mall is not. OH MY GOD, THE PARADOX, IS A TREE NORMAL OR NOT?

In terms of nature, which we are arguing, homosexuality is very normal. In terms of say, Christian scripture, it's not.

Thus, the Christans are making a mistake when they say that homosexuality is unnatural, because it's not. In the context of nature, homosexuality is nothing strange.

Makes me wonder why we have 'insanity' cases.

It's natural in the same way being sick is a natural condition.

Sure.

Unlike say, being burned by a laser, which is not natural.

Unless it happens, making it (by your standards) natural.

No, because a laser cannot naturally happen. You need finely tuned pieces of glass and mirrors to achive the effect, which you need a force of high intelligence to set into place.

I can see your issue however, as one could argue that a high intelligence is just a natural result of nature and evolution. But as the word's most commonly use, we don't qualify these things as natural.

Doesn't mean that either is wrong or right.

It means you're a hypocrite.

If they do, then they are idiots. But that's not what the orginal argument was.

Maybe not to you. But it is to many of them.

Your argument is effectively "Maybe you aren't saying it, but I know some people are!" which doesn't hold up for anything. Show me an example, a link, a transcript, anything. I won't just take your claim for that people argue something, as I haven't heard that argument myself, and find it personally quite silly. Seriously, bring me a person who actually claims that because animals do something, it's okay for us to do it too.

The orginal argument was that Christians claimed it was unnatural thus wrong (which is really two claims in one, first that it's unnatural, then that unnatural things are wrong).

Well, considering that the human body is specifically set up for 2 sexes to procreate, wouldn't logic dictate that it is wrong?

Well, I could argue that it does have a role even in nature. The male sex has a prostate which women doesn't have, which makes anal sex partcipatory enjoyable. Maybe homosexuality is the result of an male bonding thing in nature gone very far of it's original function? I don't know, and I don't really care much, anymore than I care about why males have nipples.

The "gay found in nature" is simply a counter to that argument, not really an argument in itself.

That's assuming that everything found in nature is normal.

Yes, but this only shows that normal is highly relative. How can you put up an argument that something isn't normal when it's not an absolute defined thing? It's like saying something is ugly, and expecting people to accept that as a basis for other things. People will definitely argue, as some don't think that thing is ugly, and some doesn't even see something wrong with being ugly.

But personally, I couldn't care less. Being gifted isn't normal in that strict sense you use of "normal" either, but that doesn't mean we think badly of people being gifted. We don't have a mentality that says "anything that doesn't follow the norm is worth less". If anything, gay people help us by preventing overpopulation :D

If somebody claims that homosexuality is wrong for reason X, and I say reason X is incorrect, does that mean I support homosexuality? Because that seems to be what you are claiming.

Don't you?

no, it simply means that I pointed out an factual error in X. Not that I took the other side.

Drakim: Capitalism is better than communism because it's the only economy system that has produced a superpower.
Mez: No, wait, the Soviet Union was also a superpower, which was communist.
Drakim: What? Are you a commie?

See? You just pointed out that my facts were wrong, not taking the other opposite side.

You said "consent". People can give consent to necrophilia and polygamy.

I never said consent, I believe. That was that other guy.

And that everybody here thinks that anybody who says such a thing is an idiot? This is nothing but a phanom argument. You made up a ridiculous enemy argument and shot him down. I don't understand why, as it's nothing more than fantasy play.

Considering that people do have those views and arguments, wouldn't that make it normal/natural and not phantom?

Even if they do (which you have yet to show), there is nobody here who does have those views. There is nobody to argue against.

Except nature by its very code.

How does nature not win? Does it want to be overpopulated? by your idea, ants are a failure of epic proportions. Most ants can't ever have children, they just protect the queen ant. Gay people are part of society, helping to make it tick, even if they can't have offspring. (not to mention that they can adopt, helping us a LOT)

Because we don't approve of it in our society? I see nothing wrong with having moral codes.

You're just being selective in your moral code.

I am. Shouldn't I be? Is not my moral code something I get to select myself? If not, who should select it for me?

I don't care about homosexuality, but I'm not going to drive myself into a fantasy world of considering it normal or natural.

But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is that you are having problems with people who DO think it's natural.

---

Oh i get it.

memorize is doing that thing again where he was wrong but keeps arguing so it doesn't look like it.

good times.

---

At 10/6/08 05:00 PM, Drakim wrote:

Yes, and? How does that relate to what we are talking about now?

