Homosexuality is a choice

[DC]

i certainly never had the choice.
my life could have been much simpler and very different if i had chosen 'straight' instead.

just rechoose for being straight its easy, just feel atracted by woman.

 

[bikerdruid]

just rechoose for being straight its easy, just feel atracted by woman.

gee....ya think?

 

[SnakeTongue]

What about these?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_428114ce5ef2bf2dd9.jpg[/qimg]

The peer-reviewed article I linked to is what the news article I linked to is about.

I don't know why I bother, considering your goalpost shifting and uninformed criticisms.

Thank you by the references.

That gave me good insights and were very good to practise my critical thinking.

I will address the scientific researches of homosexuality in a new thread.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Thank you by the references.

That gave me good insights and were very good to practise my critical thinking.

I will address the scientific researches of homosexuality in a new thread.

In other words: I admit that my position is untenable and will thus begin a new thread where I can hopefully use the same bad information to attain accord on my position.

Glad that you learned nothing at all.

 

[SnakeTongue]

In MY words: I admit that my position is untenable and will thus begin a new thread where I can hopefully use the same bad information to attain accord on my position.

Glad that you learned nothing at all.

Corrected for you.

Oh... Before I forgot: I am still waiting examples of "unnatural" from you.

Since you said that "natural" is anything which come to happens or exist, I am quite curious to know what is "unnatural" for you.

Could you present an example of what is "unnatural"?

 

[Alt+F4]

Once again, your argument that homosexual sex is not natural because it doesn't lead to reproduction is WRONG, because: Pedophile sex can lead to reproduction as long as the girl in question has developed sexually
Also, Artificial Insemination (which couldn't me a more unnatural way of reproduction) does lead to reproduction

Your argument that gay sex is unnatural because it doesn't lead to reproduction is wrong.

Well put. I'd also add all the sexual activities that heretosexuals can do that doesn't lead to reproduction.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Corrected for you.

Oh... Before I forgot: I am still waiting examples of "unnatural" from you.

Since you said that "natural" is anything which come to happens or exist, I am quite curious to know what is "unnatural" for you.

Could you present an example of what is "unnatural"?

Yeah, okay, whatever.

Depends upon the definition of 'unnatural' in use. If we are using the strict definition (see below) then there are no concrete examples to be given. Heaven, god, hell, fairies, Jabberwockies, people walking through brick walls, and any other non-existent thing could be considered 'unnatural'.

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse
b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived <her manner was forced and unnatural> c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance>

The definition used most is always shown first. That is the one I am using. You seem to be using 2a which is the more popular but not strictest definition for 'unnatural'.

Now go ahead and start your new thread where you will feel more in control until your assumptions are ground into dust and shift away with the winds.

 

[Belz...]

I just DID. If you took some time to actually READ the posts that are written for your benefit maybe you'd understand a bit.

Most ants and bees CANNOT reproduce. However they work towards their collective survival and therefore the passing on of their genes. Homosexual behaviour in animals, in apes, for instance, _MAY_ reinforce bonds within individuals in the group and make the group stronger.



Please repeat it or post a link, as I haven't spotted it. When presented with things that should be considered natural you moved the goalposts so I'd like a clear, definitive definition from you, please.



Old ? It seems obvious to me that you're "against" homosexuality. Why else would you be so adamant that it's a problem/choice/unnatural thing ?



Is that an agreement ?

Still waiting, Snaketongue.

 

[CriticalSock]

Well put. I'd also add all the sexual activities that heretosexuals can do that doesn't lead to reproduction.

Exactly. Masturbation doesn't lead to reproduction, but it's a natural behaviour. How is firing into a kleenex any different to another mans bottom, from a reproductive point of view?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Yeah, okay, whatever.

Depends upon the definition of 'unnatural' in use. If we are using the strict definition (see below) then there are no concrete examples to be given. Heaven, god, hell, fairies, Jabberwockies, people walking through brick walls, and any other non-existent thing could be considered 'unnatural'.

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse
b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived <her manner was forced and unnatural> c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance>

The definition used most is always shown first. That is the one I am using. You seem to be using 2a which is the more popular but not strictest definition for 'unnatural'.

Now go ahead and start your new thread where you will feel more in control until your assumptions are ground into dust and shift away with the winds.

I am glad with the examples.

Now I can understand better the definition of "natural" and "unnatural".

Oh, how natural was your last sentence... An assumption of my assumptions.

Poetic, indeed.

 

[JFrankA]

I am glad with the examples.

Now I can understand better the definition of "natural" and "unnatural".

Oh, how natural was your last sentence... An assumption of my assumptions.

Poetic, indeed.

Oh how natural (for you) was your last two sentences...No answer, just another dodge of the questions put to you.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I just DID. If you took some time to actually READ the posts that are written for your benefit maybe you'd understand a bit.

Most ants and bees CANNOT reproduce. However they work towards their collective survival and therefore the passing on of their genes. Homosexual behaviour in animals, in apes, for instance, _MAY_ reinforce bonds within individuals in the group and make the group stronger.

May? That is all you can explain? May?

