Political correctness & other nonsensical rubbish

[Liverpool]

Who cares if Homo sapiens require male and female reproduction, that doesn't mean that some males or females can't naturally fall in love with a member of the same sex nor raise a child together....in the same way that an infertile couple, or step parent can make as good a parent as those that conceive naturally. If your view is so limited that you think that only biological parents are suitable for raising children then you really need to get out and meet more adoptive parents, IVF parents, single parents, step parents AND homosexual parents. All of these can make excellent.....or crappy parents. It has nothing to do with the manner and details of conception.

Panthera,
I am not talking about raisng children!
You keep aiming your aspect of the argument towards parenting because you have no argument to back up your claims and that of others on here that homosexuality and the act of sex between two men is normal and natural.
It simply isn't.
People can have sex for a variety of reasons....lust, to feel good...who really cares.....and who really cares if homosexuals have sex with one another. That is their business and I am not denying them that.
However all these reasons are secondary to the fact that the main biological reason a person has an urge to have sex is to procreate.....the main biological reason the majority of the population wants to have sex with the opposite gender is to procreate....and the main reason men and women have reproductive organs to allow this intercourse to have some logic behind it is to procreate.
Therefore, this is the only NATURAL union....and why a union that can create life is, and should be, always held in higher esteem than any other union where sex is just a too to 'feel good' (feeling good is just an added bonus and something that makes us keep wanting to do it and make sure that the race survives)
Just put your morality and views aside and look at it purely from a science and biological view and this may open your mind as to where I am coming from and why I am vehemently opposing this view that homosexuality is normal and natural.

As for 'normal', you didn't address my response.....why shouldn't we discriminate against redheaded individuals who are naturally a minority....and thus, by your definition...abnormal?

I don't think we discrimiate against homosexuals to be honest.
There are laws and rules in place that allow them rights the same as everybody else.
The main differences I suppose would be marriage and where a third party could be involved (say in adopting a child) and that is where I do think it is important that a man/woman relationship is separated and held above a same-sex partnership. And I have no problem with this.
A relationship that can breed offspring is to me, a far more powerful union than any other union.

To answer your question though.....red-heads aren't discriminated against because they are not committing an act that is unnatural to the majority of the population, are they?
It has nothing to do that they are a minority or have a minority trait....it is again simple biology that dictates why the majority of the population are not gay and why it isn't "natural and normal".

 

[Liverpool]

You state homosexuality is parallel to freak acts like pedophilia and beastiality. Enough said, and again, you are better than this mate.

What I was on about was that homosexuality is a "minority trait"....as is Panthera's "red-heads".....or serial-killers, pedophiles, or like that kid that was born in India with the two faces.
All these examples occurred 'naturally'....but because something has come about naturally doesn't automatically make it acceptable or normal....or that they have the same equal rights as the majority.
And this is what I find completely wrong with what some of the posters are saying on this thread.....that homosexuality is as normal and natural as a heterosexual union, when it is not.

I accept and respct their lifestyle as it is their life and their bodies.....I have no problem with that.
I'm certainly not one of the 'burn in hell' brigade and other extreme religious groups who have similar views....but I do think that we as a society shouldn't be coerced into this belief that homosexuality is on a level playing field with heterosexuality, and I find it wrong that this is the type of influence that our education system is having on children today.

I hope I have made myself a bit clearer.
I knew beastilaity and pedophilia may shock some readers but I did have a point behind it....maybe I didn't communicate it as well as I could have (DreamTeam was more important at the time... :hihi) but I hope I have somewhat eased any fears you had that my views were going down hill...(or even more downhill if you believe some of the other posters)

 

[an_oxford_man]

You are a very sad man, Liverpool.

 

[Liverpool]

You are a very sad man, Liverpool.

