I'm talking about if heterosexual marriage is supported but not homosexual marriage. Then the result is bigotry because it's prejudice against a group of people (homosexuals).

When we talk of "abnormal" is the negative connotation that it carries to be included in it's definition? If the negative connotation is included in the definition, nothing is objectively abnormal because nothing is objectively bad. If the negative connotation is not included then what's abnormal is merely not the usual so nothing is wrong simply by being "abnormal".

I wasn't using abnormal as anything more than "not average" in regards to their sexual orientation, I don't think dotard was either but I could be wrong.

(February 21, 2011 at 9:00 am)Tiberius Wrote: Seriously, we're a bunch of atheists who (for the most part) don't believe in objective morality, so what is "normal" must be what people do naturally, or what we can do. I mean, we all think flying through the air in a huge metalic tube is normal behaviour, yet it certainly isn't natural for our species to do. However, because we can do it, we view it differently.

That's kinda my point, to me there are no such labels as homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, just sexuality, it's all a matter of either having sex or being romantic, regardless of genders, besides gay relations was far more common before the media started portraying that being gay means you don't get to be straight

I accept to this statement

Quote:In 1995, Harvard Shakespeare professor Marjorie Garber made the academic case for bisexuality with her Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, in which she argued that most people would be bisexual if not for "repression, religion, repugnance, denial, laziness, shyness, lack of opportunity, premature specialization, a failure of imagination, or a life already full to the brim with erotic experiences, albeit with only one person, or only one gender."[12]

EDIT: i also found the proof i was looking for

Quote:Dr. Alfred Kinsey's 1948 work Sexual Behavior in the Human Male found that "46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or 'reacted to' persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives".[15]

Quote:The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, published in 1993, showed that 5 percent of men and 3 percent of women consider themselves bisexual and 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women considered themselves homosexual.[14]

What changed between 1948 and 1993, the media view on it

(February 21, 2011 at 9:30 am)Dotard Wrote: I don't think the airplane analogy quite works. One is utilizing inventions of man, one is behaviors. They just don't compare.

A few posts ago you were saying it was a hormonal inbalance, which as I pointed out, was completely natural. In any case, behaviours are natural, since they are part of our species. Whether you are looking at psychopathic behaviours or homosexual behaviours, both are natural since both occur in the natural world.

Quote:I maintain it is normal for a human male to look down, grab a handful of penis and say; "Wow! Look at that. I can really thrash it around there. I need to find me a hole to put this in! Hey Sally! Can you come here for a minute? I want to show you something."

It is not normal for a human male to look down, grab a handful of penis and say "Boy oh boy! I sure would like to have one of these shoved up my bung-hole!"

You have no evidence of this though; this is just your assertion. Your first paragraph is correct though; it is normal behaviour for a human male to want to put his penis in a hole; the type of hole just depends on your sexual orientation.

Quote:Some interesting reading:

http://www.neoteny.org/neoteny/a/homosexuality.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1267577

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-29/healt...=PM:HEALTH

The first link was a review of hormone studies, which state that hormonal inbalances in the mother may affect the sexual orientation of the child. The second link said the same. The third link was a study of finger lengths in homosexuals and points towards some hormonal reasons for homosexuality, but as the article states at the bottom (from a University of California psychologist):

"We're going to find there are many different ways people become heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual as an adult, Herick said. I think one of the problems with interpreting findings of this sort, people have a tendency to say, Here's the answer. Now we know. And they're eventually proven wrong."

I'm not the smartest person in the world so maybe I'm missing something. I don't quite understand all this talk of natural vs the unnatural. We exist, and that's natural and we develop and think and grow up to use science, sometimes there are medical breakthroughs, some would argue that curing disease would be "unnatural" but I don't believe in Natural. If I had to believe in the Natural I'd say that everything is and the only way to differentiate things would be to label them as "The common" and "The uncommon" but to say that the "uncommon is unnatural" is an absurd view point in my opinion.

Also on sexuality I've never kissed a man but I've never ruled out kissing a man. I don't like the terms straight-bi-gay but I've come to use them in a society that can't help but to discern people based on their sexuality. So in all likely hood I could be labeled as Bi-sexual but I believe that anyone could be labeled as such given the right circumstance. Sexuality is not as simple as "I like men" or "I like woman" because a lot of times it's being repressed.

---
Sorry for this incoherent rant. I've had no caffeine and I have a migraine to boot.

Everything is natural because everything is part of nature. So-called "artificial" materials are made out of natural things, they come from nature.

Some people seem to think that humans are separate from nature. That's stupid, we are part of nature, we are natural. Everything is nature - nature is the universe. There's nothing more natural than the totality of existence itself.

What folks want to consent to mutually is their business. I support the freedom of homosexuals to be on an equal footing with hetrosexuals

(February 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm)8BitAtheist Wrote: I'm not the smartest person in the world so maybe I'm missing something. I don't quite understand all this talk of natural vs the unnatural. We exist, and that's natural and we develop and think and grow up to use science, sometimes there are medical breakthroughs, some would argue that curing disease would be "unnatural" but I don't believe in Natural. If I had to believe in the Natural I'd say that everything is and the only way to differentiate things would be to label them as "The common" and "The uncommon" but to say that the "uncommon is unnatural" is an absurd view point in my opinion.

Also on sexuality I've never kissed a man but I've never ruled out kissing a man. I don't like the terms straight-bi-gay but I've come to use them in a society that can't help but to discern people based on their sexuality. So in all likely hood I could be labeled as Bi-sexual but I believe that anyone could be labeled as such given the right circumstance. Sexuality is not as simple as "I like men" or "I like woman" because a lot of times it's being repressed.

---
Sorry for this incoherent rant. I've had no caffeine and I have a migraine to boot.

The term for that particular point of view, which i share is Pomosexual(as in post-modernist sexual)

I think the labels are fine as they rule everything out, so long as you also include pansexual I guess.

(February 21, 2011 at 2:49 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I think the labels are fine as they rule everything out, so long as you also include pansexual I guess.

Asexual, pissosexuals, beastosexuals, except the last one are philias not sexualities