just what they're DOING is wrong.

As far as I know, Mother Nature doesn't shun homosexuality. Only religion does.

So if a person doesn't reproduce before they die, they're somehow inhuman or evil or something? WTF?


I DIDN"T say they were evil!!!!!
I just said people weren't created to be gay.
And people aren't born gay. They choose to be.
And if everyone was gay the human race coudn't go on.

People weren't created to be sterile, either. But many are born that way, forever unable to reproduce. Would you deny their right to marry as well?

The inability for homosexuals to reproduce is the only actual logical argument against the practice, but it fails when you consider the contributions to the society that homosexuals can provide. Moreover, homosexuals can still reproduce, in fact, many do. They just aren't attracted to their own gender. There is absolutely no, reasoned argument that could prohibit same-sex marriage. None.

The benefits they provide to a society (not just human societies, but among other species as well) are foster/surrogate parenting to orphans, increased societal stability, increased productivity in the society, etc. The productivity to the society can be increased because combined households can provide more buying power; more consumer activity within an economy is generally looked at as a positive trait of an economy.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
And people aren't born gay. They choose to be.

You are very wrong. Why would anyone choose to be gay considering the bigotry and discrimation they'll face? And, like I said before, but you're not reading, there are gay ANIMALS for god's sake. Tell me how animals, let's say penguins, are going to "choose" to be gay or not? Animals are not capable of thinking like this.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
And if everyone was gay the human race coudn't go on.

Dude, think about what you're saying. Gays can reproduce just as well as heteros, and many do. Your argument has no point, since it would never be that the human race would be all gay anyway. You speak as if homosexuality is some kind of epidemic that could wipe out the population. Don't worry, it's not "contagious."

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you homosexuals do not.

You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Homosexual beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

:)

Originally posted by The Hidden One
people aren't born gay. They choose to be.

Except they don't.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
And if everyone was gay the human race coudn't go on. ... where the hell did this come from?

Originally posted by The Hidden One
:rolleyes:

Lets go have a look at your name....

Ah, you've got my point. Your name and my name are both weird to each other, yes? Now, let's apply it to what you said before. Daddy 1 and Daddy 2 is weird to you, but then let's say the kid of that couple believes your Dad and Mom is also weird. Do you think your parents should also split up just because someone else thinks it's weird?

Let's go have a look at your name....
His point was that you can't ban something just because you don't like it. It's called "sarcasm":p.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
This law shoudn't be passed because homosexuality is wrong and it's wierd how kids would say "This is my daddy 1 and this my daddy 2!"
For the same reason, I could say inter-racial marriage should be banned. Not to mention all adoption! Poor kids, they've gotta suffer when they figure out these people aren't their real parents!

Seriously, though, thanks for coming. This thread was awfully one-sided until you showed up with an opposite view (now to shoot it down;)).

:usa:
I agree with TK's response to this.
I want YOU to be a surpremacist!!!11:D

people aren't born gay.
Exactly. Kids are born asexual. Or have you ever seen a 2-year old with a hard-on?

As for whether or not they're born with a code saying "when you're old enough to fall in love, it'll be with a person of this gender", that's largelly unknown. It's part of a debate called "nature versus nurture" - what's part of our "manuscript" from birth, and what do we decide while we grow up? How much does the environment affect us?

They choose to be.
Typical belief, that, with no evidence whatsoever, and nothing to even suggest that's so. What about all those people who wished that they were the opposite orientation, but don't change?

And if everyone was gay the human race coudn't go on.
If everyone were monks the human race couldn't go on, as monks can't have sex. OMG ban monasteries or everyone will become monks!:rolleyes:

There's no danger whatsoever that everyone will be gay, more than there's a risk of everyone in the whole world adopting a kid instead of having sex just because adoption is legel. Or everyone marrying someone of a different colour because inter-racial marriage is legal. Or all Africans wearing an Afro because that's legal.

See where I'm headed? Legalization doesn't create majorities.

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you homosexuals do not.

You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Homosexual beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
Wow.. A joke? In the Chambers?
I saw almost the exact line on humans in general, in fact. So yup, Gays are as evil as us demonic heterosexuals. Better cleanse us all, God:p.

All living organisms were created to pass on their genes
Indeed. But that doesn't make it wrong not to do so. It's like I wasn't made to live in Houston, with my pink-ish skin, blonde hair, blue eyes, and so on and so on. Is that grounds enough for me to be prohibited from leaving Norway? Nope, so I moved to Houston, stayed there for three years, went to school, volunteered at an animal shelter, a library, and a rotary club, made a lot of friends (most of which were not designed to live in Houston either), and went home with lots of good memories.

It's not the duty of a human being to reproduce. Not with "(...) 6 billion people in the world and the population growing by a quarter million every day." (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/worldpop.htm)

--Dagobahn Eagle

Originally posted by ET Warrior
Except for that one war you were involved in around 1776....you didn't seem very keen on the underdog winning at all then

And the one around '82... Kind of annoying when you think that you've attacked a defenceless 3rd world country and find out that they have NATO weapons :=)

maybe the entire purpose of homosexuals is to give homes to those kids who need them.

Seems like a great idea by god/mother nature to build in a small amount of redundancy into the system.

I think it's a known fact that all sides have their evils. Some are just more pronounced than others. In this case, the neo-cons.You'd hope so, wouldn't you. Sadly, humans are natural fanatics and they often lose their balance, splitting the world into black and white. They say, "If neocons are evil, homosexuals must always be goodness personified!" Sad.

Yeah, well they don't get into parliaments... Of course they do! Why, our government in the UK is peppered with complete flamers, and I disagree with many of their actions and activist positions.

Maybe its cos i'm british and we always support the underdogSpeak for yourself. Being a minority does not equate to being worthy, and we British know it better than anyone.

You are very wrong. Why would anyone choose to be gay considering the bigotry and discrimation they'll face? Actually he's not all that wrong. There's no conclusive evidence to show that people are "born" homosexual. Are furries "born" furries? What about sports-bag fetishists who leave their wives for holdalls? They weren't "born" sports-bag-fetishists, that wouldn't make any sense at all. There's no gene to recognise sports bags, as far as I'm aware. :rolleyes:

Sexual perversion can be a genetic predisposition I would imagine, just like addictive personality disorders. But what form that perversion takes? That's nurture. Not nature.

Secondly, your argument that if they could choose to be straight, they would because of the "bigotry and discrimination" they face as homosexuals... it doesn't hold water.

Burglars are justifiably discriminated against. If that was a discouraging factor to the extent that you believe, they wouldn't steal. Yet they choose to. People make decisions that disadvantage them in society all the time.

I'm not saying that being homosexual is a conscious choice, though in some cases I'm sure it comes close. I'm not even saying that homosexuals must consciously WANT to be homosexual. I'm saying, they're not BORN homosexual, they're CONDITIONED to be homosexual. There's a slight difference between choice and conditioning, and that's what many people fail to articulate, in my view.

There actually is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality has genetic roots. Homosexual males have been demonstrated to be more likely than you'd expect by chance to have homosexual brothers as well as homosexual maternal uncles and cousins on the mother's side (Hamer, et al, 1993). Near the tip of the Xq28 region of the sex chromosomes, researchers have found five identical markers shared by a high percentage of homosexual brothers. The evidence of a hereditary nature to homosexuality is clear, moreover, the pattern of incidence confirms this.

