Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

[Howl]

Who is to say that one has to be wrong and the other right? What if they were both right? What if, and stay with me here, we were meant to be neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, but instead bisexual? Let's examine a theoretical argument that would explain why bisexual is better than either homosexual and heterosexual.

I'm still not quite sure what you're view is on this. Are you definitely for, against, or are you standing in a gray area?
I actually believe this theory is true...
I have friends "coming out of the closet" left and right, and all of them claim to have felt "different" for as long as they can remember. My gay friends claim to have had the same feelings all of their lives, even pre-puberty...which proves valid to this "natural-cause" theory...

To start off, in order to make this argument work well, we have to throw religion out the window and assume that there is no God. I'm not saying there isn't one, but this only works if we look at it from a scientific perspective. So, let's begin.

It's so hard to argue with god-fearing individuals. There is no validation. The most common stump in proving that there is no God is when a believer states "well you can't prove that he doesn't exist". It's true; a little nonsensical if you ask me, but still true.
And religion, will always be the primary factor in this debate...
Until someone sits down and mathematically proves that God does not exist, the debate on homosexuality being "right or wrong" will never come to a close.

Heterosexual people will, most of the time, reproduce. Reproducing is, overall, a good thing. It keeps the species going, and, of course, we would like to think that humans are indeed a good species to keep around. If the earth was composed of entirely heterosexuals, and the current statistics on average fertility, life expectancy, birth rate, and death rate stayed about the same, the human race would continue to expand exponentially.

Homosexual people do not reproduce. Homosexual couples do not add to the overall population of the world, and therefore, do not extend the overall time that humans populate the earth. If the entire human race was homosexual, the time in which humans populated the earth would be exactly equivalent to the age of the oldest human being.

As you stated, heterosexual people only reproduce "most of the time"...
Myself included among many others will probably have difficulties bearing children...It's not always a matter of "not wanting to".
Many, many, many human beings are genetically flawed; bearing true to the fact that even if God does exist, he did not create all men equally.
Homosexuals are not the only group which cannot reproduce...

Bisexual people, however, can reproduce, but don't necessarily have to. A bisexual person, statistically speaking, will only have the ability to reproduce 50% of the time. During same sex relationships, there will be no chance of reproduction, yet during an opposite sex relationship, there will be chance to expand the human race yet another generation into the future.

Off topic, but...this also ties into religious debates.
Since having multiple partners; even though it's a ridiculous rule, is against God's laws...
Take a pole and see how many people have slept with more than one person in their lifetime. See how many have been with 10, 20, 100, 200 partners...
You'd be hella suprised...
It's a matter of opinion, and of religious standpoint...I for one, don't think it's wrong for humans/mamals/animals to partake in natural activities such as sexual intercourse.
According to many religions though...apparently pleasure is a sin...(Mhm, sarcasm.)

Bisexual people, therefore, will not increase the population exponentially, but instead at a much slower rate. The slower we expand, means the less we disturb the earth, which means the more time the earth has to heal itself, which means the more time we have parts of the earth that are inhabitable, which inevitably leads to the longer the human race can exist on this planet (considering an outside force doesn't destroy it first).

I love this statement. Isn't it true that America invaded the middle East recently in pursuit of natural resources?

If what you say is true, that heterosexuals are better because they can reproduce, then you are essentially saying that extending the human races time line is a good, or the "right", thing.

If anyone is looking at this from a religious standpoint...then you'll know that God is a dictator. If he wants something, then he'll damn well step in and make it happen...You can't argue what is right or wrong in the eyes of God, because you don't $#&@ know...
And once again...not all heterosexuals can reproduce...

Also, if your theory is correct; that as a species we are seeing more and more homosexuals, than technically we are simply getting closer to an ideal race. Presuming homosexuality reaches it's peak at a 50/50 ratio with heterosexuality, then human beings are technically just leveling their own playing field.

I could be wrong, but...perhaps it's not a matter of seeing more and more homosexuals in this day and age...merely...more people are comfortable enough to be honest about their preferences...

If homosexuality is caused by nature, then we can say that this fits quite nicely into the theory of evolution. If homosexuality is caused by nurture, as you suspect, then it simply shows the intellect of mankind.

Pending on your point of view I guess...
I for one believe my friends when they say that they can't control their attraction to other men/women...
I for one also admit to being attracted to other females. I'm not so much "turned on" or "excited" by them, but even though I would probably fall into the category of a "straight" female...I still feel an uncontrollable attraction to other girls...
So does this make me...wrong? Since I can't control my attraction? Someone explain...

Perhaps you would finally like to create an argument on which you could stand that does not involve strictly your own opinions. Take a while and think outside of the box, think logically, or come out and say that you're opinions are based on personal feelings and nothing else. Until you state that you're opinions on homosexuality being "wrong" is based completely on your personal ideas and not facts, you should probably look around for some solid evidence, facts, or even statistics to base your argument on.

EDIT: You could also state that your opinion are based on a religious standpoint, in which case, you would be fully founded, and from a religious aspect, 100% correct on the idea that heterosexuality is the "right" form of sexuality.

I have to point out that...even if someone does come up with a religious defense...it won't be 100% accurate.
Sorry guys, but you have to take it like it is. The bible is man made, man written, translated by men; again and again and again, and it's an unreliable historical reference...

 

[OmniscientOnus]

I have to point out that...even if someone does come up with a religious defense...it won't be 100% accurate.
Sorry guys, but you have to take it like it is. The bible is man made, man written, translated by men; again and again and again, and it's an unreliable historical reference...

You should be fair. Just because you feel this way doesn't mean we all do. If people want to believe the Bible, then that's there choice. And, if as a result of believing in the Bible, they have certain opinions about certain topics, it makes their point in no way less valid.

Remember, some of us are debating from a scientific basis (like myself) and others from a religious standpoint. Both of which claim that completely opposite ideas are fact. Since we can't prove either one correct, and the other wrong, we have to accept that some arguments are going to be based on religion, and we can't fairly say that they are wrong.

Unfortunately, most religious opinions can't be debated. There is a book for those people that tells them exactly what is fact, and what is fiction, and since no one has proven the book wrong, they have a completely valid voice in every matter, that cannot be debated from another perspective on their terms.

Alternatively, people who base their opinions on religion are going to have a difficult time debating with people who don't. After all, they are essentially defending something that they have been TOLD is fact, not an opinion based on study.

When debating in a place where secular and religious people alike are allowed to post, you have to consider this: you are debating on different terms.

One person is basing their argument on what humans have perceived, tested, and recorded throughout time, while the other is basing theirs on the opinion that one entity created everything and is omniscient (<--- finally a reference to my user name!). This difference in looking at issues is so different that it is nearly impossible to debate on another instead of just disagreeing.

I'm still not quite sure what you're view is on this. Are you definitely for, against, or are you standing in a gray area?
I actually believe this theory is true...
I have friends "coming out of the closet" left and right, and all of them claim to have felt "different" for as long as they can remember. My gay friends claim to have had the same feelings all of their lives, even pre-puberty...which proves valid to this "natural-cause" theory...

I am completely for allowing homosexuals to marry. I can see no reason for them not to, and no one has given me a valid reason to think otherwise.

As for you believing in "this theory", what theory are you talking about? No offense, but all of your responses to each part of my post are a little hard to follow... at least in how they relate to what you are responding to. Most of what I read doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I wrote. Maybe I'm missing something.

Either way, I appreciate that you voiced your opinions on my ideas. From my perspective it seems as though, in most threads (not so much this one) as soon as I post something people stop debating the issue. I don't know if it's coincidence, and not to sound conceded, but it's almost as though as soon as people read my posts they stop and say to themselves: "Wow. That guy is 100% correct. So much so that I no longer have any need to debate the issue at hand."

Where are all the devil's advocates (that back their argument on sound reasoning and don't just say things that essentially say: "nope, you're wrong.") that I see so often in other forums?

 

[Howl]

I'm sorry. It's just that...your posts are so long and I'm in such a hurry to catch up with everyone's responses! =x

Anyhow, I meant to indicate (even though it wasn't quite legible) that I agree with your idea (not theory) that being neither heterosexual nor homosexual; rather being bisexual instead, might be intended as a part of our nature...

It's hard to see things as they are from a perfect birds-eye-view...in fact...it's nearly impossible. As far as religious standpoints go, "God" would be the only being capable of seeing human progression from that viewpoint...

I like your idea of bisexuality as a part of nature...and I firmly agree with it; based on what I indicated about myself and others being attracted to the opposite sex...I'm not being hypocritical in saying something along the lines of "well my friend said..." because I'm also openly admitting that I'm uncontrollably attracted to the same sex.

I'm curious what everyone else has to say about that...

(Tell me if this is still hard to follow...)

 

[QuickSilverD]

I agree - who are WE to say whats right and whats wrong? we are not God we are merely his playthings (well IMO anyway)

I'm confuse here, do you believe in God?

I feel that each and every person should think for themselves and not allow a book written 2000 years ago to dictate what we can and cannot do. Since homosexuality only occurs in about 25 per sent of the worlds population - we will never run out of babies or people - thats a given fact - unless some disease were to spread across the men of the world making them impotent or die, Gay isnt a disease - it cant be "caught" and is never going to be as wide spread as to cause a population crises.

25%! where did you get that fact, I never thought it was that high

so the question is - your never going to have a gay marriage so why does it bother you so much? how would you feel if your own child turned out gay and wanted to get married but wasnt allowed? i imagine you'd be quite angry/upset and want whats fair for your child - try putting yourself in that position for a moment.

The fact that there is more gay people now than before only confirms that homosexuality is nurture thus decidable and preventable.

-------------------------
That’s probably the main difference between me and everyone else posting in this thread, for some reason that is unfamiliar to me you all people seem to get offended when someone suggest the idea of the remote possibility that maybe homosexuality is not something “definitive” that maybe people can decide whenever or not to follow certain “standards” or “social trends”.

About the religion business I guess there is just too many religious people out there, after all American was founded by Christians, religious believes is in a way the base of our society.

 

[Howl]

The fact that there is more gay people now than before only confirms that homosexuality is nurture thus decidable and preventable.

Wrong. Plenty of homosexuals, (and I'll include myself) claim to have uncontrollable attraction towards the same sex.

Again...matter of opinion...
You may believe that there are more homosexuals in this era, but I for one believe that homosexuality is appearing more frequently because people are less afraid to open up nowadays...

 

[OmniscientOnus]

Rhea,

I agree, my posts are really long. I don't know how they get they way. I just start typing, and the next thing I know I have to scroll up like twenty paragraphs. Sometimes I even have to delete some of it because if I didn't it would be so long that hardly anyone would read them. I don't know how to make them any shorter without ruining the point I was trying to get across. I get it from my mother I guess.

Oddly enough, when I talk about things, rather than typing them, I tend to be short, sweet, and to the point. Weird.

This time I completely followed what you were saying.

As for the bisexual post I made, it really was neither an idea nor a theory. I was just trying to create a scenario that was based on facts, statistics and other reliable sources of information to show the faults in posting opinions without having a strong, solid, foundation to support them on. I came up with it on the fly, which just helps to prove how useless it is to post something without some sort of facts to back it up.



Now, do I believe the part of my own post that states that perhaps we were meant to be bisexual? Well, I see it as plausible, though unlikely. I think I would more agree with a statement that said something along the lines of: We are meant to be sexual beings. Basically I think that narrowing down your sexuality to one group is silly. Be it based on sex, race, appearances or even age. I'm not saying that 80 year old white guys should start hooking up with ten year black boys/girls or something. I'm just saying that we shouldn't limit our sexuality to the typical "within a few years apart, same race, opposite sex, slim, yet toned, perhaps muscular, but definitely not fat" label that we so often do.

I don't think there are too many sexual preferences that I would consider taboo. Once someone is old enough to determine that they are ready to become sexual... well, now we're getting far enough off topic to start a new thread altogether.

The fact that there is more gay people now than before only confirms that homosexuality is nurture thus decidable and preventable.

That was a much better post, in my opinion. However, like in this part, watch your wording. This phenomenas does not prove anything. It does, however, help support your argument.

That’s probably the main difference between me and everyone else posting in this thread, for some reason that is unfamiliar to me you all people seem to get offended when someone suggest the idea of the remote possibility that maybe homosexuality is not something “definitive” that maybe people can decide whenever or not to follow certain “standards” or “social trends”.

I take no offense to either idea of homosexuality's cause. I, myself, fall into a category of people who are undecided to exactly what it's cause is. I do, however, think it foolish to claim either one is fact at this point in time.

If you were claiming it as a possibility I'd be right behind you cheering. However, you at least come off as, if not are, stating it as a fact. And (I don't think I'll ever have to stop saying this) it is not proven either way. We don't even have any studies that support one way over the other. What we do have is some studies and statistics that support nature, and other that support nurture. The problem comes in where neither one helps disprove the other.

As we saw with my bisexual post, it's easy to theorize for any given circumstance. It takes thought, reasoning, logic, studying, learning, observing, luck, and most of all time, to prove your idea true and the other false. It is especially difficult on an issue that is probably caused by both (in this case, homosexuality is most likely caused by both nature and nurture, though one may be higher than the other).

 

[Howl]

It's not off topic...=]

What you're saying is true. Humans are sexual beings.
Some people however have what I concider to be a snooty belief that human beings are a "superior race", or that we're the only beings with "souls".
I think it's ridiculous how some people indicate that we're superior, or that we have to set some standard for what is "right and wrong"...

Right and wrong is a matter of opinion.
There's a difference between having instinctive morals (E.g. "If I play with fire, I'll probably get burned) and nurtured knowledge (E.g. God does exist, and no one can prove otherwise).

Truth be told. If a boy rubs up against a girl that he likes, he's going to get horny...It's uncontrollable. It's a natural instinct.
Of course...acting on his instinctive feelings would be a sin in religious notions...

So if homosexuals claim to be uncontrollably attracted to members of the same sex, then it's a natural instinct...right?

 

[OmniscientOnus]

So if homosexuals claim to be uncontrollably attracted to members of the same sex, then it's a natural instinct...right?

Not necessarily. To rule for natural instinct, or nature, we first of all would need a MUCH bigger source for study. One, ten, or even 1,000 homosexuals claiming (I don't mean to say claiming as in I don't believe or trust them) that they just naturally feel that way is far too few to state that it's even a decent start towards nature vs. nurture.

But, the main reason we can say that it's not proof of natural instinct is because, while it does add credence to the natural argument, it doesn't remove the nurture aspect. Why do they feel that way? We can't always ask them when it started because perhaps it started before they really understood the difference, or before they can remember. Either way, we can't say for sure that their "gay uncle" (gay uncle is the term I often used to describe the unknown force behind the possible nurture aspect of homosexuality's cause) wasn't feeding the idea into their head in one way or another since before they can remember. The same as we can't prove that the father's constant gay bashing of "that homo" at work didn't contribute the the heterosexuals being the way they are.

In order to prove something, you have to first understand how it all began.

 

[Howl]

And no one can seriously claim to know how it all began...doesn't matter if you read the bible through and through again...you weren't there.

I always believed that females really can't have male attributes, because of the way in which fetuses are formed; and I've always thought that homosexuality is determined in fetal development...
I don't think females can have physical attributes like a male...but I think psychologically, it's possible...

I'm rambling now. =x

 

[QuickSilverD]

Rhea,

I agree, my posts are really long. I don't know how they get they way. I just start typing, and the next thing I know I have to scroll up like twenty paragraphs. Sometimes I even have to delete some of it because if I didn't it would be so long that hardly anyone would read them. I don't know how to make them any shorter without ruining the point I was trying to get across. I get it from my mother I guess.

I have the same problem, if we could call it a problem that is, but you know what I believe people prefer to read a long well written post than a short spamming post that has no good use for the topic. What I’m saying is, that don’t worry about the length of your posts, I’m (and other) are more interested in reading long posts than short ones

Now, do I believe the part of my own post that states that perhaps we were meant to be bisexual? Well, I see it as plausible, though unlikely. I think I would more agree with a statement that said something along the lines of: We are meant to be sexual beings. Basically I think that narrowing down your sexuality to one group is silly. Be it based on sex, race, appearances or even age. I'm not saying that 80 year old white guys should start hooking up with ten year black boys/girls or something. I'm just saying that we shouldn't limit our sexuality to the typical "within a few years apart, same race, opposite sex, slim, yet toned, perhaps muscular, but definitely not fat" label that we so often do.

What is our sexuality? If you ever studied biology you will know that sex is not something we have to have fun, “fun” is not the purpose of sex, now sex is fun so that we be tempted to do it thus leading to reproduction, thus leading to the ultimate purpose of life: “to continue life”, for all I know only us humans and dolphins have sex for sex’s sake and not for reproduction, maybe that’s just a characteristic of intelligent animals.

As I explained the purpose of sex is to produce children, even if we can negate that or not, part of what we consider “beauty” or “sexual attraction” is directly related with choosing the partner that is more suitable to have children, that is why young people is attractive, old people is not (Note: I’m basing myself in a biology class I had with a teacher not so long ago) normal people (as in not pedophiles) would not think of children as sexually attractive, after all, children are not suitable to reproduction as they are too immature.

Now if what I just said sounded logical to you, you will understand the reason for all the sexuality taboos, homosexuality included, I guess you could call it an instinct.

That was a much better post, in my opinion. However, like in this part, watch your wording. This phenomenas does not prove anything. It does, however, help support your argument.

Thank you

I take no offense to either idea of homosexuality's cause. I, myself, fall into a category of people who are undecided to exactly what it's cause is. I do, however, think it foolish to claim either one is fact at this point in time

If you were claiming it as a possibility I'd be right behind you cheering. However, you at least come off as, if not are, stating it as a fact. And (I don't think I'll ever have to stop saying this) it is not proven either way. We don't even have any studies that support one way over the other. What we do have is some studies and statistics that support nature, and other that support nurture. The problem comes in where neither one helps disprove the other.

So wouldn’t you agree that using the argument “you can’t help you fall in love with” is totally useless in this thread, because many others have use it as a valid argument against my points of view

It's not off topic...=]

What you're saying is true. Humans are sexual beings.
Some people however have what I concider to be a snooty belief that human beings are a "superior race", or that we're the only beings with "souls".
I think it's ridiculous how some people indicate that we're superior, or that we have to set some standard for what is "right and wrong"...

Well, we humans are arrogant as a race, and the fact that we have control over this planet doesn’t helps it either.

Right and wrong is a matter of opinion.
There's a difference between having instinctive morals (E.g. "If I play with fire, I'll probably get burned) and nurtured knowledge (E.g. God does exist, and no one can prove otherwise).

Truth be told. If a boy rubs up against a girl that he likes, he's going to get horny...It's uncontrollable. It's a natural instinct.
Of course...acting on his instinctive feelings would be a sin in religious notions...

So if homosexuals claim to be uncontrollably attracted to members of the same sex, then it's a natural instinct...right?

The problem is that if is not something “natural” if it is reserved to a small group that have no genetically differences, behavior that is less than average is often not considerate natural, because what is natural can usually be predicted, it follow certain rules, it can be explained, you know the drill.

 

[Howl]

*sigh*
I guess I'll clear this up, since I'm sure Quicksilver wasn't the only one to misunderstand. =x

My quote:

Wrong. Plenty of homosexuals, (and I'll include myself) claim to have uncontrollable attraction towards the same sex.

My resmonse to QSD:

I'm not homosexual.
Though my statement sure as hell made it seem that way. Sorry. =x

In fact I believe that females can't carry any physical male attributes. I think that all female homosexuals are physchologically homosexual in nature, whereas male homosexuals are physically developed that way in the womb...

So yes...I think that female homosexuality is more of a fettish...

I included myself in the statement, because I do have uncontrollable attraction towards other females...however...I have 0 chemistry with them...

Is that last bit hard to understand? =x

 

[OmniscientOnus]

Now if what I just said sounded logical to you, you will understand the reason for all the sexuality taboos, homosexuality included, I guess you could call it an instinct.

While I agree with you that the basic purpose of sex is to reproduce, I don't see why that means that any other form of sex is taboo. It may not be the reason that we have sex, but the fact remains that we do have sex just for fun. To call homosexuality a taboo just because it doesn't involve reproducing would be the same as calling having sex with your opposite sex partner just for fun taboo.

The same reason you call homosexual sex taboo, also places heterosexual sex for any other reason than reproduction in the same category.

So wouldn’t you agree that using the argument “you can’t help you fall in love with” is totally useless in this thread, because many others have use it as a valid argument against my points of view

Yes, I would consider that argument completely useless in this thread. In order to use it, we would have to assume first of all that it is true that we can't help it.

Well, we humans are arrogant as a race, and the fact that we have control over this planet doesn’t helps it either.

There is so much irony in this sentence it hurts. I love it!

 

[Davey Gaga]

There is so much irony in this sentence it hurts. I love it!

And now I love you for that!

Damn! you people, you are so into defending homosexuality that now you question humanity own nature?

I'm more anti-homophobic than pro-homosexual.

People you are misunderstanding me, girl-girl relationships are not better than male-male ones, I didn’t say that, just that it is more tolerable for me (a man) as I said, men are programmed to like girls, that’s a fact that we have always know, but why, why do you want to get rid of it (the fact)?

Contradiction +1.

Where's the prrof that "men are programmed to like girls"?

I bet most people use the word “gay” to refer to male-male these days

Hence my use of the word "Homosexual" in the thread title.

you misunderstood what I said, and I was doing some generalizations, that is by the way not the same thing as using stereotypes.

You can't use a generalised opinion as a fact.

No, is not I didn’t say that, you seem to assume that the reason for what I was against homosexuality in the first place was because I felt disgusted by it, but this is not the reason

Then please, explain.

I’m talking for experience and general knowledge every time I make an assumption, I see you don’t like me using the phrase “we men” even when what I say is commonly accepted as true for most people and I’m a man

Have you ever seen the TV Program/read the book, called "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter?" If not, you really should. Anyway, the father, Paul, teaches his daughters a lession:

"When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME." - Read it; memorise it; apply it

NO, its sick, wrong and in the bible it's stated that homosexuality is an abomination..............i AM catholic, and thats my belief. its not right, and its gross, and just plain unnatural.

Okay, that's the bible's view on Homosexuality. Would you care to give us your own belief?

My opinion is that now since you are given two choices to follow, people choose one or the other, not by nature but nurture. Nowadays society is telling you that homosexuality is not only "not wrong" but also "right" and there is nothing to be ashame of... Wrong two ideals that contradic each other can't both be right.

OmniscientOnus pretty much countered this point as thoroughly as anyone could have. I agree with his theory/ideas.

If we asume that homosexuality is right, then hererosexuality most be wrong and since we know (or at least I know) that heterosexuality is the right one, then homosexuality most be the wrong one. and before anyone star to argue that maybe "heterosexuality is wrong" think about nature and reproduction, and remember that we don't have sex because is fun, it is fun so that we be tented to do it, thus allowing reproduction, thus allowing the continuity of the especies

Assume ...

From a religious viewpoint, sex may be to only produce offspring. From a less biased view, sex could also be about expressing your love for your partner in a physical way.

What is our sexuality? If you ever studied biology you will know that sex is not something we have to have fun, “fun” is not the purpose of sex, now sex is fun so that we be tempted to do it thus leading to reproduction, thus leading to the ultimate purpose of life: “to continue life”, for all I know only us humans and dolphins have sex for sex’s sake and not for reproduction, maybe that’s just a characteristic of intelligent animals.

So you know the meaning of life, now? O_O Good grief.

So wouldn’t you agree that using the argument “you can’t help you fall in love with” is totally useless in this thread, because many others have use it as a valid argument against my points of view

It's a little different. People have agreed with this and used it in their rebuttal as an opinion. What you have a tendancy to do, however, is state your opinion like fact; as if your opinion has physical proof. If this is, indeed, so, then please, give us this proof.

Well, we humans are arrogant as a race, and the fact that we have control over this planet doesn’t helps it either.

We're at the top of the food chain; in some ways, we ARE better than the other organisms of the planet. But that's a whole other debate ...

 

[QuickSilverD]

I'm more anti-homophobic than pro-homosexual.

So who is a homophobic? Could you define? Do I fit there? Why/ Why not?

Contradiction +1.

Where's the prrof that "men are programmed to like girls"?

Do you like girls Riku? I will assume you do, now why would you like them? Why do I like them? Why my father fall in love with my mother? Why? Why? Why!!!!!!!!!

You can't use a generalised opinion as a fact.

But is better than a non-generalized one, because for one reason or another generalizations are made

Then please, explain.

Unmoral, unnatural, not good for kids, not good for heterosexuals (now that you not only have to look for the right partner, but keep your eyes open to avoid others) you pick one.

Have you ever seen the TV Program/read the book, called "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter?" If not, you really should. Anyway, the father, Paul, teaches his daughters a lession:

"When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME." - Read it; memorise it; apply it

If you feel is so wrong, I won’t generalize then.

Assume ...

From a religious viewpoint, sex may be to only produce offspring. From a less biased view, sex could also be about expressing your love for your partner in a physical way.

We normally accepted that way (oups I forgot, no generalizing) either way, you know that the reason for why humans can use sex to show love is because normally we enjoy consensual sex, and it is a lot of fun, but why do we enjoy it? So that we do it as often as possible, and why? Because that’s the way most people reproduce, it is simply one nice trick of nature to keep the species going.

So you know the meaning of life, now? O_O Good grief.

purpose, not meaning, purpose, creatures are born with the sole intention to life for living sake, they reproduce because for some reason they can’t keep on living for ever so they let their descendants continue with the duty of living, the purpose of all species is to continue itself, if it wouldn't be that way, nothing would reproduce and animals and humans wouldn't try too hard to survive.

So yes, the purpose of live is to continue life, try to prove me wrong, I dare you.

It's a little different. People have agreed with this and used it in their rebuttal as an opinion. What you have a tendancy to do, however, is state your opinion like fact; as if your opinion has physical proof. If this is, indeed, so, then please, give us this proof.

So giving an opinion for fact is only right when you people do it? Uhmp?

Let’s face it, we don’t know if homosexuality is nature or nurture, I’ve been critiqued for assuming is nurture, why would it be any different if someone assume is nature?

We're at the top of the food chain; in some ways, we ARE better than the other organisms of the planet. But that's a whole other debate ...

Yes we are

 

[OmniscientOnus]

Do you like girls Riku? I will assume you do, now why would you like them? Why do I like them? Why my father fall in love with my mother? Why? Why? Why!!!!!!!!!

The answer is, we really don't know why. We can guess one way or the other, we can even make educated guesses, but when it boils down to it, we just don't know.

So yes, the purpose of live is to continue life, try to prove me wrong, I dare you.

Thank all the holy beings that ever existed, whether only in the head of one man, or truly in the heavens above, that you didn't dare me to prove you wrong. Well... I couldn't prove you wrong, but I sure could tear you a new asshole on how you you could possibly be wrong, or basically how you can't even prove yourself right.

Please don't make me embarrass you like that again in front of everyone. At first you were helping me look smart... now it's just getting annoying.

Wow, that came out really mean spirited. It wasn't meant to be.

My opinion is that now since you are given two choices to follow, people choose one or the other, not by nature but nurture. Nowadays society is telling you that homosexuality is not only "not wrong" but also "right" and there is nothing to be ashame of... Wrong two ideals that contradic each other can't both be right.

Wow. I don't remember you ever posting this. The first part is perfect. You made it perfectly clear that this is your opinion, and an opinion only.

However, where do you get that people are saying that homosexuality is "right"? I don't see any fliers out there, by either heterosexual nor homosexual people, trying to convert people to homosexuality. The only thing people are trying to push is that homosexuality shouldn't be looked down upon, but rather accepted.

Also, just because two ideals contradict each other doesn't mean they both can't be right. It just means that they both can't be right to the same person. In other words, a Christian who believes that homosexuality is wrong, can't also believe that it is acceptable. The same as the homosexual can't say that he believes homosexuality should be acceptably, but that it is wrong.

However, since both people are basing their opinions on a different moral basis, neither one can be proven right or wrong. Technically, unless someone were to prove that there is a God (proving there is no God would not work however), we will never be able to say which one is morally right, and which one is wrong (provided one is actually wrong). If we prove that God exists, and that he is not a liar, then we prove that homosexuality is indeed wrong. However, if we prove there is no God, we leave that decision up to each individual to make on their own, and I very highly doubt every human on earth is going to agree on ANY issue 100% anytime, ever.

 

[QuickSilverD]

Sorry I couldn't make this shorter

Thank all the holy beings that ever existed, whether only in the head of one man, or truly in the heavens above, that you didn't dare me to prove you wrong. Well... I couldn't prove you wrong, but I sure could tear you a new asshole on how you you could possibly be wrong, or basically how you can't even prove yourself right.

Please don't make me embarrass you like that again in front of everyone. At first you were helping me look smart... now it's just getting annoying.

Wow, that came out really mean spirited. It wasn't meant to be.

You are a little confuse here, I wasn’t daring you to prove me anything, I was challenging Riku, for you to understand why I did it, you have to look back at what we were discussing about human sexuality and how I was trying to prove Hetero=right, homo=wrong.

I wasn’t founding myself in morals or bible, I was basing myself in nature, I claimed that the natural way of our sexuality was for man and woman to mate and that nature never intended anything for homosexuality as it is not “productive”, arguing here and there it came to a point when I claimed that “we men are programmed to like girls” I thought that would go alright but it seems that the ones posting here are more skeptical than I though, they claimed that “we don’t know for sure” if man and woman were actually intended to mate, just how ridiculous is that? I tried to prove my point pointing out that the sole purpose of life was to create more life, thus homosexuality didn’t fit anywhere.

I took this knowledge for granted and assumed that everyone else would assume my position as right (that heterosexuality is the right way) ouch! I was dead wrong, is not bad to question things, but sometimes I think people here take it too far, and since I am so confidence about the authenticity of my argument, so much that I even dare someone to prove me wrong, then the obvious is that I should defend it, be careful facts are coming

--- Biology 101 --- ***Warning: You may want to skip this part***

Sexual reproduction

Sexual reproduction is a biological process by which organisms create descendants that have a combination of genetic material contributed from two (usually) different members of the species. Each of two parent organisms contributes half of the offspring's genetic makeup by creating haploid gametes. Most organisms form two different types of gametes. In these anisogamous species, the two sexes are referred to as male (producing sperm or microspores) and female (producing ova or megaspores). In isogamous species the gametes are similar or identical in form, but may have separable properties and then may be given other different names. For example, in the green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, there are so-called "plus" and "minus" gametes. A few types of organisms, such as ciliates, have more than two kinds of gametes.

Most animals (including humans) and plants reproduce sexually. Sexually reproducing organisms have two sets of genes for every trait (called alleles). Offspring inherit one allele for each trait from each parent, thereby ensuring that offspring have a combination of the parents' genes. Having two copies of every gene, only one of which is expressed, allows deleterious alleles to be masked, an advantage believed to have led to the evolutionary development of diploidy (Otto and Goldstein).

Sex refers to the male and female duality of biology and reproduction. Unlike organisms that only have the ability to reproduce asexually, sexed male and female pairs have the ability to produce offspring through meiosis and fertilization. The two sexes attract one another and communicate their readiness to procreate through differences in their biology. (…)

Vaginal sexual intercourse, also called coitus, is the human form of copulation. While its primary evolutionary purpose is the reproduction and continued survival of the human species, it often is performed exclusively for pleasure. To engage in coitus, the erect penis is inserted into the vagina and one or both of the partners move their hips to move the penis backward and forward inside the vagina to cause friction, typically without fully removing the penis. In this way, they stimulate themselves and each other, often continuing until highly pleasurable orgasm and ejaculation are achieved. Penetration by the hardened erect penis is also known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis. (…)

Coitus is the basic reproductive method of humans. During ejaculation, which usually accompanies male orgasm, a series of muscular contractions delivers semen containing male gametes known as sperm cells or spermatozoa from the penis into the wet sack of the vagina. The subsequent route of the sperm from the vault of the vagina is through the cervix and into the uterus, and then into the fallopian tubes. Millions of sperm are present in each ejaculation, to increase the chances of one fertilizing an egg or ovum. If female orgasm occurs during or after female ejaculation, the corresponding temporary reduction in the size of the vagina and the contractions of the uterus that occur can help the sperm to reach the fallopian tubes, though female orgasm is not necessary to achieve pregnancy. When a fertile ovum from the female is present in the fallopian tubes, the male gamete joins with the ovum resulting in fertilization and the formation of a new embryo. When a fertilized ovum reaches the uterus, it becomes implanted in the lining of the uterus, known as endometrium and a pregnancy begins. (…)

Differences between men and women​

Characteristics / Female / Male
Chromosomes / XX / XY
Sex organs / Ovaries / Testes
Hormones / Estrogen / Testosterone
Height / shorter / taller
Body fact / more / less
Other / Breats, menstrual cycle / Adam’s apple, bear, body hair
(…)

Discordance​

Discordance is the term used to describe the extent to which people differ from the usual biological and psychosocial types described above. Some discordances are biological, such as when the sex of the chromosomes (genetic sex) does not match the sex of the external genitalia (anatomic sex) - this is known as intersex. Discordances between the biological and psychosocial levels (such as when the gender identity does not match the anatomic sex) or between the various psychosocial levels (such as when the gender role does not match the gender identity) are even more common, but less well understood.

In gender theory, the term "heteronormativity" refers to the idea that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary categories, male and female; that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between two people of different genders; and that people should follow roles determined by their gender. Instead, some people have sought to define their sexuality and sexual identity in non-polar terms, in the belief that the simple division of all humans into "males" and "females" does not fit their individual conditions. (…)

Heterosexuality refers to sexual and/or romantic attraction between individuals of the opposite sex, and is the most common sexual orientation among humans. The current use of the term has its roots in the broader 19th century tradition of personality taxonomy. These continue to influence the development of the modern concept of sexual orientation, gaining associations with romantic love and identity in addition to its original, exclusively sexual meaning. (…)

Pregnancy​

In mammals, pregnancy is the period of reproduction during which a female carries one or more live offspring from implantation in the uterus through gestation. It begins when a fertilized zygote implants in the female's uterus; and ends once it leaves the uterus.

A male and female copulate, the male inseminating the female. The spermatozoan fertilizes an ovum or various ova in the uterus or fallopian tubes, and this results in one or multiple zygotes. Sometimes, a zygote can be created by humans outside of the animal's body in the artificial process of in-vitro fertilization. After fertilization, the newly formed zygote then begins to divide through mitosis, forming an embryo, which implants in the female's endometrium. At this time, the embryo usually consists of 16 cells. (…)

The result of sexuality: childbirth​

Childbirth is the process by which an infant is born. It is considered by many to be the beginning of a person's life, and age is defined relative to this event in most cultures.

A woman is considered to be in labour when she begins experiencing regular uterine contractions, accompanied by changes of her cervix — primarily effacement and dilation. While childbirth is widely experienced as painful, some women do report painless labours, while others find that concentrating on the birth helps to quicken labor and lessen the sensations. Most women are capable of having a normal birth but sometimes complications arise and a woman may need to undergo a caesarean section

During the time immediately after birth, both baby and mother are hormonally cued to bond, the mother through the release of oxytocin a hormone also released during breastfeeding.

all source from Wikipedia.

Now why I’m posting something that you probably know, well to remind you and all people here that have said that we can’t be sure if heterosexuality is the right and proper form of sexual behavior were all this “crap” I’ve been talking about comes from. Humans have a sexual form of reproduction, there are males, there are females, both sexes attract each other (love), they have “fun” sex, they reproduce (have kids). Your sexuality is there so you can reproduce, regardless of if you will do it or not, I just can’t understand how some people can question that, I just can’t please give me a real logical reason that can “crush” human sexuality as I know it.

Probably nobody will bother to read all this, but I feel better now, I stated my views as supported as I could, now I’ll see if someone can reply with something that at least be substantial

Wow. I don't remember you ever posting this. The first part is perfect. You made it perfectly clear that this is your opinion, and an opinion only.

However, where do you get that people are saying that homosexuality is "right"? I don't see any fliers out there, by either heterosexual nor homosexual people, trying to convert people to homosexuality. The only thing people are trying to push is that homosexuality shouldn't be looked down upon, but rather accepted.

I get the idea of people saying that maybe men are not naturally attacked to women or vice versa

Also, just because two ideals contradict each other doesn't mean they both can't be right. It just means that they both can't be right to the same person. In other words, a Christian who believes that homosexuality is wrong, can't also believe that it is acceptable. The same as the homosexual can't say that he believes homosexuality should be acceptably, but that it is wrong.

keyword “right”, I wasn’t saying one is possible the other is not, of course they both happens that is why this thread exists, I was saying that if one is right then the other is wrong, and since they both contradict each other is obvious that if one is right then the other cannot be right as well.

However, since both people are basing their opinions on a different moral basis, neither one can be proven right or wrong. Technically, unless someone were to prove that there is a God (proving there is no God would not work however), we will never be able to say which one is morally right, and which one is wrong (provided one is actually wrong). If we prove that God exists, and that he is not a liar, then we prove that homosexuality is indeed wrong. However, if we prove there is no God, we leave that decision up to each individual to make on their own, and I very highly doubt every human on earth is going to agree on ANY issue 100% anytime, ever.

I’m not basing myself in moral, not this time, I’m basing myself in human nature and sexuality, the discussion in this topic has given me the impression that people has forgotten why we humans or any other species for that matter have sex in the first place.

 

[Daenerys]

I tried to prove my point pointing out that the sole purpose of life was to create more life, thus homosexuality didn’t fit anywhere.

How do you know what the sole purpose of life is? are you God or whoever? who knows the sole purpose of life could be to create the worlds biggest marshmallow or never be emo.

Joking aside you just cannot say that the Sole purpose of life is to create more life - because that may not be true - i know for a fact that my own personal sole purpose in life is to become a fully trained Teacher/lawyer/phsycologist - not create more life, while although im sure i will have Kids its not the SOLE purpose of my existance.

I took this knowledge for granted and assumed that everyone else would assume my position as right

Clearly you assumed Wrong.

(that heterosexuality is the right way)

Prove that its the right way. just because its the most common thing to do doesnt make it right - for example in my school it is normal and common for the majority of people to get a detention once a week - but thats wrong.

all source from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia XD not really the best place to get all your facts from XD

Now why I’m posting something that you probably know, well to remind you and all people here that have said that we can’t be sure if heterosexuality is the right and proper form of sexual behavior were all this “crap” I’ve been talking about comes from. Humans have a sexual form of reproduction, there are males, there are females, both sexes attract each other (love), they have “fun” sex, they reproduce (have kids). Your sexuality is there so you can reproduce, regardless of if you will do it or not, I just can’t understand how some people can question that, I just can’t please give me a real logical reason that can “crush” human sexuality as I know it.

Erm, no! your sexualtiy is there to determine which gender of people you Want to sleep with, because it doesnt go like this "Im Straight - your straight - lets go make babies" - you know ever heard of a one night stand? a casual fling? your sexuality controls that too - not all sex leads to the babies!

I was saying that if one is right then the other is wrong, and since they both contradict each other is obvious that if one is right then the other cannot be right as well.

Again Not true - look at religion for example - Christianity and Islam contradict each other quite often - yet you cannot say either is right or wrong, sure you are able to say whether its right or wrong for you personally but now whether its right or wrong for sociaty as a whole - sexuality works in the same way.

I’m basing myself in human nature and sexuality, the discussion in this topic has given me the impression that people has forgotten why we humans or any other species for that matter have sex in the first place.

Again - Not all sex leads to the babies! Get over it - not everyone wants to produce - the way you phrase things makes it sound like men are there to dump their genetic material inside the woman and shes there to pop babies outta her each time they have sex.

No - you can have sex for FUN - without leading to reproduction which is what many many many people choose to do Nowadays.

Now im sorry if none of this makes sense to you but it does to me XD its kinda like 3am here XD

 

[QuickSilverD]

How do you know what the sole purpose of life is? are you God or whoever? who knows the sole purpose of life could be to create the worlds biggest marshmallow or never be emo.

Joking aside you just cannot say that the Sole purpose of life is to create more life - because that may not be true - i know for a fact that my own personal sole purpose in life is to become a fully trained Teacher/lawyer/phsycologist - not create more life, while although im sure i will have Kids its not the SOLE purpose of my existance.

In case you didn’t notice I was talking from a biological point of view, under which the purpose of the living is to keep on living, I never said what was the purpose of life from a philosophical point of view, that is a whole different subject

Clearly you assumed Wrong.

You have a real talent for pointing out the obvious.

Prove that its the right way. just because its the most common thing to do doesnt make it right - for example in my school it is normal and common for the majority of people to get a detention once a week - but thats wrong.

Do yourself a favor and actually read my post.

Wikipedia XD not really the best place to get all your facts from XD

You’ve be surprise as to how reliable the information from that site can be, especially in big articles like the ones I used, of course that if you believe anything is wrong why don’t you just point it out and give us reliable source of information, until then everything posted there is fact, cause you can’t find anything reliable that contradicts it.

Erm, no! your sexualtiy is there to determine which gender of people you Want to sleep with, because it doesnt go like this "Im Straight - your straight - lets go make babies" - you know ever heard of a one night stand? a casual fling? your sexuality c
ontrols that too - not all sex leads to the babies!

Yo! No kidding! Not all sex lead to babies! WOW I didn’t know that!

Joking aside even if you don’t use sex for reproduction it doesn’t means that is not the reason why it is there.

Again Not true - look at religion for example - Christianity and Islam contradict each other quite often - yet you cannot say either is right or wrong, sure you are able to say whether its right or wrong for you personally but now whether its right or wrong for sociaty as a whole - sexuality works in the same way.

ideals that can’t be proven right (Religion) is a lot different from biology

Again - Not all sex leads to the babies! Get over it - not everyone wants to produce - the way you phrase things makes it sound like men are there to dump their genetic material inside the woman and shes there to pop babies outta her each time they have sex.No - you can have sex for FUN - without leading to reproduction which is what many many many people choose to do Nowadays.

Now im sorry if none of this makes sense to you but it does to me XD its kinda like 3am here XD

You have a bad habit of misinterpreting posts your way, try reading them, analyze my point of view so you don’t end up mixing it with something I am not saying, you can do with your sexuality whatever the hell you like to but that will not take away the undeniable fact that sex is there for reproduction, I think I explained why it is enjoyable, so people do would do it.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

QuickSilverD,

I have to stretch my hand out and congratulate you. You're posts in this thread have grown much more mature, much more well thought out, and much more factual based. You took the best theories, with the most reliable information that is out there, and then took that information to make an informed opinion on the matter. I find very little faults with your post that references Wikipedia (yes, I read it all), and while that site isn't exactly the most reliable site when it comes to scientific knowledge, it is at least a source, and a well thought out sounding source as well.

I congratulate you on your post and I now stand down. Up until this post one of my sole reasons for posting here was to yell and scream until people got the point that your opinions need to be backed up as thoroughly as possible. Since we all pretty much agree that no one is going to know just about anything for sure (at least at this point in time), I think you did the best you could to allow people to understand your point of view.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Do you like girls Riku? I will assume you do, now why would you like them? Why do I like them? Why my father fall in love with my mother? Why? Why? Why!!!!!!!!!

What came first; the chicken or the egg?

purpose, not meaning, purpose, creatures are born with the sole intention to life for living sake, they reproduce because for some reason they can’t keep on living for ever so they let their descendants continue with the duty of living, the purpose of all species is to continue itself, if it wouldn't be that way, nothing would reproduce and animals and humans wouldn't try too hard to survive.

Purpose/meaning. Potayto/Potahto.

"creatures are born with the sole intention to life for living sake" is a sweet way of saying "The meaning of life is to live." That doesn't really get you anywhere.

So yes, the purpose of live is to continue life, try to prove me wrong, I dare you.

I can't prove you wrong, just as you can't prove yourself right. OPINIONS cannot be FACTS. You can use facts to support your opinions, but your opinion cannot BE fact, because opinions are held by the individual.

Let’s face it, we don’t know if homosexuality is nature or nurture, I’ve been critiqued for assuming is nurture, why would it be any different if someone assume is nature?

So now you're going back on your word? You've just been kicking and screaming about Homosexuality being caused by nurture and now you're saying that no one can know. As much as I LIKE the new viewpoint, as it is less biased, it seems like you're trying to take a back-door out of the heat.

Thank all the holy beings that ever existed, whether only in the head of one man, or truly in the heavens above, that you didn't dare me to prove you wrong. Well... I couldn't prove you wrong, but I sure could tear you a new asshole on how you you could possibly be wrong, or basically how you can't even prove yourself right.

Please don't make me embarrass you like that again in front of everyone. At first you were helping me look smart... now it's just getting annoying.

Wow, that came out really mean spirited. It wasn't meant to be.

I love you <3

You are a little confuse here, I wasn’t daring you to prove me anything, I was challenging Riku, for you to understand why I did it, you have to look back at what we were discussing about human sexuality and how I was trying to prove Hetero=right, homo=wrong.

Trying, but failing. Look, if you really don't get this opinions/facts thing, then ask me next time you're on MSN, 'kay?

I wasn’t founding myself in morals or bible, I was basing myself in nature, I claimed that the natural way of our sexuality was for man and woman to mate and that nature never intended anything for homosexuality as it is not “productive”, arguing here and there it came to a point when I claimed that “we men are programmed to like girls” I thought that would go alright but it seems that the ones posting here are more skeptical than I though, they claimed that “we don’t know for sure” if man and woman were actually intended to mate, just how ridiculous is that? I tried to prove my point pointing out that the sole purpose of life was to create more life, thus homosexuality didn’t fit anywhere.

Oaft. Now you're calling others opinions ridiculous? You're not doing wonders for your street cred here.

I took this knowledge for granted and assumed that everyone else would assume my position as right

Ha-HA! Finally!

(that heterosexuality is the right way) ouch! I was dead wrong, is not bad to question things, but sometimes I think people here take it too far, and since I am so confidence about the authenticity of my argument, so much that I even dare someone to prove me wrong, then the obvious is that I should defend it, be careful facts are coming

You're not right. You're not wrong. I'm not right. I'm not wrong. Omni isn't right. Omni isn't wrong. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of this monotonous argument.