Since you are using a poor explained example of "kin selection", what is the "inclusive fitness" that homosexuals would promote? What is the trait that would put the homosexual in disadvantage (or in danger) when expressing it to protect its relative?

Before your answer, note that: homosexuals are not sterile and homosexuality is not a genetic trait.

Please repeat it or post a link, as I haven't spotted it. When presented with things that should be considered natural you moved the goalposts so I'd like a clear, definitive definition from you, please.

Post #530 is where the dispute of "natural" and "unnatural" begins.

Old ? It seems obvious to me that you're "against" homosexuality. Why else would you be so adamant that it's a problem/choice/unnatural thing ?

Whatever my goals are, call me a "bigot" will not change my goals...

Is that an agreement ?

No, that is a phrase saying "That it is not a question...". You did not made any question. You made a statement:

Design is irrelevant to use. The fact is they ARE USED to something else than reproduction, and not just by humans.

I have already present evidence to support my argument that the design of the sexual organs ARE relevant to use in the post #598 and post #638.

If you wish to dispute it, bring evidence to support your argument or I will keep ignoring your statement.

 

[Belz...]

May? That is all you can explain? May?

That's the problem with you. You keep moving the goalposts from "1 example" to "30,000 examples" and from "may" to "must". Who cares ? Yes, it MAY strengthen bonds. Isn't that good enough ? Since when must something be 100% certain in order to work ?

Since you are using a poor explained example of "kin selection", what is the "inclusive fitness" that homosexuals would promote? What is the trait that would put the homosexual in disadvantage (or in danger) when expressing it to protect its relative?

People who get along are more likely to help one another. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

homosexuality is not a genetic trait.

Evidence, please.

Post #530 is where the dispute of "natural" and "unnatural" begins.

From that post I gleaned this:

The homosexual behaviour is defined as "unnatural" because do not represent the ordinary course of the biological nature and is not part of the main core of the anthropological human evolution.

"Ordinary course of biological nature" is pretty much a synonym for "natural" so it doesn't quite work. If you meant "found in nature" then your point has already been answered.

If you wish to dispute it, bring evidence to support your argument or I will keep ignoring your statement.

I already have and you STILL ignored it. People use logs are chairs all the time, and yet it wasn't meant for it, etc.

In nature, the only thing something is "designed" for is the thing it is used for. So if, say, a penis, is used for something else than reproduction, then I don't see why it's wrong of unnatural even if its primary purpose is reproduction.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Are you going to admit your argument doesn't hold water or at the very least try to defend it, or are you just gonna bail out with silly rhetorics?

Ron_Tomkins, lets start on the base that you are right and homosexual sex is natural because sex with infants can lead to reproduction. That means anyone can choose to rip off a child's vagina/anus by their own free will. Fine.

Scenario: I've kidnapped you and I'm pointing a gun at you. I say "make that little girl pregnant with your penis right now or I shoot you in the head"

What do you do?

Do you concede my demand and become a child abuser or do you have me shoot you?

(Please notice this is not the same as forcing you to have homosexual sex, which does not require you to actually like it. You can have sex forced and in fact, that's what rape is all about. What I'm asking you is if you can decide to rip off a little girl's vagina to make her pregnant you didn't originally feel attracted to, out of pure willful choice on your part)

Once again, your argument that homosexual sex is not natural because it doesn't lead to reproduction is WRONG, because: Pedophile sex can lead to reproduction as long as the girl in question has developed sexually

Also, Artificial Insemination (which couldn't me a more unnatural way of reproduction) does lead to reproduction

Your argument that gay sex is unnatural because it doesn't lead to reproduction is wrong.

That is your argument.

This is mine...

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

So...

Sterility happens in nature and do not lead to reproduction.

It is natural or unnatural?

 

[Emet]

This is mine...

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

Heterosexuals:
1. Engage in the very same 'inappropriate' use of their genitals. Every. Single. Day.
2. None of the conduct implied in #1 has the purpose of natural fertilization--whether homosexual or heterosexual.
3. Disease transmission depends on the number of partners one has, and what, if any precautions one may take (in the case of humans)
4. Many males of multiple species (in the wild) will participate in sex with many females. They can and do transmit diseases. Is this unnatural?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Hmm...snaketongue seems blissfully unaware that his use of the word "natural" is an entirely loaded term.

 

[DC]

Ron_Tomkins, lets start on the base that you are right and homosexual sex is natural because sex with infants can lead to reproduction. That means anyone can choose to rip off a child's vagina/anus by their own free will. Fine.

Scenario: I've kidnapped you and I'm pointing a gun at you. I say "make that little girl pregnant with your penis right now or I shoot you in the head"

What do you do?

Do you concede my demand and become a child abuser or do you have me shoot you?

(Please notice this is not the same as forcing you to have homosexual sex, which does not require you to actually like it. You can have sex forced and in fact, that's what rape is all about. What I'm asking you is if you can decide to rip off a little girl's vagina to make her pregnant you didn't originally feel attracted to, out of pure willful choice on your part)



That is your argument.

This is mine...

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

So...

