Come on then, Peanuts, let's hear it from a different, hopefully less prejudiced angle. In what sense is an activity that humans *choose* to engage in, homosexual and/or heterosexual, that animals engage in without any comprehension (I think we can assume) of "sexuality", so unnatural. I need it spelt out to me please.

 

The fact it had apostrophes for added abhorrent and dismissive value was more the point. If we have to resort to playground terms then I'm sorry, I'm obviously wasting my time.

 

LOL, any increase on 10 posts - tops?

 

Hello muppet....

 

One

 

My you are funny today......

 

Seems to be a standard expression these days Anne Robinson!

Les

 

Only in a derogatory sense, Les, as well you know. Lots of men and women will be fudge-packing tonight; God, how disgusting is that..?? And so unnatural too.

 

That horrid man who raped a 13month old baby "chose" to do so, the woman teacher who engaged in naughtyness with the young lad "chose" to do so.

From the above two examples, I think we can safely rule out the theory that: because there was an element of choice involved it is right.

Other than that, natural (meaning of nature) is to procreate, you cannot do so as a practising homosexual, vis a vis its not natural

 

Ok, but in what sense is it "wrong"? Just because YOU say so? Sorry, but that isn't good enough, with respect. It's an opinion, but it isn't what some posters are describing as a "fact". On the point of procreation, well oral sex could obviously be included in the sex act, and that doesn't produce babies as far as I'm aware. So how is that natural and **** sex not? Come on, you're an intelligent guy, don't let yourself be blinkered on this issue too.

 

Some animals have sex with their own offspring - using your analogy that's obviously right - or is it wrong but natural

 

I'm saying it's natural. I'm saying that homosexuality is natural for a percentage of the population. "Wrongness" is merely a moral viewpoint that only humans can hold. Nodody at all would argue that the awful incident that this thread was originally about was right, because of course it involved somebody who was not able to make a reasoned judgment about what was going on. That's a billion miles away from a consensual homosexual relationship.

 

Save your keyboard and stop trying to reason with people would basically don't like gays. You wont change their minds.

Arguing that it's natural will not get you anywhere - Rape is Natural - Lions don't seem to ask Lionesses if they fancy some rumpy pumpy .

 

Yep, at the end of the day I know that's what it boils down, you're right. I guess the *real* question is when and why our opinions towards homosexuality are formed. Because in my experience, once they are, they rarely change. C'est la vie.

 

It's when opinions turn to judgement that the problems start.

Being Gay / Black / English / Cat Lover doesn't really pre-dispose you to being anything else - but stereotyping seems to lead us to believe certain things apply to certain groups.

Now that's Natural !

Shame really .

Do as I do - Assume everone is a ***** until they prove otherwise - it works

 

I can see that - you reserve your prejudice for a whole continent

I think you will find that Syphillis is transmitted by many forms of sexual and non-sexual behaviour and used to be far more prevalent than it is today. The fact that you single out this news story to justify your view is another example of context free facts, or put it more simply because you don't like words that mean anything, prejudice.

And thoughout history has been one of the main tranmitters of Syphillis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, Candida, Papimollae virus (cause of cervical cancer), Herpes and warts to name but a few. Are these all punishments for enjoying normal, natural sex, applying your arguments.

I am not sure that cut and pasting a dictionary definition of a word is a high flying essay. You use a word one way - there are at least five of us here use it a different way. Let's call it a majority vote then shall we and keep away from semantics.

Of course without semantics there would be no meaning so we may as well type random letters jwklqwejr jnkjsfop ndddtgb kgjo ndhapoin webntro0nt as=fijjt.

I am not sure anyone is vilifying you, yet, indeed I suspect that a number of us have received far more defamatory and abusive posts directed at us than you have. However we have disagreed with your opinion, or at least how you have expressed it.

Having said all of that your defamatory comment regarding a whole continent probably deserves vilification.

 

Sorry, I thought I made a valid, educated and reasoned arguement. I never stated it was wrong. Maybe the semantics are holding you up in your understanding?

Nature's way is to survive.
Survival depends on procreation.
Homosexuals cannot procreate between themselves.

Something isnt necessarily wrong because it is unnatural.
How many westerners have naturally black hair?
How many asians have naturally blond hair?
yet people of both cultures can be seen sporting said hair colour.
Is it against natures intention? yes.
Is it wrong? Hardly.

You can't *change* the meaning of a word by utilising asterisks.

 

Peanuts, look, it's pretty damned simple. It's been proved beyond reasonable doubt that A percentage of the human population (let's leave animals out of it now) ARE homosexual. Naturally. They're the percentage who won't be adding to the future generations of the human race. Please, please attempt to stop convincing yourself that ALL humans HAVE to be heterosexual, it will make things much, much easier for you to accept what science has already proved. No asterisks required.

 

Excuse me for a moment.

It's not "pretty damned simple", if it were so then there wouldn't be constant arguements about the topic. In your eyes it is simple, maybe you haven't fully grasped the depth of the subject or the emotion behind it?

A percentage of the population are homosexual, I whole heartedly agree, but why naturally?

All humans dont have to be heterosexual, nowhere in any of my ramblings have I stated that.

What has science proved exactly? Tell me, I feel I must be missing out on fundamental knowledge that comes so easily to you.

 

(You have merely changed your method of inflection to be in upper case capital letters rather than asterisks, dont think I haven't noticed )

 

PMSL

 

I think our opinions in this matter are formed in childhood, from education where we were basically taught things in Janet and John style of things ie male/female bonding.

Nowadays things seem to be different in schools etc with the gay lobby and the Government spending so much time and money promoting the fact that to be "gay is OK". My kids of 15 and 17 even go to the Mardi Gras in Cardiff these days which is something I wouldn't have dreamed of doing at their age and nor would I now.

I would imagine most who have posted on this subject who are against are of the older generation who will have different views to the youngsters on a lot more subjects as well.

Times change and peoples views will change with them. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant really as it certainly won't change matters.

Chip

 

A percentage of the population are murderers as well. Is that natural then??

Chip

 

There ARE (damn!) constant arguments about the rightness or wrongness of it - all fair enough, I'm not here to preach morality. What we DON'T have to argue about is the scientific fact about homosexuality, well unless we're saying that scientists are saying something merely to suit their own agendas. Read up on it, even though I do acknowledge that reading things contrary to a deeply-entrenched opinion isn't easy or rewarding to do. Too many people on here are armed merely with opinion and not fact, nor by the sound of it, much real-world experience.

Not sure how to answer your question about "why naturally", since you've already stated that you accept a given percentage ARE homosexual. Unless of course you're saying that each and every one of them has learned homosexuality and decided to turn their backs on the sexuality they were born with or something. If you still believe THAT (last time!), well there's nothing really more I can say, apart from the fact (word chosen carefully) that it's simply incorrect.

 

Chip, are you asking me or quoting me?

 

I am asking what has science proved about homosexuality?
You haven't responded.

 

Well, that's an interesting question, but obviously not connected with sexuality. I think books such as Lord of the Flies are indicative that under the right conditions, the propensity to murder is a natural state for some people, yes. The availability of food and water in the Western world keeps most who-knows-what evils at bay, thankfully.

 

That it is a genetically natural state in some people.

 

Lord of the flies is fiction. By definition, not fact.

 

Homosexuality is genetic now??