Do you really want to justify human behavior based on what animals do to one another?
Have at it Sparkie.
HG: That’s Sparkie’s “style”.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Do you really want to justify human behavior based on what animals do to one another?
More like he wants to put human standards on animals, then use the animals not living up to human standards to show that the human standards are incorrect.
Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.
HG - Do you really want to justify human behavior based on what animals do to one another?
The argument one often hears is that homosexuality is an “abomination of nature”, or words to that effect.
Sparkie is countering that argument by displaying an instance of homosexuality found in nature.
Truth be told, the homosexual “abomination of nature” is found all throughout the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is a common behavior among “God’s creatures”; both for sexual release and as dominance displays; both among the females and among the males.
lik is right.
i am providing a counterexample to the ‘natural use’ arguments that are often deployed around here.
also, you ask, “Do you really want to justify human behavior based on what animals do to one another?”
to which one may respond with a question, “Do you really want to justify human behavior [with] an old book about quasi-anthropomorphized, omni-powerful fairy tale characters?”
lik is right. I am providing a counterexample to the ‘natural use’ arguments that are often deployed around here.
With all due respect to Lik, no, you are not providing an intelligent counter example at all.
“The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.”
The point? We are in no manner related to or descended from these lower order of animals and their behavior does not relate to human behavior.
Primates are a lower order of animal, they are controlled by base animal lusts for food, water, sexual release or whatever. They are incapable of judging between right and wrong, they are “soulish,” of the lower animal kind. Man is body, soul and spirit, of the highest order of animal knowing right from wrong and having the ability to control base, destructive desires.
Sparkless has only recognized what exists in the lower animal kingdom, which has no real relationship to human beings at all. If the female spider kills its mate after copulation, does that prove and justify that human females killing their mates after sexual intercourse is natural and acceptable behavior? Should we legalize human females murdering their sexual partners? Nonsense! What behavior that may exist among the lower order of animals does not indicate that the same behavior is acceptable among the human kind.
No rational, intelligent human being, IMO, can look at human physiology and say that repeatedly ramming a penis or other object up the rectum of another human being is not a violation of natural design. Notice, for Sparkie’s sake and that of others, I did not speak of the Bible, I said that sodomy violates natural design, is the source of the spread of disease, it causes permanent harm to the rectum and lower intestine and is an unnatural use of both the penis and rectum.
Sorry Lik and Sparkie, you have proved nothing! Homosexuals can and should control their sexual lusts, just as we would demand females control a desire to murder their sexual partners. Neither behavior can be justified by looking at the animal kingdom.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
Should we legalize human females murdering their sexual partners?
Neiman on June 28, 2008 at 08:25 am
Women do kill men. They kill them slowly.
Witness that the life span of the males is much shorter than the females.
Ever seen “horny” cows mount each other?
Come on Neiman. If we are to observe and obey one part of the Bible, why not the rest?
Like stoning to death adulterers?
Ellinas, my friend: You and most liberals and virtually all evolutionists; whether consciously out of malice or unconsciously due to ignorance, continue to confuse the Old Testament with the New Testament. There is no excuse whatsoever for ever stoning anyone for any cause based on the Gospel of Grace, the Gospel of God’s Love.
I cannot testify for you, Sparkie or anyone else, but I am a human being, not a cow; and because of that difference I can determine right from wrong and choose to do what is right, or as I have often done in my life, choose to get into my fleshly nature and do what is wrong. The difference is: I always know right from wrong, even if I do wrong, a cow cannot discern the difference. I always, by God’s Grace, know when I am doing wrong and it will not give me rest until I repent and get back on the right path.
What’s more, homosexuals absolutely ‘know’ their sexual conduct is wrong, it violates natural design and the inner witness of God to every man testifies to their being wrong in their desires and conduct. Surely, when we do wrong long enough our consciences become seared; that is, withered, shriveled, or dried up, and like a scar it hardens their hearts to the Truth they once knew in the inner man, but they and you know that homosexual desires and conduct are a clear perversion (stray from the natural course) of both natural or if you are a Christian - Divine Design.