Funny that coming from a bloke with a bikini-clad sheila as his avatar.... :hihi

Not knocking your avatar at all mate...in fact....if liking it makes me sad, then let's just say that I am very happy to be a sad man... 8)

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Panthera,
I am not talking about raisng children!
You keep aiming your aspect of the argument towards parenting because you have no argument to back up your claims and that of others on here that homosexuality and the act of sex between two men is normal and natural.
It simply isn't.
People can have sex for a variety of reasons....lust, to feel good...who really cares.....and who really cares if homosexuals have sex with one another. That is their business and I am not denying them that.
However all these reasons are secondary to the fact that the main biological reason a person has an urge to have sex is to procreate.....the main biological reason the majority of the population wants to have sex with the opposite gender is to procreate....and the main reason men and women have reproductive organs to allow this intercourse to have some logic behind it is to procreate.
Therefore, this is the only NATURAL union....and why a union that can create life is, and should be, always held in higher esteem than any other union where sex is just a too to 'feel good' (feeling good is just an added bonus and something that makes us keep wanting to do it and make sure that the race survives)
Just put your morality and views aside and look at it purely from a science and biological view and this may open your mind as to where I am coming from and why I am vehemently opposing this view that homosexuality is normal and natural.

I don't think we discrimiate against homosexuals to be honest.
There are laws and rules in place that allow them rights the same as everybody else.
The main differences I suppose would be marriage and where a third party could be involved (say in adopting a child) and that is where I do think it is important that a man/woman relationship is separated and held above a same-sex partnership. And I have no problem with this.
A relationship that can breed offspring is to me, a far more powerful union than any other union.

To answer your question though.....red-heads aren't discriminated against because they are not committing an act that is unnatural to the majority of the population, are they?
It has nothing to do that they are a minority or have a minority trait....it is again simple biology that dictates why the majority of the population are not gay and why it isn't "natural and normal".

This is the most incoherent, self-contradicting argument I have ever seen formed. Go back over and look at how you refer to homosexuals as 'unnatural' and then later as 'natural'...how you say it isn't about parenting and then go on to discuss how they shouldn't be entitled to act as parents.

As a biologist, I have some knowledge of the 'purpose' of sex....I also realise that as humans we have the ability to make moral decisions that allow us to transcend the biology in many ways. How does a loving homosexual couple raising a child affect you or the society we live in one iota even if you do consider it 'unnatural' or 'abnormal' (which it is not)? If anything it may improve society as the homosexual population may feel better accepted, thus leading to a healthier society as a whole. Your only argument is that they shouldn't have rights because their union is 'unnatural' and 'abnormal'. I have addressed both of these points in my previous postings, which you seem to have ignored.

 

[Liverpool]

This is the most incoherent, self-contradicting argument I have ever seen formed. Go back over and look at how you refer to homosexuals as 'unnatural' and then later as 'natural'...how you say it isn't about parenting and then go on to discuss how they shouldn't be entitled to act as parents.

Maybe you should read my post more carefully before jumping to a conclusion.
I've never doubted that a person who is homosexual is that way because of a 'minority trait', as you call it.
With that we agree.

Where we differ is that people like yourself then go on and deem homosexuality and the act of sex between men as natural/normal because it is a minority trait formed naturally.
This is why I raised other minority traits that exist in society....and the fact that just because something is a naturally formed minority does not deem it automatically normal or acceptable.

Now, in my last post...the only time I used the word "unnatural" was here:

To answer your question though.....red-heads aren't discriminated against because they are not committing an act that is unnatural to the majority of the population, are they?

...and that is the main crux of the debate.
You can go on about how great homosexuals are as parents, how they love each other, blah, blah, blah.....but you can not class them in the same esteem as a man/woman relationship because nature has dictated that a male/female relationship is the one that can procreate. It is simply something homosexuals cannot do.

Surely, as a biologist....sex, like many aspects of life, is logical. There is a science behind why we do things.
It isn't there to make people just feel good....or for something to do while the footy half-time break is on... :hihi.....there is a natural and biological reason why people have sex and why the majority of people aim to do it with the opposite gender. And there is a logical reason why certain body parts are matched with other body parts in the opposite gender.
And don't go on about "transcending biology".....by that, you are admitting that it is unnatural because biology dictates that the natural union is between a man and woman. If you have to transcend biology to make it sound as if it is a normal and natural practice, then it simply isn't natural or normal to begin with then, is it?