The fact that there's a group of people using that argument to have an emotional appeal to get others to believe that it's natural, therefore "ok".

The "it's not hurting anyone" goes hand in hand as well.

It's normal in the way that it's natural. Or are you saying there was unnatural forces at play for making somebody being born a cripple?

Oh, so we're going into that deep area where everything has a domino effect, therefore everything is predicted; hence everything being natural.

Fascinating.

Free will. No, that's a fake dictated by our genes.

You heavily implied it over several of your post, by constantly assuming that when people say it's natural, they mean it's right.

I ONLY said that homosexuality is not in sync with what the body of the human species is specifically set to do, which is procreate.

That means that homosexuality is in violation of nature itself, therefore not natural.

Just because it happens doesn't make it normal.

Theoretically speaking, I could drop a rock on a table and there's a slight chance it could pass right through.

It has never happened, but if it does, it would be outside the norm which would be landing on the table itself.

The double homicide thingy was something pushed into law by President Bush, a conservative.

34 states recognize a fetus as a crime victim for homicide.

How does the double homicide give more benefits to liberals?

Because it would give more benefit to the mother in having her say. Her body, right? Therefore her decision on whether or not it's alive, correct?

The only reason why people voted against the measure was because they were afraid it was a step against abortion.

No, it wouldn't. For example, a meteor bringing tons of radioactive waste into a jungle is not natural.

Sure it is, because if we break down everything to its tiniest detail, one action would dictate the next, no matter how microscopic, which would make it "natural".

Which is really only where your argument lies. Unless... you're wanting to go against that?

And anyway, what's your argument here really? "If we assume that actions done by natural, then ANYTHING can be classifed as natural"?

That's what you're saying.

You're claiming that simply because homosexuality happens, it is automatically normal, even though it violates 'nature' in its own definition considering the human species due to how nature has evolved to support two sexes.

This is getting hard to argue with as you switch between natural and normal as if the words was the same.

To imply that everything in Nature is natural, everything is then normal because everything is dictated through nature.

In terms of nature, which we are arguing, homosexuality is very normal. In terms of say, Christian scripture, it's not.

Two sexes = nature.

Homosexuality = 1 sex.

Normal through nature? It violated a rule.

No, because a laser cannot naturally happen. You need finely tuned pieces of glass and mirrors to achive the effect, which you need a force of high intelligence to set into place.

As you people say: Given enough time, anything that can happen will happen.

I believe that's one of your arguments for evolution when people point out the mathematical improbability of such (even) long term events.

Given an infinite amount of time, provided the right circumstances, nature (on its own) can create that laser.

Your argument is effectively "Maybe you aren't saying it, but I know some people are!" which doesn't hold up for anything.

Isn't that what you're doing by bringing up religion?

Well, I could argue that it does have a role even in nature. The male sex has a prostate which women doesn't have, which makes anal sex partcipatory enjoyable. Maybe homosexuality is the result of an male bonding thing in nature gone very far of it's original function? I don't know, and I don't really care much, anymore than I care about why males have nipples.

If you don't know, how can you argue its role?

As you "enlightened" people love to say: Proof?

Yes, but this only shows that normal is highly relative. How can you put up an argument that something isn't normal when it's not an absolute defined thing?

Because we, as a human species, evolved to support two sexes to procreate and keep our species going.

That would be observation and fact, wouldn't it? How does homosexuality work in such a system?

It's like saying something is ugly, and expecting people to accept that as a basis for other things. People will definitely argue, as some don't think that thing is ugly, and some doesn't even see something wrong with being ugly.

No, but blue is blue and red is red.

Unless you're color blind, which is labeled as a deficiency and inability.

If anything, gay people help us by preventing overpopulation :D

So does war.

Which is, quite frankly in 'relative' terms, "more normal" than homosexuality.

no, it simply means that I pointed out an factual error in X. Not that I took the other side.

No. I'm talking about you specifically. Don't you support homosexuality?

Drakim: Capitalism is better than communism because it's the only economy system that has produced a superpower.
Mez: No, wait, the Soviet Union was also a superpower, which was communist.
Drakim: What? Are you a commie?

See? You just pointed out that my facts were wrong, not taking the other opposite side.

Well, true communism hasn't really been attempted and I personally do believe that if set up in the correct fashion, that it could work.

Even if they do (which you have yet to show), there is nobody here who does have those views. There is nobody to argue against.

Please. You're tossing around "religion this" and "religious people that" left and right. I'm not going to sit here and pretend like it hasn't or doesn't happen.

