Whether or not animals aer actually gay or just angsty it proves homosexuality is "natural".

You'd also have to consider that homosexual behaviour is seen in the animal kingdom, in which case there's probably some genetic reason for it.

 

All that means is they haven't found another way to release their man-juice when the females aren't available. I highly doubt animals are attracted to one another seeing as how my dog tries humping his stuffed bunny on a regular basis, and if that's the case (no attraction) then they just have sex for sex, not for love - and that means they don't care what it is they're doing as long as they're doing something. Obviously females are their first choice because it's probably the most pleasurable for them.

 

 

 

My reckoning is that homosexual animals are, yeah, pretty much just horny and confused. Any animal can get angsty at times.

 

 

 

Besides, are we to bring ourselves down to the standards of animals?

Of course not, we are much better than animals. We are killing every other species, we are killing ourselves, we are killing the plants and trees. Yep, sooooo much better.

Besides, are we to bring ourselves down to the standards of animals?

 

 

 

The only difference is that we can try to rationalize things. Animals can't make the connection, "Hey there's that monkey that killed my brother last month! Get him!" You do bring up a good point though. Animals kill over stupid reasons such as territory or mates. That doesn't suggest that humans can too. Although... we usually establish laws and stuff because we aim to eliminate detriments to our society. No killing because we don't want to live in fear and family's would grieve. No homosexuality because... it doesn't contribute to reproduction? No, that doesn't sound right at all.

Besides, are we to bring ourselves down to the standards of animals?

 

 

 

The only difference is that we can try to rationalize things. Animals can't make the connection, "Hey there's that monkey that killed my brother last month! Get him!" You do bring up a good point though. Animals kill over stupid reasons such as territory or mates. That doesn't suggest that humans can too. Although... we usually establish laws and stuff because we aim to eliminate detriments to our society. No killing because we don't want to live in fear and family's would grieve. No homosexuality because... it doesn't contribute to reproduction? No, that doesn't sound right at all.

 

Good idea but that's not it I don't think. Back before the election I was watching the news (which I rarely do) in california they said if they allow homosexual marriage it would lead to bestiality and necrophilia. I don't know how they got that, but I guess people bought it. In my eyes that proves that if it was just homosexuality alone people would be ok with it.

Both of those are cases where consent is not present so they're quite a different ballpark. If we're talking about prison sex, then I agree - a gay man shouldn't rape another man.

Hey, I did not say it, I heard it on the news.

I personally think that there is a choice made at some point TO be homosexual.

 

 

 

I don't think it's wrong, I have no right to say homosexuality is wrong, live and let live (Or something like that).

 

 

 

In my opinion, they should be able to marry, it's just a common right, in my opinion. As for the sanctity of marriage, marriage is a government matter, not religious. If it is religious, then why would a heterosexual atheist be able to marry?

Opps double post.

*This is aimed morely to the people who said no to homosexuality because they can't reproduce then.*

 

What about shemales? If they were lesbian then they could still get the other woman pregnant (couldn't they?).

 

 

 

 

 

(I'm not 100% sure on the anatomy of a shemale so

 

I could be wrong)

*This is aimed morely to the people who said no to homosexuality because they can't reproduce then.*

 

What about shemales? If they were lesbian then they could still get the other woman pregnant (couldn't they?).

 

 

 

 

 

(I'm not 100% sure on the anatomy of a shemale so

 

I could be wrong)

 

 

 

depends on the individual, some of your "shemales" would be men on hormone treatment with makeup possible breast implants etc. Others would have had operations for certain other things. If the original penis was still attached then in theory they could impregnate another woman.

 

 

 

However, at that point we are getting into a debate over what defines gender. The same people who oppose gay marriage because of reproduction might just take the position that if it has a penis it is legally male.

However, at that point we are getting into a debate over what defines gender. The same people who oppose gay marriage because of reproduction might just take the position that if it has a penis it is legally male.

 

People can't oppose gays on the basis of reproduction unless they also oppose ANY sex that is done without the intent to make babies (sex for pleasure) - which is a very, very small percentage of people.

you didnt need to quote me, I wasnt adressing that position. Well, you could have the position that any marrital sex is okay if there is intent to have children at some point or whatever. I was simply adressing the question asking about trans gender situations.

I know you don't hold that stance, I just quoted you because it had relevence to my post. But the number of people who are against homosexuality then turn around and have sex for pleasure is so high it's [developmentally delayed]ed.

And for the 2000th post on this thread:

 

And for the 2000th post on this thread:

 

[ythq]

 

That has to be the most amazing video I have ever seen.

 

The ending was a bit vulgar though.

Sorry if mods have to remove it :|

However, at that point we are getting into a debate over what defines gender. The same people who oppose gay marriage because of reproduction might just take the position that if it has a penis it is legally male.

 

People can't oppose gays on the basis of reproduction unless they also oppose ANY sex that is done without the intent to make babies (sex for pleasure) - which is a very, very small percentage of people.

