Homosexuality is NOT natural. - Page 5 - Political Forum

Oregon Elephant · 10-30-2007, 07:45 PM

1st) Wether Homosexuality is natural or not, has nothing to do with my computer.

2nd) The internet has twice as many lies as truths, and the animals that are "found" to be gay are only found by those that are already looking for them to be gay.

3rd) I don't recall anyone saying we should discriminate against them. But to answer, no, we shouldn't discriminate.

BellaDonna · 10-30-2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

I read the whole thing and it is totally bogus.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up for us!

Quote:

The Roy and Silo example... In 2005 the two split up and Silo is in a relationship with... a female, where there are other males there, he choses a girl. The two were batchlor's because there were more male than female.

And I suppose you have sources that back up this love triangle story?

Quote:

The point is, that they call any interaction between two males as homosexual to try and convince others that it is natural.

What do you call interaction between two males? Don't bother. This thread is ridiculous and I'm finished with it.

Homosexuality is natural and as wonderful and beautiful as any sexuality.

iTaliAN_ICe · 10-30-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Sorry, but it's not against the first amendment. It is against the first amendment to place religion in with the government and intertwine the two as one. The government giving money to a religious organization doesn't break any amendments.

The government supporting an organization that discriminates based on religion is failure to completely separate church and state. They are "respecting the establishment of a religion [and] prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in a group they fund. The way I see it, that doesn't stay withing the boundaries set by the first amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Just like it doesn't break the first amendment when Athiests meet in a building funded by the government, or anything else.

If the government provides funding for or gives special privileges to a group of atheists who don't allow religious people into their organization, then that's also in violation of the first amendment.

Seer · 10-30-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Yeah that picture I saw of a male moose humping another male moose out in the prairie must have been in a controlled environment.

Actually, the scientist bribed the horny moose with some tasty woody plant material to hump the other one. That’s how they do it.

emptypepsi · 10-30-2007, 08:56 PM

It sounds like the OP has his mind made up and thus no mind changing will likely take place.

Having said that, I have no idea whether the state of a homosexual is nature or nurture. I've known two homosexuals before and they weren't "mental", as one poster put it so colorfully. One of them was actually one of the most intelligent people I've ever met.

I would say the percentages of homosexuals in any animal population serves an implication that there is some evolutionary benefit and some genetic component, which usually means it contributes to survival; that is, I do think there is something to the theory that it may be an evolutionary form of population control.

iTaliAN_ICe · 10-30-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miltiades

are you getting at Atheism being another religion?

Hmm? No, that's not what I was saying at all. If it came across that way, it wasn't intended.

I was condemning the boy scouts for not allowing atheist or agnostic boys to join their organization. That's religious discrimination, is it not? I wouldn't have a problem with it at all if the BSA didn't receive public funding.

Seer · 10-30-2007, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

Hmm? No, that's not what I was saying at all. If it came across that way, it wasn't intended.

I was condemning the boy scouts for not allowing atheist or agnostic boys to join their organization. That's religious discrimination, is it not? I wouldn't have a problem with it at all if the BSA didn't receive public funding.

When I was in the Boy Scouts I was not at all quiet about my atheism (I’m not atheist anymore). Nobody kicked me out because of it… probably because they were trying to avoid confrontation. I know they’ve kicked out atheists before but I don’t think it happens often. What kind of funding does the BSA receive anyway?

iTaliAN_ICe · 10-30-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer

When I was in the Boy Scouts I was not at all quiet about my atheism (I’m not atheist anymore). Nobody kicked me out because of it… probably because they were trying to avoid confrontation. I know they’ve kicked out atheists before but I don’t think it happens often.

I wasn't an atheist when I was with the boy scouts, or didn't think I was. I dropped out when I was really young because my troop sucked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer

What kind of funding does the BSA receive anyway?

Funding from the government on federal and local levels, as well as privileged access to state-owned facilities and areas.

From FOX: "The Boy Scouts enjoys massive and unique tax-funded support from governments both local and federal. On the local level, for example, the city of San Diego was targeted because it allowed the Boy Scouts' headquarters to operate in a city-owned park for $1 per year and to use other city-owned facilities without any rent.

On the federal level, the Pentagon provided an estimated $6 to $8 million from 1997 to 2001 to assist a Boy Scouts Jamboree -- an event which is traditionally held on military bases." - FOXNews.com - Is The Boy Scouts of America Public or Private?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 10-30-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

Well if a man cant help but sneak out of his own house and go have sex with another man, I dont know what else to call it. Man has the ability to reason and to control his urges. If he cant help but go hump the nearest man then something is wrong upstairs no?

Why can't it be in the genes? Why does it have to be mental? Any reason for your insistence that it's mental?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

We are not like stallions, where if we put a mare in heat in front of him, we cant control ourselves and try to mount or kill the nearest living thing. Or a dog who smells a female in heat and starts humping a pillow. That is all instinct driven. A man willingly having covert-op sex with another man is a mental thing, not instinct.

Sure we're not like animals, but perhaps a gay man gets as much out of having sex with a woman as you would having sex with a man, and as such he makes the rational choice to do what satisfies him: have sex with another man.

kimberlyfirst · 10-30-2007, 10:28 PM

This may sound contradictory but it is really hard for me to think that someone was "born gay" although I'm still not quite sure that it is a choice. I guess I would really never know unless I was gay. I have gay friends but with most of them I feel as if I would be crossing some sort of boundary by asking them about this. If homosexuals really want to prove the case of the "gay gene," it probably wasn't the best idea to use biased people to conduct the research. Do I think there could be a gene out there that tampers with sexual orientation? I sure do. But until that gene is found and identified by a credible source, I won't 100% believe it. I feel really torn on this issue since I do support gay rights.