so are we following HUMANs as the example or nature?
ie... in nature the 'vast majority' of sex IS FOR PROCREATION.... which automatically, negates your argument
So which is best; the monster that builds nuclear weapons or mother dear?
Describing Homosexuality
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
so are we following HUMANs as the example or nature?
ie... in nature the 'vast majority' of sex IS FOR PROCREATION.... which automatically, negates your argument
So which is best; the monster that builds nuclear weapons or mother dear?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I suggest you refer back to post number 30.
In this post you state: "but no one has a right to suggest same sex (physical intercourse) is normal and should be accepted as standard."
You used the word standard. It is there. It is clear. It is unambiguous. You now accuse me, in a patronising fashion, of 'assuming'.
I will accept an apology, but I still expect you to answer the original question.
I am still waiting for you to account, from another thread I think, for the extensive use of sex by bonobos for anything but procreation, most of the time. Or are you accepting that bonobos are practically human?
but no one has a right to suggest same sex (physical intercourse) is normal and should be accepted as standard
i used the word............... but notice the conxt
no one has a right to suggest same sex (physical intercourse) is normal
and that is what the standard should be set at!
but you did take it out of context; same sex is not standard; and not normal
and i said the standard of it being classified as NORMAL is the WRONG STANDARD to accept from any as being ALLOWED from any of the arguments on the subject
that is the core 'defining' that i have been trying to substantiate with basic common sense observing nature, reality and the objective of 'life' itself.
how many homosexual folks are frustrated about their sexuality too?
ie.... sharing that species which is a RARE one and without a TV, the majority on earth would have no clue it even exists; how can that example be used to define a choice that mankind can overcome?
meaning: how can anyone use that UNUSUAL subject and consider it a foundation of NORMAL?
Wrong again.
Dolphins, bonobos, giraffes etc etc ALL indulge in sex for pleasure.
first i wanted to point out the humility of what this means
i work in the truth bidness (the I is what i give, with no need of u'r money)
My point; if reality only works one way and good and bad can be defined to nature; then even this subject should should benefit from the compassion and LOVE for just 'describing'...
i am all over the internet and trying to simply share a pure foundation that 'life' is where to find the truth of all matters
sorry, gotta get back to class.
that is your response to
when you agreed on the FACT that most all life within the animal kingdom of sexual reproduction came from 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of opposite sexual relations?
did i forget any digits? (add these if you like .9999999)
that number shares something; that there is NO ratio issue to even give a hoot about; its a fact!
ie... in nature the 'vast majority' of sex IS FOR PROCREATION....
can i put it up again?
that is true, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time!
i r b sienze dude
i work in the truth bidness (the I is what i give, with no need of u'r money)
My point; if reality only works one way and good and bad can be defined to nature; then even this subject should should benefit from the compassion and LOVE for just 'describing'...
i am all over the internet and trying to simply share a pure foundation that 'life' is where to find the truth of all matters
sorry, gotta get back to class.
that is your response to
when you agreed on the FACT that most all life within the animal kingdom of sexual reproduction came from 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of opposite sexual relations?
did i forget any digits? (add these if you like .9999999)
that number shares something; that there is NO ratio issue to even give a hoot about; its a fact!
ie... in nature the 'vast majority' of sex IS FOR PROCREATION....
can i put it up again?
that is true, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time!
i r b sienze dude
Nope, you work on delusion and lies.
You're talking nonsense again.
You mean it's not just this forum you're spouting your rubbish on?
Changed the figure again?
And so what?
Wrong again: that number means NOTHING with regard to same-sex relationships. Not a thing.
One more LIE.
No, you're a crackpot and a liar.
Well, since most of human sex is recreational, maybe you should kill us all off. Then, no one would be selfish! Anyway, your own bent is kind of obvious. Basic, even. You feel also that it's wrong to teach tolerance in school?
Thanks for the assist from Ophiolite and Dywwdyr.
Thanks for the assist from Ophiolite and Dywwdyr.
What turns you on is mostly "instinctive". I, for instance, couldn't become sexually excited by a man, or a child, or an animal even if I really tried. Women are what excite me. I can't choose to become excited by the sight of a man anymore than I can choose to not get excited at the sight of a hot chick.
Then we have the same problem!
Sure glad you and i have self control or there would be no women left for anyone...
Peace!
1) it may not be normal, but, it is natural.
2) I think you may have a stronger than normal homosexual orientation.
Many people who hate homosexuals hate them because of how they turn them on. They were taught that homosexuality is sinful. They see a man they think is hot making out with another man. They get seriously turned on. They then hate the homosexuals for turning them. Then they somehow make it out that it's their fault. Then often they bash them. A lot of gay bashers are homosexual.
simply psychology really.
simply psychology really.
Please post statistical evidence which demonstrates that homosexual behaviour conforms to normality.
You mean, what did Dywyddyr mean. He made the claim, not me, so it's *his* responsibility to clarify, justify and support. However, I'm assuming he meant something along these lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_(behavior))
Bushadi pointed out on the other (locked) thread the absurdity of the claim that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour, given that it only is present in a small minority of the population. And then he was shut down. Go figure.
As for your sarcasm, my apologies for simply demanding that posters substantiate their claims.
Last edited:
That's all right; my apologies for heaping sarcasm on a slightly silly proposition for a test. It would be more collegial to just correct him - that what he meant to say was "there's nothing wrong with that", but calling someone out on an unprovable proposition cherry-picked from another poster's comments does seem a more powerful statement.
BTW: your link doesn't work. Doesn't seem entirely normal to me. See if you can scare it into straightening itself out.
BTW: your link doesn't work. Doesn't seem entirely normal to me. See if you can scare it into straightening itself out.
Why direct that sarcasm at me? I'm not the one who made a vague and seemingly unsupportable claim as a statement of fact. This is a science forum, surely ALL posters (not just those whose opinions differ from yours) are obligated to ensure that any of their definitive factual statements are clear, concise, well defined, testable, and supporting by scientific evidence.
Given that I can't read minds, and therefore find it difficult to determine what someone 'actually meant', I'll give the poster in question a chance to clarify and post supporting evidence.
Given that the "But it's normal!" statement has been flying around these sort of threads since time immemorable, I don't consider it poor form to ask for clarification and supporting evidence.
Fixed.
You misunderstand what I meant by "normal" - it occurs throughout the animal kingdom i.e. it's natural.
And if you'd bothered reading the entirety of the other threads links and statistics HAVE been posted.
What do you mean by 'natural'?
You should probably post them again, in a manner which is relevant to the context of this thread.
As in "not artificial".
It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, so Bisahdi's contention that it's an artefact of culture is flawed.
And maybe you should either read the relevant threads (since you already seem to have had at least a quick glance at one or more of them) or Google.
This is old territory and it's simply Bishadi's failure to accept or understand facts that's keeping it going (and even starting this thread).