Don't play stupid.

How does nature not win? Does it want to be overpopulated? by your idea, ants are a failure of epic proportions. Most ants can't ever have children, they just protect the queen ant. Gay people are part of society, helping to make it tick, even if they can't have offspring. (not to mention that they can adopt, helping us a LOT)

I guess we should push for war and stop prevented diseases then.

I am. Shouldn't I be? Is not my moral code something I get to select myself? If not, who should select it for me?

I do find it highly ironic that the people who criticize the beliefs of others are also always pushing their own moral code.

"Who are you to define morals" is the same as defining it.

But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is that you are having problems with people who DO

Yes. Because that's stupidity. They're ignoring basic facts. They're pretending like everything in this world is gray.

That you can't actually be straight, but that you can only be a varying degrees of homosexual.

---

Meh, Mez, I think we are so far from the original topic that this is becoming useless. I mean, when we start arguing about what the word "nature" means, it's all pretty moot.

---

I believe that all homosexuals are an example against the bible, and should be treated as such. They will all go to hell anyway, and we can speed that up by increasing capital punishment against them.

---

At 10/6/08 06:16 PM, SizZlE666 wrote: I believe that all homosexuals are an example against the bible, and should be treated as such. They will all go to hell anyway, and we can speed that up by increasing capital punishment against them.

Says the guy with 666 in his name.

---

At 10/6/08 06:25 PM, AngryBanana wrote:

At 10/6/08 06:16 PM, SizZlE666 wrote: I believe that all homosexuals are an example against the bible, and should be treated as such. They will all go to hell anyway, and we can speed that up by increasing capital punishment against them.

Says the guy with 666 in his name.

Says the guy with Banana in his name.

Protip: I'm pretty sure SizZlE66 was joking.

---

At 10/6/08 06:10 PM, Drakim wrote: Meh, Mez, I think we are so far from the original topic that this is becoming useless. I mean, when we start arguing about what the word "nature" means, it's all pretty moot.

To all reasonable minded people, perhaps, but I think we both know that Memorize will ignore any points he can't answer and argue all others until time stops. Which is sad as occasionally he makes a good point, it just gets lost in his urge to maintain his rigid world-view.

---

At 10/6/08 12:07 PM, Memorize wrote: A lot of things are normal in the Animal Kingdom:

-Homosexuality

This is legal.

-Necrophilia

You'd probably have to get consent from the person before they die (sort of like consending to organ donation) A dead body has a hell of a lot of bacteria and chemicals breaking down the body. You could catch something. NecroSTD.

And I would really like to know what animals have sex with other creatures after death.

-Bestiality (sex with OTHER species)

This one is interesting. I was talking to someone on stickam about a woman having sex with a horse. She argued that the horse did not consend and it was animal rape.

I happen to agree (in some cases)

And (again) I would also like to know how many animals have sex with completely different species of different evolutionary chains.

I demand they all be legalized.

I demand cannibalism be legalized because roughly 140 species do it.

Which include octopus, bats, toads, fish, lizards, salamanders, crocodiles, spiders, owls, and a HUGE number of insects, such as dragonflies, beetles, back swimmers, water striders, caddisflies etc etc

---

It really doesn't matter whether or not it's biological, IMHO. Humans are humans are humans.

---

My theory is that it is a choice for girls, but biological for boys.

The grounds for this theory is that all fetuses start as girls, with male features being added if the baby is going to turn out to be a boy. In this process, I think that things could get screwed up, causing the kid to be gay. There seems to be no real reason for a girl to be a lesbian, so I have to assume that on their end it is a choice.

---

Wow. Some people have really strong views on this subject. I guess that homosexuality is a far more frantic debate on the other side of the Atlantic.

Over here, we seem to be a bit more open minded in this respect. Or at least, the press and government seem to take a far more tolerant stance on the matter.

However, that said, I do have serious worries about homosexual people being given the right to adopt children. As a man who was raised by a male father and female mother, I can't understand what it would be like to be raised by two male fathers. Ergo, I worry that such a child might encounter psychological problems as a result of his unusual upbringing, and that such a child would be a source of ridicule on the grounds that his adopted parents are homosexual.

But that's by-the-by. The main discussion topic here is supposed to be about whether or not homosexuality is a choice. So, with that said, I'll drag my arse back on topic.

