OI! Homophobes! Over here!

[ooojimaflip]

I'm genuinly interested in why you object to homosexuality, and everytime I ask on the other thread it gets lost in the general hubbub.

So - name change if you want, but please tell me what your objections are?

If it's because it's not natural or against biology, please expand your answer to include why you care about that.

Show your working for extra credit.

n.b. Don't bother if it's a religous justification, you'll need to find someone who believes in that kind of stuff to debate with as I'll just dismiss that out of hand. If you are a homopohbic religous person with a secular objection then please go ahead.

daftpunk Fri 11-Dec-09 20:52:25

"yes, i believe man and woman were created to have children together and keep the human race going....our bodies are designed that way...when hetrosexuals are having sex...things happen in a womans body to help make pregnancy easier....sex between homosexuals is pointless, it's purely for pleasure."

so what is your take on sex beyond the menopause? sex between couples where partner is infertile? sex at the less fertile times of the month?(I assume that you are against contraceptives)

and btw- does the human race have any particular problems in keeping going? any risk that not enough babies are being born in the world?

poo - I think we do have to accept actually having sex at least once with someone of the same sex as part of the definition of Homosexuality. Otherwise you get the whole 'Bisexual who has never had a homosexual experience' Brett Anderson bollox (shows age) and there are also people who now define themselves as (i think) asexual, who are definitly celibate.

There are obvoiusly homosexual individuals and couples who are currently celibate.

Cory - I imagine there would have a problem keeping the human race going if homosexuality was the norm back in the days of cave man.

We did not have the medical knowledge back then to improve fertility rates and did'nt live long. Infant mortality rates were probably low as well . Evolution could not have known what we would achieve in this era.

Do you think ooj? I've always thought of more as a state of mind as opposed to action, iyswim? I think you can be heterosexual without ever having had sex with a member of the opposite sex, if your inclinations, fantasies and thought processes lie that way. And the same for being homosexual, I think you can be gay before you have ever had sex. Otherwise how would you know which flavour to have sex with?

DP-"sex between homosexuals is pointless, it's purely for pleasure."

Sex purely for the purposes of pleasure? Disgusting! Whoever heard of the like?!

Any normal married (of course) couple should only have sex once a month, on the precise date of the lady's ovulation. Anything else would be, well, pointless. And unnatural.

LG;

i have never insulted you....i don't know why you are reacting this way with me..

i am the one constantly insulted...my religion, my views, my education (or lack of)...infact everything about me is ripped apart..

i take it because i have a backbone and am not afraid of anything....i am a very secure person...

flaming "
The sex part is what we 'homophobes' don't get. Any members of the same sex in sexless relationships are just 'friends' surely. Homosexual means having sex with the same sex does'nt it?"

Bullshit - i am straight, but i WOULD have sex with a woman, i wouldnt have a relationship! I would have sex with another woman because im a highly sexual person (ok, a dirty mare who would happily provide DP with his ultimate fantasy) and would do it just for fun - yep JUST FOR FUN

Oh, im so going to hell, obviously

daftpunk - thank you - I suspect that in general the argument from nature is a disguised religous position, and it's nice to see that achnowledeged at least in your particular instance. The idea that life/evoulution/biology has a particualr purpose is at heart a basically religous idea. I suspect that where people object to Homosexuality on these kinds of grounds, even if the person is not explitictly religous it's an expression of these kinds of ideas having been internalised.
I'd be very interested to see a NON-religous defence of the srgument from nature if anyone would care to advance one?

Homosexuality is seen across many, many species. There is nothing unnatural about it. And FFU, I'm pretty sure that there were a few gays in those cave villages...

Seeing as some humans always have been gay, your evo. argument doesn't really stack up. And of course 'evolution' doesn't 'know' what's going to happen. Sheesh.

FlamingFedUp Fri 11-Dec-09 20:53:01
"Yes - Ooojamaflip - I am the only one to have answered your question and no one has given back any sensible debate"

We have tried, FlamingFedUp.

