007
Charter Member
And if it turns out to be genetic and untreatable?
A hypothetical question, none the less, has that ever stopped science from trying to find a cure?
No.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And if it turns out to be genetic and untreatable?
LOL! I KNOW you Know better. Give me a break.
And I'm also of the opinion that everything that humans do is, by the fact that humans are doing it, natural. Though perhaps I'm looking at 'natural' using a different context.
I'll be honest and say that I disagree with that idea that homosexuality is a mental illness (since, alone, it has no direct impact upon a person's social interaction and does not directly cause a person to be self-mutilating.) And I'm also of the opinion that everything that humans do is, by the fact that humans are doing it, natural. Though perhaps I'm looking at 'natural' using a different context.
Well, yes, it was considered a mental illness until quite recently. Then under intense pressure from the homo/lesbo community, the APA changed it's tune. Now it seems that most Psychiatric doctors are willing to stand up to the homo/lesbo's and say once again that it is.
And to say that acting out homosexuality is "not self mutilating" is not accurate. Homosexuals have a far greater mortality rate than hetero's, due to disease, suicide and drug abuse just to name a few reasons.
I'm not quite sure what "context" you could be using to determine "natural". I always thought there was just one "nature". Is there another world you're thinking of that I'm not aware of?
I wasn't referring to 'acting out homosexuality' - I was referring to simply being a homosexual versus a heterosexual. You don't lose years off of your lifespan by simply acknowledging that you may be homosexual - it is your actions that will determine that.
Even though I'm a Christian, I'm not refering to religon either. Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended. That's all. No religon involved.And as to my usage of natural, I was referring to 'nature' without taking religious literature's definition of what is natural/unnatural. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.
... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?
By the way, a homosexual can reproduce though he probably would not choose to do so. A lesbian can contribute her egg or, for the sake of having a biological baby, accept sperm.
Technically you are correct, but you are missing the point. Two homsexuals cannot reproduce with another. A lesbian and a queer can have a kid, but only in a heterosexual manner. Gunny makes a very good point about the nature vs. nurture debate around homosexuality.
Matts likes to give the most convoluted answers possible. I call it psychobabble.
But, did matts ever tell you that he thinks it's OK for dad's to break in the daughters? Yup. He thinks it's OK for fathers to screw their daughters.
You are still hooked on the fact that I condone incest between informed consenting adults.
This is idiotic. Societies all over the world created rules against incest not to stop mom and boy or dad and girl or bro and sis from having fun. They did it because even primitive man was able to observe that the offspring from these unions were defective. At the very least, incest is bad because society has to deal with inbreeds. Duh?:thumbdown:
That's... pretty much what I said.
Even though I'm a Christian, I'm not refering to religon either. Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended. That's all. No religon involved.
Am I missing something about what it is you're really trying to say, or are you being ambagious for a reason?
I'm certainly not being ambiguous intentionally - I'm just trying to be tactful since I'm new to the forums and I doubt many would take me seriously if I came across as a blow-hard. I'm also trying to avoid misconstruing others' opinions, which is why I'm seeming to be so wishy-washy at times. I'll get over it eventually, I hope.
Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended.
(Sigh) I think that incest is not wrong.
The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy...
Please explain this to me. I am sincerely interested and cannot even begin to fathom how you are going to defend this.
So now you call nature a fallacy. Holy shit matts, I think I'll put YOU on ignore. You're the biggest, daughter fucking, wierdo, moron this board has.
You post the most incoherent bullshit there is on this board. You must live in some kind of personal moral vacuum, because you really should be too ashamed to show your face in society.
(Sigh) I think that incest is not wrong. I think that inbreeding is wrong. Here is a difference. Please use a dictionary and dont change my words. Sheesh.
Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful. We allow over-eating though it is harmful. We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.