Because of this....sex between two men is simply an "unnatural act" as I posted in my previous post.
I don't prejudice people because that is the lifestyle they choose....but I will get annoyed if people try and dictate to me that it is as normal and natural as any heterosexual union.
They should be kept separate.....and sure, treat people like humans...what people do in their own bedrooms is their business....but don't rub it in people's faces and tell me I should like it and accept it.

 

[Tiger74]

What I was on about was that homosexuality is a "minority trait"....as is Panthera's "red-heads".....or serial-killers, pedophiles, or like that kid that was born in India with the two faces.
All these examples occurred 'naturally'....but because something has come about naturally doesn't automatically make it acceptable or normal....or that they have the same equal rights as the majority.
And this is what I find completely wrong with what some of the posters are saying on this thread.....that homosexuality is as normal and natural as a heterosexual union, when it is not.

I accept and respct their lifestyle as it is their life and their bodies.....I have no problem with that.
I'm certainly not one of the 'burn in hell' brigade and other extreme religious groups who have similar views....but I do think that we as a society shouldn't be cced into this belief that homosexuality is on a level playing field with heterosexuality, and I find it wrong that this is the type of influence that our education system is having on children today.

I hope I have made myself a bit clearer.
I knew beastilaity and pedophilia may shock some readers but I did have a point behind it....maybe I didn't communicate it as well as I could have (DreamTeam was more important at the time... :hihi) but I hope I have somewhat eased any fears you had that my views were going down hill...(or even more downhill if you believe some of the other posters)

Fair enough, but you have got to be careful because this is a very fine line you are tapdancing on.

There is one major issue I have with your assumption though, and that is the unnatural debate. This is a value judgement, not a scientific one which everyone is pretending it is. Fair enough, disagree on your personal values, but lets not pretend science is pushing the agenda here.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Fair enough, but you have got to be careful because this is a very fine line you are tapdancing on.

There is one major issue I have with your assumption though, and that is the unnatural debate. This is a value judgement, not a scientific one which everyone is pretending it is. Fair enough, disagree on your personal values, but lets not pretend science is pushing the agenda here.

Spot on T74...but to claim something is 'unnatural' raises scientific questions...in this context it is clear that homosexuality is natural.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Maybe you should read my post more carefully before jumping to a conclusion.
I've never doubted that a person who is homosexual is that way because of a 'minority trait', as you call it.
With that we agree.

Where we differ is that people like yourself then go on and deem homosexuality and the act of sex between men as natural/normal because it is a minority trait formed naturally.
This is why I raised other minority traits that exist in society....and the fact that just because something is a naturally formed minority does not deem it automatically normal or acceptable.

You can't see the incoherence of this statement? We differ because I consider something formed naturally, natural?

I don't consider everything natural normal or acceptable....I don't consider smallpox acceptable, I don't consider pedophilia acceptable, I don't consider cold-blooded murder acceptable. All of these are natural occurrences. I accept things in this area based on morals (or value judgements, as T74 correctly points out). Why don't I consider homosexuality immoral? It doesn't harm anyone, some people are naturally inclined to favour the same sex, so what is the problem?

Now, in my last post...the only time I used the word "unnatural" was here:

...and that is the main crux of the debate.
You can go on about how great homosexuals are as parents, how they love each other, blah, blah, blah.....but you can not class them in the same esteem as a man/woman relationship because nature has dictated that a male/female relationship is the one that can procreate. It is simply something homosexuals cannot do.

You continually harp on about homosexuality not being natural/normal....if you didn't use the word "unnatural" so be it, you certainly implied it enough.

"You can't class them in the same esteem"??? You make a value judgement based on the ability to procreate? Why? What has that got to do with anything?

