This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality - Genetic
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
.....or one that should be promoted
And why shouldn't it be promoted? Should it be condemned?
That's an arbitrary issue/question. It's like asking whether autism or the fact that there are two genders or any genetic
fact
should be promoted/condemned. All assuming that it really is an issue of genetics, of course.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Albinism has to do with genetics, but the disorder is not natural.
We're clearly using different definitions of natural then, because I'd call it natural in that it occurs in nature. What do you mean by natural?
Then your definition of natural is silly and meaningless. Everything that happens is therefore natural, and thus no distinction is being made.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I am pretty sure we were supposed to be girl-boy seeing how some of our....eh....parts, matchExcept homosexuality exists naturally in nature... so that ideal is untrue.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I am pretty sure we were supposed to be girl-boy seeing how some of our....eh....parts, matchExcept homosexuality exists naturally in nature... so that ideal is untrue.
no it doesn't occur NATURALLY.
It occurs sometimes, unaturally.
in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature; "a very natural development"; "our natural environment"; "natural science"; "natural ...
existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"
functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies; "it's the natural thing to happen"; "natural immunity"; "a grandparent's natural affection for a grandchild"
it is not natural
Only in your view; there is nothing wrong with it, beyond what some religions have painted it as. If it was truly a choice, then obviously, you know, all those evil homosexuals would march on the cities and convert your poor innocent babies into their ways of life and ideals... in other words, you have no proof beyond your own skewed view on the gays and how they scare you, stop trolling the thread Arathian.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I am an atheist.
Sooooooooo, yeah.
I am speaking through science. The official definition of natural says that something is supposed to occur to be natural.
And the 'supposed' part in this situation is male-female
Lol, I'm sorry but lol, you haven't backed up anything you've said at all, and your suppose to be speaking from science?
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
adams......
WHO THE !@#$ SAID HOMOSEXUALITY WAS WRONG?
saying that not natural=wrong is a HUGE offence to thousands of people.
Many people are not natural.Aspenger's disease that i have is not natural. Being a person with special needs is not natural. All these things are not natural,
And thhey are
NOT
in ANY shape or form bad.
Being a person with aspenger's is NOT bad. BUT, it's also something i wouldn't wish for my boy.
Being gay is NOT bad. It's something i wouldn't wish for my boy.
I would have no problem if it occured, but i would not WISH for it. It's not a "gift"
You've said it was wrong all through out the thread; and if your boy ends up being gay, it sounds like you'll kick him out of the house. And dude... comparing being gay to having a disease.... yeah, might want to rethink some things about yourself.
all i said so far is homosexuality is
a) Not bad
b) Not a gift
c) Not natural
I gave the definition, so everything i said is covered.
What else do you see there?
That real science disproves your view as they say it's natural and occurs in the wild among animal species? How is that not 'natural'?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Then your definition of natural is silly and meaningless. Everything that happens is therefore natural, and thus no distinction is being made.
Your conclusion is based on the assumption that by "in nature" I mean "occurring inside a natural environment", and that's why you're wrong.
How does "natural environment" even come into the picture? All you're doing is throwing more and more uses of natural into the picture and muddying a perfectly simple concept.
I am pretty sure we were supposed to be girl-boy seeing how some of our....eh....parts, matchExcept homosexuality exists naturally in nature... so that ideal is untrue.
You just made a truth statement with absolutely no backing. Come on, you can do better.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You just made a truth statement with absolutely no backing. Come on, you can do better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
You just made a counter-statement with absolutely no backing. Come on, you can do better.
genetic=/=natural
You don't need backing for that. Until you can prove that those two are correlative, you're argument has no foundation.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.