How do I “know,” that they are aware their desires and conduct are wrong? Am I playing God? No! The very fact they have fought to legalize their conduct, to make criminals of anyone that objects to their conduct, and even try to gain marriage as a sign they are doing right, is loud and clear testimony they know they are doing wrong and cannot find happiness and peace until they either repent or cover-up their wrongdoing by forcing society to say it is not wrong.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
Primates are a lower order of animal, they are controlled by base animal lusts for food, water, sexual release or whatever. They are incapable of judging between right and wrong, they are “soulish,” of the lower animal kind.
Ummm… someone might want to tell Neiman that humans are primates.
“The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.”
Just out of pure curiosity, do you have a link/source for this quote?
No rational, intelligent human being, IMO, can look at human physiology and say that repeatedly ramming a penis or other object up the rectum of another human being is not a violation of natural design.
You hear that! No more BJs for any of ya! The mouth wasn’t designed for beef mast insertion.
Sorry Lik and Sparkie, you have proved nothing!
They didn’t set out to prove anything. Simply to identify examples of other animals engaging in homosexual behavior. Which they accomplished by the way.
The last part of your comment was especially dumb. They know they’re doing wrong by fighting for legal and societal approval? You’re kidding me right. Let’s replace gays in your last paragraph with another group to illustrate the absurdity (not to mention stupidity) of your argument:
The very fact they [black people] have fought to legalize their conduct [voting, owning land, riding the front of the bus], to make criminals of anyone that objects to their conduct, and even try to gain [interracial] marriage as a sign they are doing right, is loud and clear testimony they know they are doing wrong and cannot find happiness and peace until they either repent or cover-up their wrongdoing [their wrongdoing being that their black, of course] by forcing society to say it is not wrong.
Plus you paint with too broad of brush strokes. I don’t know any gays that wish to criminalize objections to their lifestyle. There are some that do and many lefties who aren’t gay that wish to criminalize it, but you’re building a strawman with that statement.
1. I used the term primates as that is what Sparkie used referring to Chimpanzees and I wanted to use a consistent term not to confuse the subject. So much for your desire to educate me Ken! You need to stop looking for small points to make you think you won an arguement and debate the matter at hand instead.
2. Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution? Before you cast doubts on the scientific merit of this source, facts are facts; prove the data offered was wrong or accept the facts.
3. No one said Ken that YOU cannot engage in sodomy with other men or give other men oral sex; but what you choose to do has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the mouth and anus are not designed for sexual intercourse, both cause the spread of disease and both cause other harm, in the case of oral sex very often men can no longer orgasm with normal vaginal penetration, as it does not apply the same pressure to the penis as the mouth.
4. Sparkie did not provide evidence of homosexual desire or conduct, as these lower animals cannot make such moral choices, only react out of lust. Prove they were born with sexual desires for their own gender and made a conscious choice to stop having sexual intercourse with the opposite gender out of choice, then we’ll talk some more.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
Plus you paint with too broad of brush strokes. I don’t know any gays that wish to criminalize objections to their lifestyle. There are some that do and many lefties who aren’t gay that wish to criminalize it, but you’re building a strawman with that statement.
Talk about dumb!
Who the hell do you think are behind the hate crimes laws involving homosexuals? Do you think there was a heterosexual groundswell to pass hate crime laws? If you think was was done in a vacuum, you have a problem facing reality. This is a deliberate, concerted plan on the part of the homosexual community!
As to comparing black people to homosexuals, being black is not a choice, these people cannot choose not to engage in black behavior, it is not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuals, whether you think they should or not is beside the issue, they can choose not to engage in homosexual conduct. One (blacks) refers to skin color, the other (homosexuals) refers to choice regading conduct. They cannot reasonably, by any measure, be compared.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
2. Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution? Before you cast doubts on the scientific merit of this source, facts are facts; prove the data offered was wrong or accept the facts.