Now, having said that, one cannot simply say that because one has the "markers" for homosexuality, one will be homosexual upon maturation. These markers are more analogous to a recipe than a blueprint. Give an engineer a house and he can create a blueprint of it simply by close examination and perhaps by de-constructing it. A chef, however, cannot create a recipe simply by handing him a finished pastry. The parts cannot be closely examined enough or de-constructed to do it. This is what's involved in human maturation: a recipe of parts, instructions (DNA) and conditions. This is why twin studies don't readily show the homosexual trend.


reference

Hamer, D.H., et al (1993) A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321-327.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Secondly, your argument that if they could choose to be straight, they would because of the "bigotry and discrimination" they face as homosexuals... it doesn't hold water.

But there would be many less, probably so few that even the neo-cons wouldn't consider them a "problem" in society. It's been said before, there are gays who hate their homosexualty, and some even attempt suicide (supposedly 20%).

Originally posted by Spider AL
Burglars are justifiably discriminated against. If that was a discouraging factor to the extent that you believe, they wouldn't steal. Yet they choose to. People make decisions that disadvantage them in society all the time.

I'm not saying that being homosexual is a conscious choice, though in some cases I'm sure it comes close. I'm not even saying that homosexuals must consciously WANT to be homosexual. I'm saying, they're not BORN homosexual, they're CONDITIONED to be homosexual. There's a slight difference between choice and conditioning, and that's what many people fail to articulate, in my view.

Of course a good amount of gays have chosen the lifestyle. For example, bisexual girls seem to be considered "cool." But they're not really bi, they just do the girl-on-girl stuff for the attention from guys. But this is beside the point. :p

there are gay ANIMALS for god's sake. Tell me how animals, let's say penguins, are going to "choose" to be gay or not? Animals are not capable of thinking like this.

Animals don't have enough intellectual thought to be straight or gay. But humans do and they do choose to be gay. The only factual event of any organism being gay in there genes is a study on pig fetus's and that sometimes when two males/females are next to each other in the uterus, they acquire homosexual traits. So no humans are born gay, at least not yet.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
Animals don't have enough intellectual thought to be straight or gay.

...Which proves that gay animals did not choose to be gay, but just are by nature. This is true with humans as well.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
But humans do and they do choose to be gay.

Dude, are you even reading our posts? Please, (re)read the posts in this thread, and understand them, then post. Because you're repeating an argument that has already been shot down.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
So no humans are born gay, at least not yet.

They're not born heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. They're born asexual. It's when the hormones (however you spell it) kick in is when a sexuality surfaces.

I'm glad that Hidden One is posting, not simply for an opposing viewpoint (he really hasn't offered one), but for the demonstration on the fallacious reasoning that people are capable of. He apparently doesn't have a logical reason for disliking homosexuality beyond the "ickyness" factor that it presents to him.

But this is one of the two most prevailing predjudices against homosexuality and same-sex relationships: religious superstition and "yuck."

Ironically, the same was (and perhaps is) true of the predjudice that once existed toward blacks in the American south. Religion was used as an argument to continue their oppression and, once that stopped being valid, "yuck" took over. Blacks were referred to as "dirty," "lazy," "inferior," "diseased," etc. Popular depictions in movies and illustrated books showed big-lipped, pudgy, and dark individuals with bare feet and nappy hair. Rarely was the black person portrayed as clean, well-groomed, well-dressed, and "civilized."

Fascinating.

asexual

Asexuality is where you reproduce by budding, fusion, etc....


Ironically, the same was (and perhaps is) true of the predjudice that once existed toward blacks in the American south. Religion was used as an argument to continue their oppression and, once that stopped being valid, "yuck" took over. Blacks were referred to as "dirty," "lazy," "inferior," "diseased," etc. Popular depictions in movies and illustrated books showed big-lipped, pudgy, and dark individuals with bare feet and nappy hair. Rarely was the black person portrayed as clean, well-groomed, well-dressed, and "civilized."


I live in the heart of the south and there still is racisim like that in rural areas. And I extremely duslike racisim of any kind.


But I know how I was raised is a big part of my arguments and I appreciate everyone dicussing this. But I still dislike homosexuality of any kind and my stand on this is it's wrong. I hope we can continue this discussion orderly.



Thank You.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
Asexuality is where you reproduce by budding, fusion, etc....

From dictionary.com for asexual:

Lacking interest in or desire for sex.

Originally posted by The Hidden One
But I still dislike homosexuality of any kind and my stand on this is it's wrong.

Which proves that your only reasoning for considering homosexuality "wrong" is because you consider some elements of the sexuality "icky," because all your other arguments have been disproven. This is not a logical reasoning for considering something wrong.

Then what would be a logical reason?

Originally posted by The Hidden One
Then what would be a logical reason?

There isn't one.

This is issue is a very tough topic.
TK-8252 I applaud your arguments.



From dictionary.com for asexual:

Lacking interest in or desire for sex.


The second definiton says:

# Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.

Skinwalker:
There actually is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality has genetic roots. Homosexual males have been demonstrated to be more likely than you'd expect by chance to have homosexual brothers as well as homosexual maternal uncles and cousins on the mother's side (Hamer, et al, 1993).Heh. A followup of Hamer's own study on the X chromesome was performed in 1999 (Rice et al., 1999) which notably failed to achieve the same finding as Hamer.

Also another, comparable study done in the same year (Macke, J. P., N. Hu, et al. (1993). "Sequence Variation in the Androgen Receptor Gene is Not a Common Determinant of Male Sexual Orientation." American Journal of Human Genetics 53: 844-852.) "demonstrated" the lack of a genetic linkage to homosexual tendencies.

Therefore the study you cite is not what I'd call anything CLOSE to compelling evidence.

God, I hate scientists and their infernal bickering over trivia. Because the real point of this matter - as I've said time and time again - is that it's all an irrelevance to the real point: That abberant, perverse sexuality is being glorified and publicised by the mad liberals, and it's being villified and EQUALLY publicised by the bible-thumpers... and it's SO not important. At all. I wish they'd all shut up. :mad:

TK-8252:There isn't [a logical reason to deem homosexuality wrong] oneOh yes there is. Homosexual practices give rise to a greater vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases, because - not to put too fine a point on it - the places these folks put their genitals... ain't meant for genitals. They're full of masses of bacteria and soft areas more vulnerable to infection than complementary genitalia are.

That's what I call a compelling reason not to engage in homosexual humping.

As for platonic love between two members of the same sex... that's what we call friendship. :rolleyes:

But there would be many lessYou didn't qualify your blanket statement with the proviso "there would be many less" to begin with.

Originally posted by Spider AL
TK-8252:Oh yes there is. Homosexual practices give rise to a greater vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases, because - not to put too fine a point on it - the places these folks put their genitals... ain't meant for genitals. They're full of masses of bacteria and soft areas more vulnerable to infection than complementary genitalia are.

That's what I call a compelling reason not to engage in homosexual humping.

As for platonic love between two members of the same sex... that's what we call friendship. :rolleyes:

There's plenty of STD's to get through "traditional" sex, so I don't see why homosexuals are to blame here. Not to mention that some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex as well. Homosexuals are no more to blame than heterosexuals.

Originally posted by Spider AL
You didn't qualify your blanket statement with the proviso "there would be many less" to begin with.

And god knows I'm not allowed to add to my argument. ;)

And god knows I'm not allowed to add to my argument.
Exactly. The Bible says "Nor do we allow TK-8252 to open his mouth":cool: .

