|
To be honest it also says "some researches" in relation to homosexuality. So it's not saying anything, definitely not something you want to use as an evidence.
Similar discussions often pop up on TL and most of the time people with anti-gay sentiments end up getting banned, so if you want to wait it out you are going to win the argument.
|
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. 
...this does seem like a straight up troll. Yes, homosexuality does occur in nature. We've known this for a while. No it is not humilating or rape.
The entire idea that gay => feminine is not only bullshit but a shameless stereotype that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Gay is not transgender.
It is not acceptable to make random assertions. You have to look at reality and see what is actually true. Provide evidence.
|
I'm all for gay marriage. Just call it gay marriage, let them get married at any church willing to marry them, and everyone is happy.
|
I wonder, do females have sex with each other in nature? Or this homosexual behavior was only observed amongst males?
|
On October 22 2011 12:59 Kickstart wrote: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 animalsUnder "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.
some researchers believe and suggest doesnt sound too convincing does it?theres researchers who believe in a lot of things
|
On October 22 2011 12:45 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:37 Def Leppard wrote: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. 
Quit asking for people to be banned. You been a complete asshat this entire thread.
|
On October 22 2011 13:04 discodancer wrote:
To be honest it also says "some researches" in relation to homosexuality. So it's not saying anything, definitely not something you want to use as an evidence.
Similar discussions often pop up on TL and most of the time people with anti-gay sentiments end up getting banned, so if you want to wait it out you are going to win the argument.
That is in relation to the origins of homosexual behavior, which isn't the point. The bolded part of what is quoted is what is important which states that permanent homosexuality does occur among animals.
EDIT:
Good lord people are testing my patience with their inability to read. Am I really not making my points clearly enough or are the anti-gay people in this thread just playing dumb?
some researchers believe and suggest doesnt sound too convincing does it?theres researchers who believe in a lot of things
Again, read the bolded part, which states: "a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs..."
You do understand what confirms means don't you?
|
On October 22 2011 12:40 Def Leppard wrote:Poll: I am against homosexuality and I amNot religious (9) 100% Religious (0) 0% 9 total votes Your vote: I am against homosexuality and I am (Vote): Religious
(Vote): Not religious
loooool i accidentally clicked wrong n this poll
|
|
|
On October 22 2011 13:10 Kickstart wrote:
Again, read the bolded part, which states: "a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs..."
You do understand what confirms means don't you?
I'm not sure what a "growing body of scientific work" means. And non-monogamous species like sheep means sheep only, right? Just wondering, since this sheep example is pretty beat up.
On October 22 2011 13:12 Def Leppard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:08 discodancer wrote:
I wonder, do females have sex with each other in nature? Or this homosexual behavior was only observed amongst males? Go to any porn site, click on the category 'lesbians' and use the search terms 'nature' or 'outdoors'. Edit: Humans are animals, and before there were houses we lived in the wild. Therefore we are natural.
My fiance will not tolerate me watching human sex acts; I can probably talk my way out of watching 2 sheep fuck each other though.
|
On October 22 2011 13:06 DoubleReed 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. ...this does seem like a straight up troll. Yes, homosexuality does occur in nature. We've known this for a while. No it is not humilating or rape. The entire idea that gay => feminine is not only bullshit but a shameless stereotype that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Gay is not transgender. It is not acceptable to make random assertions. You have to look at reality and see what is actually true. Provide evidence.
Quite an interesting read, studies carried out by neurologists show that the mind of a heterosexual female is no different to the mind of a homosexual male structurally that is.
"In the Swedish study, when sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains involved in sexual activity were activated in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men, the researchers found." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/#.TqJC895jJGQ)
|
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
No, i will change my mind as soon as i see evidence. Considering you are not aware of work being done to ascertain whether it is a choice or not here are just a couple of references:
Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality
O brother, where art thou? The fraternal birth-order effect on male sexual orientation
Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
These are just a few of a body of work that spans decades and has given us a fairly good understanding of homosexuality and how it is decidedly NOT a choice (who would choose to be bullied and driven to suicide?). Now are you going to give me evidence to the contrary or are you going to consider this?
As for meatbox, once again, i was saying how naturalness is a poor argument in this case. Thus, it being natural or unnatural does not matter....
|
On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote:Show nested quote +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.
To me this thread is basically:
If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit.
If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
|
On October 22 2011 13:08 discodancer wrote:
I wonder, do females have sex with each other in nature? Or this homosexual behavior was only observed amongst males?
Seriously? Just do a google search...put safe search on and go to wikipedia, even.
|
Growing body would mean that as more research is done, more of it confirms the idea that permanent homosexuality occurs in nature. The fact that homosexuality occurs in species with permanent pair bonds is significant because in biology a pair bond is the strong affinity that develops in some species between the males and females in a pair, potentially leading to breeding, yet homosexual bonds occur. The ram study shows that even when given a choice between a male or female relationship, 8% of rams (male) choose a male partner.
|
On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote: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. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense?
Even if you follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED.
The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
|
On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote: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. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
|
On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote: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. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Pretty sure you got warned for blatantly trying to insult me while just as blatantly putting words in my mouth. I'm pretty sure no one who has argued against homosexuality in a calm and at least somewhat respectful way has been banned or warned.
|
On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote: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. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
the bans you are talking about occured because they called attention to their own possible banning.
the fact they mentioned their being banned is why they got banned, not the content they led with
|
On October 22 2011 13:28 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:24 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote: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. To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban. You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves. Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
