Pashtun, I get the feeling I’m wasting words on you. Do you ever actually read anything other people type, or do you just sling random shit around in the vain hope that something eventually sticks? Step up your game, Champ.
Your point of view is completely indefensible. Full of fallacy, contradiction, and a shameless display of discrimination. The only consistent thing about you is you’re consistently ignorant and consistently failing to make a point. Unless you at least attempt to offer some kind of train of logic or some kind of evidence to support your statements, I’m gonna assume either:
1) You’re trolling, and have no intention of supporting your statements, nor do you yourself even believe what you are saying. Its all just a big wind-up and you can be dismissed as one big joke. Bravo. Well done. Take a bow, clown.
2) You’re ignorant and stupid, and have no intention of supporting your statements, nor even the capacity to do so. Your point of view has no integrity, nor have you even put much thought into it, nor are you capable of doing so. You’re just a parrot, squawking for the sake of it, for no reason or rhyme.
You can salvage this by offering a better case against same-sex relations with a modicum of support for it. You should not ignore the hundreds of examples of same-sex courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting across the animal kingdom that I’ve put forward when you idly dismiss it as ‘unnatural’. You should not ignore lesbian relationships, which completely destroy any semblance of an argument you’ve put forward so far. And you should especially not just focus obsessively on the anus and penis, because this just makes you look like a closet case yourself.
Still, If Homosexuality was Natural, then why was it never accepted by Mankind for the last 6000 or so years?
Two of the greatest, most enlightened, and most influential civilisations in history - Roman and Greek - acknowledged no superficial and prudish barriers between same-sex relationships. The only sexual taboo in such civilisations was cross-class sex. The Greeks had no word for heterosexual or homosexual. Those are relatively modern terms. The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. The same as the word lesbian. There was no word for lesbian. The word lesbian is taken from the Greek island of Lesbos where the poet Sappho wrote about her relationships with women. Alexander the Great, creator and ruler of one of the biggest empires in human history, was homosexual.
Here’s a little insight into Ancient Greece for you, from Plato,
Symposium, 360 BC:
After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them, being the sections of entire men or women, and clung to that. They were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity of them invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life: so ancient is the desire of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man.
Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called Androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men: the women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they hang about men and embrace them, and they are themselves the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saving. When they reach manhood they are loves of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,-if at all, they do so only in obedience to the law; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded; and such a nature is prone to love and ready to return love, always embracing that which is akin to him. And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and would not be out of the other's sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together; yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover's intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment. Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side, by side and to say to them, "What do you people want of one another?" they would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: "Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night to be in one another's company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt you into one and let you grow together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul instead of two-I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire, and whether you are satisfied to attain this?"-there is not a man of them who when he heard the proposal would deny or would not acknowledge that this meeting and melting into one another, this becoming one instead of two, was the very expression of his ancient need. And the reason is that human nature was originally one and we were a whole, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love.If Homosexuality was Natural then how come sticking your penis into a vaccum cleaner is seen unnatural?
A vacuum cleaner? Really? If you can’t approach this with a reasonable level of maturity, you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Plus in my view, Homosexuality is just a very bad habit plus I am sure it didnt take Judiasm,Christianity or Islam you tell you that,
On the contrary, it only seem to be the Abrahamic religions that are telling us this. That's because a character in a their favourite work of fiction says so. What’s your excuse?
It should never be promoted, there should never been same sex adoption
There is no scientific basis for concluding that same-sex parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well adjusted.
Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California:
"The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise."
The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children" Pediatrics. 2006:
"More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents."
Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association:
"A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts."
Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States : A social science perspective." American Psychologist. 2006:
"Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families - A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society:
"The family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families."
How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?" Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010:
"No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being."
Affidavit - United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts" Michael Lamb, Ph.D. 2009:
"It is well-established that both men and women have the capacity to be good parents, and that having parents of both genders does not enhance adjustment. Based on a significant and well-respected body of research, the scientific community has reached consensus that parental sexual orientation does not affect adjustment. Numerous organizations representing mental health and child welfare professionals have issued statements confirming that same-sex parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising well-adjusted children and adolescents and should not face discrimination. See Exhibit B. These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children."