God, I hate scientists and their infernal bickering over trivia. Because the real point of this matter - as I've said time and time again - is that it's all an irrelevance to the real point: That abberant, perverse sexuality is being glorified and publicised by the mad liberals, and it's being villified and EQUALLY publicised by the bible-thumpers... and it's SO not important. At all. I wish they'd all shut up.
They will when they have the rights they should have had all along:).

There's plenty of STD's to get through "traditional" sex, so I don't see why homosexuals are to blame here.At at ATT! Don't start making things up, man. That's not good sportsmanship. I never said anything about "blame", nor anything about homosexuals as people. I never said that there were no STDs transmitted by hetero-standard intercourse, of course there are a plethora. I never made references to morals at all.

What I said before, I will say again: homosexual practices (note the word) can make one more at risk of infection of the genitals, and the areas into which the genitals are placed.

Areas, conspicuously not designed for genitals. QED.

And god knows I'm not allowed to add to my argument.You didn't really add to your argument so much as change it altogether mate, that was my point. ;)

---

They will when they have the rights they should have had all alongHa! Marriage isn't a moral social right, it's a stupid and outmoded religious trapping. Religions can marry whoever they want, whatever couple fits in with their ridiculous dogma. That's their prerogative.

The idea that homosexuals want to be involved with such an outmoded institution as religiously-stemmed marriage at all, is good evidence of the fact that many homosexuals are just as wierdly unfocussed and gullible as the bible-thumpers they oppose.

NOBODY should be "married". It means nothing.

And frankly, I've had quite enough of homosexual activists warbling on about how their "human rights are being trampled" every five minutes.

These activists have the right to shag each other however they want. Now it's time they stopped defining themselves by such a trivial thing as their sexual preference, and grew up. It's about time they started becoming as "enlightened" as they want everyone else to become.

Originally posted by Spider AL
These activists have the right to shag each other however they want. Sodomy is illegal.

Sodomy is illegal.Blanket statement, isn't it Sith. It depends where in the world you are. Let all the fanatics go and campaign in places where homosexuality actually IS illegal, and leave me and mine alone in our most enlightened nation. :D

About STD's....
The lead singer from Queen(he name escapes me) contracted AIDS from doing homosexual practices.

ntracted AIDS from doing homosexual practices.In case you weren't aware of this Hidden One, straight people can catch AIDS from each other, just like those evil gay folks can.

You should try to absorb more raw data in order to form more informed opinions.

Areas, conspicuously not designed for genitals.
But they are. The body is designed in such a way that homosexuals get a sexual pleasure out of inserting their genitals into the partner's anus, and so that heterosexuals and homosexuals alike get a sexual pleasure out of inserting their genitalia into the partner's mouth.

If anal or oral sex is so wrong, why does the body reward homosexuals who do it with sexual pleasure?

As for the increased risk of STDs, I can't answer that as I have no idea on the subject. Perhpaps you could enlighten me by posting a link?

Ha! Marriage isn't a moral social right, it's a stupid and outmoded religious trapping.
It was proven in an old thread called "Should same-sex marriage be allowed" that marriage pre-dates religion (especially Christianity) by houndreds of thousands of years.

But they are. The body is designed in such a way that homosexuals get a sexual pleasure...A common response to the point I made, and a total fallacy. Males theoretically gain sexual pleasure from shagging a hole in the ground. By your reasoning, that means that the human penis was designed to be shoved repeatedly into a lump of soil.

Of all the human orofices on a female body, only one has the specific purpose of accepting the penetration of a male sexual organ. NO orofices on the male body have been so designed.

If anal or oral sex is so wrongYou're using that word again. You're as bad as the christians; you feel the need to drag outmoded concepts of morality into everything. "Wrong"? Provided the act is consentual, it's no more "wrong" than shagging a loaf of bread, an apple pie, or your own excrement. But that doesn't mean that it's normal, or natural, or without increased risk of injury.

The anus for instance, no matter how well it's lubricated, is NOT designed to be shagged. Tearing occurs, leading to blood-borne infection.

Let's face it, perverted sexual activity is just that, it's using our sexual organs and sexual reactions in a way that is not directly related to the act of male-female genital copulation, which is what they were designed to promote. You can find a million ways to give yourself sexual pleasure. And many of them carry greater risk than regular meat n' potatoes sex.

Thus, logically, like promiscuous hetero sex with unknown partners, they should be avoided. They carry greater risk.

As for the increased risk of STDs, I can't answer that as I have no idea on the subject. Perhpaps you could enlighten me by posting a link?Well I've already answered your query, but hey:

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/TransmissionSexual/Q9131.html)

It was proven in an old thread called "Should same-sex marriage be allowed" that marriage pre-dates religionNot so. What could be termed "civil partnerships" or frankly, mating rituals, pre-date religion. But marriage in the sense we understand it is inextricably bound up with our religious practices.

And since we live in a modern society where men and women have equality under the law, we don't NEED civil parnerships or mating contracts anymore. And we DEFINITELY don't need religiously stemmed marriage. They're both outmoded concepts, but marriage is even more so due to its theistic connotations.

By campaigning for it, once again homosexual activists prove that they're just another bunch of stupid, human people, like the bible-bashers. No different. Just another group that wants in, and to have the same things as the "in" crowd has. Not enlightened at all.

Originally posted by Spider AL
A common response to the point I made, and a total fallacy. Males theoretically gain sexual pleasure from shagging a hole in the ground. By your reasoning, that means that the human penis was designed to be shoved repeatedly into a lump of soil.

I don't think you understand what he means.

People can derive pleasure from being penetrated anally. As in something is in their anus, and it gives them a sense of pleasure, just like when a female is vaginally penetrated.


Originally posted by Spider AL
Not so. What could be termed "civil partnerships" or frankly, mating rituals, pre-date religion. But marriage in the sense we understand it is inextricably bound up with our religious practices.
Wrong, marriage is a societal ritual. Religion has consumed it into it's own practice and making it a declaration of devotion to one another in the name of god. A holy union. This is not what a marriage originally is, this is just a religious marriage.

I don't think you understand what he means. I understood perfectly what he meant, read below.

People can derive pleasure from being penetrated anally. As in something is in their anus, and it gives them a sense of pleasure, just like when a female is vaginally penetrated.That's obvious. It's also not what eagle said:

"But they are. The body is designed in such a way that homosexuals get a sexual pleasure out of inserting their genitals into the partner's anus"

That was what he said. My response was precisely pertinent to it.

And curiously enough, my point also stands perfectly well against YOUR comment about people deriving pleasure from being penetrated anally as well as doing the penetrating. My point was and is that sexual pleasure can be derived from any number of abberant activities, but that doesn't make them normal, nor safe, and it doesn't mean that our parts were "designed" for those abberant purposes, which is what was asserted by Eagle. QED.

marriage is a societal ritual. Religion has consumed it into it's own practice and making it a declaration of devotion to one another in the name of god. A holy union. This is not what a marriage originally is, this is just a religious marriage.Wrong. "Marriage" was initially just mating. Then it became ritualised. Then it was subsumed into organised religion, and today it STILL has religious connotations, despite being societally recognised. Even those couples that are married in a registry office wear wedding rings, the symbolic trappings of ritualised "joining".

Religiously stemmed marriage is now outdated. Also, civil partnerships as a whole are outdated and unneccesary. I've said it before and I'll say it again, NOBODY should marry, let alone homosexuals, and I say that anyone who WANTS to marry isn't as forward-thinking nor as enlightened as certain homosexual activists claim to be.

That was what he said. My response was precisely pertinent to it.
Indeed it was, and I applaud the fact that you're using arguments that have not been used a million times before (such as Bible-arguments).

