If heterosexuality could be prevented, should it?

If a persons sexual likings could be changed - should it be done?




I like BDSM - should my sexuality be altered into simple monotonous rythmical missionary boringness?

Oh, Oh, better yet, If religiosity could be prevented, should it?

My answer to all of these questions, its a rotund:

(March 2, 2013 at 12:19 pm)Question Mark Wrote:

(March 2, 2013 at 12:16 pm)A Theist Wrote: Sorry Germ, that doesn't make it natural for animals either.

Natural = occurs in nature

homosexuality occurs in nature

homosexuality = natural

Logic 101. Is it really so hard to grasp?

Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology.

Homosexuality = Our bodies are not constructed for same gender sex.

Homosexuality = Unnatural, even for animals.

Illogical = Homosexuality is natural.

(March 2, 2013 at 11:57 am)A Theist Wrote:

(March 1, 2013 at 6:07 am)Ryantology Wrote: I'm just wondering if you realize that this doesn't change the fact that sexuality is not a choice.

I realize that homosexuality defies physical biology and that our bodies are not constructed for same gender sex...the act is unnatural.

Apparently a dolphin will rub up against lots of animals sexually including others of their own sex, relatives, individuals of any age and even sea turtles.

From wikipedia:

Quote:Dolphins are known to have sex for reasons other than reproduction[citation needed], sometimes also engaging in homosexual behavior. Various species sometimes engage in sexual behavior including copulation with other dolphin species. Sexual encounters may be violent, with male dolphins sometimes showing aggressive behavior towards both females and other males.[37] Occasionally, dolphins behave sexually towards other animals, including humans.

Your confusion comes from thinking our bodies are constructed for purposes. Are dophins too unnatural? Perhaps it is nature itself which is unnatural or maybe you meant 'ungodly'?

(March 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm)A Theist Wrote: Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology.

Homosexuality = Our bodies are not constructed for same gender sex.

Homosexuality = Unnatural, even for animals.

Illogical = Homosexuality is natural.

What are bodies constructed for?

The female pelvis is often too small for giving birth.
We dont have seperate breathing and eating holes and therefor often choke on food.
Female animals have a far less painfull and bloody menstruation cycle than human females.

and on and on.

You reasoning is faulty

(March 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(March 2, 2013 at 12:19 pm)Question Mark Wrote: Natural = occurs in nature

homosexuality occurs in nature

homosexuality = natural

Logic 101. Is it really so hard to grasp?

Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology.

Homosexuality = Our bodies are not constructed for same gender sex.

Homosexuality = Unnatural, even for animals.

Illogical = Homosexuality is natural.

But it doesn't defy our body's physiology, or else it wouldn't work, gay people wouldn't be able to orgasm. And it does work, they do orgasm. Therefore it does not defy our natural physiology.

You need to stop applying your own definitions to things. "Natural = occurs in nature", that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change.

(March 2, 2013 at 12:26 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: If a persons sexual likings could be changed - should it be done?

I like BDSM - should my sexuality be altered into simple monotonous rythmical missionary boringness?

(March 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm)A Theist Wrote: Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology.

Homosexuality = Our bodies are not constructed for same gender sex.

Homosexuality = Unnatural, even for animals.

Illogical = Homosexuality is natural.

Hmm, interesting. Our bodies also weren't constructed for certain high speeds, but I don't see you arguing against cars, planes, or any other mode of transport. Our bodies weren't constructed to be cut into, but I don't see you arguing against surgery. Our bodies weren't constructed to see or hear acutely for our entire life cycle, but I don't see you arguing against spectacles or hearing aids. Are you against pacemakers, since clearly the body's heart was constructed to give out?

Because it's not really about bodily integrity or purpose, is it? You've just found something you don't like, and like any good theist, you're scrabbling for dishonest post-hoc rationalizations to avoid seeming like the baseless bigot you are.

But let's even be generous and take your claim on its own merits: you do realize there are a lot of things about the construction of the body that are wrong, don't you? We've got organs we don't need that can swell up and kill us, wisdom teeth that sometimes need to be removed, eyes that aren't constructed anywhere near efficiently... the human body is kind of a mess. Why are you placing so much importance on what it was constructed to do? Are you aware that our spinal nerves were constructed to allow for hunched forward quadrupedal movement more than they were for an upright locomotion? Are you, by your own logic, going to start shuffling around on your knuckles?