The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of it. But don’t let facts get in the way of a bit of casual discrimination.
same sex marriages whereby a child is raised, its un-natural, deluding and outragous.
Since when is having a child part of a marriage contract? Society does not insist that those who want to marry demonstrate that they can and will have children.
1) Heterosexuals who cannot have children are allowed to marry.
2) Heterosexuals who don't want to have children are allowed to marry.
3) Heterosexuals who don't want to have sex are allowed to marry.
4) Heterosexuals who can't have sex because one partner is in prison for life are allowed to marry.
5) Heterosexuals can use medical assistance to have children.
Taking these things into account, give me a reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry.Plus, if it was Natural, then how come there have been cases of Homosexuals becoming Straight? Why the sudden lust for women and not men? Its a Psychological bad Habit in my view, and you dont need to be modern/progressive or an Ex Muslim or a God-less individual to see that.
Bleh, what are you even talking about?
It is a Psychological bad Habit
in your view -
A view you have yet to support. Baseless discrimination. That’s all you have. Baseless discrimination, ad nauseum.
Not that I expect much of an answer from you, but I’m gonna call your bluff. I want to know what you mean when you say “Natural” and “Unnatural”
When we say unnatural, we usually mean artificial, or human artifice, or something manufactured - something altered from its natural state. I’ve given you hundreds of examples of homosexuality in the natural world. Same-sex intercourse, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. These show that
Natural Law is not being violated. This shows that homosexuality is naturally occurring and naturally neutral.
Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, biologist and researcher/writer, stated in his award winning 1999 book
Biological Exuberance, Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity:
"Homosexuality in any given context (or species) can be seen as the intersection at various points on a number of axis, thereby allowing comparisons to be made across multiple factors...
The plurality of homosexualities in both animals and people suggests a blurring of the seemingly opposite categories of nature and culture, or biology and society... such diversity may in fact be part of our biological endowment, an inherent capacity for 'sexual plasticity' that is shared with many other species.
On the other hand, it is equally meaningful to speak of the 'culture' of homosexuality in animals, since the extent and range of variation that is found (between individuals or populations or species) exceeds that provided by genetic programming and begins to enter the realm of individual habits, learned behaviors, and even community-wide 'traditions.'"
From wiki: Bagemihl writes that the presence of same-sex sexual behaviour was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s due to possible observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people making the homosexual theme taboo. Bagemihl devotes three chapters;
Two Hundred Years at Looking at Homosexual Wildlife, Explaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality and Not For Breeding Only in his 1999 book
Biological Exuberance to the "documentation of systematic prejudices" where he notes "the present ignorance of biology lies precisely in its single-minded attempt to find reproductive (or other) "explanations" for homosexuality, transgender, and non-procreative and alternative heterosexualities.
Petter Bøckman, academic adviser for the
Against Nature? exhibit stated "Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles".
Homosexual behaviour is found amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates. Animal sexual behaviour takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviours have yet to be fully understood. Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behaviour, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
Homosexuality in animals is seen as controversial by social conservatives because it asserts the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to equate animal behaviour to morality. Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behaviour. Thus homosexual behaviour has been given a number of terms over the years. The correct usage of the term
homosexual is that an animal exhibits
homosexual behaviour, however this article conforms to the usage by modern research applying the term
homosexuality to all sexual behaviour (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behaviour) between animals of the same sex.
Please show me something,
anything, that shows how this phenomenon is “Unnatural” or violates any natural law.
The difference is, a Penis goes into a Vagina, a baby is born, that is Natural, sticking your penis into a man's anus is not Natural, if it was then everybody would be doing it right?
Penises are for sexual intercourse. Is urinating unnatural? If urinating was natural, then everybody would be doing it, right?
Mouths are for breathing. Is eating unnatural? Is talking unnatural? Is singing unnatural? If eating and talking were natural, then everybody would be doing it, right?
However, if you want to be gay, then be gay, but push it down other peoples throats.
Why do you keep repeating this? Nobody here is forcing anything down anyone’s throats. I'm just trying to figure out why you're on the internet telling the world that you find homosexuals flawed or wrong, as though its the easiest thing in the world for you to say.
Topic: "Homosexuality is Not Natural"