You say you'd posted the link before, but I failed to see it. Interesting read, that.

Religiously stemmed marriage is now outdated. Also, civil partnerships as a whole are outdated and unneccesary. I've said it before and I'll say it again, NOBODY should marry, let alone homosexuals, and I say that anyone who WANTS to marry isn't as forward-thinking nor as enlightened as certain homosexual activists claim to be.
I bet my next month's pay you see what's coming as a reply to that;):

First of all, isn't it best for the kid to grow up with two parents? Now, of course it isn't necessary my cousins grew up with parents - my aunt and uncle, as it were - without them being married. In fact, the oldest of my cousins was about 13 years old when her father finally proposed, which resulted in the kids getting to be present in their parents' marriage.

However, being married leads to government benefits, and shouldn't new parents and couples get some help on the way (as I said, I have a nasty feeling you're ready for this one, too;)).

I say that anyone who WANTS to marry isn't as forward-thinking nor as enlightened as certain homosexual activists claim to be.
Then at least I'm not lacking enlightenment in that field. I wouldn't marry or get someone pregnant no matter what you gave me.

Anyway, again, good to hear some new arguments.

In case you weren't aware of this Hidden One, straight people can catch AIDS from each other, just like those evil gay folks can.

I knew that, I was just backing you up.

First of all, isn't it best for the kid to grow up with two parents?I think it's important for children to interact with members of both genders at early ages simply to acclimatise them to human society. But do these role models have to be only two people i.e: a set of parents? I don't know for certain, and I don't think anyone does.

I like to think that my strong and classical upbringing has made me what I am today, but maybe I would have turned out just the same if I came from a single-parent broken home. Obviously I can't say for certain, though I'm pretty sure I'd be screwed up if I'd come from a less stable background.

What I CAN tell you for certain is that my parents didn't stay together for their entire lives because of their marriage certificate, they stayed together because they really did love each other. Marriage isn't necessary for that. Marriage is a piece of paper and a load of religious hokum. Love on the other hand is visceral, and it's real.

However, being married leads to government benefits, and shouldn't new parents and couples get some help on the way I don't believe couples should get any special help at all. In fact, since we have a global population problem, I think couples who breed should be penalised for adding to it. ;)

I hear that some people get pleasure from having their toes licked, which is surely now what god intended toes for. Should we make toe licking illegal, ban all toe suckers from adopting etc? After all, you can't reproduce by licking toes....

You know, some people even get pleasure from jumping out of planes... which god can't of intended or he would have given us wings (and jesus never jumped out of a plane!), so we should ban them from adopting too!
Not only that but it has a higher risk associated with it than "normal activities".

Its adam and eve, not adam and eve and a parachute!.

I hear that some people get pleasure from having their toes lickedUgh, must you be so graphic? :mad:

Should we make toe licking illegal, ban all toe suckers from adopting etc? After all, you can't reproduce by licking toes....Presuming your post is intended as a direct response to ME, Toms, once again you don't seem able to appreciate my perspective on the matter. I have not said once that homosexuality should be made illegal. I haven't said once that homosexuals should be banned from adopting. The question was asked "is there a logical reason to refrain from homosexuality" and I responded with the major logical reason: That homosexual practices involve higher risks of blood-borne infections than hetero-specific practices.

Furthermore you're not the first person in this thread to erroneously act as though I'm propounding christian ideas. People seem unable to remain objectively balanced on this issue. To the christians, you're either with them, or a commie pinko sinner. But likewise, to the pro-homosexual adoption contingent, you're either with them, or you're a bible-thumper. :rolleyes:

I think it's pretty revealing.

Ugh, must you be so graphic?
:D

Should we make toe licking illegal, ban all toe suckers from adopting etc? After all, you can't reproduce by licking toes....
What Spider Al said was that you shouldn't have anal sex because it wasn't good for you. Licking toes isn't necessarily bad for you (OK, maybe it is if the toe isn't clean:p), so it doesn't really fit.

I agree with you, though.

The question was asked "is there a logical reason to refrain from homosexuality" and I responded with the major logical reason: That homosexual practices involve higher risks of blood-borne infections than hetero-specific practices.
Which is a good argument, especially when it comes to anal sex with a man (as opposed to a woman), as shown by this chart (http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/stdbasics/stdchart.asp).

But I don't think you'll convince many lover boys into abstinence, though, as I suppose it's like drinking coke or alcohol or smoking or not exercising or whatever: You know it's not good for you, but you do it anyways.

Furthermore you're not the first person in this thread to erroneously act as though I'm propounding christian ideas. People seem unable to remain objectively balanced on this issue. To the christians, you're either with them, or a commie pinko sinner. But likewise, to the pro-homosexual adoption contingent, you're either with them, or you're a bible-thumper.
True, true.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I have not said once that homosexuality should be made illegal. I haven't said once that homosexuals should be banned from adopting. The question was asked "is there a logical reason to refrain from homosexuality" and I responded with the major logical reason: That homosexual practices involve higher risks of blood-borne infections than hetero-specific practices.

I don't think that Eagle or Toms were so much responding to you personally as they were the argument.

They are valid arguments, but I would point out that pathogen risks are more socially controlled than physical. HIV/AIDS is a disease that, with the right social responsibility, can be controlled and eliminated in spite of one's sexual orientation. In certain African nations, HIV/AIDS is more prevalent among the heterosexual population than the homosexual, making it former more risky than the latter, so the risk factors are relative to social responsibility.

So, in the end, there really aren't any logical reasons to oppose homosexuality. Only personal biases.

Originally posted by Spider AL
But likewise, to the pro-homosexual adoption contingent, you're either with them, or you're a bible-thumper.

I don't think that's the case at all. The issue of sexual orientation really isn't dependent upon pathogen risk factors. People, whether we argue they were born with predispositions or not, are homosexual. They do prefer their own gender over the opposite. Perhaps with some, it is merely sexual deviation or counter-culture, but it would be difficult to imagine the entire population of homosexuals falling into this category. Wouldn't that leave a genuine predisposition? And if so, would it be fair to require that they only seek relationships with opposing genders?

I don't think that Eagle or Toms were so much responding to you personally as they were the argument. Well there's no question that Eagle was, as he's been specifically addressing queries and rebuttals towards me. As for Toms, you can ask him. It certainly appeared that he was responding to my argument.

They are valid arguments, but I would point out that pathogen risks are more socially controlled than physical. HIV/AIDS is a disease that, with the right social responsibility, can be controlled and eliminated in spite of one's sexual orientation.If one's predelictions lead one to shag others up the bottom- as homosexuality does in the majority of cases- then there's no question that it has its inherent risks.

So, in the end, there really aren't any logical reasons to oppose homosexuality. Only personal biases.Your arguments don't show that. Common homosexual practices such as anal intercourse are high-risk activities. Therefore logically one should not engage in them, just as logically one should not engage in promiscuous hetero sex with immigrants from the African nations you just referred to. So yes, there is a sound logical reason not to engage in homosexual behaviour.

You might argue: "Well, celibate homosexuals aren't exposed to those risks"... but in my view if you don't go around having sex with other men, you're not engaging in homosexual behaviour, regardless of your sexual fantasies or mental attitudes. If you're not sexually active it's really pointless to call yourself either homosexual or heterosexual now, isn't it.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I don't believe couples should get any special help at all. In fact, since we have a global population problem, I think couples who breed should be penalised for adding to it. ;)

But there isn't really a problem with population. The problem isn't the number of people, it's how the wealth and power is restricted to those that are wealthy and powerful. The Malthusian idea that population increases resources decline isn't borne out. There is more than enough food and resources for the current population -indeed, the carrying capacity of the planet has been estimated to above 145 billion (Cohen, 1995).