It wasn’t my intention to debate the validity or veracity of the source; the quote seemed interesting and I wanted to read the source. But a small quibble, if I did disagree with the conclusions/theories derived from this, just because I couldn’t disprove their statements doesn’t necessarily make them “facts” or correct. Though just in that quote alone the authors make a scientific boo-boo:
a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change
They say “there is no possibility of change”. The language they use is not tentative and does not leave open the possibility that there may be a source/process of change that they have yet to identify or understand.
but what you choose to do has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the mouth and anus are not designed for sexual intercourse
The response you are referring to me was meant to be light-hearted and not serious. But I do agree with you; the mouth and rectum are not designed for sexual intercourse. I don’t think anyone could argue otherwise. But human anatomy is not what is being debated. Sparkie’s stance is that the desire and act of homosexuality is found in nature, thus arguing that it is natural despite the anus not be designed for penetration.
both cause the spread of disease
That’s a moot point since vaginal intercourse also can spread disease.
both cause other harm
I agree with you on anal intercourse but what other harm does oral sex cause? Granted if it is done improperly it could cause harm but the same could be said for vaginal intercourse.
In the case of oral sex very often men can no longer orgasm with normal vaginal penetration, as it does not apply the same pressure to the penis as the mouth.
Do you have a source for that? I’m not saying you’re lying, but I hadn’t heard that before. I can only go by my own experience and my wife can tell you that I climax just fine.
Sparkie did not provide evidence of homosexual desire or conduct, as these lower animals cannot make such moral choices, only react out of lust. Prove they were born with sexual desires for their own gender and made a conscious choice to stop having sexual intercourse with the opposite gender out of choice, then we’ll talk some more.
Ah very good. That’s a logical and rational argument. Something that’s worth debating. When you make valid points like that it’s fun to discuss and debate you but too often you resort to emotional outbursts and get kind of “preachy”.
This is a deliberate, concerted plan on the part of the homosexual community!
So is legislation against hate crimes committed against black people a deliberate, concerted plan on the part of the black community?
OTOH though, I’ll be the first to admit that I was being an enormous asshat in the comment you’re referring to. Guilty as charged.
Though I would like to know, and this is purely a desire to better understand your stance, what you dislike about homosexuals? Is it entirely religious based? Or is a fear of societal damage, and if so, what damage to you believe would occur?
Sparkie,
I may be the only one who thinks so, but I’m convinced you are just laughing your ass off about now!
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Homosexuality is a common behavior
among “God’s creatures”; both for sexual release and as dominance displays; both among the females and among the males.
Thus clearly illustrating its unsuitability for marriage, which is about union, and not a “dominance display”. Nice one, likwid.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Thus clearly illustrating its unsuitability for marriage, which is about union, and not a “dominance display”. Nice one, likwid.
That alone does not invalidate homosexual marriage since heterosexuals also engage in similar displays of dominance and authority (i.e. rape). Though you could argue that a marriage is built upon procreation and creating a family unit. The examples of animal homosexuality given were only for sexual release and dominance displays, neither of which form the basis of a marriage. Which goes back to one of Neiman’s points, the female gorillas in the video were simply attempting sexual release, not forming a homosexual partnership. By this video we can see that homosexual behavior is natural but it does not show that homosexual partnerships are.
But this is getting a bit ridiculous as the point of Sparkie’s video was for a Friday night laugh, not to prove that homosexuality is natural.
So is legislation against hate crimes committed against black people a deliberate, concerted plan on the part of the black community?
Yes. Hate crime is thought crime, and has no place in a free society.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Though you could argue that a marriage is built upon procreation and creating a family unit.
Which is exactly my argument as to why what gays do isn’t “marriage”.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
No rational, intelligent human being, IMO, can look at human physiology and say that repeatedly ramming a penis or other object up the rectum of another human being is not a violation of natural design.
Y’know, dude, heterosexuals can have some hot butt lovin’ too.
Bigoted AND sexually unimaginative is no way to go through life, son.
...the fact that the mouth and anus are not designed for sexual intercourse…
Dude, you are in serious need of a good heterosexual blowjob. Sexual repression is an ugly thing.
