Ultimate cuk disgusted of Tunbridge Wells thread

[Cowboy Bob]

Your definition of scientific natuality has value next to nothing - social word "natural" as used here by most is perfectly acceptable as it is based on common behavior that fits inline with continuation of life.

What is socially acceptable is based on religious dogma not scientific facts. The problem is that some people here are saying that something like homosexuality is not natural and they mean it in the scientific sense, when they really need to realise that they are actually saying it in the religious sense. That is all, nothing more, nothing less.

[John Galt]

I have been thinking about this really carefully and I think I have sussed out the reasoning behind this latest bit of NL madness. This is the type of thing that the more dubious London boroughs will love right? So give these type of books a few years to work their magic - chavs will be convinced of the multitudenous benefits of homosexuality and stop breeding. You've got to admire Bliar haven't you

[AtW]

What is socially acceptable is based on religious dogma not scientific facts.

Bullcrap.

Religion picked a number of things that are essential to long term future of a socium - say "tha shalt not kill" makes sense to me even though I hate religion. Not doing adultery also makes perfect sense because it would create all sort of troubles in society: just because religion says that does not automatically mean it is wrong, however religion also says a lot of rubbish about God, prophets, paying 1/10th of income to Church etc.

It's really simple - if all were gay then the human kind would die out because there would be no babies. Therefore being gay is certainly not normal in this sense - this does not mean gays should be discriminated against or whatever: I could not care less about private habits of citizens, however saying that being gay is somehow normal or even right is not so: just because some animals also show such tendencies does not make it natural - show me any species that do that not occasionally but exclusively - where are such species? There are none - because even if there were they all died out due to lack of babies: the best closest thing you can find that is natural is combination of male/female in one thing - worms I think are good representative of that.

[EternalOptimist]

I think this is why the dinosaurs went exitnct. They gradually evolved into gaynosaurs and stopped having baby eggs.

This is now our fate due to these damned books. Thanks NL

[Bagpuss]

Everthing is normal

Cowboy Bob

[The AntiChrist]

Oooh, you boys seem to be getting all worked up, don't you?

[freakydancer]

I don't know if I'm normal, but I know I'm a c**t.

In fact most people I know are a bunch of c**ts.

Fairly normal for me.

[Cowboy Bob]

Bullcrap.

Religion picked a number of things that are essential to long term future of a socium - say "tha shalt not kill" makes sense to me even though I hate religion. Not doing adultery also makes perfect sense because it would create all sort of troubles in society: just because religion says that does not automatically mean it is wrong, however religion also says a lot of rubbish about God, prophets, paying 1/10th of income to Church etc.

It's really simple - if all were gay then the human kind would die out because there would be no babies. Therefore being gay is certainly not normal in this sense - this does not mean gays should be discriminated against or whatever: I could not care less about private habits of citizens, however saying that being gay is somehow normal or even right is not so: just because some animals also show such tendencies does not make it natural - show me any species that do that not occasionally but exclusively - where are such species? There are none - because even if there were they all died out due to lack of babies: the best closest thing you can find that is natural is combination of male/female in one thing - worms I think are good representative of that.

Oh dear, you just don't get it do you? I thought you had, but obviously not. You haven't read a single one of my posts have you, not really? You're just trying to assert your own views over the top of scientific fact just like the Catholics did to Galileo, and modern day religions do with homosexuality. You need to learn some more about genetics and evolution then come back and post what you have learnt.

It is simple, everything you have talked about above - not killing, not committing adultery, not being homosexual - comes from the human mind and those ideas simply DO NOT EXIST in the animal kingdom.

Now, if you had any idea at all what you were talking about, you could of course have argued that the human mind being able to come up with these ideas is also a function of the evolutionary and genetic process. But you don't, so you didn't...

[Bagpuss]

There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact. ...

[pisces]

Telling children as young as four tales of a homosexual nature will not reduce prejudice, it will just induce hohmophobia at an earlier age in some