We have pointed out the weaknesses of the Nature Argument (not all individuals in most species procreate/homosexuality not that uncommon in nature), the weaknesses of the disgusting-to-have-sex-involving-organs-that- are-also-used-for-waste-disposal (as a very conventional heterosexual woman, that's the only sex I've ever had), the weaknesses of the they-can't-be-born-that-way-or-there'd-be-more-of-them argument (that just shows a limited understanding of genetics).

Flamingfedup - have you actually get any evidence from archaeology, anthropology or evolutionary biology to back up what you are saying?

DAFTPUNK how can you possible say you have not insulted lenin?
You have said that she is a a sinner, unnatural, shouldn't be allowed to be married or have children, shouldn't be allowed to talk to children, shouldn' live openly, and much worse. How can that not be incredibly insulting?

oh flaming, you make me laugh - thankyou so much - so, there was no homosexuality in the days of the cave men?? How do you know?? where you actually there -oh hang on, your views are so antiquated and uninformed, maybe you were - really, stop digging - you are providing all us hangwringing liberals with such ammunition to take the piss out of you!!

If you look at apes - from which it is agreed with are closely akin and have evolved from similar species - homosexuality is rife!!

Damn woman - go and google stuff or even read a book before you post!

FFU, regarding gay bum sex...you said

"The anus is an orifice for waste from the body and such has more bacteria in and around it than the vagina, is not designed for an object to be inserted"

Why then is the male g-spot (the prostate)situated in a location where it's stimulated by anal sex and not vaginal?

poo - well it's a right minefield really innit. Sexuality is more fluid than these labels allow, but as you can't see with any reliablity what is in someones mind, I think that actual action has to be a significant part of the definition. I think this may be slightly more technical that is necessary for this debate though

oooji;

tbh...you will never get a definitive answer to your question...it's like asking what's the meaning of life....means different things to different people...

ooojimaflip - you are not replying to me because you obviously can't think of any repartee? Hah - I have answered your question and can see no reference to religion whatsover. How can evolution be based on a religious idea . Is'nt that creationism.

Definitely time for me.

I don't know why I am even bothering to reason with someone who thinks that we come from 'cave men'. The human past is not an episode of the Flintstones.

i have not insulted lenin....i would never do that to her...

and that's a bit rich coming from you anyway....

didn't you say i belong in a zoo..?

can't even agree on that ooj can we? We could maybe agree that there may be a considerable dichotomy between internal and external labelling?

(see I can be rational and talk nicely, its just so hard when you read some of the shite spouted not to just shout fuck off fuck off fuck off, innit? )

lenin, i have started another thread, because, if you dont mind, i have some genuine questions

My body wasn't designed to have children. Having my DS's nearly killed me. Twice. So when I have sex, it's purely for pleasure. I don't believe that God has a problem with that, tbh.

FlamingFedUp Fri 11-Dec-09 20:59:17
"Cory - I imagine there would have a problem keeping the human race going if homosexuality was the norm back in the days of cave man."

If by the norm you mean what everybody did, yes. But noone is suggesting that. As I have pointed out three or four times already, most species do not depend for survival on all individuals reproducing. That must be a pretty rare occurrence in nature. In most species, some individuals reproduce, others do not. I imagine heterosexuality must always have been more common -given the low gestation rate of humans, probably a fairly high proportion would need to reproduce- but
this does not in any way prove that homosexuality cannot also have existed.

What we do know from many ancient societies, such as Classical Greece and Rome, is that bisexuality was common - but that there were also individuals who were exclusively homosexual. The human race did not die out, still plenty of Italians and Greeks around.

No dear, I didn't. Maybe get someone to help you read the big words that you don't understand.

I;ve been very insulting to you. But that is on purpose because you deserve it. Pretending you haven't been grossly offensive to Lenin makes you all the more nasty and offensive, if such a thing is possible.