Bigoted AND sexually unimaginative is no way to go through life, son.
Then mend your ways, “Jack”!
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Y’know, dude, heterosexuals can have some hot butt lovin’ too.
Bigoted AND sexually unimaginative is no way to go through life, son.
I don’t doubt you are an authority on the issue, but regardless, it remains repulsive to the vast majority, and rightfully so. Nausea is a natural occurrence and what you do with another guys rectum makes most people nauseous… more proof it is against nature.
I may be the only one who thinks so, but I’m convinced you are just laughing your ass off about now!
I’m sure he is; to paraphrase Lao Tzu:
When the Superior Man hears the Truth, he immediately puts it into practice;
When the Middling Man hears the Truth, he wants to know more about it;
When the Fool hears the Truth, he laughs; if he didn’t laugh, it would not be the Truth.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Sexual repression is an ugly thing.
So is rape, incest, pedophilia, and beastiality to name a few repressed (legally or socially) sexual behaviors. To most socially repressive sexual behaviors are a good thing and healthy for society. To most homosexuality ought to be socially repressed.
Gay buttsex is the transmission mode for AIDS; without a buttsex-lovin’ homo somewhere in the chain, there is no chance of contracting AIDS.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Sexual repression is an ugly thing.
More lying leftie propaganda. Acting morally isn’t “repression”, no matter how often you repeat that lie.
AIDS is an ugly thing, however; no doubt about that.
You should spend some time in an end-stage AIDS facility.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
bob:
In your world sex = AIDS.
Wow.
It must suck to be you.
HG:
In your world, sex = rape, incest, pedophilia, and beastiality.
Wow.
It must really, really suck to be you.
Is this how Gay logic works?
Animals are gay.
Animals are natural.
Humans are animals.
Ergo it must be natural for humans to be gay.
Only if you accept that humans are nothing more than animals.
I resent this.
I only let my girl call me an animal.
...for great justice
Jack apparantly you know no difference between repressed sexual behavior and appropriate sexual behavior. This was the point of my comment and you’ve proven it. Thanks.
In your world sex = AIDS.
I see you can’t do logic either, “Jack”. What I said was that in the real world, sex with someone connected to gay buttsex=the possibility of AIDS, since it has spread into our human society by that means. If you don’t understand that, you might not be here long.
If you want to see the reality of your sexual values, visit an end-stage AIDS facility.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
There are a variety of animal activities that occur in nature. The above shown are at the very end of the bell curve or distribution scale of possible activities. The observed activity is probably at the -3 Standard Deviation from the mean which is why this type behavior is called socially deviate. On the opposite scale are the good people who give blood(9%), join the military and defend our country (top 10%) and volunteer for organizations like the Red Cross, Churches and others who contribute to the common good.
Communism is evil
Though I would like to know, and this is purely a desire to better understand your stance, what you dislike about homosexuals? Is it entirely religious based? Or is a fear of societal damage, and if so, what damage to you believe would occur?
I do not dislike or hate or desire to cause harm to people that are of a homosexual midset.
Homosexuality is, even absent any religious beliefs, a perversion of natural design, harmful to the participants physically and emotionally, it harms their sexual partners, extended families and society as a whole. Each of these factors requires lengthy debate and so you will simply have to accept my statement of my beliefs on the matter.
As a Christian, I see homosexual conduct as a perversion of Divine Creation, a form of idolatry, a direct attack on the family and thereby our nation and it is, without any shadow of doubt condemned by God in both the Old and New Testaments.
The fact is, this thread was an thinly veiled attempt to create a justification for homosexual conduct because of observations of Chimpanzees and other animals attemting to engage in sexual intercourse with their own gender. It is interesting to note that while homo can be used to mean same as in gender, its root indicates man or male and is never used, as far as I can tell, in reference to animals other than man. So, is one male ape trying to sodomize another male ape engaging in homosexual behavior, or simply indifferent at that moment to the gender and only seeking a portal for its penis, to jack off in another male Chimpanzees rectal opening, without any homosexual feelings at all?
