homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

[clapper011]

keep on topic guys/gals.. you don't want me to turn all nazi on yas and locker down eh?

please and thank you with a cherry on top

[Anarkistsdream]

First, don't hijack a thread.

I'm applying his generalized accusation to other areas as well as this one. Besides, he was getting uncomfortably detailed in his description of homosexual relations as if he'd had experience. If he's going to tell us he can't understand why people care about life choices when it comes to this issue, it's fair to make him think about the hypocrisy of his statement when he doesn't apply it to himself.

Second, what you do to the environment affects EVERYONE... So perhaps you should grow up a bit and grow some pubes before you spew bullshit.

How does my family's owning property hurt you? How does it hurt Jake? What are people doing wrong to the environment by owning property? Do you, your family, or friend own property? Let's hear your sermon, O Wise One!

Oh, bravo. The name change. Way to win respect for your cause, kid.

HAHAHA...

And if I have to show you HOW things like 'owning' property affects the environment and everyone in it, I point you to property taxes, mortgages, the fall of the economy, how capitalism has become a form of dictatorship here in America... Need I go on?

Once you graduate middle school, I'm sure you'll begin to grow up and learn the way things really are.

[radiojake]

How does my family's owning property hurt you? How does it hurt Jake? What are people doing wrong to the environment by owning property? Do you, your family, or friend own property? Let's hear your sermon, O Wise One!

Clutching at straws here dragging this argument out. I never said people owning property hurts me, i said it was theft and effects environment. But I'm not going to get into that again because you're clearly not going to understand what I'm talking about, but that's fair enough, after all you've been brought up like everyone else and taught to look after number 1. So property is all well and good, isn't it?

[radiojake]

two homosexual men in a relationship sucking each others cock in the privacy of their own bedroom does not degrade human relationships or ruin the sanctity of marriage - so who fucking cares? I've never seen why people care about other people's life choices that have no effect on themselves. It's called diversity.

In a thread where there's an attempt to try and make us buy into the whole notion of they're wired that way, this was priceless. LOL!!

LOLOLOLOL OMG!!!! LOLZ THAT WAS SO FUNNY HOWS YOU PICKED UP MY MISTAKE AND MADE IT ALL RED AND BIG AND POINTED IT OUT AND THEN LOLZED AT IT. !!!! LOLZ OMG@AOL.COM

You idiot. Impulse and choice - they don't contradict each other. You can choose to act on your natural instinct but that doesn't negate the fact it was an instinct in the first place. Try again

[heavycola]

you recognized that incest is therefore ethically undifferentiable to homosexuality

where?

deep in nappy's world of delusional self-righteousness, where words mean what nappy decides they mean and posts that would involve conceding on his part are ignored.


Also, nappy, incest refers to an act. Homosexuality is not an act. Hardly comparable. In fact incest could be homosexual. This makes more sense: homosexual sex is ethically 'undifferentiable' (?) from heterosexual sex between a sterile couple.

[bradleybadly]

You also need to define "unnatural", as it doesn't seem to hold any relationship to nature.

Unnatural = contrary to the laws or course of nature

You have gone off the deep end. The root word of natural is nature. For you to deny it has any relationship to nature is to deny reality itself.

And while you're at that, you might as well tell us about these traditional families you're talking about.

For starters, a traditional family is one made up of a mother and father. They pass down values to their children, such as not pretending to be a medical student when in fact one is actually a teen living in the Netherlands, averaging more than 11 posts a day on an internet forum.

I understand though. Liberal wackos felt alienated until the internet came along and found other wackos like themselves. Now they know there are others out there like them and feel empowered. So they hang out all day posting about how noble they are and everyone else who disagrees with them isn't rational.

And why tradition should overrule rationality.

See what I mean?

Most traditions are rational or else the majority wouldn't have made them traditions in the first place. They are based in reality, not some artificial attempt to imitate it such as homosexual marriage.

I am not justifying it, I am condoning it.

Ok pilgrim, if you're going to play footloose and fancy-free with your definitions go ahead. Justifying means to defend or uphold something as warranted while condoning means to give tacit approval of it. So by your own admission, you give your tacit approval to it without being able to uphold it as warranted. Nice!

"I want it to be accepted but I can't give a good reason why it should be"

I think you need to look up the difference between condoning and justifying, bradley.

Just did, we all look forward to your next parceling of the English language to your liking

What are you talking about? What traditions?

