Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 249
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    While this may be all to common in humans as well, I ask- does this also add to society's well being?
    Sure, it make 10% of the people happy, if you try to ban it you'll make 10% unhappy.
    And the other 90% are not affected with what those 10% do in their bedrooms (like I am not affected with what you do in yours)

    Appart from what is written in your book, what harm do you see in it?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #202  
    Progressive degeneration
  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Fact is, homosexuality is very common on nature, so it certainly cannot be a "crime against nature", as you claimed. Besides, if god is opposed to homosexuality (as you assume), why did he make homosexuality such a common trait in nature?

    Homosexuality is NOT "common" in nature. It may happen, but just because there may be some examples does not mean it's common. And no matter how many times you say it's common....it just isn't.

    And your second argument has no merit either....it's like saying if God is good, why is there evil in the world.... one thing that god has giving everyone, is the freedom of choice. This is even shown in the birth of his son. The blessed virgin Mary CHOOSE to carry the lord...she was asked and she said, "yes".
  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Progressive degeneration
    Please explain, I even looked it up



    de·gen·er·a·tion (d-jn-rshn)
    n.

    -The gradual deterioration of specific tissues, cells, or organs with impairment or loss of function, caused by injury, disease, or aging.
    -The evolutionary decline or loss of a function, characteristic, or structure in an organism or a species.
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Clulup,

    I think its interesting that being such a liberal, you would choose the animal kingdom to support your views.

    The majority of animals will abandon if not kill the weak for no other reason than survival of the fittest. Every aspect of thier being revolves around surviving another day. Does this make sense for humans? Probabably as a species, but not as Humans. Doesn't the very core of that go against your liberal views on how we as a society should behave?
    Your statements above are wrong in several ways:

    First,
    I never claimed "the animal kingdom" should serve as a role model for human societies. As mentioned before, all I said is that it is factually wrong to say that homosexuality is not natural - it is a part of everyday life for many, many species in nature, there are myriads of observations that prove this.

    For reasons which escape my attention, you have developed a habit of assuming that I claim we as a society of humans should use "the animal kingdom" as the role model of our behaviour. I never claimed anything of that sort.

    Second,
    there is no "animal kingdom" which we could take as a role model. While it is true that some animal species will kill or abandon the weak, the opposite is true for others. Many mammal species will defend even their dead offspring against predators for days. Many members of colony forming species like ants readily give their lives as soldiers for the survival of the colony, or they readily accept that they don't have offspring of their own for the greater good (the greater fitness of the colony). Not that they do this consciously, but still, that is how they behave. This makes perfect sense from a Darwinian perspective btw., though it would take too long to go into details.

    Third,
    I don't think the view that a human society should not "abandon if not kill the weak for no other reason than survival of the fittest" is a purely liberal view, though I may be wrong of course.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    And your second argument has no merit either....it's like saying if God is good, why is there evil in the world.... one thing that god has giving everyone, is the freedom of choice. This is even shown in the birth of his son. The blessed virgin Mary CHOOSE to carry the lord...she was asked and she said, "yes".
    So animals have choice too now? I thought that was what made humans so unique and made in the model of god
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Third,
    I don't think the view that a human society should not "abandon if not kill the weak for no other reason than survival of the fittest" is a purely liberal view, though I may be wrong of course.
    That is a liberal view?
    Mmm maybe I'm not a liberal after all then
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Please explain, I even looked it up



    de·gen·er·a·tion (d-jn-rshn)
    n.

    -The gradual deterioration of specific tissues, cells, or organs with impairment or loss of function, caused by injury, disease, or aging.
    -The evolutionary decline or loss of a function, characteristic, or structure in an organism or a species.
    After you looked it up, you should have read the definition. As I read thru it I cant find even one specific that doesn't fit.
  9. #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    So animals have choice too now? I thought that was what made humans so unique and made in the model of god
    Good catch....I misread the post....I'll just refer back to the other part of my statement....homosexuality may exist in nature but by no means is it "common".
  10. #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    Homosexuality is NOT "common" in nature. It may happen, but just because there may be some examples does not mean it's common. And no matter how many times you say it's common....it just isn't.
    Maybe you didn't look up the sources I provided, namely this one. When you look at the table on that page (copied from a scientific source), you will note that e.g. 37 % of black headed gulls and 67 % of Japanese macaques have sexual encouters with the same sex. Interestingly, in our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, 100 % have homosexual sex. 100 % sounds quite common to me, even if such a high percentage is the exception and not the rule. There are other species which have not been studied in this respect, and species in which no homosexual activities have been observed, but still, whether you like it or not, homosexuality in animal species occurs quite frequently and can readily be obseverd in many species.

    And your second argument has no merit either....it's like saying if God is good, why is there evil in the world.... one thing that god has giving everyone, is the freedom of choice. This is even shown in the birth of his son. The blessed virgin Mary CHOOSE to carry the lord...she was asked and she said, "yes".
    That's an interesting example. What do you think, how many women did god ask before he found Mary who then accepted?

    According to your beliefs, god is omniscient, right? So he would know in advance whether a woman would say yes or no... do you think he asked anyway, knowing in advance the answer would be no?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Please explain, I even looked it up



    de·gen·er·a·tion (d-jn-rshn)
    n.

    -The gradual deterioration of specific tissues, cells, or organs with impairment or loss of function, caused by injury, disease, or aging.
    -The evolutionary decline or loss of a function, characteristic, or structure in an organism or a species.

    Like it or not...
    Anal sex is not physically healthy!
    If a man and a woman (asuming they are pure and there are no other variables) have natural intercourse the only physical side affects are pleasure and childbirth. On the contrary two men (also assuming they are pure and there are no other variables) having anal intercourse become at risk of contracting diseases, with the only benifit being pleasure. Introducing feces into the bloodstream is not healthy and breaks down the natural immune system. That is the reason homosexuals are at a higher risk of contracting the AIDS virus. Homosexuals are also the vehicle that has caused the AIDS virus to become so wide spread. (notice I did not say the produced it, only that it is more widespread in that community than any other)
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    That is a liberal view?
    Mmm maybe I'm not a liberal after all then

    My point is that the majority of the Animal kingdom survives in a hiearchy based on social status. Isn't that what the liberals claim to be defending against.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Like it or not...
    Anal sex is not physically healthy!
    If a man and a woman (asuming they are pure and there are no other variables) have natural intercourse the only physical side affects are pleasure and childbirth. On the contrary two men (also assuming they are pure and there are no other variables) having anal intercourse become at risk of contracting diseases, with the only benifit being pleasure. Introducing feces into the bloodstream is not healthy and breaks down the natural immune system. That is the reason homosexuals are at a higher risk of contracting the AIDS virus. Homosexuals are also the vehicle that has caused the AIDS virus to become so wide spread. (notice I did not say the produced it, only that it is more widespread in that community than any other)
    Wow, what an unexpected change of direction! You oppose homosexuality because you worry for the health of gay men! So lesbianism is ok then for you, I trust?

    Not that I have any experience with anal sex, but from what I know about (male) gay people, this is something they can cope with easily....

    Of course introducing feces into the blood stream is not healthy, but it certainly doesn't "break down the natural immune system". Apart from that, today HIV and AIDS is most widespread among heterosexuals in Subsaharan Africa, from where HIV originated, and not in homosexuals.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14.    #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    definition: [n] an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning

    Re-read my post....I said if it's hardwired into your genes it could be considered a disease (i.e. no choice is involved, it's just the cards you're dealt with). Compair that to the defintion...I don't see anything wrong with calling it a disease IF it is hardwired, but as another post says, there's no real proof of that. So then it reverts back to a choice in which I say that I don't feel it's correct to support a choice that's wrong on so many levels.

    AND IF this does turn up on my doorstep...yes I'll be crushed, but again, re-read my post. I can love my son/daughter without supporting homosexuality (don't hate the person, hate the act...or something similar to that is what I said).