I can remember hearing something somewhere that homosexuality might be caused by a particular brain defect...
(relevant link) http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive s/gay-brain-science-homosexuality-a-birt h-defect/

So, if this research proves to be correct, then I think that we can quite safely say that homosexuality is caused by a brain defect. This would imply that choice doesn't enter into it. However, I do believe that there are some men/women out there who have become homosexual BY CHOICE.

Hell, we've all heard the stories about women who went out with cheating guys (they sure have a talent for picking them, don't they?) suddenly meeting up with a lesbian woman and living happily ever after as a dyke. Similarly, there are tales of men being screwed around by women and then switching to the other side of the fence. Now, I'm sure that some of these people had the brain-defect, and that's why they never fit in to a "heterosexual" role in society, but regardless, I believe that some of these people will have made the choice to be homosexual.

Hell, the entirety of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were homosexual. Women were simply kept around for child-bearing. The ancient greeks literally wrote the book on morality, ethics and all that, so if they didn't see a problem with being gay.....

---

At 10/8/08 06:56 AM, Ynek wrote: Wow. Some people have really strong views on this subject. I guess that homosexuality is a far more frantic debate on the other side of the Atlantic.

Over here, we seem to be a bit more open minded in this respect. Or at least, the press and government seem to take a far more tolerant stance on the matter.

However, that said, I do have serious worries about homosexual people being given the right to adopt children. As a man who was raised by a male father and female mother, I can't understand what it would be like to be raised by two male fathers. Ergo, I worry that such a child might encounter psychological problems as a result of his unusual upbringing, and that such a child would be a source of ridicule on the grounds that his adopted parents are homosexual.

The problem here is that society perfectly accepts a child being raised by ONE mother, or ONE father, but the moment we are talking about two mothers or two fathers, the child is being mentally broken down or something.

It's illogical, to put it simple.

But that's by-the-by. The main discussion topic here is supposed to be about whether or not homosexuality is a choice. So, with that said, I'll drag my arse back on topic.

I can remember hearing something somewhere that homosexuality might be caused by a particular brain defect...
(relevant link) http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive s/gay-brain-science-homosexuality-a-birt h-defect/

So, if this research proves to be correct, then I think that we can quite safely say that homosexuality is caused by a brain defect. This would imply that choice doesn't enter into it. However, I do believe that there are some men/women out there who have become homosexual BY CHOICE.

It's hard to say really, not only because of the reasons you mention, but becauase people put diffrent meaning into the word "choice". Let me demonstrate. Choose to be gay, just for a minute. Can you do that? Just for the sake of the argument, be attracted to men sexually. It's okay, you can change back in just a minute.

No luck?

But at the same time, you can't really choose your favorite color either (just try choosing another for a minute), but that's something we define as a choice.

Hell, the entirety of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were homosexual. Women were simply kept around for child-bearing. The ancient greeks literally wrote the book on morality, ethics and all that, so if they didn't see a problem with being gay.....

I can't really see any direct reason for why gay should be wrong, sort of God(s) saying that it's wrong. Really. Two consistential adults doing something in private. That sure sounds harmful, in a society where people will die over their rights to keep firearms.

---

At 10/8/08 07:41 AM, Drakim wrote: The problem here is that society perfectly accepts a child being raised by ONE mother, or ONE father, but the moment we are talking about two mothers or two fathers, the child is being mentally broken down or something.

I personally think that it's mostly to do with fear of the unknown. There are many lesbian couples who have a near psychotic hatred of men. What would happen if they end up getting the right to adopt a male child, or vice versa? I'm not saying that homosexual couples SHOULDN'T be given the right to adopt, merely that it worries me how the government is willing to legalise this without actually taking the time to research it properly.

I don't really have any problem with homosexual acceptance. It's just that I worry about the poor "guinea pig" children that will be the first children since ancient Greece to live in homosexual households. The worst part about it is that I can't really see an alternative method to test this other than to simply legalise it.

It's hard to say really, not only because of the reasons you mention, but becauase people put diffrent meaning into the word "choice". Let me demonstrate. Choose to be gay, just for a minute. Can you do that? Just for the sake of the argument, be attracted to men sexually. It's okay, you can change back in just a minute.

Obviously, I failed to achieve temporary homosexuality in this experiment, mainly because I have no reason to turn away from my current sexual habits (no horrendous experiences with women that would instantly make them into a turn-off), and I lack the brain-defect that the cited research suggests could be a cause for homosexual behaviour. However, that isn't to say that some people, under different, less pleasant circumstances, might suddenly decide to become gay.

But at the same time, you can't really choose your favorite color either (just try choosing another for a minute), but that's something we define as a choice.