Homosexual pride parades for now. If same sex marriage becomes the law of the land everywhere it will become a tradition. Once it becomes a tradition I'm sure you'll become "the conservative" after awhile.

Consent, desire and non-harmfull effect.

And you ask me to look up definitions when you can't even spell......Doctor!

harmful.........H - A - R - M - F - U - L (actually I'm just giving you a hard time on this. I make spelling mistakes too. I just want to throw it back at all you 'educated' elitists when you tell me to go read a book).

So homosexual sex is non-harmful. Let's see what the CDC says about that, hmmm. That's what happens when people deny natural laws and try to create artificial imitations of relationships. If the entire world says it's OK it won't mean a hill of beans because nature's laws will take over. I know, I can hear you all repeating the same old tired line: "it just follows the path of least resistance". Keep denying that evolution naturally selected female and male sexual organs to be complimentary.

Your only counter-arguments are based on your own special definition of 'natural' and the "traditional values" you're so up in arms about. Neither of which seem to have any relation with the world as it is and has been.

Yeah, the world of CDC statistical facts, hundreds of years of proven success in reproducing offspring and continuing our species, and nature's laws. It's a very scary place to live. When you get through posting your 11 posts per day in the "real world" of the internet, you might actually see what AIDS has done to homosexuals.

Part of the problem is also that you refuse to acknowledge the part of the homosexual community that's arguing against being "hard-wired" that way. They're smart enough to realize that genetic manipulation of potential homosexual babies while still in the womb could be an issue due to technological advancements in that field. They don't want to be guinea pigs, but that doesn't seem to matter to you high-minded libs.

[bradleybadly]

Blanketing generalisations across everybody with even a slight left wing leniency with the word liberal and all the rhetoric behind it is pretty much all you do bradley - get a new game, because I'm over this one.

So over it in fact, that you still took the time to respond to my post.

How are the Rape Therapy Group meetings going for the Earth? I heard Pluto got kicked out!

P.S - two homosexual men in a relationship sucking each others cock in the privacy of their own bedroom does not degrade human relationships or ruin the sanctity of marriage - so who fucking cares? I've never seen why people care about other people's life choices that have no effect on themselves. It's called diversity.

But - but - but.....THEY'RE BORN THAT WAY! The whole purpose of this thread was to prove that they're 'hard-wired' to behave like that. ROFL, this has to be one of the best posts ever on CC.

Hold on, it gets better. Looks like I'm not the only one who noticed this and then you went ape-shit:

In a thread where there's an attempt to try and make us buy into the whole notion of they're wired that way, this was priceless. LOL!!

LOLOLOLOL OMG!!!! LOLZ THAT WAS SO FUNNY HOWS YOU PICKED UP MY MISTAKE AND MADE IT ALL RED AND BIG AND POINTED IT OUT AND THEN LOLZED AT IT. !!!! LOLZ OMG@AOL.COM

You idiot. Impulse and choice - they don't contradict each other. You can choose to act on your natural instinct but that doesn't negate the fact it was an instinct in the first place. Try again

OMG!! This is so funny. Bwaahaahaahaha!

There's no need to fear! Jake and his socialist CC buddies will save us!

[Juan_Bottom]

So you're saying that homosexuality isn't hardwired because it is immoral--to you?
And please expain just what makes any tradition more important than civil rights? Or do you not believe this to be a case of civil rights on any level? Dude only has one life to live, and you want to control it for the sake that it is a tradition? It seems to me that you just don't have any compassion. I haven't seen you evidence just how gays are destroying your traditional-ized world.

And why do you feel the need to label everyone? Are you trying to be elitist? I don't understand why you feel the need to attack everyone.

If it is hardwired in the brain, then it is natural.

[dewey316]

Wow, both sides of this amaze me. Come on everyone, guess what, cheap shots and name calling, make you points look invalid.

A couple of issues I see with this study. The question of hard-wiring vs choice, this study doesn't address. The first thing issue I see. Of course, people with diffrent sexual orientations are going to have diffrent brain patterns. Does that in and of itself make it "hard-wired"? How are we defining this term of "hard-wired".

And example. Combat soldiers who have PTSD show disconnects with the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex. Their brains are diffrent. But, are they born this way, or has the brain changed due the trama it has gone through. No one would be willing to say that soldiers or children are abuse victoms and have this damage are "born that way". Their brain obviously due to the stress has changed its patterns.