Surely, as a biologist....sex, like many aspects of life, is logical. There is a science behind why we do things.
It isn't there to make people just feel good....or for something to do while the footy half-time break is on... :hihi.....there is a natural and biological reason why people have sex and why the majority of people aim to do it with the opposite gender. And there is a logical reason why certain body parts are matched with other body parts in the opposite gender.

Of course there is a biological reason that males and females have their 'parts'. I can safely say that I have had sex to feel good or enjoy half time in the footy far more than I have done so to procreate. Does that make it wrong?

And don't go on about "transcending biology".....by that, you are admitting that it is unnatural because biology dictates that the natural union is between a man and woman. If you have to transcend biology to make it sound as if it is a normal and natural practice, then it simply isn't natural or normal to begin with then, is it?

If you consider the biology the be all and end all then you need to stop doing the 'unnatural' acts of seeking medical attention, driving/flying in motorised vehicles, eating processed foods...etc. etc. My point is that we can recognise the biological basis for something, but then ignore it and as long as there are not negative consequences in doing so (or in some cases the benefits far outweigh the risks). What is the problem? Why put 'biology' on a higher pedestal than morality?

Because of this....sex between two men is simply an "unnatural act" as I posted in my previous post.
I don't prejudice people because that is the lifestyle they choose....but I will get annoyed if people try and dictate to me that it is as normal and natural as any heterosexual union.
They should be kept separate.....and sure, treat people like humans...what people do in their own bedrooms is their business....but don't rub it in people's faces and tell me I should like it and accept it.

It is closing statements like this that make reveal your true bigotry. "Its fine as long as I don't have know about it"? Why? How does the relationship of two consenting adults affect you?

 

[Rosy]

As natural as a siamese twin or an albino.
Think about it...

I've thought about it and am stumped. Why don't you think siamese twins and albinos are natural?

......and until that day happens, a man/woman relationship is superior to any other relationship you want to throw at me.

Surely a loving same-sex couple, or even a non-biological heterosexual family, is far superior to a violent, abusive, neglectful relationship that initially provided an egg and a sperm?

There are many kinds of non-genetically related families and you're selling a lot of people short with some of your comments.

However all these reasons are secondary to the fact that the main biological reason a person has an urge to have sex is to procreate.....the main biological reason the majority of the population wants to have sex with the opposite gender is to procreate....and the main reason men and women have reproductive organs to allow this intercourse to have some logic behind it is to procreate.

Speak for yourself Livers. Procreation would probably be the furtherest thing from most peoples' minds when they have an urge to have sex. I certainly didn't want to create any children when I was in my teens or after I had my 3 kids.

How do you explain the fact that many animals can only mate at certain times and that is for the act of procreation but human's don't have that kind of restriction in any way? Maybe we're not natural to have sex purely for pleasure when it was designed for procreation? :hihi

 

[Liverpool]

There is one major issue I have with your assumption though, and that is the unnatural debate. This is a value judgement, not a scientific one which everyone is pretending it is. Fair enough, disagree on your personal values, but lets not pretend science is pushing the agenda here.

Look, I agree with Panthera that homosexuality is borne from a "minority trait" of some kind in some individuals.
So there is no argument from me on this and it is one of the reasons I am totally against the extreme right who have their 'burn them at the stake' mantra.
This is wrong.
But when I speak about "unnatural"....it is the actual sexual act itself, that is unnatural.....and this is where the science part comes into it.
If you forget all the outside influences such as our own morals, values, and social aspects and look at sex from a pure logical, biological, and scientific approach.....the only type of sex that is natural and normal is that between a man and a woman.
This is why both genders have reproductive organs that conjoin....it is why men have sperm and women the egg.....round pegs for round holes, not round pegs for square holes...if you know what I mean.

 

[Liverpool]

I don't consider everything natural normal or acceptable....I don't consider smallpox acceptable, I don't consider pedophilia acceptable, I don't consider cold-blooded murder acceptable. All of these are natural occurrences. I accept things in this area based on morals (or value judgements, as T74 correctly points out). Why don't I consider homosexuality immoral? It doesn't harm anyone, some people are naturally inclined to favour the same sex, so what is the problem?