Indeed, "choice" is poorly defined for these sorts of things.

I can't really see any direct reason for why gay should be wrong, sort of God(s) saying that it's wrong. Really. Two consistential adults doing something in private. That sure sounds harmful, in a society where people will die over their rights to keep firearms.

Touché

---

At 10/8/08 08:19 AM, Ynek wrote:

At 10/8/08 07:41 AM, Drakim wrote: The problem here is that society perfectly accepts a child being raised by ONE mother, or ONE father, but the moment we are talking about two mothers or two fathers, the child is being mentally broken down or something.

I personally think that it's mostly to do with fear of the unknown. There are many lesbian couples who have a near psychotic hatred of men. What would happen if they end up getting the right to adopt a male child, or vice versa? I'm not saying that homosexual couples SHOULDN'T be given the right to adopt, merely that it worries me how the government is willing to legalise this without actually taking the time to research it properly.

I don't really have any problem with homosexual acceptance. It's just that I worry about the poor "guinea pig" children that will be the first children since ancient Greece to live in homosexual households. The worst part about it is that I can't really see an alternative method to test this other than to simply legalise it.

The same argument could have been used against interracial marriages. What happens when a black and white person has a child together? Will the resulting children be messed up?

I see your point in that there is no harm in "being safe". But even if such research did show that children raised under gay couples are 5% more "wrong" in some aspect, it's still not the goverments job to say no to such couples. I mean, the goverment doesn't say that "this and that" method of raising should be used. At the very worst, they prevent direct abuse, but even there there are some gray areas (it's okay to spank the child/threaten him with hellfire).

Obviously, I failed to achieve temporary homosexuality in this experiment, mainly because I have no reason to turn away from my current sexual habits (no horrendous experiences with women that would instantly make them into a turn-off), and I lack the brain-defect that the cited research suggests could be a cause for homosexual behaviour. However, that isn't to say that some people, under different, less pleasant circumstances, might suddenly decide to become gay.

Hmh, the trick behind this is that any homosexual problaby has the same problems you have switching their sexuality. Thus, I have a hard time saying that homosexuality is anything remotely to a choice. Sure, there might be some few individuals who can somehow affect their affections, but still, I don't think that's diffrent from some people who can swich on their lust to murder people or suddently become extremely attracted to big buildings. Hardly the kind of people we use as the norm for anything.

I can't really see any direct reason for why gay should be wrong, sort of God(s) saying that it's wrong. Really. Two consistential adults doing something in private. That sure sounds harmful, in a society where people will die over their rights to keep firearms.

Touché

hehe : D

---

At 10/8/08 06:09 PM, Drakim wrote: The same argument could have been used against interracial marriages. What happens when a black and white person has a child together? Will the resulting children be messed up?

Well, I would see that as a different situation entirely, mainly because a child with two mothers or two fathers could develop gender confusion at a young age, whilst a child with a male and female parent will be less likely to develop these sorts of problems.

But you do make a valid point. Back when "interracial crossbreeding" was still a taboo subject, people actually believed that the children would automatically be warped. Many of these children were indeed warped, but that was more to do with the way that society treated them than their actual upbringing or genetics.

I see your point in that there is no harm in "being safe". But even if such research did show that children raised under gay couples are 5% more "wrong" in some aspect, it's still not the goverments job to say no to such couples. I mean, the goverment doesn't say that "this and that" method of raising should be used. At the very worst, they prevent direct abuse, but even there there are some gray areas (it's okay to spank the child/threaten him with hellfire).

Ah, now this is where our opinions begin to diverge. I would say that even a 5% margin is unacceptable, but that isn't to say that I would ban homosexual adoption on those grounds. I would probably like to see more careful control measures in place to help alleviate that 5% number, though. Exactly what these control measures would be, I have no idea. I won't pretend that I know how to run a welfare service.

Hmh, the trick behind this is that any homosexual problaby has the same problems you have switching their sexuality.

I agree whole-heartedly. The gay-brain theory suggests that it is in fact impossible for them to change their sexuality without simply lying to themselves.

Thus, I have a hard time saying that homosexuality is anything remotely to a choice.

I'm not really saying that homosexuality is a choice, more that it can, under certain very unusual circumstances, become a choice. I'm not for one second suggesting that that gives them any less rights, simply that they have decided their sexuality by choice, rather than having it chosen for them by their genetic makeup.