I don't see how a study like this can even start a discussion like this. I guess it is just a chance for everyone to pile on and call names. Why is it that everytime a homosexuality discussion comes up, people jump in and start calling people homophobic and typical liberals, etc. Here is a news flash. I don't celebrate homosexuality, but I don't hate people who are homosexualy. My lack of celebration doesn't make me homophobic. Someone who wants equal rights for someone who choses a diffrent lifestyle, doesn't make them a commi. The stereotyping from both sides shows just how closeminded people on both sides of this are. What could have been a good discussion on the merits of this study, and on a discussion of how the outcome of the study may or may not show any connection with the observable outcome of the devoloped brain vs wether or not that person was born with a brain this way, got competely overlooked, and everyone resorted to name calling. Way to go, and way to show the openmindedness of C-C.

--John

[radiojake]

Wow, both sides of this amaze me. Come on everyone, guess what, cheap shots and name calling, make you points look invalid.

A couple of issues I see with this study. The question of hard-wiring vs choice, this study doesn't address. The first thing issue I see. Of course, people with diffrent sexual orientations are going to have diffrent brain patterns. Does that in and of itself make it "hard-wired"? How are we defining this term of "hard-wired".

And example. Combat soldiers who have PTSD show disconnects with the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex. Their brains are diffrent. But, are they born this way, or has the brain changed due the trama it has gone through. No one would be willing to say that soldiers or children are abuse victoms and have this damage are "born that way". Their brain obviously due to the stress has changed its patterns.

I don't see how a study like this can even start a discussion like this. I guess it is just a chance for everyone to pile on and call names. Why is it that everytime a homosexuality discussion comes up, people jump in and start calling people homophobic and typical liberals, etc. Here is a news flash. I don't celebrate homosexuality, but I don't hate people who are homosexualy. My lack of celebration doesn't make me homophobic. Someone who wants equal rights for someone who choses a diffrent lifestyle, doesn't make them a commi. The stereotyping from both sides shows just how closeminded people on both sides of this are. What could have been a good discussion on the merits of this study, and on a discussion of how the outcome of the study may or may not show any connection with the observable outcome of the devoloped brain vs wether or not that person was born with a brain this way, got competely overlooked, and everyone resorted to name calling. Way to go, and way to show the openmindedness of C-C.

--John

nice post - good call

[jonesthecurl]

Yah.
And how about everyone not:
Claim that bad typing means bad thinking;
Think that grow up or you're old is an argument;
keep bloody repeatin "all you can do is insult people, you [insert insult here].

There's other stuff you shouldn't do. If you lot don't add to the list I will.

[muy_thaiguy]

Just imagine what a bisexuals brain looks like

Those are INCREDIBLY selfish people. They want something that they don't have, but the opposite sex does AND something that they already have they want from someone else. Honestly, their greediness is just awful.

[PLAYER57832]

The REAL truth is that homosexuality ... and probably bisexuality (though that is a bit more debateable) are partially genetic/biological (which includes things like chemical influences on the womb . .. not genetic, but not preventable by the person, either) AND the social environment AND the choices one makes.

BUT, the real question is why does any of this matter? Unless you are their pastor/priest or perhaps their parent ... who really cares what someone else is doing in the privacy of their bedroom!

And for all you who think this bodes the "end of civilization" and some such ... chances are you have at least a few acquantances who are homosexual and you don't even know it. So, come on ... enter the 21rst century, please!

(and, for any who did not read what I wrote in the homosexual marriage thread eons ago... CC time, that is ... I do NOT necessarily think homosexuality is "Godly" or a truly good thing, but I do believe in "live and let live" as long as it does not harm me ... and this, most assuredly does NOT!!!)

[silvanricky]

Oh, bravo. The name change. Way to win respect for your cause, kid.

HAHAHA...

This is coming from the guy who said to grow up and grow some pubes. If you can't take being fired back at then don't fire the first shot.

And if I have to show you HOW things like 'owning' property affects the environment and everyone in it, I point you to property taxes, mortgages, the fall of the economy, how capitalism has become a form of dictatorship here in America... Need I go on?

Sure go on please. How do property taxes harm the environment? How do mortgages harm the environment? More importantly, how are you being hurt when my family pays down a mortgage or pays property taxes? Go ahead and show us what personal trauma you've experienced. What economic fall are you speaking about? How has capitalism become a form of dictatorship?

I just want everyone to see with your own words how nuts you are. Feel free to quote radiojake as an expert on this.

[radiojake]

Oh, bravo. The name change. Way to win respect for your cause, kid.

HAHAHA...

This is coming from the guy who said to grow up and grow some pubes. If you can't take being fired back at then don't fire the first shot.

And if I have to show you HOW things like 'owning' property affects the environment and everyone in it, I point you to property taxes, mortgages, the fall of the economy, how capitalism has become a form of dictatorship here in America... Need I go on?

Sure go on please. How do property taxes harm the environment? How do mortgages harm the environment? More importantly, how are you being hurt when my family pays down a mortgage or pays property taxes? Go ahead and show us what personal trauma you've experienced. What economic fall are you speaking about? How has capitalism become a form of dictatorship?

I just want everyone to see with your own words how nuts you are. Feel free to quote radiojake as an expert on this.

Again, I will mention that on a personal direct level, people owning property doesn't adversely affect me - I said it affects environment, which indirectly affects everyone. I don't see how that's such a hard concept to grasp.

[Snorri1234]

You also need to define "unnatural", as it doesn't seem to hold any relationship to nature.

Unnatural = contrary to the laws or course of nature

You have gone off the deep end. The root word of natural is nature. For you to deny it has any relationship to nature is to deny reality itself.

Suprise retard, that was my whole point. Try reading it again.

You seem to think that homosexuality is unnatural, while it is very common all over nature. Do you think monkeys choose to be gay? Or dolphins?

I know that your point is that having gay-sex doesn't make babies so therefore it's against nature's purpose or something, but frankly that is bullshit as not only can homosexuality ensure survival of the gene-pool but an action that doesn't lead to babies is not per definition unnatural. Shit, might as well claim that having sex when a woman is not ovulating is also unnatural.

And while you're at that, you might as well tell us about these traditional families you're talking about.

For starters, a traditional family is one made up of a mother and father. They pass down values to their children, such as not pretending to be a medical student when in fact one is actually a teen living in the Netherlands, averaging more than 11 posts a day on an internet forum.

Does this traditional family also consist of a 13 year old girl with a 25 year old man? Or cousins? How about one man with multiple women? Are the children raised in the community from 7 years of age serving the government in the military? Do they teach them valuable christian values like how women are servants of men?

Because those things are all very traditional, bradley.

Like the flame though, it certainly shows your rational and well-thought out viewpoint in it's best form.

I understand though. Liberal wackos felt alienated until the internet came along and found other wackos like themselves. Now they know there are others out there like them and feel empowered. So they hang out all day posting about how noble they are and everyone else who disagrees with them isn't rational.

Word. I totally only know liberal people on the internets. Real people are all right wing sensible people...

Congratulations in not saying anything in a whole paragraph though. I like the way you feel the need to flame and ridicule every time you have backed yourself in a corner.

And why tradition should overrule rationality.

See what I mean?

Most traditions are rational or else the majority wouldn't have made them traditions in the first place. They are based in reality, not some artificial attempt to imitate it such as homosexual marriage.

Did you just....claim traditions are mostly rational? Like not a totally ridiculous thing which is usually explained and justified by saying "well we've been doing it like this forever, it's tradition."?

Sure, you have a point. I don't doubt that slavery, murder and throwing oranges at eachother is totally rational and awesome. After all, it's tradition!

I am not justifying it, I am condoning it.

Ok pilgrim, if you're going to play footloose and fancy-free with your definitions go ahead. Justifying means to defend or uphold something as warranted while condoning means to give tacit approval of it. So by your own admission, you give your tacit approval to it without being able to uphold it as warranted. Nice!

"I want it to be accepted but I can't give a good reason why it should be"

Actually, I have a good reason why it should be allowed. Whatever my own beliefs about it are should play no part in it.
I mean, you can morally object to some practices but that doesn't mean they should be banned. That would make for some fucked up world.

What are you talking about? What traditions?

Homosexual pride parades for now. If same sex marriage becomes the law of the land everywhere it will become a tradition. Once it becomes a tradition I'm sure you'll become "the conservative" after awhile.

Possibly, but unlike you I will not claim it should be upheld because of "tradition".

So homosexual sex is non-harmful. Let's see what the CDC says about that, hmmm. That's what happens when people deny natural laws and try to create artificial imitations of relationships. If the entire world says it's OK it won't mean a hill of beans because nature's laws will take over. I know, I can hear you all repeating the same old tired line: "it just follows the path of least resistance". Keep denying that evolution naturally selected female and male sexual organs to be complimentary.

Wow, the rate of HIV is bigger among a group of people who have sex a lot? That really is a suprise!!!

Stop being an idiot, bradley. HIV/Aids is not harmfull to "traditional marriage". I suppose you want to stop people smoking, drinking and living in cities too?

Part of the problem is also that you refuse to acknowledge the part of the homosexual community that's arguing against being "hard-wired" that way. They're smart enough to realize that genetic manipulation of potential homosexual babies while still in the womb could be an issue due to technological advancements in that field. They don't want to be guinea pigs, but that doesn't seem to matter to you high-minded libs.

Wow, there you actually admit that the reason a part of the homosexual community disagrees with being hard-wired is because they don't want to be guinea pigs!

Well it's good to know that I can choose my sexual preference based on choice then. You wonder why anyone would actually choose to be a homosexual, since they do not actually like it more than heterosexual.

[PLAYER57832]

Why is it that everytime a homosexuality discussion comes up, people jump in and start calling people homophobic and typical liberals, etc. Here is a news flash. I don't celebrate homosexuality, but I don't hate people who are homosexualy. My lack of celebration doesn't make me homophobic. Someone who wants equal rights for someone who choses a diffrent lifestyle, doesn't make them a commi.

--John

Come on everyone, guess what, cheap shots and name calling, make your points look invalid.

Real discussion is enlightening, it helps us to understand other people's opinions and to clarify our own. Name calling and nit-picking do neither. I realize that many here consider it fun to banter and name-call. But, when you crowd every thread with the same old garbage you make it difficult to enter into real discussions.

[bradleybadly]

You also need to define "unnatural", as it doesn't seem to hold any relationship to nature.

Unnatural = contrary to the laws or course of nature

You have gone off the deep end. The root word of natural is nature. For you to deny it has any relationship to nature is to deny reality itself.

Suprise retard, that was my whole point. Try reading it again.

Nope, you don't get to get away with that Rex Morgan. I enlarged what you wrote and it's now a matter of record. You said it doesn't seem to hold any relationship to nature. The root word of natural is nature. You can try to parcel the language all you want but it's right there on the screen.

You seem to think that homosexuality is unnatural, while it is very common all over nature. Do you think monkeys choose to be gay? Or dolphins?

Now try extending this argument to other aspects of human life. Animals don't take care of the elderly -- should that lead us to close down nursing homes? Cannibalism can be observed among animals -- should we sell unwanted babies as sausage filling? Most people would say that we shouldn't. Humans are different.

But if you want to go around changing laws based on animal behavior, Snorri, be my guest. I'm sure they'll allow you to go hump someone's leg in public because after all - IT'S RATIONAL!!

I know that your point is that having gay-sex doesn't make babies so therefore it's against nature's purpose or something, but frankly that is bullshit as not only can homosexuality ensure survival of the gene-pool but an action that doesn't lead to babies is not per definition unnatural. Shit, might as well claim that having sex when a woman is not ovulating is also unnatural.

Cuckoo - Cuckoo!

Not my argument but I'm used to you twisting what I've written. Either that or changing what your own argument is. No surprise really

Does this traditional family also consist of a 13 year old girl with a 25 year old man? Or cousins? How about one man with multiple women? Are the children raised in the community from 7 years of age serving the government in the military? Do they teach them valuable christian values like how women are servants of men?

Because those things are all very traditional, bradley.

Like the flame though, it certainly shows your rational and well-thought out viewpoint in it's best form.

That's it - throw the baby out with the bathwater. People have done bad things within families so let's just destroy the ideal of family. You can take your talking points against Christian values to the Christians. I'm not a believer of their ways.

Also, way to try to equate peoples' behaviors with an institution. You're all over the place with how you define words and situations, another liberal trick. Not buying it!

Word. I totally only know liberal people on the internets. Real people are all right wing sensible people...

I knew you'd come around eventually

Congratulations in not saying anything in a whole paragraph though. I like the way you feel the need to flame and ridicule every time you have backed yourself in a corner.

Thanks, it comes from years of living in the real world with real people. One of these days you can join us if it doesn't interrupt your 11 posts per day.

