Homosexuality isn't unnatural afterall

[Wake]

It's unnatural in my opinion. Man wants woman, and woman wants man. They mate and have children, thus procreating.

Shoving you dick up another dude's poop-filled ass is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. What do you reckon nature intended with that? Men can't get pregnant, and last I checked they don't need semen in their poop-shoot.

There's nothing fabulous or natural about it. No amount of gaudy fashion or high-pitched squawking will change that.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Yale Scientific Magazine ? Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality?

"Biologists Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk from the University of California, Riverside have investigated the evolutionary consequences and implications of same-sex behavior, and their findings demonstrate benefits to what seems to be an evolutionary paradox. For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. Moreover, same-sex pairing in many species actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition. Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages."

By definition, anything other animals do is 'natural.' So because an estimated 10% of animals [figure from above link] exhibit some degree of homosexuality, it must be concluded to be natural.

Why some religions traditionally decry it as unnatural might be revealed in this statement from another source,

"The role of polygyny in the church is a source of some embarrassment to mainstream modern-day Mormons, who may discuss the practice somewhat wryly as a revelation designed to build the church population at a time when they literally had to forge new communities under hardship."
The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: United States of America
[Search down to LDS]

The premise homosexuality is unnatural then may have evolved out of a concern of reducing church memberships. In the above section discussing the unique role of LDS' sexuality, it mentions how Mormon youth growing up learn about sex mostly from observations of other animals. So surely observations of animal-sexuality includes homosexual behaviours thus revealing how it's anything but unnatural.

Right wingers have been the most to argue that homosexuality doesn't exist in animals. But it does if they only did their homework. Here is yet another example.

'Proud' Lesbian Penguin Couple Nesting Happily At Israeli Zoo - On Top Magazine | Gay news & entertainment

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yale Scientific Magazine ? Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality?

"Biologists Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk from the University of California, Riverside have investigated the evolutionary consequences and implications of same-sex behavior, and their findings demonstrate benefits to what seems to be an evolutionary paradox. For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. Moreover, same-sex pairing in many species actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition. Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages."

By definition, anything other animals do is 'natural.' So because an estimated 10% of animals [figure from above link] exhibit some degree of homosexuality, it must be concluded to be natural.

Why some religions traditionally decry it as unnatural might be revealed in this statement from another source,

"The role of polygyny in the church is a source of some embarrassment to mainstream modern-day Mormons, who may discuss the practice somewhat wryly as a revelation designed to build the church population at a time when they literally had to forge new communities under hardship."
The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: United States of America
[Search down to LDS]

The premise homosexuality is unnatural then may have evolved out of a concern of reducing church memberships. In the above section discussing the unique role of LDS' sexuality, it mentions how Mormon youth growing up learn about sex mostly from observations of other animals. So surely observations of animal-sexuality includes homosexual behaviours thus revealing how it's anything but unnatural.

Right wingers have been the most to argue that homosexuality doesn't exist in animals. But it does if they only did their homework. Here is yet another example.

'Proud' Lesbian Penguin Couple Nesting Happily At Israeli Zoo - On Top Magazine | Gay news & entertainment

What makes, other than idiots projecting their emotions on them the penguins proud?

Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Taz]

It's unnatural in my opinion. Man wants woman, and woman wants man. They mate and have children, thus procreating.

Shoving you dick up another dude's poop-filled ass is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. What do you reckon nature intended with that? Men can't get pregnant, and last I checked they don't need semen in their poop-shoot.

There's nothing fabulous or natural about it. No amount of gaudy fashion or high-pitched squawking will change that.

But c'mon admit it, two women going at it is FUCKING HOT!!!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's unnatural in my opinion. Man wants woman, and woman wants man. They mate and have children, thus procreating.

Shoving you dick up another dude's poop-filled ass is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. What do you reckon nature intended with that? Men can't get pregnant, and last I checked they don't need semen in their poop-shoot.

There's nothing fabulous or natural about it. No amount of gaudy fashion or high-pitched squawking will change that.

Your opinion is irrelevant. If you can't back it up you're just making noise.

 

[whitehall]

Anybody eves see such drivel pretending to be "scientific evidence" supporting sodomy? Some animals also eat their own species. Does that mean cannibalism is also "normal"?