I have no problem people having sex with whatever or whoever they want.
I've always stated that what happens in the bedroom of people is their business and I couldn't give a stuff.
But people don't want to leave it at that....there are people out there with agendas who want to push this "sex between men is normal and natural" onto people, which is a load of crap.

Of course there is a biological reason that males and females have their 'parts'. I can safely say that I have had sex to feel good or enjoy half time in the footy far more than I have done so to procreate. Does that make it wrong?

No problem there....the difference is that you made a CHOICE not to procreate.
If you had let nature take its course maybe you would have procreated by accident...it does happen you know...
Homosexuals cannot make that choice.

If you consider the biology the be all and end all then you need to stop doing the 'unnatural' acts of seeking medical attention, driving/flying in motorised vehicles, eating processed foods...etc. etc. My point is that we can recognise the biological basis for something, but then ignore it and as long as there are not negative consequences in doing so (or in some cases the benefits far outweigh the risks). What is the problem? Why put 'biology' on a higher pedestal than morality?

Ahhhh....so you, a biologist, wants to get away from the factual and scientific aspect of sex and now want to change to the good old "moralistic" viewpoint to try and justify why homosexuality is 'normal and natural'.....please!
I look at this topic purely from a logical and scientific point of view because that is what separates what is natural from what is unnatural.
If something is as natural, normal, and logical as many of you are trying to make out...then you shouldn't have to look into morals, because each one of us can argue about morals until the cows come home. Morals is a very subjective area. Biology and the human anatomy isn't....and this is where your argument loses each time.

It is closing statements like this that make reveal your true bigotry. "Its fine as long as I don't have know about it"? Why? How does the relationship of two consenting adults affect you?

I've said it many times already and I'll say it again....I DO NOT CARE WHAT HAPPENS IN PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS!!!!
It only affects me when people try and force this twisted view that homosexuality is 'normal and natural' when it is neither.

 

[Liverpool]

I've thought about it and am stumped. Why don't you think siamese twins and albinos are natural?

Rosy,
I never said they were not natural.

As natural as a siamese twin or an albino

Surely a loving same-sex couple, or even a non-biological heterosexual family, is far superior to a violent, abusive, neglectful relationship that initially provided an egg and a sperm?

I'm sure it is....that wasn't my point though.
The discussion, no matter how much the others try, isn't about who makes the better parents...we haven't got over the "is homosexuality natural and normal" question yet... :
A man/woman partnership is superior to anything else because that is the only natural partnership.
The child wouldn't exist....you wouldn't exist...and I wouldn't exist...if it wasn't for the union of a man and a woman to begin with.
This is what I mean by a man/woman partnership being superior to anything else.

Procreation would probably be the furtherest thing from most peoples' minds when they have an urge to have sex. I certainly didn't want to create any children when I was in my teens or after I had my 3 kids.

Like I said to Panthera...that was your CHOICE because you let your personal situation, morals, social aspects, and many other influences dictate to be careful and for someone to take precautions because you didn't want to create children while you were in your teens.
The natural urge and want to have sex and the idea of it feeling good is so that you want to do it again and the race survives.
That is the science and natural biology behind it...."go forth and multiply" someone once said....they didn't say 'go and do it for fun and make sure someone takes precautions'.... :hihi

 

[Freezer]

A man/woman partnership is superior to anything else because that is the only natural partnership.
The child wouldn't exist....you wouldn't exist...and I wouldn't exist...if it wasn't for the union of a man and a woman to begin with.
This is what I mean by a man/woman partnership being superior to anything else.

I agree with your sentiments but I don't think superior is the right word. There are a lot of things that don't necessarily happen the way nature intended but that doesn't make them wrong.