 

 

 

I thought they were talking about whether or not they can have babies, not if they intend to.

 

 

 

Also, i think the whole gender thing is a bit touchy. Just like the "man" that was pregnant...who was actually born a female and got the "treatment" and whatnot. Also he didn't have his repro organs changed so even technically he's a female which explains why he was able to have a child in the first place; he was still female inside. So why then do they say a man was pregnant when inside he was a woman? I can dress up like a female to but trust and believe i still have that certain organ and so i'm still a man. It was really just false labeling IMO.

So why then do they say a man was pregnant when inside he was a woman?

 

 

 

Has to be one of the stupidest news stories of recent time. Obviously he had female reproductive organs, so biologically he was female. He only identified mentally as a male, which allowed the media to essentially make a news story out of nothing.

I've been reading through some of the pages, because for some reason i like these types of topics. Is it wrong or right? this shouldnt even have to be asked. i dont really care. it's their life, not mine. it doesnt affect me in anyway. i treat people as human beings. the way i want to be treated.

 

 

 

just to shoot down some points:

 

 

 

HIV/AIDS: lol, go to school, no, not evangelist homeschool.

 

"Un-natural": so are computers, plastics, and some medicines.

 

the whole "the bible says that this is wrong": The bible also says eating shellfish is wrong and so is wearing clothes of two different fabrics (something like that) lets discriminate and protest red lobster while we are at it....

 

"gays wont reproduce": so? how is this valid? if you want to reproduce, fine, but if some don't then wheres the problem?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for different opinions, it makes for some serious and insightful discussions. even if it doesnt change your stance, it should give you some different insight on the topic.

 

 

 

just a question to people using religion as a basis.....why do you care? if you believe they are going to a fiery pit and you are not, why do you get involved? personally, i see churches using this debate as a way for them to gain attention. because gay bashing is so wide spread, it is the easiest form of discrimination to target and take advantage of.

 

 

 

Discuss!

Again, I haven't received an answer from anyone on this point.

 

 

 

If adults choose to engage in a social contract with eachother, and there is no harm that extends outside of said social contract, how is it the business of society/the state to say whether this is right/wrong, illegal/legal?

Again, I haven't received an answer from anyone on this point.

 

 

 

If adults choose to engage in a social contract with eachother, and there is no harm that extends outside of said social contract, how is it the business of society/the state to say whether this is right/wrong, illegal/legal?

 

 

 

Are you accidentally posting here instead of the Legalizing Prostitution thread?

Again, I haven't received an answer from anyone on this point.

 

 

 

If adults choose to engage in a social contract with eachother, and there is no harm that extends outside of said social contract, how is it the business of society/the state to say whether this is right/wrong, illegal/legal?

 

 

 

Are you accidentally posting here instead of the Legalizing Prostitution thread?

 

 

 

No, I am responding to the people who say that homosexuality should be illegal.

Again, I haven't received an answer from anyone on this point.

 

 

 

If adults choose to engage in a social contract with eachother, and there is no harm that extends outside of said social contract, how is it the business of society/the state to say whether this is right/wrong, illegal/legal?

 

 

 

Are you accidentally posting here instead of the Legalizing Prostitution thread?

 

 

 

No, I am responding to the people who say that homosexuality should be illegal.

 

 

 

Who said it should be illegal? The question here was is it right or wrong. Eventually it comes down to the individuals sense of morals; some would say it's wrong, some would say it's right, others won't say at all so they aren't flamed. I think it's wrong but i respect everyone's right to do as they please as long as it's not hurting anyone. Plain and simple. :

I've been reading through some of the pages, because for some reason i like these types of topics. Is it wrong or right? this shouldnt even have to be asked. i dont really care. it's their life, not mine. it doesnt affect me in anyway. i treat people as human beings. the way i want to be treated.

 

 

 

I used to feel the same way, but more is needed to justify it other than "it doesn't affect me". Technically, sexual acts such as pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia don't affect you but of course we think they are wrong anyways. I think the main thing to look at here is the consent. If two males give their mutual consent to have sex, then it shouldn't be considered wrong. There is no consent with corpses and animals - and even with children who willingly give their consent, it's still a bit cloudy because we can't leave it up to children to make decisions like that, especially when they're not even allowed to vote.

I got banned from a forum I'd been a member of for about a year because I support homosexuality :(

 

... and other things but that's not the point.

 

 

 

Nobody has any right to judge someone's love as right or wrong. YES things like pedophilia are wrong, I'm not saying that you can justify 'love' for children, but that is a different topic (before someone says I'm suggesting it >.<). Why should I dictate who someone can love? What right do I have to cast judgement on someone else? If you believe in God then maybe you think he should be the one to cast judgement. He, not you. Why did God give people free will so that other humans would take it away?

 

 

 

Just throwing those questions out.