I've come to a conclusion, hoe moe sexuality is flawed!

This thread is just ridiculous. It appears the original poster has studied homosexuality insofar that he hasn't actually spoken with a gay person. If gay people say they aren't attracted to the female form then I believe them. Thats much easier to believe than to believe its a big conspiracy where they all lie at the same time. And as I said in my former post, I think if gay people really are attracted to women then I think most would choose that easy life rather than one where they face so much prejudice and hate. My first post was good enough to end this argument but alas, no one read it.

[QUOTE="Lil_Dwayne"]

Ive studied homosexuality quite a lot.

BobSacamento

lol i stopped right there

Ive studied homosexuality quite a lot.

Lil_Dwayne

lol fair play

Alright stay with me, this is going to get complex. But Ill keep it kinda dumbed down since not everyones not on my level of thinking...

Lil_Dwayne

ok ill try but im not as amazingly awesome as you are

Why must it be taken to the next step? Why can't "homosexuals" just be good friends with the ones they are "attracted" to?

Lil_Dwayne

because they are sexually attracted.

I would like to conduct an experiment with a homosexual man in a room

Lil_Dwayne

ok nevermind ill just stop reading, you sir, you win

Doesnt god and nature agree on one thing? that is males should be with females to reproduce. Of course homosexuality is flawed, but animals dont do it cause they have a connection to other animals, it usualy cause no others are around and they need to release sexual tension.

I would like to conduct an experiment with a homosexual man in a room,

Lil_Dwayne

I laughed.

Do I really need to say that his post was full of crap?

Jointed's conclusion:

This thread is filled with liberals and socialists...do not proceed.

Today has been a very funny day on OT.

TC, I disagree with you but you have given me the laughs I needed for the rest of the day.

[QUOTE="Lil_Dwayne"]

Ive studied homosexuality quite a lot.

BobSacamento

lol i stopped right there

"But Ill keep it kinda dumbed down since not everyones not on my level of thinking"

I stopped right there

It's natural in a way. Our pet rabbits enjoy riding each other regardless of their gender and I'm pretty sure they just go with the flow of life.SolidSnake35

Animals doing something does not = that something being natural. . . .

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's natural in a way. Our pet rabbits enjoy riding each other regardless of their gender and I'm pretty sure they just go with the flow of life.Dracargen

Animals doing something does not = that something being natural. . . .

how do you know, what do you mean by natural?

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's natural in a way. Our pet rabbits enjoy riding each other regardless of their gender and I'm pretty sure they just go with the flow of life.Dracargen

Animals doing something does not = that something being natural. . . .

Natural - existing in or formed by nature

:|

Hahahahaha :lol:

I love it. Someone please sig this.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's natural in a way. Our pet rabbits enjoy riding each other regardless of their gender and I'm pretty sure they just go with the flow of life.niptuckSean

Animals doing something does not = that something being natural. . . .

Natural - existing in or formed by nature

:|

So, it's natural for me to eat my own excrements?

[QUOTE="niptuckSean"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's natural in a way. Our pet rabbits enjoy riding each other regardless of their gender and I'm pretty sure they just go with the flow of life.jointed

Animals doing something does not = that something being natural. . . .

Natural - existing in or formed by nature

:|

So, it's natural for me to eat my own excrements?

Yeah...

So, it's natural for me to eat my own excrements?

jointed

I heard that commandos are trained to do that when required. Also, there are many natural things that are bad for you... Like lava.

[QUOTE="Lil_Dwayne"]

Ive studied homosexuality quite a lot.

BobSacamento

lol i stopped right there

I did too.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="niptuckSean"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's natural in a way. Our pet rabbits enjoy riding each other regardless of their gender and I'm pretty sure they just go with the flow of life.niptuckSean

Animals doing something does not = that something being natural. . . .

Natural - existing in or formed by nature

:|

So, it's natural for me to eat my own excrements?

Yeah...

Great, then everything's natural...and thus the term is meaningless.

[QUOTE="niptuckSean"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="niptuckSean"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's natural in a way. Our pet rabbits enjoy riding each other regardless of their gender and I'm pretty sure they just go with the flow of life.jointed

Animals doing something does not = that something being natural. . . .

Natural - existing in or formed by nature

:|

So, it's natural for me to eat my own excrements?

Yeah...

Great, then everything's natural...and thus the term is meaningless.

Great, then everything's natural...and thus the term is meaningless.

jointed

Just like life.

Great, then everything's natural...and thus the term is meaningless.

jointed

Just because something you don't agree with happens to be natural doesn't mean the term is meaningless. Tools aren't natural, clothing isn't natural, I think there are man-made chemicals, and even steel isn't natural IIRC (as are any alloys I think).

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="niptuckSean"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="niptuckSean"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's natural in a way. Our pet rabbits enjoy riding each other regardless of their gender and I'm pretty sure they just go with the flow of life.Mr_sprinkles

Animals doing something does not = that something being natural. . . .

Natural - existing in or formed by nature

:|

So, it's natural for me to eat my own excrements?

Yeah...

Great, then everything's natural...and thus the term is meaningless.

Well, ethically no...not at all. But if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, then yes.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Great, then everything's natural...and thus the term is meaningless.

Zagrius

Just because something you don't agree with happens to be natural doesn't mean the term is meaningless. Tools aren't natural, clothing isn't natural, I think there are man-made chemicals, and even steel isn't natural IIRC (as are any alloys I think).

What is it I don't agree with?

By that defenition...going against your species reproductive cycle sure as hell is unnatural. However...it's not wrong, ethically.

Well, ethically no...not at all. But if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, then yes.

jointed

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Well, ethically no...not at all. But if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, then yes.

Mr_sprinkles

Semantics :roll:

Call it what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that homosexuality goes against the evolutionary idea.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I'm not buying it.

Semantics :roll:

Call it what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that homosexuality goes against the evolutionary idea.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I'm not buying it.

jointed

Acting on homosexual urges only, goes against the evolutionary idea, maybe.

Homosexuals can still make babies.

What is it I don't agree with?

By that defenition...going against your species reproductive cycle sure as hell is unnatural. However...it's not wrong, ethically.

jointed

Eating your own excrement, I presume. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And I don't remember actually defining what natural means. I see that one of the definitions of natural is 'present in or produced by nature'. Homosexuality exists in nature (animals do it, I'm guessing without human intervention), therefor it's natural.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

What is it I don't agree with?

By that defenition...going against your species reproductive cycle sure as hell is unnatural. However...it's not wrong, ethically.

Zagrius

Eating your own excrement, I presume. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And I don't remember actually defining what natural means. I see that one of the definitions of natural is 'present in or produced by nature'. Homosexuality exists in nature (animals do it, I'm guessing without human intervention), therefor it's natural.

I can also post internet definitions:

The Free Dictionary - "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature"

Animals eat their own excrement...that doesn't mean its natural to homo sapiens.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="jointed"]

Well, ethically no...not at all. But if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, then yes.

jointed

Semantics :roll:

Call it what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that homosexuality goes against the evolutionary idea.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I'm not buying it.

Evolution is change in allele frequency over time. No biologist will ever say "you must reproduce, else you're going against the theory of evolution" Because evolution is not a doctrine, it is a theory used to explain phenomena, not to instruct.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="jointed"]

Well, ethically no...not at all. But if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, then yes.

Mr_sprinkles

Semantics :roll:

Call it what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that homosexuality goes against the evolutionary idea.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I'm not buying it.

Evolution is change in allele frequency over time. No biologist will ever say "you must reproduce, else you're going against the theory of evolution" Because evolution is not a doctrine, it is a theory used to explain phenomena, not to instruct.

Ehm, have you even read the Origin of Species?

Evolution's, according to Darwin, three fundamental pillars are:

- Variation

- Reproductivity

- Natural Selection

I can also post internet definitions:

The Free Dictionary - "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature"

Animals eat their own excrement...that doesn't mean its natural to homo sapiens.

jointed

Well, the course of nature seems to be that there'll be a small homosexual community in different species. Sounds to fit that definition (one of many to which homosexuality would obviously apply).

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="jointed"]

Well, ethically no...not at all. But if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, then yes.

jointed

Semantics :roll:

Call it what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that homosexuality goes against the evolutionary idea.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I'm not buying it.

Evolution is change in allele frequency over time. No biologist will ever say "you must reproduce, else you're going against the theory of evolution" Because evolution is not a doctrine, it is a theory used to explain phenomena, not to instruct.

Ehm, have you even read the Origin of Species?

Evolution's, according to Darwin, three fundamental pillars are:

- Variation

- Reproductivity

- Natural Selection

But what you are saying at the moment is like saying we shouldn't jump because it goes against the theory of gravity.

As i said, (and you appear to have ignored) evolution is explanation, not instruction.

In evolutionary terms, homosexuality is no different to just not having a kid, or even just wearing a condom. do you object to those?

[QUOTE="jointed"]

I can also post internet definitions:

The Free Dictionary - "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature"

Animals eat their own excrement...that doesn't mean its natural to homo sapiens.

Zagrius

Well, the course of nature seems to be that there'll be a small homosexual community in different species. Sounds to fit that definition (one of many to which homosexuality would obviously apply).

