Well, it could be argued that any heterosexual couple whereby the woman is over the age of about 60 years old who has sex will be having sex "pretty much for the sake of masterbation" since, by that age, she would not be able to "naturally" bear offspring.

You are right, that could be argued. But then since as we have already decided sex doesn’t have to be for procreation. I‘ve never said recreational sex was wrong. A human female has a sex drive and her vagina still gets nice and wet during pregnancy so obviously nature intended for there to be some sex for the sake of sex’s sake even when procreation isn't the purpose. What nature didn’t make as physically acceptable at any time is anal sex. I mean is anal sex possible? Sure it is. But it is also possible to have sex with a tree and some of the animals that live in them and women can masturbate with a cucumber but that doesn’t mean we were meant to do these things.
So yes you can argue that a woman over 60 can‘t procreate so she shouldn‘t be allowed to marry. But you would be running afoul the disability discrimination act since any healthy woman has the ability to marry. And marriage doesn’t require procreation. But the institution is based on the heterosexual couple being the only orientation being able to do so.

Well, if monitoring heterosexual couples in order to see if they are having "natural sex" would be an extreme privacy violation, yet they are allowed to marry nonetheless, then it evidently isn't in the government's interest to base the legality of a marriage upon who engages in "natural sex"...or not.

Marriage is based on the knowledge that the heterosexual orientation is the only orientation where the assumed sexual activity would result in offspring. Marriage does not require procreation or even sexual activity at all for that matter, but it does require a heterosexual couple since that is obviously the orientation that nature obviously intended for humans to have. Homosexuals are defective so the union is defective. There is no more a demonstrable purpose for homosexuals as there is for any other more socially unacceptable sexual error such as gender-confusion. Why elevate homosexuality to the level of heterosexuality when you consider the importance of it? Heterosexuality is the basis for pretty much all life on earth and you want to equate it to homosexuality. That’s preposterous.

Well, why don't you stick with dealing with the topic of this thread, that being gay marriage, instead of tossing into this discussion a meaningless slippery-slope argument?

The argument isn’t meaningless. For just as homosexuals would like to marry, there is a certain number of people on this planet that would like incest and polygamy to be normalized. And it is a valid argument that once you take the morals, customs, and common sense out of our laws and leave it to strictly legal precepts, many other laws based with no basis is fact but in moral behavior come into question.
I wish I could answer questions like in that manner though. I’d get my enter button bitten off.

Isn't nice to have an opinion?

Boy, I wish I could do answers like that…. But yes, it is nice to have opinions. They are just like a**holes. It’s just not everyone knows the correct usage of the latter. LOL….

Did you pick the definition which SUPPORTS ME and OPPOSES YOU on purpose?

No actually I picked the right one….You just didn’t get to the part I was looking at. In fact a word that comes up to a lot of contention here. Check the part where it says “normal” and “regular”. Homosexuality is neither.

Oh. So because you declare "birth defect", that makes it so? In contradiction of what the ACTUAL doctors and scientists have realized? And again, by your declaration of the category of "birth defect", you are admitting that gays are born gay. Right?

Gays are born gay. Heterosexuals are born heterosexual. There’s evidence Pedophiles are born pedophiles etc…
Doctors and scientists have come up with a lot of standards throughout the ages. When you look at the fact the heterosexuality is the only standard that bears offspring, and how our bodies and systems are set up it’s obvious what the “preferred” orientation is. Now if humans for whatever reason genetic or choice decide to go against it, that’s up to them. But the presence of something doesn't justify it.
But when our forefathers decided to set a standard for the institution of marriage, they used common sense and decreed the heterosexual orientation, the orientation which is the backbone of human life on this planet, the basis for the recognized human union. In the past there have been other standards set.
http://www.answers.com/topic/historical-and-cultural-perspectives-on-zoophilia
Of particular interest was the part about the 100 blonde girls raped by baboons. I wonder how much would that video sell for on Ebay? Humans are f’d up organisms luckily heterosexual procreation is an absolute in humans. If it were more complicated we would really screw it up.

You keep repeating the same ludicrous statements, over and over again, with no justification.
There is NO REASON for the physiologic difference. No reason why gays would need to have such a difference to be gay.

I disagree. When you stay in the sun too long you skin reacts by darkening. When you change climates your body acclimates. The races have subtle differences that matches the climate they hail from. Again, I repeat, if homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time and were meant to be homosexual, why didn’t nature provide them with the tools to enable safer more convenient sex? Heterosexual sex is the model of synchronization and we aren’t even going to get into the how life is created. If you think nature would go through such lengths to create the heterosexual machine and just purposely leave the homosexuals high and dry that’s the epitome of rationalization.

Yet you repeat it over and over again like it's intelligent.
It's like you have deemed yourself master of nature, and you have declared yourself infinite wisdom by which you understand how nature must behave.
The arrogance is amusing...

I don’t claim to be master of nature, I simply don’t see a purpose nor any concession made by evolution/nature/God to justify the existence of the homosexual person. Just as there are no concessions for humans to fly, create nuclear bombs, or mate with sheep. Yet we do all of these things because we can. I am perfectly willing to separate the things that I can do from the things I am intended to do. For example, I know that a human is supposed to pass urine, there is a complex system created by nature for this purpose. Have a genetic defect that took my kidneys out at 21 years old. I am defective and left up to nature I would be dead. Yet humans created a system that keeps my alive. My actual life is being unnaturally extended. I have no problem admitting that. It’s a shame some homosexuals have such a problem admitting they have an unnatural urge.

