I think you mean "it's not moral," or maybe "it disgusts me."Originally Posted by Soonerjeepman
It is "natural," if you define natural as being part of nature. Google Bonobos, or homosexuality in animals.
I think you mean "it's not moral," or maybe "it disgusts me."
It is "natural," if you define natural as being part of nature. Google Bonobos, or homosexuality in animals.
Ukraine: Not Our Fight.
More epicycles!
For sure, but at least we're not the last state this time...even it was forced on us - sorta. The other 5 states covered by those court decisions may have to follow along too - so that makes what? 11 more states, I think. That's 30 out of 50.Some day, the feds will bite the bullet and have a nationwide marriage law. Till then, cross the Illinois or Arkansas rivers, and you're no longer legally married.
However, we're still stuck with 3.2 beer and that's an outrage that affects me every game day. I think its time we take a stand.
It takes one to know one, and I know you don't know a damn thing.
You are naive if you think that weed is harmless and causes no problems for society.
As soon as gay marriage is accepted in every state we will discover that most gays do not want to get married. Monogamy is not a big defining principle of that culture.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
So yer saying Animals do it so it makes it natural?
Thats silly
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
I said it has no effect on me. Much like your opinion.
Monogamy isn't a big part of any culture - As seen by the nationwide divorce rate. Unless you count atheists as a cultural - they have the lowest divorce rate.
Regardless - Yay for the gays! Now lets move on to something more important.
It takes one to know one, and I know you don't know a damn thing.
Look around and our whole life is contrived. Cars, jets, military machines of destruction, bombs so powerful they split atoms. Gigihertz cpus in your smart phone. Fake sweetener in diet soda, giant stadiums where 80k folks watch a football game. Plastic surgery, in-vitro babies, GMO plants and livestock. Even our desires are contrived - fake boobs, hair color, money!
Move all the people of earth to a new, pristine planet and wipe their memory of these things and life would be pretty simple and natural as determined by the brain stem. And there would be gay couples.
Still dont make it right.
Yall tell me again about how animals do it so its ok and Natural.
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
It certainly makes it natural. Right or wrong is a contrived thing we project, animals don't seem to do that.
****, ain't no point in arguing. If it isn't natural to you then it isn't natural. Besides, just because an animal does anything has never been a good reason for a human to do it. I think we're a little bit smarter. Just a bit.
It takes one to know one, and I know you don't know a damn thing.
Most of the things you mentioned are contributing to the destruction of Earth in some way.
This is true and I question the wisdom of many of them. But I don't see many people arguing they should be illegal because they are not natural (ok, maybe nuke weapons). But people get all agitated over gay behavior when it seems to have existed for at least as long as written history and in every known civilization.
I would never say weed is harmless, or causes no problems for society. The question is whether the harm it causes is more or less than the harm caused by the drug war.
(Oops, who's listening?) I mean to say, I'm all in on the drug war, folks. Because Prohibition 1.0 worked out so well.
As soon as gay marriage is accepted in every state we will discover that most gays do not want to get married. Monogamy is not a big defining principle of that culture.
Ukraine: Not Our Fight.
More epicycles!
Natural = happens in nature.
Maybe that's why some folks still hold on to literal 24x6 Creationism. Literal Creationism breaks the bond betweeen us and the animals we evolved from, so we can put our hands over our ears with regard to anything we might otherwise learn from animals. Then, "natural" can mean only what we believe / were taught is right for humans.
Or were you just stirrin' again?
Ukraine: Not Our Fight.
More epicycles!
Agreed.
I hate the natural argument in general. The one thing that the natural argument has here is that all this recreational sex (heterosexuals included) has led to some really nasty STDs that aren't found in the animal population. Then again, isn't it more natural to try to procreate with every attractive woman we see? I mean, if see an attractive woman bending over to deadlift in the gym...wouldn't it be natural if we "****ed like animals?" Also, how is it natural for two brilliant human beings to marry and never have kids? Or even if they do reproduce, but live to be 80 and only have one or two offspring? How is that beneficial to the survival of the human race? They should be popping them out right and left. This whole natural talk is dizzying to me, and it can be twisted to whatever you want.
I will say, though, that the butthole is not built to be penetrated.
Natural doesn't alway mean beneficial. STDs are natural as there are opportunistic parasites everywhere - so I guess beneficial is in the eye of the beholder (the parasites in this case). There are murderers in the animal world too and I'm not talking about carnivores. Some animals go off the rails and kill their own kind.
Gay behavior seems natural from everything I've read, and I'm talking about humans. It's a fringe behavior with every estimate I've sees to be around ~3%of the population, but that's a bunch of folks out of 7 billion. And the behavior seems to be benign as far as hurting anyone or society. But I also have to admit that disdain for gay behavior is also natural as that seems to be prevalent for as long as written history as well. But that behavior is clearly harmful to those that are gay. So if we are to step in with human projected morals, which one should we tackle? The one that is benign (unless you count making people uncomfortable), or the one that is harmful? It seems we are inching towards the latter.
If we got this route, then absolutely everything is natural...which might be your point I suppose. Like I said, I hate natural arguments.
Digression on the "two brilliant humans:" it would be much better for humanity if the two of them developed a cure for, say, testicular cancer than if they had a quiverfull of kids. And for that matter, how, exactly, is it beneficial to humanity for any two people to pop out a high quantity of kids?</digression>
So, do we all agree to drop the "not natural" argument in favor of the "immoral" and "disgusting" arguments? Works for me. Carry on.
Ukraine: Not Our Fight.
More epicycles!
Yes, and those are subjective and not a basis for legislation.
So you are not a part of society? How did you accomplish that? Anything that negatively impacts society affects each member of that society.
Now if you could just convince the leftist PC crowd that opinions have no impact on them we would all be better off.
My statement about monogamy and gay culure was not a condemnation of gays. In fact, their non-monogomous tendencies will be less detrimental to society than the current trend of heterosexuals fathering multiple offspring with no intention of being around to support and nuture them.
Last edited by FaninAma; 10/8/2014 at 04:30 PM.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
Like Ive said many times I DGAS where ya put yer dick . Just dont ever point it at Me or you will singin Soprano.
Im just pointing out the Animals do argument is stupid. Animals Kill and eat their young. Animals Beat other over sex
So If I get mad and Kill someone over some Punanny. It must be natural and therefore OK to do it,
Now If Being Natural is not an argument FOR then why even mention it?
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Posting Permissions