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
After 20-odd (and I DO mean odd) years, the homosexual community, at least certain elements, are coming clean and admitting the AIDs thing is primarily a homosexual problem.
Yeah, well like no joke.
It was pretty transparent from the onset that no hope for a cure would be found if the general population thought HIV-AIDs was just the Gay Disease (which it is) and no straight funding for research would be earmarked.
As it is, so many years down the road, other parties interested in cures for mainstream diseases such as breast cancer, MS and diabetes are noting that AIDs research is taking a lions share of the existing research dollars and we are no closer to a real cure than we were when the first homosexuals in San Fran started breaking out with Karposi’s before they died.
Whatever the moral arguments pro or con may be, pure common sense dictates that we have a real-live, modern-day incurable plague spreading across the face of the Earth and the primary vector is STILL homosexual butt-sex. By now, with the advent of bi-sexuals introducing it into the straight population, infected blood transfusions and transplanted organs, and needle-sharing druggies, the virus has been introduced to a certain degree into the general population.
Homosexuals scream and rant that we should not judge them but just work toward a cure.
Well, an ounce of prevention and all that ... in short ... no more butt-sex.
AIDs
33 million infected
0 cured
Don’t be gay—it’s bad for society.
...for great justice
Gay buttsex is the transmission mode for AIDS; without a buttsex-lovin’ homo somewhere in the chain, there is no chance of contracting AIDS.
Actually, a large amount of aids is spread by hetero businessmen who travel to Thailand and Brazil, and similar locales, to have sex for money with little girls.
Actually, a large amount of aids is spread by
hetero businessmen who travel to Thailand and Brazil, and similar locales to have sex for money with little girls.
Pure bullshit. There has to be a buttsex-loving homo somewhere in that chain. Where did the businessmen get it? Where did the Thai hookers get it?
You display your ignorance once again, Sparkie.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
r108
Perhaps its not totally transparent to you, but we could just be seeing little manifestations of your self-hatred.
Perhaps its not totally transparent to you, but we could just be seeing little manifestations of your self-hatred.
Only in your fevered and distorted imagination, Sparkie.
Nice to see you have no counter argument; your feeble attempts at personal attack are always so vapid.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
A counter argument at this point would amount to a series of statements from which we could conclude that Bonobos are unnatural.
You could pursue an asymmetrical argument where you claim the male-male homosexual acts are unnatural and female-female ones aren’t. You guys do, after all, appear to be much more averse to male-male instances of homosexual behavior. That would help you avoid this counter-example, but rest assured a more graphic video would be forthcoming.
Also, I am interested to hear the Christians explain why natural arguments apply to people.
Humans, in fact, are primates. Period, end of sentence.
Doesn’t it strike you guys that a drug such as Viagra is ‘unnatural’ and counter to ‘natural use’? Where so we draw the natural/unnatural line. Do we have a natural means to draw that line? Are skyscrapers an example of ‘unnatural use’?
Lastly, I would observe by the amount of emotional reactions I received here… that you guys are employing the ‘unnatural’ line merely as a post hoc means to rationalize your prejudices.
How do you feel about Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates? The bible was adapted from some of the philosophy that these unnatural bisexuals taught.
Also, wasn’t Noah (two of every animal, ark guy) butt-raped by one of his sons? Is that where this unnatural argument originates?
Humans, in fact, are primates. Period, end of sentence.
Wrong. We are not only primates; that just describes our general physical conformation, and is an arbitrary classification system designed by thinking human beings, not by any other primates.
Do you think that apes think of themselves as “primates”? Can they contemplate their own existence?
You clearly show your intellectual limitations, Sparkie.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
r108
Your arguments are so cutting. Like a two year old with a plastic butterknife.
I have no comment since what you responded with is nonsensical. Can you make your argument clear so that I can respond?
Perhaps ‘American’ and ‘Jihadi’ and ‘Canadian’ and ‘Burmese’ is an arbitrary classification system too?
