Do you believe Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."? - Page 10

krahmaan · 05-10-2009, 08:04 PM

I remember the last time we debated, you said that you wouldn't address me in the Politics Forum. Seems you've decided to amend that decision.

Sir Atom

StrongInTheArm · 05-11-2009, 06:22 AM

Not in reference to the above ...

In relation to the thread, I wonder why someone else's sexuality would matter to anyone else, unless they hit on you. If it doesn't matter, then surely whether they were born that way, is irrelevant. They are who they are. If someone is born with three, two, one, or no arms, I accept them for who they are, it makes no difference to me. Likewise if someone is gay, straight, bisexual or asexual, I would try to accept them for who they are.

Whether someone likes to eat tacos or hot dogs, shouldn't make a difference. Likewise whether they were born to it, should make no difference. I guess what I'm saying is the question is irrelevant in most respects to how we treat people.

**Zap** · 05-12-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

In relation to the thread, I wonder why someone else's sexuality would matter to anyone else, unless they hit on you.

Because I need to know, dammit! I need to have that control over people.
How can I feel better about myself if I can not ridicule others?

jamesmeijer1234 · 05-12-2009, 09:34 AM

well if you would read kamasutra ( the original book), you would see & read that,

people are homosexuals , bi sexuals and as such, it has been going on for years, and it will continue to go on.

the problem has been the new age thoughts, which have made a perception of what is right and what is wrong,

often it's the opinions of the people and not the real thing.
there is a old saying in hinduism that says - every one has his own life his own fate his own death, you cannot do anything to it, he will suffer his own sufferings and he will rejoice his own triumphs.

you can never interfere in someone elses fate, ever.

more over until someone becomes a threat to the very social fabric of society or me for that matter, i have no right to tell someone what to do with his own life, and when he does become a thread to the society or me, i have full right to do everything possible to prevent that.

krahmaan · 05-12-2009, 07:16 PM

I have a question for all the intellectuals here. Since there are people who are sexually intimate with animals and practice bestiality. (Wiki calls these type of people zoophiles.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

And if homosexuals who practice homosexuality are scientifically born that way, then is it safe to say that Zoophiles are also born that way scientifically?

From what is natural we know that man is born a man, and a woman is born a woman. And that a man can reproduce with a woman. Also, we know that a man practicing bestiality with a rooster or a chicken will never reproduce anything. Nor, will a man mating with another man will either.

So how could a man practicing bestiality be born that way naturally or scientifically? And with that evidence, then how could it be logically found that a man mating with another man be born that way naturally or scientifically?

I pardon anyone here for a scholarly thesis on this.

Atom · 05-12-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krahmaan

I have a question for all the intellectuals here. Since there are people who are sexually intimate with animals and practice bestiality. (Wiki calls these type of people zoophiles.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

And if homosexuals who practice homosexuality are scientifically born that way, then is it safe to say that Zoophiles are also born that way scientifically?

From what is natural we know that man is born a man, and a woman is born a woman. And that a man can reproduce with a woman. Also, we know that a man practicing bestiality with a rooster or a chicken will never reproduce anything. Nor, will a man mating with another man will either.

So how could a man practicing bestiality be born that way naturally or scientifically? And with that evidence, then how could it be logically found that a man mating with another man be born that way naturally or scientifically?

I pardon anyone here for a scholarly thesis on this.

Because nature isn't perfect, and let's not forget about the toxic water. I still have my suspicions there.

Atom · 05-12-2009, 07:48 PM

Course you still got people coming out of the closet all of a sudden making it seem like some weird epidemic too I think.

StrongInTheArm · 05-13-2009, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krahmaan

I have a question for all the intellectuals here. Since there are people who are sexually intimate with animals and practice bestiality. (Wiki calls these type of people zoophiles.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

And if homosexuals who practice homosexuality are scientifically born that way, then is it safe to say that Zoophiles are also born that way scientifically?

From what is natural we know that man is born a man, and a woman is born a woman. And that a man can reproduce with a woman. Also, we know that a man practicing bestiality with a rooster or a chicken will never reproduce anything. Nor, will a man mating with another man will either.

So how could a man practicing bestiality be born that way naturally or scientifically? And with that evidence, then how could it be logically found that a man mating with another man be born that way naturally or scientifically?

I pardon anyone here for a scholarly thesis on this.

What?!? You are asking us to defend bestiality now? Who the hell could do that! Certainly not I! That said ...

It seems to me you are confusing aberrant behaviour with genetic predisposition.

It is possible to argue, and there is scientific research to backup the theory, that some people are born gay. That is to say they are attracted to a person of the same sex in a sexual way. If you accept this theory, then there is something physically different in most homosexual people that make them predisposed to having and enjoying homosexual relationships.

Since there are so many homosexual people among the general population, and indeed there has always been a percentage of the population that has been homosexual in all of human societies, you could say that that genetic difference is so prevalent that it is part of the accepted variation in the human genome. (After all, there must be a range of acceptable difference in our genes, else we would be all the same.)

But to say that someone who makes love to watermelons for his kicks is the same as being a homosexual is to show a lack of understanding about human nature. Practises such as bestiality and watermelon love, are so far in the extremes and are practised by so few, that you can only put it down to aberrant behaviour. You could possibly explain this type of behaviour by either mental illness or perhaps a genetic difference that predisposes these people to experimentation. Probably it is a combination of both, with some social/personal difficulties thrown in.

But you cannot classify homosexuality and bestiality as being similar. There is a boundary between what is morally acceptable and what is not. It seems you have arbitrarily decided that homosexuality is wrong and so you have bundled it in with all other deviant sexual practises. There is a spectrum of human sexual need. I think you need to place homosexuality in the acceptable part of the spectrum and accept that for some it is part of normal human sexual need. Even if it isn't to your liking or preference.

(No doubt some scientist will find a gene for chicken fanciers one day.

)

krahmaan · 05-13-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

But to say that someone who makes love to watermelons for his kicks is the same as being a homosexual is to show a lack of understanding about human nature. Practises such as bestiality and watermelon love, are so far in the extremes and are practised by so few, that you can only put it down to aberrant behaviour. You could possibly explain this type of behaviour by either mental illness or perhaps a genetic difference that predisposes these people to experimentation. Probably it is a combination of both, with some social/personal difficulties thrown in.

But you cannot classify homosexuality and bestiality as being similar. There is a boundary between what is morally acceptable and what is not.

I'm glad that you of all people decided to even attempt a thesis on this. Your view on this has always seemed a bit neutral and detached from the business of others. So I commend your thesis here. All the 'Pro' debaters here haven't even tried to attempt a good thesis. But I expected that.

You pose a good and fair argument, but look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

Sodomy is not morally acceptable in many countries. Because it can mean bestiality, homosexuality, heterosexual oral copulation, or watermelon luv. It is basically anything that doesn't lead to procreation. Here's a quote from wiki's Sodomy_law first paragraph (first two sentences).

Quote:

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation.

The key word here that defies all new scientific evidence here is procreation. Any sex that doesn't lead to this, is immoral by law and unnatural. This has always been true, even in heterosexual lifestyle. Lust is a vice, and occurs when sex is taken beyond it's scope or function. Just like anger could lead to murder. It's how we control it, which either keeps it human nature (natural) or makes it human vice (unnatural).

Almost forgot, I truly believe this to be common fact.

Atom · 05-13-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krahmaan

(...)

I pardon anyone here for a scholarly thesis on this.

Why should I want to be pardoned by you?

You are not very intelligent on this topic, sir. You do remember what the topic is, I assume?

Atom · 05-13-2009, 06:12 PM

If you had any semblance of coherence, you would actually understand what Strongy replied.

You cannot confuse bestiality with homosexuality.

Why can't you get that through your head?

ranter · 05-13-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krahmaan

The key word here that defies all new scientific evidence here is procreation. Any sex that doesn't lead to this, is immoral by law and unnatural. This has always been true, even in heterosexual lifestyle.

Just because some one chose this word, it doesn’t mean that every sexual act end means must be procreation. Proof: pleasuring yourself. Or you are going to call this act sodomy too.

If so, then let me tell you short story.

Guy asked doctor to remove huge wooden splinter from his tongue.
Doctor said: how did you manage to get one?
Guy said: I have licked pussy, Doc.
Doctor said: It’s impossible, you can’t get splinter by doing that
Guy said: oh yes Doc, that’s possible, if it’s drawn on a wooden fence

Atom · 05-13-2009, 08:59 PM

Good point, Ranter.

And might I add that any single person that does not masturbate regularly, is a freak of nature and quite rare in it. Every doctor on earth knows this. Are you, K-dog, going to sit there and tell me that single people are all a bunch of sodomites?