Christians! It may be time to convert->

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BrownEyedBoy said:
And i supposse they're the vast majority? Tell me, how many of these animals had a "natural" growth or how many of them have some sort of mental disorder?

I don't recall hearing anything of the sort when hearing about this stuff, no. It's just that the fact that some animals exhibit this behavior should at least perhaps point to the fact that it may be seen as something that is as natural as heterosexuality.

Also, another thing to consider when bringing up the reproduction argument: what about all the straight couples who are unable to have children biologically? Or the couples who have no intention of ever having children? Are their relationships automatically an "aberration" because they aren't contributing to the population?

Angela
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
You want evidence as to why being a homosexual is an aberratiion? The most obvious of all. Homosexuals cannot possibly biologically mate. Impossible. And you're saying that in spite of this, homosexuality was still "meant to be"?

Let's face the facts. Homosexuals exist, both in human nature and in the animal kingdom. It is well-documented, so you can make all the arguments that you want; it exists, and, thus, it is natural.

The only "aberration" is the cultural construct of "perfection." It is also a greater fallacy to elevate one's cultural constructs--"Homosexuality is an aberration"--to the level of science, when nature, itself, proves you to be a fool.

Certainly, it may not be biologically advantageous to be homosexual, but, with <=10% of the population being gay, the >=90% of the world that is heterosexual can more than populate the world. After all, we don't have any shortages of people in this world; in case you haven't been paying attention for the past 50 years, the Earth has problems with overpopulation. That *doesn't* change the fact that nature is diverse, for whatever reason.

You cannot ignore reality, in favor of elevating your prejudices. That's what we have to tell racists too, because they see racial minorities as being an "aberration" as well.

Melon
 
Last edited:
BrownEyedBoy said:
That is a fallacy. Most straight couples can biologically have children whereas NO homosexual couple can ever naturally conceive a child.

Yes, most can, but the fact remains that there are a few heterosexual couples out there who, no matter what they do, are unable to have a child the biological way. And there's also still the matter of all the heterosexual couples out there who have chosen to never have children. So once again, are their relationships an aberration, too?

Angela
 
i shouldnt be in this thread...but i can't help this one.

its meant to be that straight couples are supposed to be able to physically procreate. but we all know thats not always the case.

gays are not meant to physically procreate.

i think thats the point browneyedboy's trying to make.
 
icelle said:
i shouldnt be in this thread...but i can't help this one.

its meant to be that straight couples are supposed to be able to physically procreate. but we all know thats not always the case.

gays are not meant to physically procreate.

i think thats the point browneyedboy's trying to make.

Hmmm...I think that is a bit off the mark.

I think BrownEyedBoy is saying that homosexuals aren't meant to be at all.
 
iacrobat said:




I think BrownEyedBoy is saying that homosexuals aren't meant to be at all.


well, yes i realize that, but i was actually responding to moonlit angel's reply.
 
oh, im not defending him.

his "i think two men kissing are disgusting" comment has infuriated me beyond belief.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
And you show a lacking ability to comprehend my posts.

I never said it was cool. I said Which means it isn't cool...yet

Oh! Maybe you could tell me what the autumn colours are going to cool this year too, I am already planning my new wardrobe.

Maybe some nice gay colours.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
And i supposse they're the vast majority? Tell me, how many of these animals had a "natural" growth or how many of them have some sort of mental disorder?


Interesting item in the papers last week:

From Reuters

Brain Changes Seen in Gay Sheep, U.S. Study Finds
Mon 8 March, 2004 00:35

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Researchers who found homosexual rams in a herd of sheep said they had found changes in the brains of the "gay" animals.

The results, published in the latest issue of the Journal Endocrinology, tend to support studies in humans that have found anatomical differences between the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men.

"This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans," added Charles Roselli, a professor of physiology and pharmacology who led the research team.

"The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development of heterosexual, as well as homosexual behavior."

Animal experts have found that about 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners.

So, if you read the entire article, no mention of 'some sort of mental disorder'. Also an interesting development in the nature vs. nurture discussion.
 
the procreation argument has been used so often...it's bunk

people have asked me, "so what if everybody was gay"

well...many christians decided to get married and not have children. That's not "natural" either...what if everybody decided not to have children. I guess we'd all go to hell
 
Basstrap said:
the procreation argument has been used so often...it's bunk

Indeed, same with the 'it's not natural' argument. Since when do we look at nature for moral guidelines? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom