Homosexuality: Unnatural?

[GhostofTsenzei]

Hey, if it was what God wanted, life or God would find a way.

There is always a-sexual reproduction, and/or hermaphrodites.

[Chris2005]

A lot of people in our society are trying to convince us how "normal" is to be homosexual and how normal this kind of people are. Setting aside my religious beliefs (here homosexuality is a ticket to Hell, but most of the homosexual people or their supporters whom I've shown verses from the Bible or Quran said either that these are not the word of God or that they don't believe in a God, so there's no point to use religion to prove something to someone who does not believe in it or take from it only what he likes), I'd only go on the scientific/logical evidence.
First of all, the word "normal" is derived from "norm", i.e. something typical, standardized. So, by this deffinition, homosexuals are not normal. But neither am I normal as a person who speaks several foreign languages or writes poetry.
So, to get deeper in the problem, let's start with the key point that makes homosexuals different: the sex orientation.
So, what is sex? Sex is a way designed by God (or Nature, for non believeres) to increase the adaptability and variery of a species to its environement. By using genes from two individuals to create a third one, there's a much better chance that the new individual will adapt well to the environement. As the organisms evolved, sex also evolved. From the simple chemical act between two individuals, it became a more complex activity. Besides the gene transmission, sex started to regulate the hormonal activity of individuals. This was necessary in order to keep the two opposite sex individuals together for longer periods of time. Why was this necessary? Because in a family, the new individual has a better chance to be raised in secure conditions and be TAUGHT the knowledge/experience of the parents. At superior levels in the animal hierarchy, the number of the offspring decreases, but the parents spend a longer period of time together. The higher we climb this scale, the more this "staying together" gets closer to love and it becomes love for humans.
A third thing connected with sex (but still unproven scientifically completely) is the fact that the fluid/energy exchange during the sexual acti with the opposite sex partner can improve the health of both and increase their longevity (it may be another mechanism from nature, because a couple who lives longer can rise better and more offspring and teach them more from their experience, for further reading I recommend any book by Mantak Chia about Daoist sex).
Going now back to homosexuality: it's obvious that the reproductive use does not exist here. One can argue that with the new advances of science one will be able to create new beings from two same-sex partners. The answer is: one can't use homosexual sex for it, this can only be done in a laboratory, so one can create a new human being from any combination of Earth people without involving sex. So, this option fails 100% if we talk about homosexuality.
As one can't create an offspring, there is no natural way to keep a homosexual couple together. And statistically, most homosexuals have an unbelievable high promiscuity, having sex with hundreds of partners (jus check any statistics about AIDS or other deseases spread - any sexually transmitted disease has a higher incidence among homosexual groups). Obviously, there is no hormonal balancing in homosexual sex as it is in the heterosexual.
Yet, one can see a use of homosexuality (because evrything that exits in nature has a use): if a species becomes too numerous, studies have shown that homosexuality may increase. Why? Just in order to regulate its number. Some individuals may have this behaviour in order to avoid creating offspring. Thei are the lower quality genes that are not neded for the species survival, and will be sacrificed for the well being of the better adapted individuals, avoiding the overpopulation. It is a mechanism triggered when the epidemics can't regulate the species.
In conclusion: I can totally justify my heterosexual behaviour but never met a homosexual who could do this about his/her homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality is a sickness meant to regulate the numbers of a species then epidemics fail to clean it. It is another natural way that eliminates the bad genes and allows to the better ones a good chance to reproduce.
As much as they want to be considered 100% normal, no sane person can accept a homosexual like this, for the very reason one can't accept as sane an insane person. Someone who cannot justify their actions, can't be 100% rational and sane. And the fact they don't accept being called "sick" is so much more a prove they are insane (who'd dare to call an insane person insane in face without the risk of being directly attacked?). From my personal experience: every time I tried on the internet a rational discussion about homosexuality, I was directly attacked with verbal abuse bu some homosexuals who couldn't give me any reasonable argument to support their behaviour, and their behaviour itself just proved my conclusions as true: homosexuality is a disease that should be TREATED and NOT ACCEPTED AS NORMAL BEHAVIOUR. I'd like to see any homosexual person who can bring me any RATIONAL arguments to justify his/her behaviour.
For people who think they were born with the wrong sex, the nowdays medicine allows sex change operations, so they can do that and become normal people, I see nothing wong with it and also no religion sees anything wrong with that (fo example, in Iran, seen as a bastion of Islamic fundamentalism by many, sex change operations are legal and the people born with the wrong sex are helped to fix this error).
I'm open to any discussion on this topic, with the warning that any personal attacks, injurious comments and irrational replies will be deleted. Thank you for the patience of reading this, and I hope that these few lines may enlighten a few people and make them think twice when they want to accept homosexuals as "sane" persons. I don't see any reason to offer privileges to insane people who also have zero tolerance for any cultural values which don't support their promiscuity.

Well, the whole hell and pain deal, doesn't make any sense, as one needs to have a central nervous system to feel real pain.

Well, I this wasn't really about being "normal" because we all have different opinions on what is normal, but I don't think people have the right to make my life choices, based on their religious beliefs, which is exactly what is going on with the whole gay rights thing, all the hate and stuff, is all shrouded in religious beliefs.

[Freeski]

Or a bundle of sticks.

I think they have to be tied together, too.

[N.E.P.]

Not unless their hormones were messed-up in the womb, which is possible and even likely, depending on the mother's dietary habits and exposure to various plastics, petrochemicals and food additives. Soy is a huge factor in screwing up endocrine functions in both males and females. And then there's the brain-mangling via Hellywood and the music industry.

My apologies if these things have already been mentioned... I haven't read the whole thread.  

Not sure if it's all hormonal related. I remember a gay kid I went to school with was shaving when he was 13 and by the time we graduated high school he looked like he was a 30 year old man. He still talked and acted a little effeminate. Also how do you explain big strong NFL,MLB, NHL and NBA players that are gay. You definitely can't be low on testosterone if you are a pro athlete.  I'm sure that hormones play a part in some cases but I think some cases it's just in the persons genes to like the same sex.

[_CREATIONIST_]

And what the hell is the "LBGTQ community"?! Some club for fags to have mass orgies?  

.

pretty much

Yea, if you knew that humans are animals, and other species of animals are also homosexual.

What does that have to do with anything? We are humans and animals are animals. Animal behavior doesn't dictate human behavior because we didnt come from animals. Homosexuality is not natural PERIOD.

[Chris2005]

There is always a-sexual reproduction, and/or hermaphrodites.

Yea, hermaphrodites are born that way, so why can't LGBT's be the same way.

[Chris2005]

.

pretty much

What does that have to do with anything? We are humans and animals are animals. Animal behavior doesn't dictate human behavior because we didnt come from animals. Homosexuality is not natural PERIOD.

Einstein, humans are animals, we are mammals, and mammals are animals, did you even take biology and/or related courses?

[Chris2005]

I think they have to be tied together, too.

This is why people like you aren't taken seriously.

[Nozoned]

I think anyone that believes you can be recruited in to homosexuality is probably in the closet themselves. I'm straight and there isn't now nor have there ever been any way to convince me to be attracted to men. Regardless of opinions, a lot of the posts here just scream of immaturity, ignorance, prejudice and pure stupidity.

@OP: This is far from the type of forum that issues like this should be discussed. You know just as well as I do the type of responses you would receive. Making a thread like this is just fishing for an argument and in no way could have any positive effect on the major problems our world faces.

[Harconen]

Homosexuality is a learnable skill. That is a conclusion reached by most people who talk about the heavily condemned vice in an otherwise christian country. Here are my reasons, why I think that homosexuality is no way related to a nature or genes but a learned habit:

1. If homosexuality was natural or due to the genes, then why would the homosexuality activists need to recruit youth in their ranks?

2. A female gay person, a man acting like a woman in a gay relationship, does need to continuously learn how to talk, walk and do all the girly stuff. If it was all natural, then this would automatically come to this gay man and there would be no need to practice anything.

3. Homosexuality would by now be formally accepted as a natural form of relationship or procreation (?). This is a practice that’s thousands of years old that is yet to be formally accepted anywhere.

4. However engages in a gay relationship would not be shy about it.

5. Homosexuality would be an acceptable activity in God’s sight. It would no way be condemned in the Bible or Quran. I actually do not know of any religious book, as old as the two above, that promotes this activity.

6. If homosexuality was natural, we would have a product out of the union of gay relationship, say a child or something in that line.

I could still come up with more reasons why this is a very unnatural practice but I have left space for your contribution as well. The amazing thing is that whoever is involved in the practice knows it deep down that whatever they are involved in is in no way natural.

[Chris2005]

I think anyone that believes you can be recruited in to homosexuality is probably in the closet themselves. I'm straight and there isn't now nor have there ever been any way to convince me to be attracted to men. Regardless of opinions, a lot of the posts here just scream of immaturity, ignorance, prejudice and pure stupidity.

@OP: This is far from the type of forum that issues like this should be discussed. You know just as well as I do the type of responses you would receive. Making a thread like this is just fishing for an argument and in no way could have any positive effect on the major problems our world faces.

Well, I posted it in the general discussion for that reason, it really doesn't have any other place on this forum, and I felt like discussing it, but it like always get's over run by immature people, who couldn't have a decent conversation if they tried.

[Freeski]

There is always a-sexual reproduction, and/or hermaphrodites.

Please God no!

[_CREATIONIST_]

Genius humans are animals, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

Animals are inferior creatures compared to humans. Humans aren't animals, To say we are is the biggest load of nonesence I've ever heard. How does it feel you have fallen right into the trap that The eugenicists set?

homosexuality = NWO and it is condemned in the bible.

[Freeski]

This is why people like you aren't taken seriously.

Well that explains a lot.

[GhostofTsenzei]

(Assuming the primary purpose of sex is to keep the species alive)

We could always just go back to the "rib out" method used in the Garden of Eden.  However, it comes to mind that if that it would be an odd evolution to make oral, anal, foreplay, etc., all considered part of sex, enjoyable if it's only about reproduction.

I do, however, find it interesting in my own way, that reproduction is assumed to be the primary purpose.  That could very well have been a "happy" accident.  If, on the other hand, it was by design, that that begs the question of why homosexuality, if it is condemned by the designer, persists as a part of the natural order for most animals (not to mention flowering plants).  That's just a tangent, I don't judge it either way.  It simply remains that homosexuality is part of the natural order.  Whether it's "good" or "evil" however... I don't think simply being attracted to someone of the same sex is evil or a sin.

Sodomy may be a sin or "evil."  Sex of any other kind with the same gender may be a sin or "evil."  I maintain my agnostic view on that topic.  Certainly, rape is evil and a sin.  But I can't quite bring myself to condemn consenting adults, or even consenting teens of the age of consent (where the age of consent is actually reasonable), on the sole basis that it likely won't produce offspring.

[Chris2005]

Homosexuality is a learnable skill. That is a conclusion reached by most people who talk about the heavily condemned vice in an otherwise christian country. Here are my reasons, why I think that homosexuality is no way related to a nature or genes but a learned habit:

1. If homosexuality was natural or due to the genes, then why would the homosexuality activists need to recruit youth in their ranks?

2. A female gay person, a man acting like a woman in a gay relationship, does need to continuously learn how to talk, walk and do all the girly stuff. If it was all natural, then this would automatically come to this gay man and there would be no need to practice anything.

3. Homosexuality would by now be formally accepted as a natural form of relationship or procreation (?). This is a practice that’s thousands of years old that is yet to be formally accepted anywhere.

4. However engages in a gay relationship would not be shy about it.

5. Homosexuality would be an acceptable activity in God’s sight. It would no way be condemned in the Bible or Quran. I actually do not know of any religious book, as old as the two above, that promotes this activity.

6. If homosexuality was natural, we would have a product out of the union of gay relationship, say a child or something in that line.

I could still come up with more reasons why this is a very unnatural practice but I have left space for your contribution as well. The amazing thing is that whoever is involved in the practice knows it deep down that whatever they are involved in is in no way natural.

1.) I don't see any recruiting going on, do you see something the rest of world doesn't?

2.) Not really, I have seen many gay couples who are male, and they both act male, and do just fine, you are assuming stuff, being gay doesn't mean you have to be a certain way.

3.) It's not formally accepted, because of religious fundamentalists.

4.) Most homosexuals don't express it, because of the constant hatred towards them, would you express yourself, if you did something that people hated?

5.) Well, we all know that religion is a joke to control people, it is its own form of mind control.

6.) Not all heterosexual couples can produce a child, sometimes for natural reasons.

[Nozoned]

Animals are inferior creatures compared to humans. Humans aren't animals, To say we are is the biggest load of nonesence I've ever heard. How does it feel you have fallen right into the trap that The eugenicists set?

homosexuality = NWO and it is condemned in the bible.

It's a fact, humans are animals. Not trying to be offensive, but that's elementary school level education.

[Chris2005]

Please God no!

lol, again a comment that doesn't make people take you seriously, as it does occur in nature.

[GhostofTsenzei]

I think they have to be tied together, too.

I think that's actually implied by "bundle."  Not that it's terribly important.

It is, however, the origin of why cigarettes are called "fags."  My theory was that cigs being called fags was the origin of why homosexuals (specifically male) were also called fags, in that similar mechanics are sometimes employed on both objects.  I'm probably wrong.

[Harconen]

The study of nature clearly shows that the reason for sex is to reproduce the species.
Homosexual behavior is very very rare in nature ,so it's not the norm in fact It's abnormal. Also male and female sex organs match up or go to gather ,Male and male do not, nor do female and female ,nor can they repoduce naturaly.
If you put 100 homosexuals on a island for 150 years with everything they needed to live , when you came back there would be no homosexuals alive.This would hold true for Lesbians too.
So I have to conclude that it's against Nature to be homosexual or a lesbian .It's a perversion of the natural act of reproduction.

[Chris2005]

Animals are inferior creatures compared to humans. Humans aren't animals, To say we are is the biggest load of nonesence I've ever heard. How does it feel you have fallen right into the trap that The eugenicists set?

homosexuality = NWO and it is condemned in the bible.

Animals are inferior creatures compared to humans.

lol, we aren't animals, as humans are, then what are we, aliens?

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa.

Out of the whole Bible, homosexuality is mentioned in less than 1% of the whole Bible.

[GhostofTsenzei]

Animals are inferior creatures compared to humans. Humans aren't animals, To say we are is the biggest load of nonesence I've ever heard. How does it feel you have fallen right into the trap that The eugenicists set?

In your opinion.

I agree that humans are humans.  However, humans are still animals.  Scientifically speaking.  Whether we're "superior" or not is another debate.

[Chris2005]

The study of nature clearly shows that the reason for sex is to reproduce the species.
Homosexual behavior is very very rare in nature ,so it's not the norm in fact It's abnormal. Also male and female sex organs match up or go to gather ,Male and male do not, nor do female and female ,nor can they repoduce naturaly.
If you put 100 homosexuals on a island for 150 years with everything they needed to live , when you came back there would be no homosexuals alive.This would hold true for Lesbians too.
So I have to conclude that it's against Nature to be homosexual or a lesbian .It's a perversion of the natural act of reproduction.

So is the inability of heterosexuals to have children, they would have the the same fate.

[Freeski]

However, it comes to mind that if that it would be an odd evolution to make oral, anal, foreplay, etc., all considered part of sex, enjoyable if it's only about reproduction.

That is a mistake, IMO, to think that just because the non-reproductively-intentioned sex acts are not the "primary purpose", that they're somehow no longer of any value whatsoever.

[Chris2005]

That is a mistake, IMO, to think that just because the non-reproductively-intentioned sex acts are not the "primary purpose", that they're somehow no longer of any value whatsoever.

Well, by all your standards, vaginal sex is the only sexual activity needed to reproduce, so all the other acts become useless.

[Waipio]

Quote from: Monkeypox on: Today at 01:52:24 PM »

I'm not gay, but from what I've learned I believe that people are  born homosexual.   I don't think you can "recruit"  people into becoming gay through the use of an ad campaign or propaganda.  If you're not attracted to the same sex, then you never will be.

I would hope that everyone knows that some people are born homosexual. Their parents know this. I was born heterosexual btw.
(Same goes for Bisexuals and other aberrations)
 
Is it  "normal" ?  Probably seems normal  to anyone born  homosexual. For a while at least. But then they usually get hammered and damaged by...... by what? ....by people who apparently believe it is "normal" to  hammer and damage people who are born homosexual.  Normal may be overrated.

I do think that due to new environmental / cultural factors,  people today are  adopting  the homosexual lifestyle even if they are not  born homosexual.

I agree that there is a NWO agenda behind  those new factors, (similar to the NWO playing midwife to feminism), associated with population control.

That association with population control mentioned is in this article someone posted the other day. Thank you to that member.

The information comes from an Interview by Randy Engel, Director of the US Coalition for Life, with Dr. Dunegan in 1988.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/nobarbarians1.htm
http://www.sweetliberty.org/nobarbarians2.htm
http://www.sweetliberty.org/nobarbarians3.htm

This has to do with way more than medicine -- it deals with the entire beast system of the New World Order...

[Freeski]

The study of nature clearly shows that the reason for sex is to reproduce the species.
Homosexual behavior is very very rare in nature ,so it's not the norm in fact It's abnormal. Also male and female sex organs match up or go to gather ,Male and male do not, nor do female and female ,nor can they repoduce naturaly.
If you put 100 homosexuals on a island for 150 years with everything they needed to live , when you came back there would be no homosexuals alive.This would hold true for Lesbians too.
So I have to conclude that it's against Nature to be homosexual or a lesbian .It's a perversion of the natural act of reproduction.

Basically well said except for the perversion part. Perversion implies ill intent when it's really just a fluke of nature. And yes, I also realize it can be taught through conditioning.

[GhostofTsenzei]

That is a mistake, IMO, to think that just because the non-reproductively-intentioned sex acts are not the "primary purpose", that they're somehow no longer of any value whatsoever.

Fair enough, but then wouldn't homosexuality have it's own value by that argument?

[Freeski]

Well, by all your standards, vaginal sex is the only sexual activity needed to reproduce, so all the other acts become useless.

?

[Freeski]

I think that's actually implied by "bundle."  Not that it's terribly important.

Yeah, but it exonerates you!

[Harconen]

So is the inability of heterosexuals to have children, they would have the the same fate.

Yup, that inability is rare and not normal and natural, it is defect as homosexuality is also defect of normal natural person.

[Freeski]

Fair enough, but then wouldn't homosexuality have it's own value by that argument?

Sure, but it's still an abberation as mentioned above.

[Freeski]

PS - Just because it's a mistake, doesn't mean gay people don't deserve the same respect as any other living creature. You can separate the factual aspects from the emotional in this discussion.

[Chris2005]

?

Vaginal sex, aka sex via male and female having vaginal sex, is the only form of reproduction, so oral, anal, etc. forms are all useless, whether you are straight, gay, or bisexuals.

[Chris2005]

PS - Just because it's a mistake, doesn't mean gay people don't deserve the same respect as any other living creature. You can separate the factual aspects from the emotional in this discussion.

Yea, just because I like my own gender, doesn't mean I don't deserve the same respect as a straight person.

A person who makes that comment is conceited.

[Chris2005]

Yup, that inability is rare and not normal and natural, it is defect as homosexuality is also defect of normal natural person.

Well, either homosexuality is a defect or a choice, which is it?

If it's a defect, it's not a choice, and if it's a choice it's not a defect.

[Chris2005]

A good explanation on gay marriage and the whole God issue, by yet another YT friend of mine, Alex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1G7W7gWRiA

[Freeski]

You're just missing the point of your own thread, so it seems.

[GhostofTsenzei]

Sure, but it's still an abberation as mentioned above.

Possibly, I haven't given that aspect too much thought yet.  Going with that it does bring up another thing to discuss:

Given: It is a natural aberration, with it's own merit.  Therefore, how, if at all, does that conclusion play into the "is it evil" question?

I think my answer to that would be whether or not it is "evil" to NOT reproduce.  I think there are few solid arguments based on that.  It might be "good" to reproduce, arguably, yet that doesn't mean that not having children means you're evil.  I think it is Catholics primarily, and perhaps Mormons (been a while since I looked at their doctrines) that go against people using contraceptives.  However for Catholics that is based on the belief that most contraceptives, especially medicines, actually kill the conceived child.  I'm not sure of their view on condoms and other "blocking" devices however, or how it reconciles with women having periods or masturbation (which also "waste" eggs and seed).

In any event, considering that their view is that the holiest of men be celibate, and not have children, it all comes down to the issue that, religiously speaking, not having children is not a sin (though an abortion or similar act would be).  Indeed, I forget which book, but in the New Testament one of the apostles talks about how it would be good if people didn't marry at all, and lived entirely devoted to God (but recognizes that isn't likely to happen, and gives tips on a good, godly marriage).

As such, the argument, coming from anyone of the Christian faith, that it's evil because it doesn't produce children is invalid.  It is clearly natural because it happens across the board in humans, non-human animals, etc.  As such, the only argument from a religious basis that holds water is: "God doesn't like it."  Or, rather: "These books say God doesn't like it."

Yet it being an aberration, and whether or not it is "natural" plays no role in determining whether or not it is a sin.

Otherwise, you're going into Secular Humanism, with the basis that species are "meant" to reproduce (which is another assumption I find interesting, though to me it is still valid).  Which, pointed out to me in a thread that referenced this thread, is also promoted by the NWO, at least as a front for their crimes against humanity.

[Chris2005]

You're just missing the point of your own thread, so it seems.

No, I got the point of my own thread, I am just posting other things related to homosexuality, etc. So I don't post a million threads that correlate to basically the same subject.