Did you just....claim traditions are mostly rational? Like not a totally ridiculous thing which is usually explained and justified by saying "well we've been doing it like this forever, it's tradition."?

Sure, you have a point. I don't doubt that slavery, murder and throwing oranges at eachother is totally rational and awesome. After all, it's tradition!

Yep, those things which you mentioned would not be part of the traditions I'm talking about. Throwing oranges at each other! Oh the humanity!!

Actually, I have a good reason why it should be allowed. Whatever my own beliefs about it are should play no part in it.
I mean, you can morally object to some practices but that doesn't mean they should be banned. That would make for some fucked up world.

Back and forth you go.......and forth and back.........and where we stop only Snorri knows!

Your reasoning is "way" out there. Nobody is trying to ban homosexual sex, at least I'm not. What I'm trying to point out to you is that there is a natural reason for homosexuals to not engage in it or they will increase their risk of contracting AIDS or some other venereal disease. If they want to f*ck up their own lives so be it, but don't try and tear apart the institution of marriage in the process.

Besides, don't try and play the trick and insinuate that it's against your beliefs. You've consistently said that you believe it's OK.

Wow, the rate of HIV is bigger among a group of people who have sex a lot? That really is a suprise!!!

Nice try. Despite your best attempts to spin the facts the CDC shows that men who have sex with other men are highly more probable to contract HIV/AIDS.

You can argue with me all you want until you're blue in the face, Snorri. You can't go against nature.

Stop being an idiot, bradley. HIV/Aids is not harmfull to "traditional marriage". I suppose you want to stop people smoking, drinking and living in cities too?

harmful........ H - A - R - M - F - U - L (let me know if you'd like a copy of 'Hooked on Phonics' )

HIV/AIDS is harmful to homosexuals who engage in same sex relations. If you can't see how it's compassionate to pass on that information to them and warn them of the consequences of violating nature then, well I feel sorry for you. Of course we can't ban it, but we can warn people that it could take their life.

Where did you get "living in cities" from ?

Wow, there you actually admit that the reason a part of the homosexual community disagrees with being hard-wired is because they don't want to be guinea pigs!

The whole point of this thread is that they're hard-wired that way. Homosexuals themselves admit that this claim is false. Unfortunately their voices are being drowned out by liberals who want to view themselves as the next wave of civil rights crusaders.

[MeDeFe]

I never thought this would be possible, but bradley, you're being every bit as obnoxious and thickheaded as Nappy at his worst moments. You fail to address the arguments of the other side or outright ignore them, resort to flaming, refuse to bring arguments of your own and are in general behaving like an asshole. You must make your teacher soo proud.

[bradleybadly]

I never thought this would be possible, but bradley, you're being every bit as obnoxious and thickheaded as Nappy at his worst moments. You fail to adress the arguments of the other side or outright ignore them, resort to flaming, refuse to bring arguments of your own and are in general behaving like an asshole. You must make your teacher soo proud.

But not as proud as your math teacher must be

[MeDeFe]

I never thought this would be possible, but bradley, you're being every bit as obnoxious and thickheaded as Nappy at his worst moments. You fail to address the arguments of the other side or outright ignore them, resort to flaming, refuse to bring arguments of your own and are in general behaving like an asshole. You must make your teacher soo proud.

But not as proud as your math teacher must be

Which is completely on topic and a perfectly proper response that takes into consideration everything that has been said about the matter you are alluding to. In case anyone takes this literally I wish to preemptively refer you to the thread about brain damage and sarcasm, thank you very much.

[bradleybadly]

I never thought this would be possible, but bradley, you're being every bit as obnoxious and thickheaded as Nappy at his worst moments. You fail to adress the arguments of the other side or outright ignore them, resort to flaming, refuse to bring arguments of your own and are in general behaving like an asshole. You must make your teacher soo proud.

But not as proud as your math teacher must be

Which is completely on topic and a perfectly proper response that takes into consideration everything that has been said about the matter you are alluding to. In case anyone takes this literally I wish to preemptively refer you to the thread about brain damage and sarcasm, thank you very much.

You're welcome. By the way - address..........A - D - D - R - E - S - S

[MeDeFe]

I never thought this would be possible, but bradley, you're being every bit as obnoxious and thickheaded as Nappy at his worst moments. You fail to address the arguments of the other side or outright ignore them, resort to flaming, refuse to bring arguments of your own and are in general behaving like an asshole. You must make your teacher soo proud.