    For my short post....you didn't really read it well.
    if its in the genes, you could call it a variation of expression. but a disease is a condition that, over time, deteriorates the body.

    homosexuality does not progressively deteriorate the body. it may increase the chances of risky behavior which could bring on a disease, ( as heterosexuality could as well ) but homosexuality in and of itself does not make up what can be called a disease.

    i would call it a variation in gene expression, but hardly a disease.
  15. #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Wow, what an unexpected change of direction! You oppose homosexuality because you worry for the health of gay men! So lesbianism is ok then for you, I trust?

    Not that I have any experience with anal sex, but from what I know about (male) gay people, this is something they can cope with easily....

    Of course introducing feces into the blood stream is not healthy, but it certainly doesn't "break down the natural immune system". Apart from that, today HIV and AIDS is most widespread among heterosexuals in Subsaharan Africa, from where HIV originated, and not in homosexuals.
    I thought we were discussing whether or not Homosexuality was "natural".

    As far as where AIDS is most common, I was refering to here in America.
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    if its in the genes, you could call it a variation of expression. but a disease is a condition that, over time, deteriorates the body.

    homosexuality does not progressively deteriorate the body. it may increase the chances of risky behavior which could bring on a disease, ( as heterosexuality could as well ) but homosexuality in and of itself does not make up what can be called a disease.
    Good point.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I thought we were discussing whether or not Homosexuality was "natural".
    We were, and the evidence provided shows it is.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe you didn't look up the sources I provided, namely this one. When you look at the table on that page (copied from a scientific source), you will note that e.g. 37 % of black headed gulls and 67 % of Japanese macaques have sexual encouters with the same sex. Interestingly, in our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, 100 % have homosexual sex. 100 % sounds quite common to me, even if such a high percentage is the exception and not the rule. There are other species which have not been studied in this respect, and species in which no homosexual activities have been observed, but still, whether you like it or not, homosexuality in animal species occurs quite frequently and can readily be obseverd in many species.

    That's an interesting example. What do you think, how many women did god ask before he found Mary who then accepted?

    According to your beliefs, god is omniscient, right? So he would know in advance whether a woman would say yes or no... do you think he asked anyway, knowing in advance the answer would be no?
    I love it....you take a few species and say it's now common for nature. That's like saying a duckbilled platypus is 100% likely to lay an egg for reproduction so egg-laying mammals are common in nature. It doesn't make sense and neither does your example.

    And Mary was not just some woman who said "yes".....Mary was said to be without sin and it's told that only two people in the world were ever this way (care to take a guess who the second was).

    And finally God is omniscient, he did know that Mary would say yes....but it was still her choice. You ask me if I think God would of still asked the blessed Mary if he knew she was going to say "no".....my answer is yes. If you buy into this (you brought it up so you have to run with me on this), you can also say God knew Hitler was going to bring the holocaust, he still made him.
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    If you buy into this (you brought it up so you have to run with me on this), you can also say God knew Hitler was going to bring the holocaust, he still made him.
    How cruel of him... sadistic probably.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Like it or not...
    Anal sex is not physically healthy!
    If a man and a woman (asuming they are pure and there are no other variables) have natural intercourse the only physical side affects are pleasure and childbirth. On the contrary two men (also assuming they are pure and there are no other variables) having anal intercourse become at risk of contracting diseases, with the only benifit being pleasure. Introducing feces into the bloodstream is not healthy and breaks down the natural immune system. That is the reason homosexuals are at a higher risk of contracting the AIDS virus. Homosexuals are also the vehicle that has caused the AIDS virus to become so wide spread. (notice I did not say the produced it, only that it is more widespread in that community than any other)
    newsflash: anal sex != homosexuality.
    Plenty of straight people have anal sex and plenty of gay people dont..

    And as for the aids virus, it doesnt check if you are gay. so saying that homosexuals are the vehicle for aids is wrong and discriminatory.
    As said before aids gets transferred by straight people as much if not more than by gays (dont know the statistics world wide, but the epidemy in africa must be at least as big as the one in gay western countries..)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions