Arguments against homosexuality being natrual

[Phr3121]

Gentlemen, brace yourselves: once upon a time, you were a girl. Strictly speaking, when you were just an overgrown ball of cells in the womb you were female—but fortunately a few things happened along the way to ensure you were all man by birth.

During the first few weeks of fetus development, the baby's internal and external genital structures are the same, regardless of whether you are ultimately going to be a boy or a girl.

They have two sets of organs: one that can develop into the female sex organs and one that can develop into the male sex organs.

The gonads will become ovaries or testicles, the phallus will become a clitoris or a penis, and the genital folds will become labia or scrotum. Which sex organs develop depends on the presence of the male hormone testosterone (in humans, the default sex is female).

A person who is a hermaphrodite has both female and male genital characteristics and can also be called intersex people. This typically means that the organs on the inside are of one sex, while the organs on the outside are of another sex; for example, a hermaphrodite might have a penis and testicles, but inside, there are ovaries and possibly a uterus. In more rare cases, the chromosomes say a person is male or female, but the genitals say otherwise. They are not able to self-fertilize, because either their testicular tissue or their ovarian tissue wouldn’t function normally.

 

[uptheirons!]

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Again are we going to just make up new definitions for the English language to appease you and the other snowflakes feelings?

Yes because if nature is one thing its certainly not diverse lol God damn man.

You realize theres a difference between the words natural and morality correct?

Of course you don't.

Not to mentioning your comparing two people of the same gender banging with murder. But of course the opposition to homo crowd always resort to

A. Clearly not knowing what the definition of basic english words are.

B. Jesus

C. Comparing homosexuality with something completely off the wall different to argue their ham fisted point.

Moron, you're saying it's ok cause it occurs in nature. So I brought up other things that occur in nature but you can't handle that apparently.

Let's make it easier then. Is it ok for consenting adults to engage in incest? Should they be able to marry? How about adult polygamists? Do you fight for their equal treatment under the law? Or are you one of those homo activists who thinks only butt-pirates deserve special recognition?

Is it natural for humans to eat feces cause animals do? Notice how you skipped over that one?

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

Moron, you're saying it's ok cause it occurs in nature.

Actually you are the moron by dear boy. If you see my first post I merely scoffed at the notion it is unnatural as it occurs frequently in nature/across the animal kingdom therefore it literally fits the definition of being natural. I didn't say anything about it being "okay"

No matter how hard you and others wan't to try, you simply cant bring up the realm of nature in this argument to help your case and its comical watching you all try. I equate it with an Asperger child helplessly trying to smash a puzzle piece in a place it can't fit and being baffled at this conundrum.

Let's make it easier then. Is it ok for consenting adults to engage in incest? Should they be able to marry? How about adult polygamists? Do you fight for their equal treatment under the law? Or are you one of those homo activists who thinks only butt-pirates deserve special recognition?

Sure, as long as the incense case doesn't produce offspring due to the the possible genetic mishaps for their spawn.

Is it natural for humans to eat feces cause animals do? Notice how you skipped over that one?

Oh yes you finally broke the age old argument. Shit eating is the checkmate for this discussion.

 

[uptheirons!]

Actually you are the moron by dear boy. If you see my first post I merely scoffed at the notion it is unnatural as it occurs frequently in nature across the animal kingdom therefore i literally fits the definition of being natural. I didn't say anything about it being "okay"

No matter how hard you and others wan't to try to, you simply cant bring up the realm of nature in this argument to help your case and its comical watching you all try. I equate it with an Asperger child helplessly trying to smash a puzzle piece in a place it cant fit and being baffled at this conundrum.

Sure as long as the incense case doesn't produce offspring for the possible genetic mishaps for their spawn.

Oh yes you finally broke the age old argument. Shit eating is the checkmate for this discussion.

It's funny, you wrote all that nonsense but couldn't refute a single point I made. You're the moron who brought up animals as a justification for ass-banditry, but you can't handle when other animal behaviour is brought up. You think you can pick and choose what's natural when it suits your argument.

You obviously can't defend your side adequately so run along and go back to eating crayons.

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

It's funny, you wrote all that nonsense but couldn't refute a single point I made. You obviously can't argue your side adequately so run along and go back to eating crayons.

I refuted every point you made. You equated issues revolving around morality with one where no harm is done to anyone and then harped on about me laughing at you not understanding what the word natural means. You then proceeded to take that as an omission of me saying homosexuality is okay when it's simply me laughing at how simple minded you are.

If you want to be opposed to gayness knock yourself out but by no means try to bring logic into the argument as it fails time and time again as highlighted above.

Just walk away man walk away ya done

 

[uptheirons!]

I refuted every point you made. You equated issues revolving around morality with one where no harm is done to anyone and then harped on about me laughing at you not understanding what the word natural means. You then proceeded to take that as an omission of me saying homosexuality is okay when it's simply me laughing at how simple minded you are.

If you want to be opposed to gayness knock yourself out but by no means try to bring logic into the argument as it fails time and time again as highlighted above.

Just walk away man walk away ya done

What harm is done with incest, polygamy, or eating feces? Funny how you forget those examples when they don't fit your narrative. You bring up the animal kingdom when it's convenient, but want cry about morality when it's not. Can't have it both ways champ.

Either ditch the animal argument or explain why humans shouldn't engage in other behaviours that animals partake in.

The simple fact is that the sodomite lifestyle is an aberration. It's unnatural and not what was intended. That doesn't mean they should be persecuted, but the fact remains that their behaviour runs counter to how humans are supposed to be. Anyone who takes an 8th grade biology course can understand this, but not you apparently.

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

What harm is done with incest, polygamy, or eating feces?

It's apparent its hard for you to follow along with a thought but bare with me. You already falsely assumed i was a pro butt pirate activist who favored special treatment for homosexuals and brought up incest and multiple spouses.

Again no harm is done in either unless the related partnership produces offspring. As far as eating feces ,well many animals eat their feces to consume back nutrients needed in their digestive system(see rabbits for example) but humans do not need to do this. Though again someone eating their shit does little harm to society or others so any poop eaters out there can knock themselves out.

Funny how you forget those examples when they don't fit your narrative.

Are you drunk? Look back at post #163. I responded to your comparison immediately

You bring up the animal kingdom when it's convenient, but want cry about morality when it's not. Can't have it both ways champ.

No you created a straw man and seem intent on believing i didn't respond to it when i blatantly did. My only comment on morality sprouted from you comparing murder to homosexuality. Clearly comparing and act that causes harm to one that is entirely harmless is silly and thus is why one is seen as abhorrent by the general public and the other only seems to bother religious extremists and people who cant seem to make a sensible argument for why its so wrong. Case in point see below

The simple fact is that the sodomite lifestyle is an aberration. .

Ah, the ol simple fact retort when one can explain their opinion sensibly. Let me guess people who don't agree with you just cant get it and you wont bother to explain either huh?

It's unnatural

Theres that word again.

and not what was intended. l

Under what guidelines are we operating under with this? Philosophical or biological? If its the latter as noted earlier spanking your monkey wasn't "intended." Hell neither is contraception. Stop me if I'm sounding crazy here but sex has also become largely a means for simple physical gratification. Astounding i know.

 

[uptheirons!]

It's apparent its hard for you to follow along with a thought but bare with me. You already falsely assumed i was a pro butt pirate activist who favored special treatment for homosexuals and brought up incest and multiple spouses.

Again no harm is done in either unless the related partnership produces offspring. As far as eating feces ,well many animal eat their feces to consume back nutrients needed in their digestive system(see rabbits for example) but humans do not need to do this. Though again someone eating their shit does little harm to society or others so any poop eaters out there can knock themselves out.



Are you drunk? Look back at post #163. I responded to your comparison immediately




No you created a straw man and seem intent on believing i didn't respond to it when i blatantly did. My only comment on morality sprouted from you comparing murder to homosexuality. Cearly comparing and act that causes harm to one that is entirely harmless is silly and thus is why one is seen as abhorrent by the general public IE Killing and the other only seems to bother religious extremists and people who cant seem to make a sensible argument for why its so wrong. Case in point see below





Ah the ol simple fact retort when one can explain their opinion sensibly. Let me guess people who dont agree with you just cant get it and you wont bother to explain either huh?




Theres that word again.



Under what guidelines are we operating under with this? Philosophical or biological? If its the latter as noted early spanking your monkey wasnt "intended" Hell neither is contraception. Stop me if im sounding crazy here but sex has also become largely a means for simple physical gratification. Astounding i know.

If you want people to read your posts you need to learn to make them concise. You took up half the page with your response, and I don't need to read it to already know it's bullshit.

It's unnatural because it's not how humans were intended to be. It's an aberration from the norm. Nothing you say can change this. If humans were meant to be like that then humanity would cease to exist in a hundred years. Your only answer to that is that it's not widespread, which is basically like saying it's ok cause only a minority do it. That means it's abnormal, because something can't be normal if the consequence of everyone doing it would be the end of the human species.

Also, you bashed religion in previous posts. Please show me where I used religion as a reason for disagreeing with that behaviour. Seems like you're the one creating strawmen.

 

[Starman]

I guess you forgot that men have urethras, which are also "waste disposal units", and are used for sexual intercourse.

You have sex with your urethra?

 

[Starman]

Do you understand words?

Yes. Do you?

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

If you want people to read your posts you need to learn to make them concise. You took up half the page with your response, and I don't need to read it to already know it's bullshit.

Translation: Big words me no understand

It's unnatural because it's not how humans were intended to be. It's an aberration from the norm. Nothing you say can change this. If humans were meant to be like that then humanity would cease to exist in a hundred years.Your only answer to that is that it's not widespread, which is basically like saying it's ok cause only a minority do it.

Plenty of people have sex with out the intention of procreation. I'm sure you've done so plenty of times. I dont know why you and others here are on some sort of attempt at a biological high horse and act like your guardians over the sacred seed of continuation of the species. Oh wait yes i do its called grasping. You do so when its convenient for you.

IAlso, you bashed religion in previous posts. Please show me where I used religion as a reason for disagreeing with that behaviour. Seems like you're the one creating strawmen.

I didn't say anything about your thoughts being motivated by religion i noted that was one of the three major talking points the people who have a problem with homosexuality fall back on. Perhaps my posts would be less long winded if your reading comprehension wasnt at such a deplorable level. Funny how i am not the only poster here whos noted that about you.

 

[Starman]

A dick is literally a waste disposal unit

Sorry. I know goobers can be a difficult thing to understand, especially for people who don't have them. Try reading the link below.

The penis: everything you need to know
http://sex.sofeminine.co.uk/mag/relationships/d476/x4762.html

 

[uptheirons!]

Perhaps my posts would be less long winded if your reading comprehension wast as such a deplorable level. Funny how i am not the only poster here whos noted that about you.

Maybe if you learned how to write properly you'd be easier to understand.

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

Maybe if you learned how to write properly you'd be easier to understand.

Spoiler

 

[uptheirons!]

Sorry, can't see anything. Try again, Mongo.

 

[Higus]

Ever heard of the "Gay Uncle Hypothesis"? It's a decent theory that explains how homosexuality can be advantageous at the species level, which is more useful than looking at it from the individual level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Gay_uncle_hypothesis

The "gay uncle hypothesis" posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (e.g. food, supervision, defense, shelter) to the offspring of their closest relatives.

This hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection, which was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J. B. S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton and Mary Jane West-Eberhard.[63] This concept was also used to explain the patterns of certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.

Vasey and VanderLaan (2010) tested the theory on the Pacific island of Samoa, where they studied women, straight men, and the fa'afafine, men who prefer other men as sexual partners and are accepted within the culture as a distinct third gender category. V&V found that the fa'afafine said they were significantly more willing to help kin, yet much less interested in helping children who aren't family — providing the first evidence to support the ‘kin selection hypothesis,'”.[64][65]

The hypothesis is consistent with other studies on homosexuality, which show that it is more prevalent amongst both siblings and twins.[66][67][68][better source needed] Since both twins and sibling share genes and therefore have a higher factor of genetic redundancy, there is less genetic familial risk if the strategy is expressed. It is speculated that environmental and hormonal stress factors (linked to resource feedbacks) may act as triggers.

Since the hypothesis solves the problem of why homosexuality has not been selected out over thousands of years, despite it being antithetical to reproduction, many scientists consider it the best explanatory model for non-heterosexual behaviour such as homosexuality and bisexuality. The natural bell curve variation that occurs in biology and sociology everywhere, explains the variable spectrum of expression.

Vasal and VanderLaan (2011) provides evidence that if an adaptively designed avuncular male androphilic phenotype exists and its development is contingent on a particular social environment, then a collectivistic cultural context is insufficient, in and of itself, for the expression of such a phenotype.[69]

Imagine this scenario:
Your parents had 2 kids, you and your brother. You are straight, but your brother is gay. You both go through school, get decent grades, and get jobs out of college. You get married and have a couple of kids, while your brother never gets married. Since he doesn't have kids, he gives them fancy birthday and Christmas presents with his disposable income. When your brother dies, he bequeaths his assets to your kids, which helps them raise your grand children.

 

[ripskater]

Gentlemen, brace yourselves: once upon a time, you were a girl. Strictly speaking, when you were just an overgrown ball of cells in the womb you were female—but fortunately a few things happened along the way to ensure you were all man by birth.

Wrong. You were XX or XY at the time of conception. Always a male or always a female.

 

[Phr3121]

Wrong. You were XX or XY at the time of conception. Always a male or always a female.

You are right about the XX and XY. I'm talking about fetus development. Development of the sexual organs. All males started out with a 'vagina' before it became a penis.

 

[DatDubya]

Is there anything refuting the nature of homosexuality? I'm googling, and not finding anything worth while to support the counter argument. I am hoping someone could challenge my belief/education on the matter.

AIDS/STD statistics?

 

[helltoupee]

You have sex with your urethra?

Ya. I use my dick, and semen comes out of my urethra, which urine also comes out of, making the penis a 'waste disposal unit'.

Once again, your argument fails, and you resort to disingenuous word games.