|
On October 22 2011 12:33 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural. If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
|
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling?
But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is:
a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.
So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
|
|
|
On October 22 2011 12:35 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:33 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural. If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural? Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
|
On October 22 2011 12:36 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body. 
|
On October 22 2011 12:32 Def Leppard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? If masturbating is natural, then how come we can't create babies by masturbating?
thats like saying if breathing is natural why we cant create babies by breathing lol
|
|
|
Def Leppard I wouldn't bother too much with responding to meatbox in this thread. He just quoted me and then posted something that made no sense. Not to mention that just about every one of his posts in this thread are one liners that are hardly coherent.
On October 22 2011 12:33 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 11:56 Kickstart wrote:On October 22 2011 11:42 meatbox wrote:
If homosexual couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, do not call it marriage, that is my advice, only then would Australia pass such a vote, IMO. The problem is that if the state wants to recognize "marriage" then to not recognize it in the case of homosexuals is the state treating them separate but equal. The easiest thing would be for the state to just recognize civil unions and not give the term "marriage" to anyone, but that won't happen. The governments objective should be to treat everyone fairly and equally, not to pander to a portion of its population that wants to infringe on the rights of others or treat others as second-class citizens (no matter how large this portion of the population may be). And yes, not allowing homosexual couples to use the term marriage is treating them as second class, it is saying : you can have something similar/equivalent to what we have, but you cant have the same thing we have. The same thing, but the difference is the type of 'marriage,' heterosexual or homosexual, some lesbians look like men, some gay men look like women. (lol)
If you were trying to make a point or want me to respond could you please restate this, because I have no idea what you are saying.
|
The government shouldn't have anything to do with marraige at all.
|
On October 22 2011 12:39 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:35 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural. If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural? Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now... Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
Humans are monogamous though.
(haha)
|
On October 22 2011 12:40 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:36 Kickstart wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors. Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol. Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
Are you just trolling now? Yes it does occur naturally. And you're wrong, it's not mostly rape. That's silly. What if i say, based on your argument that rape appears to be natural? Is it ok then?
|
On October 22 2011 12:37 Def Leppard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:33 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:32 Def Leppard wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? If masturbating is natural, then how come we can't create babies by masturbating? LOL, what a ridiculous rebuttal. LOL, what a ridiculous yourface.
No need to get personal. 
|
On October 22 2011 12:44 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:39 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:35 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural. If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural? Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now... Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives. Humans are monogamous though. (haha)
Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it.
|
On October 22 2011 12:44 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:40 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:36 Kickstart wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors. Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol. Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body. Are you just trolling now? Yes it does occur naturally. And you're wrong, it's not mostly rape. That's silly. What if i say, based on your argument that rape appears to be natural? Is it ok then?
That's not silly, it's natural, pederasty, an ancient Greek practise wasn't homosexual in the slightest, it was used to stimulate intercourse with the opposite sex. Spartans use to have intercourse to cure their sexual frustrations.
You've just implied that something natural may not be okay, so it can apply to homosexuality then?
|
On October 22 2011 12:48 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:44 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:39 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:35 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural. If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural? Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now... Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives. Humans are monogamous though. (haha) Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it.
I'm stating facts as evidence. 
|
|
|
On October 22 2011 12:48 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:44 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:39 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:35 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural. If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural? Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now... Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives. Humans are monogamous though. (haha) Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it.
you wont change your mind too so? as far as i know theres no prove that people born being gay
|
This is getting aggravating. I don't want to spend all my time refuting silly arguments that can be disproved with simple google searches. Just look at wikipedia for example: Homosexual behavior in animals
Under "Research on homosexual behavior in animals":
Some researchers believe this behavior to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl, Thierry Lodé[26] and Paul Vasey suggest the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but serves to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[27][28] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs not only in species with permanent pair bonds,[20] but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.
There you are, some scholars believe it originates from the social displays of dominance that you described, but that is as far as you can take it. It 'could' have originated there, but homosexual behavior STILL HAPPENS IN NATURE MAKING IT NATURAL.
|
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably. On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
|
On October 22 2011 12:58 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:48 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:44 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:39 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:35 meatbox wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote:
if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together? What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural. If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural? Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now... Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives. Humans are monogamous though. (haha) Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it. you wont change your mind too so? as far as i know theres no prove that people born being gay
I thought I was already dealing with the most frustrating individuals I would come across in this thread. Then someone comes in and says he believes homosexuality is a choice. Sir, there is no evidence at all that homosexuality is a choice, and all the evidence points to it not being a choice. Your opinion on the matter is of little importance unless you have facts to back them up. If you are ignorant of the topic that is ok, but then you should you not withhold judgement on the issue instead of taking the opinion that homosexuality is a choice?
EDIT:
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
Please read the thread, this has been addressed multiple times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