The problem isn't the number of people, its the systems of wealth distribution and societal problems of gender and class discrimination as well as conflicts between nations.

But this might be an argument for another thread if you're interested. :cool:

Cohen, Joel (1995). Population Growth and the Earth's Carrying Capaity. Science, 269:341-346.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Well there's no question that Eagle was, as he's been specifically addressing queries and rebuttals towards me. As for Toms, you can ask him. It certainly appeared that he was responding to my argument.

I didn't see it that way. From my perspective, they were addressing your arguments, not you personally. I was trying to be subtle in recommending that you quit bickering about it, but now I'm saying let's stop. I'll not see the thread degenerate into an argument of how to argue. Too many threads have met their demise that way in the past.

Originally posted by Spider AL
If one's predelictions lead one to shag others up the bottom- as homosexuality does in the majority of cases- then there's no question that it has its inherent risks.

Agreed. No question. But from an anthropological perspective, I'd question whether those risks were caused by homosexuality or by social faults. Since none of the risks that anyone has mentioned are limited to the homosexual population, then the social cause is apparent. Heterosexuals are at risk to HIV/AIDS. That they don't contract it in the Western world at the rate at which they do in the African world, is suggestive that the reason is Western birth control practices such as condoms or methods that involve spermicide (which also kills the HIV/AIDS virus if memory serves correct).

Homosexuals have little need for birth control (obviously). Condoms in the United States are marketed primarily as a birth control device, rather than a pathogen prevention device.

In addition, your bias against homosexuality is subtle, but present in your vernacular: "shag others up the bottom," rather than "make love" or just "have sex." I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that there are two factors that I've seen in predjudice against homosexual behavior: religion and the "yuck" factor.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Your arguments don't show that. Common homosexual practices such as anal intercourse are high-risk activities.

Indeed. But when you remove the social factors of HIV/AIDS education, prevention, birth control norms, etc., then the risks aren't all that different between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Anal intercourse is really no more risky than vaginal intercourse when the condom isn't present in either population. Vaginal tearing and abrasion are present in inexperienced females just as anal tearing and abrasion is in males. Both orifaces become accustomed to the intercourse with experience.

If the condom were as prevalent in the homosexual community as it is in the heterosexual community, you would likely see more cases of HIV/AIDS among heterosexuals than you would homosexuals -but a lower number of cases across the board.

My arguments stand, they do demonstrate that there is no real logical argument to oppose homosexuality. The only valid argument against it is personal preference. I don't prefer it, so I don't do it. But I don't fault those that do. If one were to oppose homosexuality based on the increased health risks then one should also oppose sedintary lifestyle, high-fat diet, etc. as these can lead to heart disease, which affects far more people than those diseases associated with homosexual behavior.

The opposition I'm speaking of is not personal preference. I'm talking about the kind of opposition that leads to legislation, which is the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by Spider AL
So yes, there is a sound logical reason not to engage in homosexual behaviour.

And this is the point at which there is some problem in all the bickering if this is what you've been arguing all along. The thread is about the illogical move of the state of Texas to restrict the ability of homosexual couples to adopt children. Not whether it is safe to engage in homosexual behavior. This is the perspective that others have been arguing from.

Originally posted by Spider AL
If you're not sexually active it's really pointless to call yourself either homosexual or heterosexual now, isn't it.

Not being sexually active, one can still be aware of what gender one is attracted to. One can also be involved romatically with another without engaging in sex. Your argument here is quite fallacious (there's a fallatio joke there somewhere, but I'll refrain :) ).

There is more than enough food and resources for the current populationWhen some people talk about the "population problem" they're talking- as you seem to be- about the world's theoretical, best-case-scenario capacity to support us. This would seem to be to be a futile discussion. When I and others talk about the problem of human population growth, we're talking about a practical problem, impacting ecology, society and life-expectancy. It's akin to stating: "We can fit ten people into this Volkswagen Beetle." Well you might be able to fit ten people into the tiny car, but it wouldn't be very pleasant, or workable, or good for the life expectancy of either the people in the car, or the car itself. And very little in the way of other wildlife would be able to fit into the car at the same time.

The idea that the planet could support an astronomical number of human beings is belied by the fact that it's having difficulty supporting the CURRENT amount of people in existence. Unbiased experts estimate that it could be as little as thirty years before the greenland ice table is irrevocably melted, effectively ending the stable climate of our planet as we know it. Our industrial societies aren't moderating their use of fossil fuels, damaging the environment. Developing societies which have the largest population growth are also becoming more and more industrialised, without even the meagre and inadequate ecological safeguards that we have in place in our western law. Almost no societies in the world live off the land anymore, meaning that the massive population growth in the developing countries will cause the consumption of even larger amounts of fossil fuels, and even more encroachment upon the natural habitats of other species.

So when you say: "There is more than enough food", you seem to think that's a GOOD thing. It's not. Massive amounts of food being available means that population growth wouldn't bottom out or cease due to the necessary limiting factor of massive malnutrition. As for resources, our use of resources further damages our planet and therefore our life-expectancy.

So sure, if our society went through a massive change, and we all stopped consuming irreplacable resources, and we all stopped waging war on each other, and we all stopped causing the extinction of other species, and we all stopped causing the depletion of the rainforests, and we all enjoyed living in massively crowded conurbations... then yeah, I'd say you were right.

But we're not a species in isolation. So we do have a population problem.

From my perspective, they were addressing your arguments, not you personally.Exactly. And since Toms seemed to misunderstand my argument which he was directly addressing, I explained it more clearly. I don't see how anyone can call that bickering, and in the interests of peace and harmony, that is all I will say on the matter.

But from an anthropological perspective, I'd question whether those risks were caused by homosexuality or by social faults.Since homosexuality... and all sexuality is inextricably linked to social conditions, I don't consider that a question worth asking. For instance, it would have been far more risky to be homosexual in the late '70s than it would be to be homosexual now, because the awareness of STDs is higher nowadays.

In addition, your bias against homosexuality is subtle, but present in your vernacular: "shag others up the bottom," rather than "make love" or just "have sex." I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that there are two factors that I've seen in predjudice against homosexual behavior: religion and the "yuck" factor. Heh. I said earlier in the thread that pro-homosexual-adoption people are just as bad as christian people when it comes to "you're either with us or against us", didn't I. ;)

No, I'm not biased against homosexuals, nor am I homophobic, and since I've used similarly irreverant terms to describe rumpy-pumpy of a heterosexual nature since I was old enough to know what it is (and on this very forum too) your assertion that I'm singling homosexuals out, is invalid.

Anal intercourse is really no more risky than vaginal intercourse when the condom isn't present in either population. Vaginal tearing and abrasion are present in inexperienced females just as anal tearing and abrasion is in males.Incorrect, both technically and practically. Females are uniquely capable of producing natural lubricant for their... openings, when sexually aroused. Men aren't. And, the anus is quite simply MORE prone to tearing anyway, since it wasn't designed by nature to have large objects thrust vigorously therein. That's why statistically and effectively, anal intercourse is the highest risk.

My arguments stand, they do demonstrate that there is no real logical argument to oppose homosexuality.Nope, they don't. Once again I must reiterate, that since bottom-rumpy is part of the homosexual practice-standard, and since bottom-rumpy is high risk, there is a statistical and logically based reason for not engaging in such homosexual practices.

Yes, many homosexual couples are EXTREMELY conscientious, and use protection with aplomb. But so do some prostitutes. That doesn't alter the equally accepted fact that using prostitutes is a statistically dangerous thing to do. High risk sexual practices carry danger, just as fiddling with firearms carries danger, just as many activities carry danger. I choose to avoid the highest-risk activities. QED.

If one were to oppose homosexuality based on the increased health risks then one should also oppose sedintary lifestyle, high-fat diet, etc.I DO! Who in their right mind doesn't oppose being a couch-potato? :confused:

Not whether it is safe to engage in homosexual behavior. This is the perspective that others have been arguing from.Sorry, but did you miss The Hidden One asking for logically based reasons? He did, and I responded. I didn't suddenly run off on this tangent, it evolved naturally from the thread and people other than myself have seemed interested in pursuing it. If you want to cease the exploration of this tangent, you as a moderator have the power to do so... All you have to do is ask. But if you're going to, I'd prefer it if you split the thread off, as I find the specific discussion of risk to be fairly interesting.

Not being sexually active, one can still be aware of what gender one is attracted to.I noted that in my last post. I also noted however that as a practical matter, calling oneself a plushie when one has never touched a stuffed toy in one's life is futile, pointless and without meaning. ;) A man could scream "I'm homosexual" from the rooftops... but if he'd never shagged another man, it wouldn't really be true, any more than calling a man a rapist when he's only fantasised about a woman who won't go out with him, would be true.

One can also be involved romatically with another without engaging in sex.Well yeah, but I call a non-sexual affectionate relationship "a friendship", don't you?

Originally posted by Spider AL
A man could scream "I'm homosexual" from the rooftops... but if he'd never shagged another man, it wouldn't really be true

So you mean I'm not a heterosexual until I have sex with a female? :confused:

Well yeah, but I call a non-sexual affectionate relationship "a friendship", don't you?
No way. A girl can be my girlfriend without us having sex. In fact, I've had a girlfriend, but I'm still a virgin. So much for that.

So you mean I'm not a heterosexual until I have sex with a female?I didn't say that. I said as a practical matter, it's meaningless to say "I'm a heterosexual" until you've indulged in the rumpy with a wommmaaannnn. Meaningless. It's like saying "I'm a pilot" without ever having flown a plane. You can WANT to be a pilot, you can FEEL like a pilot, you can be DESTINED to be a pilot, but as a practical matter you need to have flown to really be a pilot.

That's why virgins are said to be "chaste" and untouched by sexuality. Innocent. If thinking was all it took... that'd be a different matter.

I mean, while we're virgins, and boy, we're all virgins for a damn long time whoever we are, all we CAN have is a fantasy of the perfect sexual partner. And fantasy doesn't make one into one thing or the other. You can fantasize about shagging a sheep, but you won't be guilty of bestiality unless you actually DO it.

It's when we finally shag the girl of our dreams that we become fulfilled sexual beings... although it's normally a bit of a disappointment at the time. But at least she SEEMS like the girl of our dreams when we're drunk... :D

No way. A girl can be my girlfriend without us having sex.Sure she can, because it's a social custom to date and call the girl you're going out with "your girlfriend". But read above for my reasoning on the matter.

@ Spider AL: I think your perspective on the population problem is a bit misdirected. It isn't population that is the problem, as has been demonstrated many times by many anthropologists and sociologists. It's easy for the neo-Malthusians to point the finger at population, since the correlations are easy to show. But correlation does not imply causation. And the causation of many of the population oriented problems the world faces now is related to capitalism and other economic strategies, colonialism, conflict, etc.

There is a definate carrying capacity to the planet, and I do agree that Cohen's estimates are best-case, but they're argued that way to demonstrate that there is a significant difference from the low-end estimates of 7+ billion.

But like I said, perhaps we should seek another thread.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Incorrect, both technically and practically. Females are uniquely capable of producing natural lubricant for their... openings, when sexually aroused. Men aren't. And, the anus is quite simply MORE prone to tearing anyway, since it wasn't designed by nature to have large objects thrust vigorously therein. That's why statistically and effectively, anal intercourse is the highest risk.

I was quite correct, both technically and practically. A female who is inexperienced often doesn't lubricate well at first. I can attest to this through first-hand participant observation in a lifelong study where n=a number that I'd rather not divulge. Moreover, it is a forensic expectation that allows medical practitioners to evaluate the probability of rape: the woman was not properly excited, therefore damage occurs. This damage is less prevalent among a woman who is properly excited, something that is more likely with an experienced female than an inexperienced.

Also, a woman who has reached menopause or is more experienced than average might also have difficulties with lubrication (again, participant observation - n=X). To deal with this, one of the partners typically provides lubrication ranging from saliva to KY.

With regard to anal intercourse, the average penis isn't that large, but the anus obviously adapts well enough to accept one -otherwise, it wouldn't occur; lubrication, while not natural to the anus, can be had easy enough for the participants. Tearing and abrasion is less of a problem with experience. The use of lubrication and the adaptive ability of the anus create a situation that is about as likely to be damaged. This is all basic anatomy/biology. But if you want to continue to claim otherwise, I'm open to seeing your sources since it's your claim that the anus is more prone to damage than the vagina during sex.

Originally posted by Spider AL
there is a statistical and logically based reason for not engaging in such homosexual practices.

Your risks are based on promiscuity. Not homosexual behavior. It isn't the nature of the sex that creates the risk, it's the promiscuity. If two people of the same gender have sex for the first time ever with each other, there risk of contracting HIV/AIDS is near zero assuming that neither has ever used IV drugs or received a transfusion. That risks exist among the homosexual population in the western world that exceed the heterosexual population only indicates that prevention is more successful among the heterosexuals. That, most likely, is because of the use of the condom as a means of contraceptive.

So it would be more concise of you to say, "there is a statistically and logically based reason for not engaging in promiscuous sexual practices."

Originally posted by Spider AL
High risk sexual practices carry danger, just as fiddling with firearms carries danger, just as many activities carry danger. I choose to avoid the highest-risk activities.

As I said, it isn't the homosexual behavior that is the risk, it is the promiscuity. As populations, homosexuals definitely lead heterosexuals in promiscuity, but when you consider the promiscuous segment of the heterosexual population, they are equally at risk. But the heterosexual is more likely to use contraception in the form of the condom. Promiscuous heterosexuals are just as likely to contract HIV as a homosexual.

Being homosexual in orientation, doesn't imply that there is sex. There are definite risks associated with engaging in homosexual acts because of the promiscuous nature of the population. That can't be denied. It's logical to oppose promiscuous, same-gender sex, but there is no logical reason to oppose homosexuality. One does not imply the other. A person doesn't appear to choose or decide what gender they are attracted to.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I DO! Who in their right mind doesn't oppose being a couch-potato?

Yes, but legislation to ban or make illegal the consumption of fast-food or refusal to excercise wouldn't stand a chance. And yet heart disease is a risk to the majority of the Texas population. The increased risks associated with homosexual behavior is limited to 2% of that population.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Sorry, but did you miss The Hidden One asking for logically based reasons? He did, and I responded.

Perhaps I did.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I didn't suddenly run off on this tangent, it evolved naturally from the thread and people other than myself have seemed interested in pursuing it.

I've no problem with a tangent discussion within a thread, but I'm not sure that all recognized where it diverged. I still assumed that the discussion was centered around a legislative act banning the ability of homosexual couples to adopt. Before diverging further, is there anyone who maintains that there is a logical reason why this should occur?

Originally posted by Spider AL
I noted that in my last post. I also noted however that as a practical matter, calling oneself a plushie when one has never touched a stuffed toy in one's life is futile, pointless and without meaning. ;) A man could scream "I'm homosexual" from the rooftops... but if he'd never shagged another man, it wouldn't really be true, any more than calling a man a rapist when he's only fantasised about a woman who won't go out with him, would be true.

I think you're creating a bit of a strawman here. That statement assumes that homosexuality is a behavior that is decided upon rather than a sexual orientation that the individual has no control over. Your responses to others that raised this objection are absurd. You really mean to say that two people cannot be romantically involved -feeling "love" for one another- and thus considering themselves to be in a heterosexual relationship? The "sex" prefix that follows hetero- or homo- isn't referring to a physical encounter so much as it is a gender preference. One can refer to the "sex" of a child without implying that the child engages in sexual contact.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Well yeah, but I call a non-sexual affectionate relationship "a friendship", don't you?

You might. Fortunately, most of the remainder of the world is able to become romantically involved with each other, even in a monogamous manner, without shagging each other. They engage in relationships of trust, respect, and intimacy that simply isn't shared with their pals at the pub.

I apparently missed this post a few pages back....

Originally posted by Spider AL
Heh. A followup of Hamer's own study on the X chromesome was performed in 1999 (Rice et al., 1999) which notably failed to achieve the same finding as Hamer.

In the Aug. 6 issue of the journal Science, Hamer states, "as noted by Rice et al., there is substantial evidence from family and twin studies, such as those reported by Pillard, Bailey and colleagues, that sexual orientation is genetically influenced." Hamer goes on to demonstrate that there is a modest but significant role of the Xq28 region in male sexual orientation, using Rice's own study.

Moreover, Hamer isn't saying that the Xq28 region is the cause of homosexuality, but rather an influencing factor. I only used this to indicate the significance of the idea that homosexuality might have influences that go beyond being a "perverted" or "aberrant" behavior that participants use merely to get their jollies.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Also another, comparable study done in the same year (Macke, J. P., N. Hu, et al. (1993). "Sequence Variation in the Androgen Receptor Gene is Not a Common Determinant of Male Sexual Orientation." American Journal of Human Genetics 53: 844-852.) "demonstrated" the lack of a genetic linkage to homosexual tendencies.

You're kidding right? This hardly concludes that Macke et al "demonstrated a lack of genetic linkage to homosexual tendencies." The title itself indicates their study failed to show that androgen receptors could not be used to show a determination of male sexual orientation. Reading their article confirms this.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Therefore the study you cite is not what I'd call anything CLOSE to compelling evidence.

I think you'd have to actually read the articles rather than googling them and reading secondary or tertiary criticisms of them. In addition, I'm not suggesting that there is compelling evidence. I thought I was clearer than that, so I apologize for my ambiguity. What I was suggesting is that there are some legitimate lines of study that show some indication of influencing factors in genetics to sexual orientation. If you look back at my post, I think you'll see a small passage about the recipe/blueprint analogy...

Originally posted by Spider AL
God, I hate scientists and their infernal bickering over trivia.
Because the real point of this matter - as I've said time and time again - is that it's all an irrelevance to the real point: That abberant, perverse sexuality is being glorified and publicised by the mad liberals, and it's being villified and EQUALLY publicised by the bible-thumpers... and it's SO not important. At all. I wish they'd all shut up. :mad:

If it was so irrelevant, it wouldn't be such a socially controversial subject. I'm assuming that you aren't that frustrated by the issue, since you've discussed it quite throroughly in this thread :)

But where you see "bickering" among scientists, I see genuine curiousity and desire to discover the truth. Where you see "abberant, perverse sexuality being glorified," I see a class of people being discriminated against. Where you see "mad liberals," I see normal people fed up with the oppression and hatred of fascists and religious nutters. But this is just my perspective.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

I think your perspective on the population problem is a bit misdirected. It isn't population that is the problem, as has been demonstrated many times by many anthropologists and sociologists. It's easy for the neo-Malthusians to point the finger at population, since the correlations are easy to show. But correlation does not imply causation.Of course population is the problem. Once again you disregard the practical reality of the human condition in favour of dry best-case scenarios: Our society is intractable. It's not going to change to make our massive population growth "alright".

If you throw two wild animals into a bag together, you don't blame their "social maladjustment" for the fact that they rip each other to shreds. No, you blame the fact that you threw them into the bag together. Their nature was not the "problem", your actions were the "problem". Likewise blaming social issues for the fact that our massive population problem is ripping the natural world to shreds and ensuring our doom along with it... is meaningless.

Population growth can be directly affected, by war, by releasing diseases into the population, by compulsory sterilisation,.. All methods that I advocate, by the way. :D Society cannot be changed so easily.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

A female who is inexperienced often doesn't lubricate well at first.And men, experienced or inexperienced... don't naturally lubricate at all. So once again we see that anal intercourse is naturally, inherently riskier under all circumstances. Even if artificial lubricant is used on the anus, it can equally well be used on the vagina so the formula is:

Anus + KY = lubricated

Vagina + Natural lubricant + KY = better lubricated.

Anus loses, flawless victory.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

With regard to anal intercourse, the average penis isn't that large, but the anus obviously adapts well enough to accept one -otherwise, it wouldn't occurWhat? :confused: The anus will theoretically stretch to accomodate a beach-ball. That doesn't mean that shoving a beach ball into your bottom is in any way "okay". It's not designed to accomodate such an object, and therefore its structural tolerances are not high enough to safely do so.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

The use of lubrication and the adaptive ability of the anus create a situation that is about as likely to be damaged. This is all basic anatomy/biology.As likely to be damaged... as the vagina? Surely you're joking. I've stated quite clearly previously the "basic anatomy" that the rectal walls are both thinner and less elastic than vaginal walls. That is why epidemiologists discussing the spread of severe STDs refer specifically to anal sex as "the highest risk".

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

But if you want to continue to claim otherwise, I'm open to seeing your sources since it's your claim that the anus is more prone to damage than the vagina during sex.
Well this is pretty basic stuff, Skin. You'll be asking for my "sources" to confirm my assertion that the sky is blue, next. :D

Seriously, here are some mentions:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ydr5GltbVRkJ:www.howsthat.co.uk/03/07/030705.htm+&hl=en)
"... unprotected anal intercourse poses a greater risk of transmission than any other sexual activity. The tissue inside the anus is much softer than vaginal tissue and it is also less elastic and less well lubricated. Therefore, anal tissue is more prone to tearing during intercourse: this increases the risk of bleeding and therefore provides more opportunity for viral transmission.
..."

http://www.stdservices.on.net/std/hiv-aids/details.htm)
"... Anal intercourse without a condom is the highest risk sexual activity because the rectal lining is fragile and prone to tearing, thus allowing easy access for infected blood and semen. ..."

http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=2700http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=2700)
"... Unprotected anal sex is one of the high risk behaviors associated with HIV/AIDS. The anus has a more fragile lining than the vagina that can tear very easily. ..."

Here I have shown that under the same conditions, the anus and the vagina do NOT have the same structural tolerances. I think therefore, on the topic of whether anal sex is inherently more risky than other forms of copulation... The day is mine.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Your risks are based on promiscuity. Not homosexual behavior. It isn't the nature of the sex that creates the risk, it's the promiscuity.Wrong.

A man with HIV has consentual unprotected vaginal intercourse with a woman who does not have HIV. They use KY jelly.

A man with HIV has consentual unprotected anal sex with another man who does not have HIV. They use KY jelly.

Patently, the latter has a greater chance of infecting his partner. The number of other partners either of them have had has no bearing on this simple comparison. My statements have in NO WAY been based on the "promiscuity" angle, quite deliberately so I might add. QED.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Promiscuous heterosexuals are just as likely to contract HIV as a homosexual.
I'm sorry but this statement is just UTTERLY wrong, because it is patently without meaning.

A promiscuous heterosexual who does not use contraception has vaginal intercourse once with... twenty different women in the space of a month.

A promiscuous homosexual who does not use contraception has anal intercourse once with twenty different men in the space of a month.

Here we have something with MEANING. Here we see the obvious, that the risk of blood-borne infection is greater in the latter case.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Being homosexual in orientation, doesn't imply that there is sex.Once again, fantasising about a something in your HEAD... has little or no meaning in the real world. You can fantasise about a beanbag, but unless you actually hump said beanbag, it is an entire irrelevance. Celibate people have no impact on the sexual portion of society. ;)

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

There are definite risks associated with engaging in homosexual acts because of the promiscuous nature of the population. That can't be denied.Glad you've added the culturally intrenched promiscuity angle. I couldn't, lest I be accused of homophobic generalisations. ;) Yes, presuming your statement that homosexual culture is inherently more promiscuous than hetero culture is correct... the risk of being drawn into it is another logical reason not to engage in homosexual practices.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Yes, but legislation to ban or make illegal the consumption of fast-food or refusal to excercise wouldn't stand a chance.Maybe you're labouring under the misapprehension that I've lobbied to "ban" homosexual practices? I haven't. I've merely stated the fact that those engaging in homosexual practices are taking greater risks. It's a logical reason not to engage in homosexual practices, therefore.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

That statement assumes that homosexuality is a behavior that is decided upon rather than a sexual orientation that the individual has no control over.Well, engaging in homosexual practices IS a matter of choice. And as I said before, if one were to merely be a homosexual in one's HEAD... then one's sexuality wouldn't be a practical issue. Simply wouldn't.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Your responses to others that raised this objection are absurd. You really mean to say that two people cannot be romantically involved -feeling "love" for one another- and thus considering themselves to be in a heterosexual relationship?Friends feel love for one another. What separates a sexual relationship from a friendship? Why, sex of course! Sexual relationships will at one point or another, involve sexual activity of some sort. Love has nothing to do with sexuality. One loves one's family, one's dog... one does not necessarily HUMP the dog. Biologically speaking, the romantic love between partners that you are referring to is a prelude to- or a result of- mating, that is all.

I think you're tied up with social conventions and terminology, Skin. I can call any girl "my girlfriend". Any girl could call me "her boyfriend". I can THINK of any girl as "my girlfriend," any girl could THINK of me as "her boyfriend". But mating or the pursuit of mating is what defines these relationships as "sexual". The fact that the concept of romance has become socially divorced from mating... is a cerebral topic entirely unrelated to sex. And sexuality without the act of sex is merely fantasy.

Plus, something I failed to add earlier: If all you've ever done is fantasise about something, you have no idea whether you'll enjoy the reality or not. Hetero people have experimented with homosexuality, realised it's not for them, and remained firmly hetero until their demise. And vice-versa. So if even an instance of ACTUAL SEX isn't enough to define one's sexuality, how much less does fantasy define one's sexuality?

A lot less, that's how much.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

I'm not suggesting that there is compelling evidence.I never said you suggested so. You said specifically: "There actually is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality has genetic roots." I showed that that evidence was NOT compelling. It was important to make the point, because you yourself did not include any mention of the comparable evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

In the Aug. 6 issue of the journal Science, Hamer states, "as noted by Rice et al., there is substantial evidence from family and twin studies, such as those reported by Pillard, Bailey and colleagues, that sexual orientation is genetically influenced."
Since Bailey did not examine genetic sequences, Hamer's remark is somewhat irrelevant to the point of whether Rice's study was a valid recreation of Hamer's, isn't it. . ;) The point is that Hamer's study was recreated independently and this recreation did not support his results. Thus, evidence which is NOT compelling. Evidence... with a NEGATIVE value of compelling. "-compelling".

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

I think you'd have to actually read the articles rather than googling them and reading secondary or tertiary criticisms of them.Heh, please debate on the merits of my points, rather than trying to sidetrack the discussion by questioning my methods of acquiring the data from which I formulate the points. :p

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

If it was so irrelevant, it wouldn't be such a socially controversial subject.Of course it would, utterly trivial foolishness is considered by the majority of society to be of the most vital importance. Soap operas, reality TV shows, fashion, body-image... all the most meaningless tosh in society is simultaneously the most thought-about, read-about and talked-about.

Let's face it, sexual orientation is a trivial thing compared to the problems people face every day. And the problems we face as a race. But just as we can spend hours upon hours discussing... a movie, we can also discuss this issue. The trouble is some people just take it all too seriously, the homosexual activists, the bible-belt, and a lot of people in between genuinely think that this issue is in some way vital. Clearly they are incorrect. Their time would be better spent campaigning for ecological policy change rather than campaigning for their right to molest their pet sheep. :D

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

I'm assuming that you aren't that frustrated by the issue, since you've discussed it quite throroughly in this threadUh-uh, doesn't follow. I don't consider Star Wars to be the most important thing in the world... yet I'm willing to discuss it.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

But where you see "bickering" among scientists, I see genuine curiousity and desire to discover the truth.... and bickering. Come now, you must admit that the scientific community is rife with petty self-interest. The trouble is that science is their career, and office politics infects all workplaces now, doesn't it.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Where you see "abberant, perverse sexuality being glorified," I see a class of people being discriminated against.
Yeah, the poor old plushies are oppressed, they can't legally marry their "tickle-me-Elmo".

Please. Those who have (harmless) sexual perversions in MY country don't know what discrimination IS. They can come back and talk to me about discrimination when their vote is taken away, or they're shipped off to Australia or something. I'm really not concerned about people's sexual perversions, they aren't concerned about mine, let's keep it that way and find something more vital to spend our time lobbying for. Marriage is outmoded anyway, campaigning for the right to marriage is like campaigning for the right to wear a medieval suit of armour.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Where you see "mad liberals," I see normal people fed up with the oppression and hatred of fascists and religious nutters.Liberalism can be just as mad as right-wing authoritarianism, Skin. Anyone who thinks it can't is naive. Conservatives take away the jobs of the poor and the immigrants... but liberalism pushed too far takes away the jobs of the middle class and the indigenous, to GIVE to the poor and immigrants. I saw it first hand in the UK. Reverse discrimination leading to a drop in the quality of employees and services, qualified people passed over in favour of unqualified- in some cases illiterate- people. If political culture is extreme in ANY way, someone suffers. It's an enormous see-saw of meaninglessness, where people trade places in jobs and class, over and over and over and instead of improving things for EVERYONE, the politicians give concessions to each pressure group IN TURN... and so they never have to spend too much money. ;)

It's the obsession people have with trivial and self-indulgent issues- such as the gay marriage issue- that allows us to be controlled by a malevolent ruling class that remains unaffected by all of our empassioned social "upheaval".

As for adoption, as previously stated there's no logical or scientific reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt... provided they meet the same stringent requirements as hetero couples, that is.