.....and is an arbitrary classification system designed by thinking human beings, not by any other primates. Do you think that apes think of themselves as “primates”? Can they contemplate their own existence?
You clearly show your intellectual limitations, Sparkie.
robert108 on June 30, 2008 at 10:51 am
When you find a non arbitrary classification system designed by other primates please let us know right away.
We will be expecting your response with great anticipation.
Perhaps ‘American’ and ‘Jihadi’ and ‘Canadian’ and ‘Burmese’ is an arbitrary classification system too?
Those classifications have to do with behavior, and national origin, respectively, and aren’t arbitrary. Duh. I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference, Sparkie, but I’m hardly surprised.
When you find a non arbitrary classification system designed by other primates please let us know right away.
There aren’t any, moron; that was my point. You seem to be getting more stupid with every comment.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Can you make your argument clear so that I can respond?
Sorry I didn’t dumb it down enough for you.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
There aren’t any, moron; that was my point.
So why should we think that ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ pick out bona fide classifications of certain acts? You just sound like a little relativist to me.
So why should we think that ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ pick out bona fide classifications of certain acts? You just sound like a little relativist to me.
Sorry I have to tell you this, but humans make those classifications, and they have nothing to do with the real nature of other primates, who very probably have no consciousness of being anything resembling what we think of as “primates”. Therefore, what you would like to call “primate behavior”, and then classify as “natural”, is pure bunk.
On the other hand, humans are pretty clear that homosexuality among humans is not “natural”. Get it?
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
On the other hand, humans are pretty clear that homosexuality among humans is not “natural”. Get it?
No right wing evangelical zealots are pretty clear that homosexualality among humans is not “natural”. The majority of the population believes that homosexuality happens at a small rate in nature and is therefor natural.
I think what you want to say that it is not “normal” as in within the norm.
No right wing evangelical zealots are pretty clear that homosexualality among humans is not “natural”.
Another leftie lie: it’s the vast majority of humans(95%-97%) that are heterosexual who define homosexuality as “not natural”. You obviously believe your own propaganda, rather than the facts.
It’s not “natural” because it doesn’t reproduce itself.
According to the environmentalists, nature is self-sustaining.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
About 2/3rds of all AIDS cases are caused by homosexual anal intercourse. About 1/3 from IV drug use and a tiny fraction of 1% from heterosexual anal intercourse. Perhaps a handful of cases from normal intercourse because of lesions in the cervix.
The main cause of the initial spread in North America was caused by a Canadian steward(ess)—intentional and unintentional.
Communism is evil
Talk about dumb!
Who the hell do you think are behind the hate crimes laws involving homosexuals? Do you think there was a heterosexual groundswell to pass hate crime laws? If you think was was done in a vacuum, you have a problem facing reality. This is a deliberate, concerted plan on the part of the homosexual community!
As to comparing black people to homosexuals, being black is not a choice, these people cannot choose not to engage in black behavior, it is not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuals, whether you think they should or not is beside the issue, they can choose not to engage in homosexual conduct. One (blacks) refers to skin color, the other (homosexuals) refers to choice regading conduct. They cannot reasonably, by any measure, be compared.
Thats the pot calling the kettle black in I ever saw it.
This is another one of those topics that will always bring out the motivated Jesus folks. Lots of things we as a society do cause us plenty of trouble. We as a society do them anyway, cuz we are all free to do as we wish, for the most part. Even things that are illegal or un-ethical are routine. This is just a cherry picked issue with the purpose of enflaming passions and enraging both sides. It serves someones purposes, but not generally the people going crazy. These people are just tools for someones voter block.
As far as entertainment value, this is great. Thanks all you Jesus people, you continue to give your own a bad name with your intellectually dishonest attitudes about this topic in particular. Cherry picking is cherry picking. You are always invited to show the real disfunction of your thinking.
The only difference between you anti-gay folks and the Taliban is that you cant chop heads off without ending up on death row. Thank god you all mostly believe in the death penalty. Thats what I call sub-conscious restraint.
Sparkie, I gotta hand it to you, your posts bring out the worst in people. I like that. It re-enforces my theories regarding how these people are being manipulated and dont even know it, and the psychology behind it.
r108 maintains that 95-97% of humans view homosexuality as unnatural. but he provides no link for his false equivalency.
r108 maintains that 95-97% of humans view homosexuality as unnatural. but he provides no link for his false equivalency.
Where’s your link to disprove it?
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Another leftie lie: it’s the vast majority of humans(95%-97%) that are heterosexual who define homosexuality as “not natural”. You obviously believe your own propaganda, rather than the facts.
Natural means occuring in nature. It does not mean occuring in the majority of people. It does not mean self sustaining, though something that consistently occurs in nature at the same rate probably is self sustaining.
...though something that consistently occurs in nature at the same rate probably is self sustaining.
Actually, at that small rate, it only means it is a consistent mutation, although too small to threaten the continued existence of the species. Your attempts to parse the meaning of “natural” is noted. Clinton would be proud.
A six-limbed human child might occasionally occur in nature, but can hardly be called “natural”.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
it is a consistent mutation, although too small to threaten the continued existence of the species
Like redheads?
Actually, at that small rate, it only means it is a consistent mutation, although too small to threaten the continued existence of the species.
Since when did self-staining mean threaten the continued existence of the species? In fact who has claimed that homosexuality threatens the continued existence of the species?
I’m not parsing the meaning of natural, I am just using it properly. You are using it improperly, attempting to redefine a word for your own purposes.
I’m not parsing the meaning of natural, I am just using it properly. You are using it improperly, attempting to redefine a word for your own
purposes.
Wrong. I notice you dodged the question about the birth defect I mentioned.
Like redheads?
No, moron! Being a redhead doesn’t interfere with the ability to reproduce. In fact, I much prefer to engage in reproductive activities with redheaded women.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Hawk: Here’s your fundamental error here. There is no conclusive proof that homosexuality is genetic at all, which means that it’s an adaptation, and an unnatural one, at that. Even if it’s 100% genetic, it’s still only a very low-level mutation, statistically speaking, and could very well be considered as a birth defect, since it interferes with normal reproduction of the human species. Of course, Political Correctness and the homo lobby would act to prevent the truth being told.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Okay, here’s a simple test as to normal response and deviant response.
The average, red-blooded male will select the image on the:
LEFT or the RIGHT
as desirable?
Which one is it for you?
Let’s hear it.
Then explain to me how a guy picking the fruitcake on the LEFT is anywhere CLOSE to normal.
...for great justice
Even if it’s 100% genetic, it’s still only a very low-level mutation, statistically speaking, and could very well be considered as a birth defect, since it interferes with normal reproduction of the human species. Of course, Political Correctness and the homo lobby would act to prevent the truth being told
So your obvious affliction to balance would also be considered a birth defect? How about irrationality. Some would make your devotion to the invisible man in sky who loves you and sees everything you do and only wants the best for you, but throws you into a lake of fire if your not a good boy, as a mental illness. Just cuz you have alot of company in your delusions doesnt make you any less a specimen. Whats your criteria, cuz if this is correct, your next on the specimen table bobbie blue. Pathology and genetics is not something you should pretend you know anything about, obviously you dont.
In fact, I much prefer to engage in reproductive activities with redheaded women.
Can you imagine the woman who would want to boink bobbie blue? lol After you pay her, do you tell her she is stupid or a liar? Are you condecending and boorish with her as well? Do you quote market principles while negotiating a price? Do you chant cherry picked stats and questionable theories in her ear while you wait for your viagra to kick in?
pokepoke bobbie blue
Neiman - Sorry Lik and Sparkie, you have proved nothing!
I didn’t prove anything. The video did. Homosexuality occurs in nature.
If you don’t like that, then take it up with your God. Please don’t go bitching to me about it. I didn’t design the animals.
Homosexuality occurs in nature.
It also occurs in prison. It’s a display of dominance, and is about as sexual as is rape. Once again, anthropomorphism.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Is she holding that bum wrap I’ve heard so much about?
“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob
