Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Rue]

'I do not represent any institution when I post on this forum. "

You did Kapitan. You came on these posts and claimed you represented the Catholic religion and your views as to homosexuality were based on your Catholicism, and you on quite a few occassions used your religious status to justify your arguements. You can't have it both ways. You can't refer to your religious beliefs when its convenient, then pretend I have to ignore your claims of being Christian.

I have the perfect right to say a Christian would not engage in hatred and use words like "fag". I did not attack any Christians or their religious beliefs. I challenge you claiming to be Christian and then using such words. Yes it most certainly makes you game for criticism and being accused of being a hippocrate.

"It is thanks to freedom of speach that I use words such as "fag"."

No it is thanks to your ignorance and hated. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to use words you know are derogatory and used as an expression of hatred and condescention of gays.

"I may share my opinions, perception and I am free to agree or disagree with you."

UI could give a rat's asp whether you disagree with me. I do challenge you when you come on this post and pretend using derogatory words to insult people is an expression of opinion. Calling someone a fag is not an expression of opinion and you know it. Don't play cute with me.

"In my mention of "God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed...", seems like you had to come up with the most distorted interpretation. You completely missed my point and make rediculous accusations, then empty threats. There is no room on this forum for "disparaging comments about you", that translates into personal attacks and you would be reported for such behavior."

No I in fact threw your point back in your face. You are making a mockery of the Bible. If you believe quite literally that God created Adam and Eve then necessarily you know God created gays. For you to pretend God only created heterosexuals is as absurd as you trying to tell people using the word "fag" is an exercise of freedom of expression and is stating an opinion.

You use the Bible to suit your prejudices and those prejudices are irrational and we are all waiting for you to switch back to your claiming to be Catholic to explain to us all that in the Catholic religion gays are not created by God.

"My point was, humanity started with no sex shops..."

Your subjective opinion was you think people are born without sexual desire and simply acquire it and if they acquire homosexual tendencies its immoral. Yah we know. We know how you claim this is what Christianity says.

I also happen to know Christians, Jews, Muslims and many people religious or not, who don't conclude that based on the Bible and we believe sexuality is both genetic and inherent as well as learned and that homo-sexuality as a naturally occuring phenomena in all life forms and not just humans.

"these things do not "enhance" the world's sexual relations, "

Now you talk nonsense. Fro many people enjoying sex with toys makes them more loving and most certainly enhances their sexual and human relationships and makes them more loving.

"but rather compromise them. "

When you claim to speak on behalf of everyone I call you on it. Not once in your response to you apply these opinions to yourself and that is why I find you a blatant and out of control hippocrate. Speak for yourself. Your concepts of sexuality and morality apply to you. Do not phrase yourself as if you speak on behalf of humanity because you do not and quite frankly when you speak in such terms it would be absolutely no different then me stating" I think sticking a dildot up your bumb could enhance your relationship with your wife". I could easily say this is not meant to be offensive and is merely me expressing my freedom of expression. You obviously would find it unacceptable. So practice the Golden Rule you seem to be oblivious to or using tour reasoning people have the right to tell you your opinions are defective because you won't use sex toys and maybe do it with a man in leather. Either way its absurd.

"Humanity essentially began with everything it needed for ideal sexual relations."

Here you go again speaking on behalf of humanity. Try some huimility and state, in my opinion I believe humans have everything they need for sex and do not need to use anything else. Because in fact that is all it is and the Vibrator Manufacturers Association of North America disagrees with you. I also have news for you, I know Catholics who use dildots. It doesn't make them any less human. In fact I suggested it to them as part of counseling and their Priest couldn't agree more. Believe it or not some Priests are quiet hip to such things.

"The story of Adam and Eve illustrates"

Its a story. I will read from it whatever I want. Do not lecture me on how to understand it. You have monopoly on it. Again had you started the above with "in my opinion" I would have no problem but once again in your arrogance you spew out as if you are the sole authority on how to understand the story.

To me the story is only that a story. It is symbolic. I do not take it literally and for me and millions we believe if there is a God, he created all humans and not just heterosexuals and your reading of Adam and Eve to justify your prejudice is only that you twisting a story to suit your subjective opinions.

Using your brilliant analogy there would have had to be incest and we all know God does not approve of incest and yet there would have had to have been incest if the Adam and Eve story is true.

No you can't select the story to suit your needs and ignore the other parts of it that necessarily flow simply because it doesn't fit into your simplistic formula.

"God creating a man and a woman (because if the two first and only humans were of the same sex, humanity would not last beyond one generation). "

There you proved to everyone there had to have been incest which is clearly against the ten commandments. The problem with quoting the Bile Kapitan is it always comes back to bite you in that preacher's ass.

"If God intented for homosexuality to be appropriate, the two first humans would then have had the capacity to reproduce within the same sex or some other really explicitly obvious sign would have flagged homosexuality as appropriate."

The above statement is completely irrational because according to you God intended incest bu not homosexuality and all the lfie forms that have homo-sexuality were not created by God or are all inappropriate and God when he made all these life forms and their homo-sexual behaviour, kept making the same mistake over and over or all these life forms had intelligent thought and chose deliberately to be imoral and become gay and flaunt God's rules. Talk about absurd.

"I'm not representing any institution when I post on this forum, this is my interpretation, feel free to argue, but please bring forward good reasons for believing otherwise."

I say it again you constantly use your religion to justify your beliefs and now when I call you on it suddenly when you use the word fag or interprate the Bible, all your references to believing this because you are Catholic are to be ignored? No I don't think so.

"If we are to argue about Scripture's contents (since you brought it up), God created

Adam and Eve from dust, and all others are their decendants (or later created from dust, but Adam and Eve were the first two)."

I did not bring religion up to defend my beliefs that gays were abnormal and sinful, you did. Nice try.

As for your comments on Kinsey, there is zero need to respond since you deliberately misquoted them and ignored what they said.

You are now at the point where you simply pretend something does not exist when you can't agree with it. I am tired of the game.

I say to everyone the moment you engaged in the word "gay" you showed your true colours and it wasn't done innocently as in your defence of it you in fact show it was deliberate and you feel you are entitled to say it.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@FascistLibertarian:

I can't remember what they were called..."Polly houses" or some such...but homosexual whorehouses were quite common in Victorian England. I actually have no problem with that...hegemonic society treated it with scorn, and the government for the most part ignored it...as was the case in most societies throughout history. Occasionally this or that society has elevated faggotry to a neutral, but it's always shortlived in the scope of history. Anyone who thinks bumbuggery will be accepted henceforth and forever is deluding themselves mightily.

Of course they did, why would this be suprising, you think any society has been able to get rid of non-hetrosexual behaviour?

Acceptance might change. But no matter how much you may attempt to stop it or make people think it is bad, it has existed and will exist in every human society. No human society has ever had one 'type' of sexuality which 'works' for everyone. Sexuality is very diverse at all levels and in all types and forms of human society.

Really the question should not be how natural it is, but who is hurt by the action.

Consenting adults is, for me, the key. People and their sexuality are just wierd in general, regardless of sexual orientation.

That's why we draw the line and don't imprison consenting adults to homosexual relations... however consent does not justify an action. I don't see the need in imprisoning adults who consent to homosexual relations... it's bad enough that we lock anyone up into those luxurious Canadian hotels. Consent may be one thing, but government supporting homosexuality by legislating gay marriage is a whole other issue.

Theft and piracy have always existed, and in places like Sweden, it's really easy to get away with piracy, in other places, it's a little trickier. Would you say that theft or piracy could be ok for some yet not for others? Is everything relative to you?

There must be absolutes, where certain things can be measured according to certain standards. Homosexuality may be nothing new, but neither is theft, blackmailing, or child abduction (though murder is likely older than homosexuality).

@Rue:

Thanks for the long reply... gives me something to do while my laudry dries.

You came on these posts and claimed you represented the Catholic religion and your views

My background my explain my reason for tending towards certain beliefs, and I may refer to certain institutions to underline my point, but on this forum, my user name is not "Catholic Church", therefore I am not the Catholic Church nor do I claim to be, I'm an end-user posting on a forum with an opinion and a free-thinking mind of my own.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to use words you know are derogatory and used as an expression of hatred and condescention of gays.

Freedom of speech grants me that plus more. I my refer to gays as fags, but I haven't refered to any specific individual as a fag, and personally I don't think the word fag is derogatory. I'm not debating the meaning of the word, but it just doesn't seem as strong a word for me. Unless anyone's feelings are hurt, then it's not an issue at all, not is it?

No I in fact threw your point back in your face. You are making a mockery of the Bible. If you believe quite literally that God created Adam and Eve then necessarily you know God created gays. ...

I also happen to know Christians, Jews, Muslims and many people religious or not, who don't conclude that based on the Bible and we believe sexuality is both genetic and inherent as well as learned and that homo-sexuality as a naturally occuring phenomena in all life forms and not just humans.

Where'd you pull this idea out of?

God created all people, granted we are created by God. However, there is still no concrete proof that people are born gay. If it were inherit, even with artificial reproduction, gays still probably average the lowest birth rate, and would become completely extinct extremely fast. The only thing that has been proven is that homosexuality can develop amongst certain individuals given a combination of a certain personality, a series of events or even the quality of relationship an individual shares with parents/close family members. There has been no concrete proof that anyone is born gay. Sure, God created the people who are now gay, but it does not mean God created people destined to homosexuality. Hey, I'm glad you know people who share different opinions.

I could easily say this is not meant to be offensive and is merely me expressing my freedom of expression.

You can say whatever you want, but it doesn't mean I have to listen to you, and if you make this personal and irrelevant to the topic, you just might lose sympathy (aside from risking being reported, no offense intended).

Because in fact that is all it is and the Vibrator Manufacturers Association of North America disagrees with you. I also have news for you, I know Catholics who use dildots. It doesn't make them any less human. In fact I suggested it to them as part of counseling and their Priest couldn't agree more. Believe it or not some Priests are quiet hip to such things.

Wow, you think?

I know Catholics who break every rule of the Vatican, that doesn't mean anything. I also see each of the rules of the Vatican followed by at least one Catholic, which is also just as meaningless in terms of the topic.

I never stated the toys were wrong "as is", however a couple does not need these things for a healthy relationship, otherwise the first people who made humanity's survival possible through natural procreation would have had access to this. In terms of approaches concerning therapy, I had no intention of arguing either side, and I haven't looked into the morality of the toys, I'm just saying that if we needed them, they would have been around all along, since prehistory.

Also, if you can't tell the difference from facts and opinions, then maybe you should read a whole lot more fora. If I have an opinion, I'll state it without stating that it is an opinion. If I have a fact to share, it will most likely be backed by a quote or even stats. Feel free to argue either one.

I'm mostly posting opinions here because too many liberals on your side refuse to recognize the authenticity of any source I post, because they are likely to be at least hosted by a Christian. However, the only people posting results on this topic arguing the immorality of homosexuality are Christians, and the only people areguing against is the GBLT community and their fanatic supporters (mostly supporters). Anything I could possible quote would be biased in either direction, so there's no real point in refering to external resources for the purpose of this post.

here you proved to everyone there had to have been incest which is clearly against the ten commandments. The problem with quoting the Bile Kapitan is it always comes back to bite you in that preacher's ass.

If only you could spell.

Maybe there was incest. Keep in mind that sin was stated to begin as of the consumption of the forbidden fruit, meaning no incest would have happened before this (and although Eve was made of Adam's rib, they were not considered to be related). Also consider that Adam and Eve predate the ten commandments (I don't see incest in the ten commandments, I see adultery, but that's not exactly the same). Incest does not justify homosexuality.

I did not bring religion up to defend my beliefs that gays were abnormal and sinful, you did. Nice try.

Nice double-sided sword you're welding. You brought it up to back your point, not mine.

I say it again you constantly use your religion to justify your beliefs and now when I call you on it suddenly when you use the word fag or interprate the Bible, all your references to believing this because you are Catholic are to be ignored? No I don't think so.

Not at all, I do not find the word fag offensive, and I have not used it to refer to any specific individual.

I just gave some food for thought, quoted a cute phrase saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", then you bash me for quoting religious sources. It was just some food for thought, seems like you have no sense of humor.

[daniel]

...Consent may be one thing, but government supporting homosexuality by legislating gay marriage is a whole other issue....

Wow. If anybody ever needs an example of strawman, here it is.

And the rest of the post is dripping with double-standards.

It would be hard to believe that Christ, who spent alot of time challenging authority and who spent alot of time with social outcasts and would agree with this posting.

[FascistLibertarian]

Theft and piracy have always existed, and in places like Sweden, it's really easy to get away with piracy, in other places, it's a little trickier. Would you say that theft or piracy could be ok for some yet not for others? Is everything relative to you?

There must be absolutes, where certain things can be measured according to certain standards. Homosexuality may be nothing new, but neither is theft, blackmailing, or child abduction (though murder is likely older than homosexuality).

Human sexuality is very black and white to you isnt it?

I guess we should judge morality by your standards?

What is the standard? What is the baseline?

And murder/homosexuality predate humanity..........

[cybercoma]

How is murder at all even remotely comparable to homosexuality? That's so utterly absurd that I'm ashamed for even replying to this idiocy.

[FascistLibertarian]

How is murder at all even remotely comparable to homosexuality?

They both involve 2 or more people.

Emotions are often high.

People feel regret afterwards.

Society looks down on you depending on the situation.

People are more afraid of them than they should be.

The Canadian government has in the past had laws against both.

The Canadian government has in the past ruled that people can be held in jail for the rest of their life for both.

The rules governing both vary from culture to culture and over time and space.

If you think about it, they are pretty much the same thing.

I dont think IV ever seen murder and homosexuality in the same room at the same time (just saying)

[cybercoma]

I don't think I've seen Charlie Chaplin and Hitler in the same room at the same time.

Oh... and they both have a mustache.

Charlie Chaplin must be a Jew killer.

[FascistLibertarian]

But then why did Hitler ban Chaplin's films in Germany?

Unless it was so that no one would suspect......

I sense a book on this theory.

[NovaScotian]

Just looking back to something that leafless said at the beginning of this thread.

"Proof of this is the liberals fixation concerning implementing gay marriage in Canada, all part of their master plan on 'how to destroy heterosexual society'.

I believe Western heterosexual society will wake up before it's to late and turf out forever all those heterosexual hating Liberals."

Is "heterosexual society'(whatever that is?) so weak that it cannot exist with anything else. Is "heterosexual society" like East Germany were we have to build a wall so to keep straights from just running over to the West Germany?

I am sorry but I could not imagine a straight guy seeing two gay men walking down the street and thinking "My god that looks like fun. I really should give this homosexuality thing a try!"

[gc1765]

I am sorry but I could not imagine a straight guy seeing two gay men walking down the street and thinking "My god that looks like fun. I really should give this homosexuality thing a try!"

No, but I could see someone who was secretly gay and repressing their homosexuality doing just such a thing.

Maybe that's why some people are so obsessed with being anti-homosexual...

[NovaScotian]

I am sorry but I could not imagine a straight guy seeing two gay men walking down the street and thinking "My god that looks like fun. I really should give this homosexuality thing a try!"

No, but I could see someone who was secretly gay and repressing their homosexuality doing just such a thing.

Maybe that's why some people are so obsessed with being anti-homosexual...

Possible, but I believe it is estimated that a maximum of 10% of the population is homosexual. So I do not believe there would be a mass exodus from 'heterosexuality'.

[gc1765]

Possible, but I believe it is estimated that a maximum of 10% of the population is homosexual. So I do not believe there would be a mass exodus from 'heterosexuality'.

Those 10% are probably the same 10% who are the most anti-homosexual...

[ScottSA]

Possible, but I believe it is estimated that a maximum of 10% of the population is homosexual. So I do not believe there would be a mass exodus from 'heterosexuality'.

Those 10% are probably the same 10% who are the most anti-homosexual...

This sort of idiotic streetcorner psychology cheapens any argument you might be trying to make. Grow up.

[gc1765]

They also tend to be the angriest 10%

[cybercoma]

This sort of idiotic streetcorner psychology cheapens any argument you might be trying to make. Grow up.

It's a valid point. There is no reason to be so vocally against homosexuality. The most vocal want homosexuals to stop feeling the way they do and pretend to be heterosexual. If this were at all possible, then heterosexual people would be able to put their feelings aside and become homosexual. Most people would find that impossible, on either side of the fence. Therefore, the only people who would run over to the homosexual side, when there is a broader acceptance of it, are those who have been repressing those feelings to begin with. Either you have feelings for the same sex or you don't.l

It makes sense that those who are most vocally against homosexuality are against it because they're adamantly trying to repress those feelings. Otherwise it's simply an act between two consenting adults that you would have absolutely no interest in.

[daniel]

In the list of all the anomolies humans have when compared to other animals here on earth, homosexuality is not one of them.

Homosexuality and other deviant sexual behaviour have been consistently observed in 1500 species.

As far as I know, humans are the only animal that beats up homosexuals.

[gc1765]

It's a valid point. There is no reason to be so vocally against homosexuality. The most vocal want homosexuals to stop feeling the way they do and pretend to be heterosexual. If this were at all possible, then heterosexual people would be able to put their feelings aside and become homosexual. Most people would find that impossible, on either side of the fence. Therefore, the only people who would run over to the homosexual side, when there is a broader acceptance of it, are those who have been repressing those feelings to begin with. Either you have feelings for the same sex or you don't.l

It makes sense that those who are most vocally against homosexuality are against it because they're adamantly trying to repress those feelings. Otherwise it's simply an act between two consenting adults that you would have absolutely no interest in.

Exactly.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@gc1765:

Humanity started with no cars & no computers either. Does that mean it's not appropriate to drive a car or use a computer? I don't think I understand your argument here...

Cars and computers do not affect poeple's sexual behavior. However, their polution does cost us, but that should be saved for a whole other discussion.

@Mad_Michael:

Indeed, if we apply YOUR definition to the Kinsey Data set, the approximate number of 'gay' males is roughly about 25-35% amongst teenagers, and drops to about 15-20% for 20-45 year olds and really only gives a number under 5% if you survey over 45yr olds (based on your definition that a 'gay' person is one who has not yet abjured homosexual acts).

15%+ of a given age group would be sexually attracted to the same sex or would practice same-sex relations? Where do you get these numbers from?

@Rue:

This is all about one word to you?

Some groups may find the N-bomb less offensive than others, same goes for the word "fags". If your feelings are hurt, my appologies.

I never claimed to be a devout Christian. If you're going to accuse me of being a hypocrite, at least spell it correctly.

I can agree to not referer to homosexuals as fags if you like, but I do not see this being hatred-driven. I do not hate anyone, no matter what they do (though I may be disgusted by their actions).

[Mad_Michael]

Indeed, if we apply YOUR definition to the Kinsey Data set, the approximate number of 'gay' males is roughly about 25-35% amongst teenagers, and drops to about 15-20% for 20-45 year olds and really only gives a number under 5% if you survey over 45yr olds (based on your definition that a 'gay' person is one who has not yet abjured homosexual acts).

15%+ of a given age group would be sexually attracted to the same sex or would practice same-sex relations? Where do you get these numbers from?

Loosely extrapolated from the Kinsey data set based upon YOUR definition of gay.

Yes, the results are absurd. That is a function of applying your definition.

[Mad_Michael]

I can agree to not referer to homosexuals as fags if you like, but I do not see this being hatred-driven. I do not hate anyone, no matter what they do (though I may be disgusted by their actions).

Your statement rings hollow.

Your argument is entirely predicated upon the fact that YOU hate fags. That's all there is to your argument, post after post, day after day, that's your only consistent argument.

[gc1765]

Cars and computers do not affect poeple's sexual behavior. However, their polution does cost us, but that should be saved for a whole other discussion.

Seems to me your argument here is about what "costs us" and not what humanity did or did not start with.

[Rue]

I don't think I've seen Charlie Chaplin and Hitler in the same room at the same time.

Oh... and they both have a mustache.

Charlie Chaplin must be a Jew killer.

Hah. Don't think so he was Jewish. But he was a communist and a person known to have sex with young girls, so there you go a Jewish pedophile. Plus he was a communist!!!! I mean a commie!!!!!!!!!A Jewish commie who liekd young girls!!!!!!!! Evil as they come. (note" the above comments were said in sarcastic gest by a Jewish person!)

[Rue]

The Kapitan wrote in regards to his use of the word "fag" and my tonque lashing him on it (excuse the expression which could be interperated as a sinful act);

" @Rue:This is all about one word to you? Some groups may find the N-bomb less offensive than others, same goes for the word "fags". If your feelings are hurt, my appologies."

My feelings are not hurt and no this is not just about the use of that word but the fact you use it and then offer such a half-assed apology shows where your head and heart are at. That was my point.

"I never claimed to be a devout Christian."

Well Kapitan we figured the above out although your tone of righteousness and constant need to lecture us all on moral standards could have fooled me.

"If you're going to accuse me of being a hypocrite, at least spell it correctly."

Spell what krectly?

" but I do not see this (using the word fag) being hatred-driven. "

You don't see a lot of things Kapitan-that is the point.

Now Kapitan we are going to try one last attempt to show you why your comments are absurd.

You went off lecturing us that sexuality does not require any devices. No doubt you think you are being moral and religious when you say that.

Of course using your analogy if a human is paralyzed or crippled, they should not use a walker or a wheel-chair. If they are deaf they should not use a hearing aid. Hey no glasses. Why? Because the body was born without them.

Oh but no, its o.k. to use these devices as long as you don't orgasm right Kapitan?

Now Kapitan, before you quickly jump to your blinders and say, humans can create devices to make their lives better as long as they don't orgasm and use them for sex purposes, I have news for you.

There are millions of people with physical issues, bad backs, dry vaginas, quadra and paraplegia, diabetes and other circulatory problems, psychological disorders, taking medication that has side effects, etc., that prevent them from being able to have sex without the help of devices and aids. Do these people need your permission Kapitan? Will you give them special dispensation?

I have only one thing to say-if someone wants to use sexual devices or toys, I give you my permission. Right.

Actually I was in New Orleans once and I was doing the usual tourist walk on Bourbon Street and went into a sex shop (seized by a sudden satanic urge of sin) and was looking at the stuff when in came to women buying an enormous dildo (or is that dildot Kapitan how do you spell it).

I was trying not to look too dumb when one of the women looked over at me and simply stated-"we wouldn't need this if we could find a way to get you to shut the f..ck up when you were done".

I grabbed a piece of paper and pen and responded in writing; " but Madam, I am a mute".

As everyone laughed my wife came in and asked me what I was doing. The two ladies said to her I was charming but not to worry. Uh yah. Like I had any chance. My wife tells me I am not funny and should leave people alone. Hmmmf.