There is an easy way to test this, you know. CAT-Scan a large number of homosexuals, and check their brain patterns for the "gay traits". (Identical hemisphere sizes and increased cross-hemisphere links in males has been conclusively connected to homosexuality, and an enlarged right hemisphere, with fewer crosslinks has been connected to lesbianism.) If all of their brains show the expected traits, then we can safely assume that homosexuality is not, in fact, a matter of choice. However, if we find that there are homosexuals who have the "straight" brain patterns, we can assume that they have chosen to become homosexual.

Sure, there might be some few individuals who can somehow affect their affections, but still, I don't think that's diffrent from some people who can swich on their lust to murder people

Soldiers are actively trained by the military to be able to activate a "murder-lust". And so, to use my earlier example, if someone keeps getting betrayed by their partners, they are effectively being 'trained' to detest those of the opposite gender. It doesn't become a case of "loving" those of the same gender, but more a case of hating them less.

---

Homosexuality is both a choice and an "imbalance" of the brain. I quote imbalance because I really don't think there is such a thing as right and wrong. With the world being disgustingly over populated perhaps homosexuality was the earths way of letting humanity die down a bit before it became over crowded to the point of internal extinction.

---

At 10/9/08 08:38 AM, Ynek wrote:

At 10/8/08 06:09 PM, Drakim wrote: The same argument could have been used against interracial marriages. What happens when a black and white person has a child together? Will the resulting children be messed up?

Well, I would see that as a different situation entirely, mainly because a child with two mothers or two fathers could develop gender confusion at a young age, whilst a child with a male and female parent will be less likely to develop these sorts of problems.

But you do make a valid point. Back when "interracial crossbreeding" was still a taboo subject, people actually believed that the children would automatically be warped. Many of these children were indeed warped, but that was more to do with the way that society treated them than their actual upbringing or genetics.

Personally, I think this will be more an issue of having two mothers than the actual upbringing. If anything is going to mess up the children, it's the people going on about how being raised by two mothers is warping them. It's their children who will undoubtfully pick on the two father children u\in school.

It's a self fulfilling claim.

I see your point in that there is no harm in "being safe". But even if such research did show that children raised under gay couples are 5% more "wrong" in some aspect, it's still not the goverments job to say no to such couples. I mean, the goverment doesn't say that "this and that" method of raising should be used. At the very worst, they prevent direct abuse, but even there there are some gray areas (it's okay to spank the child/threaten him with hellfire).

Ah, now this is where our opinions begin to diverge. I would say that even a 5% margin is unacceptable, but that isn't to say that I would ban homosexual adoption on those grounds. I would probably like to see more careful control measures in place to help alleviate that 5% number, though. Exactly what these control measures would be, I have no idea. I won't pretend that I know how to run a welfare service.

So, imagine I just copy pasted a link here that shows children brought up in America by African Americans are more likely to become criminal when they grow up.

What now? We forbid black people from raising children?

Hmh, the trick behind this is that any homosexual problaby has the same problems you have switching their sexuality.

I agree whole-heartedly. The gay-brain theory suggests that it is in fact impossible for them to change their sexuality without simply lying to themselves.

Thus, I have a hard time saying that homosexuality is anything remotely to a choice.

I'm not really saying that homosexuality is a choice, more that it can, under certain very unusual circumstances, become a choice. I'm not for one second suggesting that that gives them any less rights, simply that they have decided their sexuality by choice, rather than having it chosen for them by their genetic makeup.

There is an easy way to test this, you know. CAT-Scan a large number of homosexuals, and check their brain patterns for the "gay traits". (Identical hemisphere sizes and increased cross-hemisphere links in males has been conclusively connected to homosexuality, and an enlarged right hemisphere, with fewer crosslinks has been connected to lesbianism.) If all of their brains show the expected traits, then we can safely assume that homosexuality is not, in fact, a matter of choice. However, if we find that there are homosexuals who have the "straight" brain patterns, we can assume that they have chosen to become homosexual.

Sure, there might be some few individuals who can somehow affect their affections, but still, I don't think that's diffrent from some people who can swich on their lust to murder people

Soldiers are actively trained by the military to be able to activate a "murder-lust". And so, to use my earlier example, if someone keeps getting betrayed by their partners, they are effectively being 'trained' to detest those of the opposite gender. It doesn't become a case of "loving" those of the same gender, but more a case of hating them less.

But I'd say that is something outside your choice. If you keep being betrayed by your male parters so that you automatically think "NO!" whenever you see a guy, then I wouldn't call that a choice. That sounds more like environment affection, akin to how a child is raised and affected by his surroundings.