Homoseuxality: Is it wrong?

Originally posted by amannion
But that's neglecting the history of the gay rights movement.
A lot of gays go on about being gay because they can now without fear of persecution.
Similar to the way a lot of women used to go on about being women.
That's a result of the overall changes to a more permissive society, and one with less discrimination.

True, but just because you CAN go on about something, it doesn't mean you HAVE TO go on about it.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Hmm... I don't know about this...

I would say the primary function of teeth is to tear and chew, but
I wouldn't say that it is the only natural function. I think that it's
perfectly natural for a mama cat to carry her young by the scruff in her
mouth.

But this complicates things; whereas it is natural for a cat to use her
teeth in ...[text shortened]... . It's certainly the only natural way to procreate,
but not copulate.

Nemesio

I don't think bbarr intended his response to be taken seriously. I certainly didn't take it that way.

Originally posted by Nordlys
It's also a typical step in the search for your identity for people belonging to a minority group. When people come to terms with belonging to a specific group and try to understand what that means for them, they will typically have a phase during which they will relate almost any experience to that new-found aspect of their identity and during which they ma ...[text shortened]... m on the autistic spectrum. For most people this will be a phase, but some may get stuck there.

Did you go on autistic spectrum pride marches? Actually, I take your point about minority groups wanting to find other people to identify with. You are right.

I just get bored when gay people start going on and on and on....

Originally posted by twiceaknight
True, but just because you CAN go on about something, it doesn't mean you HAVE TO go on about it.

So what?
Different people have different responses to events ... that's just stating the bloody obvious.

We see lots of over the top gay people because they're the ones that are over the top. The quiet suburban gay person living a normal life is not going to be given any sort of media coverage.

What's your point?

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Did you go on autistic spectrum pride marches?

No, that's not my style. I also didn't go through the phase where all autistic people are seen as good and all neurotypicals as bad. But for some people this seems to be a necessary part of the process. I know some people who are or have been almost militantly autistic. 🙂

Originally posted by stocken
This whole discussion about whether or not homosexuality is a natural
thing, a genetic occurance, came about as aho mentioned that he thinks
anything unnatural is wrong, and since he thought homosexuality was
unnatural homosexuality is wrong.

I wish people would actually read the thread before posting. This is
becoming yet another repeat your argu ...[text shortened]... an be bad in this
case. 😏

Why won't anyone pick me up on that one? I feel so left out. 😞

I wish people would actually read the thread before posting. This is
becoming yet another repeat your arguments ad nauseum thread. It has already been established that homosexuality is natural, that it's not bad in the sense that no one is harmed, and the only argument left is that of the religious folks who'd like to add morality to the pot, and I think I've shown quite well how morality (not homosexuality) can be bad in this case.

No, Jammer, was saying specifically that because it is genetic, it must be morally right. In fact, Jammer was saying that anything genetic, such as being fat and eating lots of food, is moral if it has genetic causes. All I am saying is that genes have nothing to do with morality. And I did read the thread 😠

Originally posted by Nordlys
No, that's not my style. I also didn't go through the phase where all autistic people are seen as good and all neurotypicals as bad. But for some people this seems to be a necessary part of the process. I know some people who are or have been almost militantly autistic. 🙂

One took a swing at me one time.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I wish people would actually read the thread before posting. This is
becoming yet another repeat your arguments ad nauseum thread. It has already been established that homosexuality is natural, that it's not bad in the sense that no one is harmed, and the only argument left is that of the religious folks who'd like to add morality to the pot, and I thi All I am saying is that genes have nothing to do with morality. And I did read the thread 😠

Well, he makes a point in that if I have no choice, if it's genetic, right or
wrong becomes irrelevant, at least on a personal level. You're right about
the moral aspect being detached from the genetic fact. And I do apologise
for assuming you didn't read the entire thread. 🙂

Now, let's look at the morals. Do you think homosexuality is morally wrong?
And why do(n't) you think so?

Originally posted by amannion
So what?
Different people have different responses to events ... that's just stating the bloody obvious.

We see lots of over the top gay people because they're the ones that are over the top. The quiet suburban gay person living a normal life is not going to be given any sort of media coverage.

What's your point?

I have known many gay people, largely because i live in the gay capital of the UK. I have met lots of great gay people, and a lot of them are of the same opinionas me. It was them that pointed it out to me!

It's just sad that the type of hole they like to stick their penis in seems to be the central focus of some homosexuals' existence. It defines who they are, whereas i would like to think there is more to them than this, and their sexuality is just one small aspect of their identity.

I'm not talking about media coverage, i'm talking about the content of conversations in pubs, at work etc. I just think it gets a bit boring, that's all. So in that small way, it's 'wrong.' That was my point.

BTW The really 'over the top' ones are considered an embarrassment by the quieter, more 'normal' gay community. It kind of gives them a bad name.

Originally posted by Nordlys
[ I know some people who are or have been almost militantly autistic. 🙂[/b]

Honestly? Thats not something i would ever have thought of. OOH the things you learn on the internet! It's an interesting thought.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Honestly? Thats not something i would ever have thought of. OOH the things you learn on the internet! It's an interesting thought.

http://www.autistics.org/images/alfbutton.jpg 🙂

Originally posted by Nordlys
http://www.autistics.org/images/alfbutton.jpg 🙂

http://tinyurl.com/ycfxft

Originally posted by Nordlys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior

this is what the synopsis under the banner headline in the link you posted says

"This list includes animals for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

These terms of reference are so broad it becomes possible to define a very long list of animals as being homosexual which is just patent nonsense.

Post a list of animals who express a direct sexual gratification by the mimicking of the sexual act as typically expressed between the heterosexual pairing of that species where one of the animals of the homosexual pair will take on the role of accommodating the phallic advances of the other aroused erect animal.

I think when most people say that it doesn't occur in nature, they expect any proof to the contrary that nature embraces homosexuality to actually demonstrate examples where a male animal in a homosexual pair will actually provide the other male in the pair an analogue of the female role. To broaden the definition of homosexuality such that it need simply show behavior in one or more categories of which only one of them is sex makes a mockery of the list presented. An uncritical acceptance of the link presented would give an unwary mind the impression that nature is rife with examples of homosexuality.

Since when did homosexuality get the privilege to co-opt courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting as being of necessity homosexual determinants.

From a sociologists perspective the selection of other same sex subjects as possible friends would take on all the hallmarks of courtship and if reciprocated by the prospective friend the relationship that develops over the years will exhibit all the qualities of affection and pair-bonding and parenting that if you were objective enough about would readily notice.

To then segue into, that must be homosexuality, might not mean a damn thing, instead simply be a function of a society that has trained its males to ignore certain undeniable mechanisms of friendship, that not only has been going on for centuries but is not only openly recognized but also welcomed and celebrated, in less uptight, overtly homophobic societies.

Lets face it western consumerist society is largely driven by notions of normalcy that have become increasingly narrowly defined such that instead of celebrating a broad spectrum of what you could expect as being normal it has increasingly defined a compressed one dimensional view of maleness as being normal. This is the madness that sees actively desiring the company of a particular male friend as courtship, making it impossible for anyone showing any more than the idealized laconic, detached, bloodless, connection in their tmale bonding as being 'normal' and that any form of affection as somehow equating that to a feminine 'emotionalism, which therefore naturally equates to being gay.

This sort of word manipulation would as in the words of Abraham Lincoln make a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse.

Originally posted by kmax87
this is what the synopsis under the banner headline in the link you posted says

"This list includes animals for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

These terms of reference are so broad it becomes possible to define a very ...[text shortened]... tion would as in the words of Abraham Lincoln make a horse chestnut into a chestnut horse.

Nice thoughts.
On the animal homosexual stuff, there are some pretty good behavioural studies of Bonobos (Pygmy Chimps) which demonstrate the same sorts of sexual activity we find in humans - casual sex, rape, homosexuality, incest, and so on.

Originally posted by amannion
On the animal homosexual stuff, there are some pretty good behavioural studies of Bonobos (Pygmy Chimps) which demonstrate the same sorts of sexual activity we find in humans - casual sex, rape, homosexuality, incest, and so on.

Well, this very comment should suffice to end any discussion on the value of naturalness for morality.

So: simply because it is observed in nature doesn't make it right or wrong in and of itself. That is,
people who say, 'Monkeys do it, therefore it's okay' aren't making a very coherent argument
(because monkeys also rape), but neither are the people who say 'Your parts aren't made that way,
it's unnatural and thus not okay,' because the use of genitalia in a procreative way is obviously not
a requirement for the naturalness of a sexual act to begin with.

So, what, then is the objection to homosexuality? Harm to society? And if so, what harm are we
talking about?

Nemesio