Billboard proclaims "Nobody is born gay"

[psychoslice]

I think anybody who says that you can choose to be gay obviously has a subconscious desire to shove a cock in their mouth.

I think every man has thought of that and fantasied about it, look what happens when they go to prison.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Until you can demonstrate that this alleged "natural law" 1) exists in the context of this issue and 2) comes down against gays, I feel fully justified in calling you a bigot.

Your request is simple enough since 1) I have no prejudice against homosexuals as human beings and 2) my position has rational support.

Anyone, other than ontological naturalists, can see that things are partially defined by their natural functions. Living things are, by their nature, directed toward the things that allow them to sustain life and thrive. For example, the heart is directed toward pumping blood.

Likewise, it is a biological fact that for the human race to exist it must reproduce and that is the natural purpose of the genitalia, i.e. to get semen from the penis into the vagina. The pleasure of copulation and the inordinate strength of the sexual appetites serve to motivate people toward productive union.

Now because human infants are not self-sufficient for years, conjugal love also serves the purpose of strengthening the bond between parents to sustain the children that depend on the family for their mental and material support. These are biological facts.

That people pursue sexual pleasure without consciously thinking about procreation is of no consequence. All that matters is that it is directed toward its proper and natural end. There is nothing inherently wrong with kissing, petting and oral/genital contact to the extent that it increases arousal in preparation for intercourse. Unlike these, the possible transfer of feces and harmful bacteria make sodomy an unsuitable preparation for vaginal intercourse. In addition the structure of the anus made for defecation and is not a suitable receptacle for any foreign object.

People both homosexual and heterosexual engage in practices that go contrary to the function of sexuality and in so doing thwart the natural good. I am not against LGB people specifically because I believe it is just as wrong for heterosexual people to engage in practices, like sodomy, necrophilia, pederasty, and bestiality that are contrary to natural law.

[Ryantology]

Fuck's sake Chad, just come out of the closet already. Stop hating what you are.

If your god was against male homosexual activity, why did he make the conscious and deliberate decision to not only allow the penis to enter the anus, but also place the prostate so that it is perfectly positioned to respond pleasurably to anal penetration? I mean, we were intelligently designed by a perfect creator, right? Either this fact is a big design mistake, or maybe you're putting words in your god's mouth in regards to the right and wrong ways to use that design.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Until you can demonstrate that this alleged "natural law" 1) exists in the context of this issue and 2) comes down against gays, I feel fully justified in calling you a bigot.

Your request is simple enough since 1) I have no prejudice against homosexuals as human beings and 2) my position has rational support.

Anyone, other than ontological naturalists, can see that things are partially defined by their natural functions. Living things are, by their nature, directed toward the things that allow them to sustain life and thrive. For example, the heart is directed toward pumping blood.

Likewise, it is a biological fact that for the human race to exist it must reproduce and that is the natural purpose of the genitalia, i.e. to get semen from the penis into the vagina. The pleasure of copulation and the inordinate strength of the sexual appetites serve to motivate people toward productive union.

Now because human infants are not self-sufficient for years, conjugal love also serves the purpose of strengthening the bond between parents to sustain the children that depend on the family for their mental and material support. These are biological facts.

That people pursue sexual pleasure without consciously thinking about procreation is of no consequence. All that matters is that it is directed toward its proper and natural end. There is nothing inherently wrong with kissing, petting and oral/genital contact to the extent that it increases arousal in preparation for intercourse. Unlike these, the possible transfer of feces and harmful bacteria make sodomy an unsuitable preparation for vaginal intercourse. In addition the structure of the anus made for defecation and is not a suitable receptacle for any foreign object.

People both homosexual and heterosexual engage in practices that go contrary to the function of sexuality and in so doing thwart the natural good. I am not against LGB people specifically because I believe it is just as wrong for heterosexual people to engage in practices, like sodomy, necrophilia, pederasty, and bestiality that are contrary to natural law.

Firstly, you're ignoring the non-reproductive uses of sex -- to wit, bonding, conflict resolution, and simple pleasure. What is unnatural about wanting pleasure? What is inherently immoral about that? This claim of yours, that "all that matters is that it is directed toward its proper and natural end," is not supported. Who says that that is all that matters? You?

But additionally, you said that gay sex violated this "law" -- and it's no law -- because it was unethical. How is gay sex immoral (which is the OED's definition)? Exactly what about it is immoral? Because the genitalia are used for secondary functions? Then you'd have to argue that holding open a door with your foot is immoral, because that is not the foot's primary function.

This appeal of yours, to natural law, is unsupported by anything but your own emotions, and that relegates you to remaining a bigot. You cannot point to anything unethical or immoral about gay sex between two consenting adults. You're simply gussying up your distaste for it in high-falutin' language in order to avoid being seen for the bigot you are.

[Jenny A]

Until you can demonstrate that this alleged "natural law" 1) exists in the context of this issue and 2) comes down against gays, I feel fully justified in calling you a bigot.

Your request is simple enough since 1) I have no prejudice against homosexuals as human beings and 2) my position has rational support.

Anyone, other than ontological naturalists, can see that things are partially defined by their natural functions. Living things are, by their nature, directed toward the things that allow them to sustain life and thrive. For example, the heart is directed toward pumping blood.

Likewise, it is a biological fact that for the human race to exist it must reproduce and that is the natural purpose of the genitalia, i.e. to get semen from the penis into the vagina. The pleasure of copulation and the inordinate strength of the sexual appetites serve to motivate people toward productive union.

Indeed, evolution has favored that. But what evolution favors does not become right and moral purpose of any part of a human just because evolution has favored that use. There was a time when children and the more the better were a very good thing. Now, for most couples a plethora of children would be a burden and not very good for the individual children either. Hence the popularity of birth control.

But society still benefits from couples, even childless ones.

Now because human infants are not self-sufficient for years, conjugal love also serves the purpose of strengthening the bond between parents to sustain the children that depend on the family for their mental and material support. These are biological facts.

And gays impede this natural order among heterosexual couples in what way? If gays served no role in child raising, there would shortly be no gays. Natural selection works that way. The maiden aunt, the grandmother, and society as a whole all aid child rearing.

That people pursue sexual pleasure without consciously thinking about procreation is of no consequence. All that matters is that it is directed toward its proper and natural end. There is nothing inherently wrong with kissing, petting and oral/genital contact to the extent that it increases arousal in preparation for intercourse.

So sex is good only if it leads to intercourse and procreation? Hardly. It is an end in and of it self, like many human activities such as art, discourse, unfortunately worship. It also serves as a social glue even among childless couples.

Unlike these, the possible transfer of feces and harmful bacteria make sodomy an unsuitable preparation for vaginal intercourse.

I agree, but there are a number of ways to make that safe including not proceeding to sexual intercourse at that time.

In addition the structure of the anus made for defecation and is not a suitable receptacle for any foreign object.

Well that is it's primary function yes. But it was not "made" for anything. And it does provide sexual pleasure. Your mouth's primary purposes are eating and drinking. That it also provides sexual pleasure is a bonus, though kissing and oral sex will increase the chances of spreading disease.

People both homosexual and heterosexual engage in practices that go contrary to the function of sexuality and in so doing thwart the natural good. I am not against LGB people specifically because I believe it is just as wrong for heterosexual people to engage in practices, like sodomy, necrophilia, pederasty, and bestiality that are contrary to natural law.

You forgot masturbation yet it would very "naturally" go on your list. Because you masturbate perhaps? Not long ago anyone arguing as you do would have put oral stimulation on that list too.

Necrophilia and bestiality, on the other had serve no bonding purpose whatsoever. Both are dangerous. And the later is cruel.

Pederasty is just a subset of child molestation. All child molestation is bad, even if heterosexuals engage it it. Though in that case it isn't called pederasty is it?

What you are really saying here is it's good and natural if it's what I want to do, and not if I think it's icky.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Firstly, you're ignoring the non-reproductive uses of sex -- to wit, bonding, conflict resolution, and simple pleasure. What is unnatural about wanting pleasure?

Nothing at all. I said as much.

This appeal of yours, to natural law, is unsupported by anything but your own emotions, and that relegates you to remaining a bigot.

My post made no emotional appeal of any kind. It was confined to strictly biological facts. You can legitimately disagree with my conclusions based on the facts I presented. But frankly the way you are doing it is itself emotionally charged. Name-calling is the tactic of a bully. A homosexual bigot would be prejudiced against homosexuals as human beings. In contrast to this, I am against the practice of all forms of fornication, sodomy and adultery regardless of sexual orientation.

[Exian]

You did call it a deficiency, and likened it to a disability. You never did explain what it is homosexuals are lacking. Or maybe I missed it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Firstly, you're ignoring the non-reproductive uses of sex -- to wit, bonding, conflict resolution, and simple pleasure. What is unnatural about wanting pleasure?

Nothing at all. I said as much.

No, you framed it in the context of a relationship leading to children. Not quite the same thing.

This appeal of yours, to natural law, is unsupported by anything but your own emotions, and that relegates you to remaining a bigot.

My post made no emotional appeal of any kind.

I didn't say that it did. I said that it is bereft of any support outside of your own emotions. Those are two different things,. Read what I'm writing.

It was confined to strictly biological facts. You can legitimately disagree with my conclusions based on the facts I presented.

Your error is that you're drawing moral imperatives from biological facts, and pretending that they're not expressions of your own emotions when it's plain to see that they are.

But frankly the way you are doing it is itself emotionally charged.

Of course it is. Your justifications are used across the country to deprive citizens of equal protection under the law. You're goddamned straight that angers me. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Name-calling is the tactic of a bully.

... or, as is the case here, it's me calling a spade a spade. You're applying your own standards of what is right in nature to human sexuality, and then denouncing people for not adhering to those standards.

A homosexual bigot would be prejudiced against homosexuals as human beings. In contrast to this, I am against the practice of all forms of fornication, sodomy and adultery regardless of sexual orientation.

So you're a prude as well as a bigot? Gosh, you're looking more and more like a run-of-the-mill bible-beater, rather than this enlightened philosopher-"Swedenborgian".

You're putting lipstick on a pig. Sorry if you don't like me pointing it out.

[Keri]

---

Firstly, you're ignoring the non-reproductive uses of sex -- to wit, bonding, conflict resolution, and simple pleasure. What is unnatural about wanting pleasure?

Nothing at all. I said as much.

This appeal of yours, to natural law, is unsupported by anything but your own emotions, and that relegates you to remaining a bigot.

My post made no emotional appeal of any kind. It was confined to strictly biological facts. You can legitimately disagree with my conclusions based on the facts I presented. But frankly the way you are doing it is itself emotionally charged. Name-calling is the tactic of a bully. A homosexual bigot would be prejudiced against homosexuals as human beings. In contrast to this, I am against the practice of all forms of fornication, sodomy and adultery regardless of sexual orientation.

---

So you've never gotten head? Oral sex is one of the definitions of sodomy.

[Ryantology]

My post made no emotional appeal of any kind. It was confined to strictly biological facts. You can legitimately disagree with my conclusions based on the facts I presented. But frankly the way you are doing it is itself emotionally charged. Name-calling is the tactic of a bully.

What is the biological fact of a statement relying upon assertions of "natural law" or "natural order"? Cite peer-reviewed biological studies establishing the existence of either of these things as you have presented them.

A homosexual bigot would be prejudiced against homosexuals as human beings. In contrast to this, I am against the practice of all forms of fornication, sodomy and adultery regardless of sexual orientation.

A person who wasn't a homosexual bigot wouldn't presume to tell another person that it is wrong to love and enjoy physical pleasure with someone because you personally think it is disgusting.

Trying to cite "natural law" doesn't automatically erase the hate and disgust for homosexuals, as human beings, that is patently obvious in every word you type on the subject. You may convince yourself, and you may convince others that are as hateful as you are, but that's as effective as that tactic gets.