But not as proud as your math teacher must be

Which is completely on topic and a perfectly proper response that takes into consideration everything that has been said about the matter you are alluding to. In case anyone takes this literally I wish to preemptively refer you to the thread about brain damage and sarcasm, thank you very much.

You're welcome. By the way - address..........A - D - D - R - E - S - S

Golly! You're right, I completely missed that. Thanks, I've corrected the mistake in my posts.

[Dancing Mustard]

Let's all play "identify which section of the pyramid various posters are resorting to".

Here's a clue, Bradley's favourite section is coloured pink.

Click image to enlarge.

[Neutrino]

As much as I hate to be seen agreeing with someone with a car as their avatar, I agree with dewey. Try to keep it civil, children.(Irony noted)

Anyways, to the arguments...

Homosexuality can only be viewed as a deviation of the heterosexual norm. Homosexuality is a cause of sexual impulses different to the normal and useful (in a Darwininan context) impulses of heterosexuality. Now, I never defined homosexuality as an impulse, but essentially, as any sexual tendancy, it is simply the general label we attach to the manifestations of impulses.

The question then, for the gay-is-fine lobby, is how can you condemn incest but not homosexuality, if both are essentially deviations from the sexual norm? How can you castigate paedophilia as "unnatural", whilst supporting that homosexuality is? Do you even condemn incest and paedophilia?

Firstly, there is no such thing as an "unnatural" act. Or, alternatively, almost everything you do is. I'm using the former, since the latter definition is likely to cause a dangerously explosive buildup of hypocracy in your posts (Ever had a bone set? Go break it again and set it yourself. Doctors aren't natural). However, it appears you're using a completely arbitrary third definition. Who decides what's "natural" or not? 'Cause natural as I know it seems to have little to no relation to the things you're placing under it's ill-defined branches. If you want to contest this, go ahead. Please, just explain to me what you mean by "unnatural" and how unnatural holds any relation whatsoever to the things you define it as.

Anyways, when considered in essence, without any consderation of the consequences or repercussions of those actions, there is precisely nothing wrong with any of the acts you seem to take great delight in mentioning. Pedophilia, for example, stripped of repercussions, can be likened to an adult having sex with a child-sized doll; it doesn't impact anyone negatively in any conceivable way, so you can't condemn it without massive use of the extremely subjective "morals".
Of course, pedophilia and the like are rarely negative-consequence-less. This is what moves pedophilia into the "bad" category, and leaves homosexuality in the "who the hell cares?" category.

Unnatural = contrary to the laws or course of nature

You have gone off the deep end. The root word of natural is nature. For you to deny it has any relationship to nature is to deny reality itself.

Bradley, however, seems to have adopted the second definition of "unnatural", and I really don't think he's thought it all the way through. Since you haven't issued any mitigating terms, or seen fit to justify your relationship, "unnatural = bad" in any way, I'm going to assume that "natural", as you seem to define it, is a positive for every conceivable action or object. This means, as an example, that you are practically drowning in hypocrisy, since you are using your "unnatural" computer to post on the internets.
This is merely a logical extention of your words. If you want to contend this, I would appreciate the same from you as Napoleon.

Now, Bradley, can you linky me to these "laws of nature", and explain their relivance to this discussion? 'Cause the only things I've heard described as "laws of nature" are physical laws, which have little to nothing to do with the matter at hand.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, not even availing myself of my time machine, and say you can't. Why? Because they don't exist. There are no firmly defined "laws of nature", as you envisage them, and if there were I can almost guarantee you that a large portion of the population would be violating them any any particular time.

What's wrong with homosexuality? It's against your morals? Fine. What does this have to do with nature? Nature cares not for your morals.

For starters, a traditional family is one made up of a mother and father. They pass down values to their children, such as not pretending to be a medical student when in fact one is actually a teen living in the Netherlands, averaging more than 11 posts a day on an internet forum.

And what does your definition have to do with a "traditional" family? How is it not an entirely arbitrary Western construction? How is your "traditional" nuclear family superior to a "non-traditional" (while, in fact, a tribal familial and social structure far more traditional, assuming traditionality is proportional to the amount of time it has been common practice) family. If your "traditions are benificial" (tell that to the prizoners of the Aztecs) claim is correct, the universe is wrong, for allowing humanity to be so successful with such an obviously flawed familial structure.