CONFORMING to the usual or ordinary course of nature. Homosexuality is not ordinary or usual amongst homo sapiens.

Ehm, have you even read the Origin of Species?

Evolution's, according to Darwin, three fundamental pillars are:

- Variation

- Reproductivity

- Natural Selection

jointed

Yet again, homosexuals are capable of reproduction.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="jointed"]

I can also post internet definitions:

The Free Dictionary - "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature"

Animals eat their own excrement...that doesn't mean its natural to homo sapiens.

jointed

Well, the course of nature seems to be that there'll be a small homosexual community in different species. Sounds to fit that definition (one of many to which homosexuality would obviously apply).

CONFORMING to the usual or ordinary course of nature. Homosexuality is not ordinary or usual amongst homo sapiens.

Fine, and yet it fits definitions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="jointed"]

Well, ethically no...not at all. But if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, then yes.

Mr_sprinkles

Semantics :roll:

Call it what you want, it still doesn't change the fact that homosexuality goes against the evolutionary idea.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I'm not buying it.

Evolution is change in allele frequency over time. No biologist will ever say "you must reproduce, else you're going against the theory of evolution" Because evolution is not a doctrine, it is a theory used to explain phenomena, not to instruct.

Ehm, have you even read the Origin of Species?

Evolution's, according to Darwin, three fundamental pillars are:

- Variation

- Reproductivity

- Natural Selection

But what you are saying at the moment is like saying we shouldn't jump because it goes against the theory of gravity.

As i said, (and you appear to have ignored) evolution is explanation, not instruction.

In evolutionary terms, homosexuality is no different to just not having a kid, or even just wearing a condom. do you object to those?

No...you've obviously misunderstood what evolution is.

Homosexuality, as a whole, disturb the evolutionary cycle. If individuals fail to reproduce accordingly...they, quite clearly, go against the ideas of evolution.

Now, I understand what you're trying to say...but its unfortunately wrong and biased with emotion.

bad opening statement, my english teacher would be ashamed:D

but as for the rest, I agree

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="jointed"]

I can also post internet definitions:

The Free Dictionary - "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature"

Animals eat their own excrement...that doesn't mean its natural to homo sapiens.

Zagrius

Well, the course of nature seems to be that there'll be a small homosexual community in different species. Sounds to fit that definition (one of many to which homosexuality would obviously apply).

CONFORMING to the usual or ordinary course of nature. Homosexuality is not ordinary or usual amongst homo sapiens.

Fine, and yet it fits definitions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7.

Ehm...you can see examples right next to the defintions. 2, 5, 6 and 7 don't have anything to do with it, really.

No...you've obviously misunderstood what evolution is.

Homosexuality, as a whole, disturb the evolutionary cycle. If individuals fail to reproduce accordingly...they, quite clearly, go against the ideas of evolution.

Now, I understand what you're trying to say...but its unfortunately wrong and biased with emotion.

jointed

No...you've obviously misunderstood what evolution is.

Homosexuality, as a whole, disturb the evolutionary cycle. If individuals fail to reproduce accordingly...they, quite clearly, go against the ideas of evolution.

Now, I understand what you're trying to say...but its unfortunately wrong and biased with emotion.

jointed

Boy A is gay born to a strict, cultured Christian family, lives in a society where homosexuality is frowned upon. Boy A decides to hide this until the day he dies. Boy A meets Girl A, they get married, have kids named Child A, Child B and Child C. Now Boy A has achieved his goal of making everyone think he's straight. Unfortunately, his children don't count and they don't really exist, because apparently he went against evolution.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

No...you've obviously misunderstood what evolution is.

Homosexuality, as a whole, disturb the evolutionary cycle. If individuals fail to reproduce accordingly...they, quite clearly, go against the ideas of evolution.

Now, I understand what you're trying to say...but its unfortunately wrong and biased with emotion.

Mr_sprinkles

I never said I objected to anything...

Oh and just because you use condoms doesn't mean you'll never have kids.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

No...you've obviously misunderstood what evolution is.

Homosexuality, as a whole, disturb the evolutionary cycle. If individuals fail to reproduce accordingly...they, quite clearly, go against the ideas of evolution.

Now, I understand what you're trying to say...but its unfortunately wrong and biased with emotion.

niptuckSean

Boy A is gay born to a strict, cultured Christian family, lives in a society where homosexuality is frowned upon. Boy A decides to hide this until the day he dies. Boy A meets Girl A, they get married, have kids named Child A, Child B and Child C. Now Boy A has achieved his goal of making everyone think he's straight. Unfortunately, his children don't count and they don't really exist, because apparently he went against evolution.

No he didn't...he successfully reproduced.