 

[Wake]

It's unnatural in my opinion. Man wants woman, and woman wants man. They mate and have children, thus procreating.

Shoving you dick up another dude's poop-filled ass is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. What do you reckon nature intended with that? Men can't get pregnant, and last I checked they don't need semen in their poop-shoot.

There's nothing fabulous or natural about it. No amount of gaudy fashion or high-pitched squawking will change that.

Your opinion is irrelevant. If you can't back it up you're just making noise.

Opinions aren't irrelevant, Delta. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
I think the mistakes being made here
are attempting to make generalizations to cover "all cases"
instead of recognizing the experiences and reality may be different per person.

Who the heck decided that all cases/conditions of homosexual experiences
had to be EXACTLY THE SAME and ALL either natural or ALL unnatural?

Where did this come from? Is it reactionary to something that makes people
have to "neatly group" all homosexuality under one "safe label"
because it is too much trouble or opens up a can of worms
to find out not all cases are the same?

Is it just not convenient, so people are trying hard to argue it's "All one way"
as opposed to another?

I find this most disturbing.

If you are going to compare homosexuality to a minority group or race,
that is like trying to argue "all Blacks are naturally inferior" or
"all Blacks are acting completely naturally with nothing wrong"
(instead of focusing on the DIFFERENCE between what causes
unnatural behavior when it does occur in those cases; whether
heterosexual or homosexual, SOME attractions are NOT NATURAL,
so why not make THAT the focus instead of the orientation?).

In truth, there are some Black people who have nothing wrong with them more than anyone else of other groups,
but there are some Black people, whole populations affected by deep spiritual
corruption and tribal warfare creating a constant condition of retribution and genocide
which is NOT normal or healthy, and it IS spiritually tied to their Black heritage.
That doesn't make all Black people "cursed" as some believe; and that doesn't
mean Native Americans or European descendants can't ALSO carry generational curses, too.

So just arguing that "all Blacks are good or all Blacks are bad" is not addressing
the real issues of what is causing problems with perception of race and with
generational issues UNIQUE to Black populations that aren't natural and need to be addressed and resolved.

With homosexuality, if people identify they have "unwanted sexual attractions"
what is WRONG with them saying that homosexuality is NOT natural for them,
and saying their experiences to work through their issues and change WAS
natural for them.

Why can't we INCLUDE those people and their experiences when we talk about homosexuality, so we aren't discriminating and excluding anyone either?

I find the truly open minded people who no longer judge these things, are aware that there are some people naturally or spiritually born to have homosexual relations or partners,
some can change and some may not.

If you are going to argue that all people's experiences are the same, either way,
I find that only invokes more resistance and objections so it doesn't solve any problems.

I think the problems can be solved by accepting all people's diverse views
and recognizing there are always SOME people out there that it applies to, and that
doesn't negate other experiences and views from the complete opposite direction
that apply to OTHER people. Why does it have to be all one way? Who declared this?

Well, we have to be honest. Homosexuality does harm people. It harms the ignorant uptight folks who're insecure about their own sexuality. Since homosexuals are often open and honest about their approach to sex, it makes those that aren't uncomfortable.

The evolution of sexuality, and education about it in the US is fascinating. Was skimming a site earlier looking for some things I recalled reading about this and some of my notes include:

In 1970, the White House Commission on Pornography and Obscenity found no real harm in sexually explicit material. President Richard Nixon refused to issue the report.

A Victorian ethic dominated the country (1800-). Preachers and health advocates, like Sylvester Graham and John Kellogg, promoted a fear of sexual excesses, such as sex before age 30 or more than once in three years, and a paranoia about the dangers of masturbation.
The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: United States of America

Knew Kellogg was a prude as per that Matthew Broderick movie featuring him but I had no idea how prudish. Not before 30, and then just once every 3 years? Thought we had it bad right now but geez.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dear [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]:
I think the mistakes being made here
are attempting to make generalizations to cover "all cases"
instead of recognizing the experiences and reality may be different per person.

Who the heck decided that all cases/conditions of homosexual experiences
had to be EXACTLY THE SAME and ALL either natural or ALL unnatural?

Where did this come from? Is it reactionary to something that makes people
have to "neatly group" all homosexuality under one "safe label"
because it is too much trouble or opens up a can of worms
to find out not all cases are the same?

Is it just not convenient, so people are trying hard to argue it's "All one way"
as opposed to another?

I find this most disturbing.

If you are going to compare homosexuality to a minority group or race,
that is like trying to argue "all Blacks are naturally inferior" or
"all Blacks are acting completely naturally with nothing wrong"
(instead of focusing on the DIFFERENCE between what causes
unnatural behavior when it does occur in those cases; whether
heterosexual or homosexual, SOME attractions are NOT NATURAL,
so why not make THAT the focus instead of the orientation?).

In truth, there are some Black people who have nothing wrong with them more than anyone else of other groups,
but there are some Black people, whole populations affected by deep spiritual
corruption and tribal warfare creating a constant condition of retribution and genocide
which is NOT normal or healthy, and it IS spiritually tied to their Black heritage.
That doesn't make all Black people "cursed" as some believe; and that doesn't
mean Native Americans or European descendants can't ALSO carry generational curses, too.

So just arguing that "all Blacks are good or all Blacks are bad" is not addressing
the real issues of what is causing problems with perception of race and with
generational issues UNIQUE to Black populations that aren't natural and need to be addressed and resolved.

With homosexuality, if people identify they have "unwanted sexual attractions"
what is WRONG with them saying that homosexuality is NOT natural for them,
and saying their experiences to work through their issues and change WAS
natural for them.

Why can't we INCLUDE those people and their experiences when we talk about homosexuality, so we aren't discriminating and excluding anyone either?

I find the truly open minded people who no longer judge these things, are aware that there are some people naturally or spiritually born to have homosexual relations or partners,
some can change and some may not.

If you are going to argue that all people's experiences are the same, either way,
I find that only invokes more resistance and objections so it doesn't solve any problems.

I think the problems can be solved by accepting all people's diverse views
and recognizing there are always SOME people out there that it applies to, and that
doesn't negate other experiences and views from the complete opposite direction
that apply to OTHER people. Why does it have to be all one way? Who declared this?

Well, we have to be honest. Homosexuality does harm people. It harms the ignorant uptight folks who're insecure about their own sexuality. Since homosexuals are often open and honest about their approach to sex, it makes those that aren't uncomfortable.

The evolution of sexuality, and education about it in the US is fascinating. Was skimming a site earlier looking for some things I recalled reading about this and some of my notes include:

In 1970, the White House Commission on Pornography and Obscenity found no real harm in sexually explicit material. President Richard Nixon refused to issue the report.

A Victorian ethic dominated the country (1800-). Preachers and health advocates, like Sylvester Graham and John Kellogg, promoted a fear of sexual excesses, such as sex before age 30 or more than once in three years, and a paranoia about the dangers of masturbation.
The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: United States of America

Knew Kellogg was a prude as per that Matthew Broderick movie featuring him but I had no idea how prudish. Not before 30, and then just once every 3 years? Thought we had it bad right now but geez.

Gay Americans are in fact a minority group, no need to 'compare.'

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's unnatural in my opinion. Man wants woman, and woman wants man. They mate and have children, thus procreating.

Shoving you dick up another dude's poop-filled ass is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. What do you reckon nature intended with that? Men can't get pregnant, and last I checked they don't need semen in their poop-shoot.

There's nothing fabulous or natural about it. No amount of gaudy fashion or high-pitched squawking will change that.

Your opinion is irrelevant. If you can't back it up you're just making noise.

Opinions aren't irrelevant, Delta. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

I proved my assertion with evidence backing it up. An opinion without anything supporting it is worthless. Isn't about 'I disagree so there!' it's about backing up whatever you say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your opinion is irrelevant. If you can't back it up you're just making noise.

Opinions aren't irrelevant, Delta. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

I proved my assertion with evidence backing it up. An opinion without anything supporting it is worthless. Isn't about 'I disagree so there!' it's about backing up whatever you say.

You didn't actually prove your opinion, all you actually proved is that you don't know what natural means.

I, on the other hand, proved you were right when I pointed out that humans are part of nature, which means that everything they do is natural.