Sterility happens in nature and do not lead to reproduction.

It is natural or unnatural?

OK lets say Homosexuality is unnatural. So? what now?
is that a reason to outlaw it? or a reason to opress Homosexual people?

Using computers to post on a internet forum is also very unnatural behavior, should it be illegal?

and btw, so Pedophilia is Natural , should it therefor be legal?

 

[DC]

SnakeTongue is Masturbation unnatural behavior?
it doesn't lead to reproduction.

 

[JFrankA]

You know, when I hear a guy who is completely against homosexuality, in my head, I'm hearing that person saying the words of Early Cuyler:

"I'm against mens kissin' mens for any reason!
But when womans do it... *ahem*
That...uh...that seems alright....
...uhm...any womans here willing to make out with another woman....?"

 

[JFrankA]

SnakeTongue, I have proven that "natural" and "unnatural" mean the same thing. Therefore, you precious post #530 means nothing. Please stop harping on that.

Second, you still have not addressed the fact that an adult male can impregnate a child. NOT AN INFANT. YOU were the one bringing up sex with an infant. The question is a child. Even as early as TEN YEARS OLD female children have known to conceive and give birth. And as early as TWELEVE YEARS OLD male children have fathered other children.

Again, I put it to you, according to your argument, having sex with children as young as ten is "natural". NOT INFANT.

Start answering the tough questions honestly.

Also, you STILL have not answered this question of someone putting a gun to your head and telling you to choose to be attracted to a member of the same sex.

Now I will answer your "tough" question.

...lets start on the base that you are right and homosexual sex is natural because sex with infants can lead to reproduction. That means anyone can choose to rip off a child's vagina/anus by their own free will. Fine.

First off, you are dodging the question here. The example we are asking you to answer is not about whether homosexuality is natural or not. It's about choice. It's about CHOOSING TO BE ATTRACTED TO AND DESIRING A MEMBER OF YOUR OWN GENDER.

So you are, once again, changing the question to suit your own view.

Scenario: I've kidnapped you and I'm pointing a gun at you. I say "make that little girl pregnant with your penis right now or I shoot you in the head"

What do you do?

Do you concede my demand and become a child abuser or do you have me shoot you?

Answer: I would risk my life and to try to take the gun away from you and, if successful, beat the living tar out of you. Why? Because I cannot CHOOSE to be attracted to and desire a child.

(Please notice this is not the same as forcing you to have homosexual sex, which does not require you to actually like it. You can have sex forced and in fact, that's what rape is all about. What I'm asking you is if you can decide to rip off a little girl's vagina to make her pregnant you didn't originally feel attracted to, out of pure willful choice on your part)

EXACTLY THE POINT AND YOU HAVE PROVEN OUR POINT YET AGAIN!

I cannot CHOOSE to be attracted to and desire a child sexually. I can't CHOOSE to be so EVEN AT GUNPOINT.

So again, you have dodged the real question, and in so doing, proven our point.

Stop dancing. Start debating. I dare you.

That is your argument.

This is mine...

Fine. Let's see if you can defend it without dancing and really debate.

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).

A) Inappropriate according to whom?

1) Are you going to say "Nature"? You cannot argue that because you have posted, yourself, how nature USES homosexual behavior. Whether attraction is part of the behavior or not, that doesn't matter. What matters what is in the context of this point. Nature uses homosexual behavior for MANY things other than procreation. So being "inappropriate" to nature does not fly.

B) I'm guessing that you are saying that if a man is performing oral on another man, or a woman performing oral on a woman is "inappropriate". What if it's a man performing oral on a woman or vise versa? Is that inappropriate?

C) Evolution did not "design" body parts. They just happened. There are no designers. None.

D) Body parts are used for more than one thing a lot. Ever grab something with your feet? Congratulations. So have monkeys.

2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.

A) You have posted that dogs use homosexual behavior to dominate another member of the same sex. That means the dominate dog gets to mate with a female. That means homosexual behavior affects the what gets fertilized and passed on in nature.

B) Just because it doesn't create fertilization doesn't mean it's not natural. You have shown in quite a few posts that homosexuality does occur in nature.

C) Does everything natural has "purpose of natural fertilization". So is it natural to kill for food? As far as I can tell, killing something does not have a "purpose of natural fertilization".

3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

A) So does not washing. A lot of animals goes for days without washing. Cattle constantly have flies and gnats buzzing about them. Is it natural to be dirty, too?

B) You do realize that there are diseases that are "naturally" passed on through the genes. Hemophilia, Sickle-cell anemia just to name a couple. The transmission of these disease CAN ONLY BE DONE by passing genes from parent to child. Does that mean that heterosexual sex is not "natural" as well?

C) Increased chances of disease can happen if you change your location. For example, if one goes to Africa, there's a higher chance to catch Malaria EVEN WITHOUT HUMAN contact. Are different locations now not "natural"?

So...

Sterility happens in nature and do not lead to reproduction.

It is natural or unnatural?

Natural. Happens to a lot living things. Especially when a living thing gets old.

This question does not help your argument, further, it does not address the question of choice.