Chris_Sleeps Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 They wouldn't do this by making it more difficult to reproduce. You've avoided my whale point. Some animals have evolved where it is highly difficult to reproduce. Some animals have hundreds of offspring, some have 1. Some can have single offspring but they can do so numerous times. Some can procreate only once and then die. There are no solid rules. If evolution was so efficient, explain human child birth. Surely a human baby could come out of the womb easily with no danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 You've avoided my whale point. Some animals have evolved where it is highly difficult to reproduce. Some animals have hundreds of offspring, some have 1. Some can have single offspring but they can do so numerous times. Some can procreate only once and then die. There are no solid rules. If evolution was so efficient, explain human child birth. Surely a human baby could come out of the womb easily with no danger. Your whale point is a bit of a tiddler really. I feel that whales are more able to survive with the dual capability and you think they are better specializing. They have survived so far, so they are doing something right. Perhaps "efficient" was the wrong word,,,,,,, Human childbirth will become easier but these things don't happen in a short period of time. Who's to say the female body isn't more suitable now to how it was 2000 years ago...I don't know but guess it is..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Your whale point is a bit of a tiddler really. I feel that whales are more able to survive with the dual capability They don't have dual capability. They aren't amphbibious. If they come onto land their size and weight crush their lungs. If they stay in the water they have to come to the surface to breathe. They're a backward model of evolutionary efficiency. Human childbirth will become easier but these things don't happen in a short period of time. Who's to say the female body isn't more suitable now to how it was 2000 years ago. Me. We're exactly the same as we were 2000 years ago. 2000 years is nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 That's splitting hairs a little, if someone thinks it is unnatural then their argument is against it being natural. No it's not, a discussion about whether or not homosexuality IS natural or not is very different to a thread asking WHY it's believed to be unnatural (by some). In the former, I doubt many would give any REASONS that explain why they think it's unnatural. In the latter, it hypothetically accepts that homosexuality IS unnatural and targets the believers of this, inviting them to explain in reasonable terms WHY this is so. Rather than the usual homophobic outbursts (see cjos16's last post). You've taken that out of context. What I was talking about was what occured in nature. My apologies... Which once again takes my question out of context. I'm not comparing homosexuality and Paedophilia. I was using them as an illustration about how we percieve things, something you seem to have missed by saying there isn't a moral argument against it. To some people there is (not me I'm glad tp say), morals aren't static, universal laws. They change with time and differ depending on the culture you're in. Whether we like it or not, to some people, there is a moral argument against it. ...and again! EDIT: If there IS a moral argument against it, I've yet to see this put forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 They don't have dual capability. They aren't amphbibious. If they come onto land their size and weight crush their lungs. If they stay in the water they have to come to the surface to breathe. They're a backward model of evolutionary efficiency. Me. We're exactly the same as we were 2000 years ago. 2000 years is nothing. Some of us question things a little more than we did 2000 years ago though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 No it's not, a discussion about whether or not homosexuality IS natural or not is very different to a thread asking WHY it's believed to be unnatural (by some). In the former, I doubt many would give any REASONS that explain why they think it's unnatural. In the latter, it hypothetically accepts that homosexuality IS unnatural and targets the believers of this, inviting them to explain in reasonable terms WHY this is so. Rather than the usual homophobic outbursts (see cjos16's last post).[/Quote] I'm not entirely sure I understand but I'll take your word for it, and I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick. My apologies... ...and again![/Quote] No bother, we all do it (see first part of this post), it's part of being human, I respect anyone who admits their mistakes, it's something I pride myself on and admire in others. EDIT: If there IS a moral argument against it, I've yet to see this put forward. So have I, but we can't just discount people because we have a different set of morals, to do so makes us just like the bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 So have I, but we can't just discount people because we have a different set of morals, to do so makes us just like the bigots. Of course you can discount something that isn't there, unless it's been presented, in which case you'd have to prove it false to further discount it. EDIT: Until it's been presented, it's not even "counted" so no need to discount, if that makes any more sense. I'm talking about discounting the argument, not people. I never mentioned anything about discounting any people, quite the opposite, I'm focusing on them and inviting them to give reason/cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Congratulations! I've just read through all 25 pages of this thread and your post is the best example of sheer, unthinking prejudice on it. If I wanted to be bitchy, I could also say it wins the prize for being the most incoherent, badly punctuated and mis-spelled example of a rant I've seen for quite a while. And possibly draw a parallel between ignorance/stupidity and homophobia ... Or just conclude that you must be a very sad and unhappy person if you feel the need to make such a vitriolic attack on people, just because they're not like you in one aspect of their life, which is doing you absolutely no harm. Well said (well observed!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 jesus, i cant believe that its actually a question, is being gay natural ???, well if you class inserting a penis into another man's anus natural then yes, of cours it is. or maybe you'r one of the many that believe that natural means "the way nature intended" ect, and im pretty sure our a**e holes were intended for a diffrent reason than that. and of course the same goes towards women, allthough some of the gay women iv seen could easily pass for a bloke anyway. not only does it make a absolute mockery out of marriage, its disgusting that its now accepted by so many people who actually celebrate "coming out", of course its not natural, natural is the reason you are all reading this post, because you had natural parents, because a sperm and a egg got it on as nature intended, if any of you have two parents of the same sex, and i mean two "biological" parents of the same sex, not two people who legally adopted you ect, two people that physically created you, then il actually believe that all this rubbish about it being natural is true, somehow i dont think think il be believeing this stupidity any time soon. You can believe what you want, dear. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese if you so wish. what you cannot do is prove that a same sex couple, of consenting adults, are any less deserving of being able to cement their relationship and make a legal commitment to each other Re your comments about Anal Sex, 1) It's not my cup of tea at all, but many straight couples apparently indulge in it. As others far more knowledgeable than you or I have said in this thread, what a consenting couple get up to behind their closed door is entirely up to them, and no-ones business but theirs. 2) Breasts are designed to produce milk, to facilitate feeding a baby. however, some perverts like to use them to play with during sex, and some even go so far as to plaster pictures of them in so-called newspapers. Even worse, I've heard you can pay to get into a club, and have a woman do provocative dances with her breasts exposed. I'm sure that's not natural. (* see what I did there?*) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Congratulations! I've just read through all 25 pages of this thread and your post is the best example of sheer, unthinking prejudice on it. If I wanted to be bitchy, I could also say it wins the prize for being the most incoherent, badly punctuated and mis-spelled example of a rant I've seen for quite a while. And possibly draw a parallel between ignorance/stupidity and homophobia ... Or just conclude that you must be a very sad and unhappy person if you feel the need to make such a vitriolic attack on people, just because they're not like you in one aspect of their life, which is doing you absolutely no harm. I SO want a "like" button, Dozy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.