In terms of producing children, then yes, the only union that will work has to start with a man and a women - how they are brought together is a different matter. As you say, this has no bearing on the parenting skills of anyone.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Livers,

Just how do you define "natural" and "normal". My view is that everything that exists is part of nature and therefore "natural". I'm also one that argues "define normal" if anyone attempts to say otherwise. Homosexuality may not be the way nature intended breeding to occur, but homosexuality exists (for a small minority) and therefore is completely natural. As part of my definition of "natural", I include all human activity (humans themselves being part of nature). Therefore, in my mind, there is no such thing as 'man made'. Everything we do is part of nature and therefore, "natural". I'm not going to resort to cheap shots or anything, I just want to hear your definitions of "natural" and "normal" so we can all be on the same page.

You have brought up the argument of the human race's demise possibly being caused by homosexuality. The way I see it, the human race is the most brutal, damaging, ignorant, violent species on the planet today. If the human race was to become extinct, it would probably be doing this world a favour. I can also argue that overpopulation at the hands of "normal" heterosexual couples could also (and more likely) result in the demise of the human race. People seem to forget that the planet only has finite resources.

Maybe homosexuals are the key to saving the human race.

 

[Rosy]

Maybe homosexuals are the key to saving the human race.

Especially if they have white hair, red eyes and two heads. :hihi

 

[Liverpool]

Livers,
Just how do you define "natural" and "normal". My view is that everything that exists is part of nature and therefore "natural". I'm also one that argues "define normal" if anyone attempts to say otherwise. Homosexuality may not be the way nature intended breeding to occur, but homosexuality exists (for a small minority) and therefore is completely natural. As part of my definition of "natural", I include all human activity (humans themselves being part of nature). Therefore, in my mind, there is no such thing as 'man made'. Everything we do is part of nature and therefore, "natural". I'm not going to resort to cheap shots or anything, I just want to hear your definitions of "natural" and "normal" so we can all be on the same page.

To me, "normal" is something that is common, typical, and the usual thing that happens.
Seeing that homosexuality is a minority group....how can it be 'normal' to be homosexual?
Therefore, how can homosexuality and sexual acts between men, be normal?

To me "natural" is something that nature intends.
If nature intended men to have sex with other men....why have women?
If nature intended men to have sex with other men....why don't men have a provisions for this anatomically?

You have brought up the argument of the human race's demise possibly being caused by homosexuality. The way I see it, the human race is the most brutal, damaging, ignorant, violent species on the planet today. If the human race was to become extinct, it would probably be doing this world a favour. I can also argue that overpopulation at the hands of "normal" heterosexual couples could also (and more likely) result in the demise of the human race. People seem to forget that the planet only has finite resources.
Maybe homosexuals are the key to saving the human race.

In fact I've never said the human race was under threat at all.....homosexuality is a minority trait and therefore they will always be a minority group.
It is another reason that makes me laugh about this "natural and normal" argument....especially when each and every one of us comes from the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman.

 

[Liverpool]

Especially if they have white hair, red eyes and two heads. :hihi

Even I had to chuckle at this one.... :hihi....maybe a successor to Richo?

 

[1eyedtiger]

My view is that "normal" exists only within an individuals head. One persons definition of normal can be completely different to another's definition of "normal". Therefore, the definition of normal is as varied as there are humans. In the interests of living together on the same planet, we, as individuals must sometimes attempt to see things from another's point of view in order to come to a compromise.

Nature is exactly as I put it, everything that is. You're right that it's not natural for homosexuals to breed, but that's not the point here. Homosexuals exist (I don't mean to degrade any homosexuals who may be reading this) and therefore they are part of nature, intended or not, just like everyone else.

 

[TigerForce]

To me, "normal" is something that is common, typical, and the usual thing that happens.
Seeing that homosexuality is a minority group....how can it be 'normal' to be homosexual?
Therefore, how can homosexuality and sexual acts between men, be normal?

To me "natural" is something that nature intends.
If nature intended men to have sex with other men....why have women?
If nature intended men to have sex with other men....why don't men have a provisions for this anatomically?

In fact I've never said the human race was under threat at all.....homosexuality is a minority trait and therefore they will always be a minority group.
It is another reason that makes me laugh about this "natural and normal" argument....especially when each and every one of us comes from the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman.

Would the term 'straight' be normal?

Homos seem to accept not being straight.