Lesbians

[Jabberwocky]

If you look back up, I never said it wasn't stackpole. (Although some may disagree) I just said unnatural is not of itself the same thing as wrong. You seem to have produced no sensible reason for the link. And as I also said before, if unnatural is wrong why not apply the same censure to all the other unnatural things man does?

You also equate heterosexual=love, homosexual=lust. It isn't true. Quite true that homosexual men are much more promiscuous, but that is only because they are not constrained by the different needs of women, they have the amount of casual sex that most straight men would LIKE to have.

Why would gays want to commit in a civil ceremony to one other person if they didn't have genuine feelings for them?

A bid for equality or maybe state justification for their abnormal behaviour; the ceremony serves no purpose because marriage exists to provide a stable platform for starting a family. If a gay couple have genuine feelings for each other that is great - but it should not be the concern of the state - the state encourages marriage because it has been the established way to build society for generations.

[Scaroth of the Jagaroth]

Here's a man in need of a good shag - I won't volunteer but if you ever get to get one, Jabber, you will find the answer to your question

SlobberJocker is DCJ who has found religion and I claim my crisp fiver.

[Fungus]

What are you on about xog?

Of course gay sexual desires are unnatural. Otherwise the human being would be designed differently. That is simple biology.

You need to understand that accepting it is unnatural is not the same as condemning it, or saying that it doesn't happen.

You can't make that argument, unless you understand everything about genetics and evolution. For example, some studies have shown that mothers with several children have a higher likelihood of producing future gay children. That suggests that it has an evolutionary advantage. The researchers suspect that once you have enough children to ensure the survival of the genes, extra ones are best to act as uncles/aunts to children of the older siblings, rather than having their own children. In other words, they care for other peoples children. There might be other evolutionary advantages (and maybe some disadvantages). So the world is not as black and white as religious bigots would have us believe. (And anyway, they can't even agree on which flavour of Christianity is true.)

If homosexuality was harmful, then you would expect it to disappear.

Most people are straight, some aren't. My opinion is live and let live. I feel that I have no right to tell gay people that they cannot be happy because I might consider them unnatural. I don't even know if it is un-natural. Surely we all do what feels natural? Gays do no harm, and most make valuable contributions to society. As for civil unions, well it seems fair to me. There are cases of one partner being taken seriously ill, and dying, and the other not being allowed access by the hospital authorities, and then having to move out of the home, to pay the death duties. That does not seem humane to me.

As for corrupting others especially children, yeah right. As if children are walking around saying "Hey, Pete's a poof, that sounds cool, I think I will become one too.". I can't imagine being talked into doing some sexual act that does not appeal to me. And if one person does something without the others consent, then that is rape/assault, and we have laws against that.

Surely we have better and more constructive things to do with our lives than to stick our heads into other peoples bedrooms?

Anyway, religious bigots get on my nerves. The Bible is a book written by a group of people as a means to spread a philosophy. It was not written down until decades after the death of the principal character, disagrees with itself left right and centre, and was chopped and changed down the centuries by the Roman authorities until it reached the form we see today. And yet is was used to justify the rape of Africa, and India (John Stuart Mill anyone?) and no doubt will continue to screw up the world. And when I was at school I was forcibly indoctrinated into Christianity against my will. Bloody cheek. If I was not so tolerant I would say that Christianity is un-natural, and Christians corrupt children. Oh yes, there were numerous cases in Canada, America and Ireland of Catholic priests abusing children, esp. boys. Mmmmm. And Cardinal Cormack Murphy (or whatever his name is) is still in a senior position in the UK Catholic church after having admitted to allowing a known paedophile continue as a priest, and subsequently abuse other children. All in the name of covering up to protect the church rather than children. Sheeessshhh. Bastard.

Fungus

[stackpole]

Of course gay sexual desires are unnatural. Otherwise the human being would be designed differently. That is simple biology.

You can't make that argument, unless you understand everything about genetics and evolution.

Well, I bend to that greater knowledge.

You seem to equate saying it is unnatural as the same as saying it is wrong, but I'm not saying it is wrong.

If homosexuality was harmful, then you would expect it to disappear.

Same with cancer and a host of other issues - I'm not sure we can use that argument.

[stackpole]

If you look back up, I never said it wasn't stackpole. (Although some may disagree) I just said unnatural is not of itself the same thing as wrong. You seem to have produced no sensible reason for the link. And as I also said before, if unnatural is wrong why not apply the same censure to all the other unnatural things man does?

You also equate heterosexual=love, homosexual=lust. It isn't true. Quite true that homosexual men are much more promiscuous, but that is only because they are not constrained by the different needs of women, they have the amount of casual sex that most straight men would LIKE to have.

Why would gays want to commit in a civil ceremony to one other person if they didn't have genuine feelings for them?

xog, I never equated "unnatural" with "wrong" either.

My post was in response to this:

Nothing we do in modern life is natural, if natural matters we should be out grubbing in the ground with our bare hands for food, why single out sex for this daft "natural" argument?

If I've misunderstood you then I'm sorry, but it seemed to me that you were saying that the argument "gay=unnatural" is daft.

[Mordac]

I think I'm with Fungus on this one. Religion (not specifically Christianity, although I suspect it's at the higher end of the league table) has corrupted more minds and caused more grief in the world than homosexuality. It's not my cup of tea, but let them have their happy day, same as the rest of us. I'm far less offended by a couple of fat, unattractive lesbians enjoying a fun day out than I would be listening to a Chico-or-Jabber-a-like droning on about whatever they drone on about.

[xoggoth]

Darn it! Why is almost everyone so polite to me on this board? It must be due to giving away my age. Dodgy is the only one I can rely on for a bit of abuse and contempt these days since fiddle has left.

Summed up nicely Mordac. Why worry about what doesn't cause us any problems? Plenty of things that do, and one of them is religion. Until very recently I was rather pro religion despite having no belief myself, it made its adherents happy and what's wrong with that? In fact I probably envied that belief, I just cannot find it in my nature to believe strongly in what I do not experience.

But more recently, I have been considering that even those believers who may be pleasant and tolerant by nature and not in the least fanatical, nevertheless influence our society according to their views and the ways in which they influence it are less subject to any pragmatic or logical argument than is the norm for the secular. Because these views do not necessarily take account of the real earthly needs of the individual or the corporal human being, they are fundamentally opposed to individual freedom and democracy.

[xoggoth]

Of course gay sexual desires are unnatural. Otherwise the human being would be designed differently. That is simple biology.

I dunno. Actually the human arse seems designed rather well for the same purpose. Most disappointingly similar in feel to nature's intended orifice actually.

PS No I've only tried female ones but I doubt the arse of both sexes are much different.

[DodgyAgent]

. Dodgy is the only one I can rely on for a bit of abuse and contempt these days since fiddle has left.

.

The problem is xog is that these days I find myself agreeing with everything that you say. What about a new thread on foxhunting?

[xoggoth]

Or globalisation. We could have a great argument on globalised foxhunting. You start.