And if you want to take this a step further and since we're just making up crap, I've got a reason for you why gays DO NOT have these physical abnormalities. Because over the years, and even in the Bible, people have KILLED gays for being gay. NOT having a physical abnormality helps gays to blend in, and provides survivability.
It would be stupid to stick a neon orange vest on a duck, and it would be stupid to give gays a physical abnormality which would point them out to a population that wants to kill them.
You want a stupid reason? I just gave you a stupid reason.

Yup…That’s a stupid reason. They have killed humans for many reasons. Women still are physically women and they still are the most victimized gender. See the 100 virgin rape above. Women still look like women, if anything you‘d think we‘d go asexual or something if that were the reason. But you admitted it was stupid so I‘ll leave it at that.


You didn't take my advice, so I'll write it down.
I suggest you learn it sooner rather than later, because the rest of the class has noticed your incapability to grasp this simple fact, and they have started snickering...
Ready?
We ARE NOT SAYING that we should mimic nature.
YOU are the one who broughtthe "natural" argument to the table. It is YOUR pretense, and YOUR pretense alone that "nature" somehow dictates some sort of morality or justification on this issue.

I am not saying we should mimic nature. I have heard the argument in here that “homosexual behavior exists in nature” to justify homosexuality. Are you now going to say you have never seen that point raised in here? That’s not my argument. I’m saying that our bodies were designed to have sex heterosexually by default. We CAN jam all kinds of various objects in our orifices. That doesn’t mean we supposed to have veggie-sex. We just CAN if we choose. We can choose to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge not knowing how to swim. We just won’t live long afterward.

Do you even realize what you just did?
You ADMITTED the proper use of the word "natural", and then you followed up by your own usage of the word in "quotes". Possibly to denote sarcasm?

No I don’t see where I did anything I haven’t done before. Naturally occurring is a totally different thing from “natural“. It’s natural to have a baby after a 9 month gestation. It’s not natural for the outcome of the pregnancy to be a dead baby. The baby is defective for one reason or another. Just like I was when I was born. I was carrying the gene that would cause me to reject my own kidneys. Was I listed in the “birth defect” rate of my state? No. Yet I’ve carried a broken gene since birth just like homosexuals.

It is your ideal that YOU get to decide the purpose and proper function of nature, even in spite of the actual way it works. Miscarriages could be seen as a proper part of evolution, but you're caught up in whether or not it is morally "good" or not, so you start assigning your own ideals to the situation and reclassifying things based on how YOU WANT things to be.
that passes the evolution/god/genetic test I would be the first to defend it. But I don’t. Homosexuals mere presence doesn’t justify it any more than any other defect.

The most important part of your statement is the word “could”. Miscarriages could be seen as a proper part of evolution. They certainly could. And homosexuality could too. And retardation. And bestiality. Speaking of which
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html
Maybe we should let zoophiles go at it. They “could” be serving an evolutionary purpose.
I think we might need to get something straight here. I’ve never used morals in any of my arguments. I’m the last one to talk about morals. I’m not moral, religious, nor do I abide by every law. I’m not here to defend heterosexual people nor offend homosexuals. Okay maybe a little…But you do that sometimes in a debate. If I saw a real verifiable reason for homosexuality, I would be the first one to defend it as it pertains to the topic here. Repeal of sodomy laws? Yup. Homosexual discrimination from anything else anyone else can do? No way, that’s wrong. (Is that a moral judgement?) But equating the nul homosexual partnership to the same level of the obvious nature intended correct partnership of heterosexuality? I just don’t agree with that. If humans can fathom traveling in outer space, I think we have enough common sense to elevate the orientation that creates us to a position of esteem. Now what each individual human does with that gift of procreation is up to human choices. And when you leave stuff up to the individual, you end up with all kinds of weird stuff.

Now you're just talking about the cart leading the horse.
Homosexuality DOES make sense when you realize the ADVANTAGES it gives society.
And not ONCE have you ever tried to discuss those advantages. You've ignored them each and every time I brought them up.

I’ve ignored them because there is no advantage that any heterosexual oriented couple could do. I mean for example cross species adoption is documented
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php
We are just another animal on this planet. We place importance on ourselves because we think we are. Nature doesn’t make any special concessions for humans in the wild. A lion will eat you just as fast as any other piece of meat.
So the homosexual couple being predisposed to take care of a heterosexual overproduction doesn’t pass muster. Especially when you ask a single parent if two people are needed to raise a child. While it may be morally preferable to have two parents, there really is no requirement that it be the case.

You're missing the point.
Any INDIVIDUAL birth defect has a MUCH LOWER rate than what we're talking about here.
And homosexuality would be an INDIVIDUAL birth defect, by your classification.

No I think you are missing mine. Behavior defects aren’t included in that percentage. I wonder how many people have pedophilic urges but don’t act on them? How about zoophilic? You can’t have a bestiality pride parade in the middle of downtown New York. It’s been mentioned throughout history as referenced above so there is a precident set. And we have pedo all over the media these days. All not mentioned in the birth rate. That’s MY point. A certain number of people are just defective in one way or another.

And it stands to reason that when a SPECIFIC issue, like homosexuality, is born at such a GREATER MAGNITUDE as any "birth defect", and across MULTIPLE SPECIES, that there could be something more going on here.

No it doesn’t. Defects can cross species. Domestic animals get renal failure, are born Siamese, etc…Besides, isn’t that using nature to justify homosexuality? I can’t do it for heterosexuality but you can use it for homosexuality? Clarify the rules please.

How many kids are born retarded each year? Nowhere near 3-5%.
Yet statistically, gays make up at least 5% of the population.
To blindly lump them in the same category and ignore the statistical relevance makes no sense. It's ignoring the facts, which you repeatedly do over and over again.

Well where is the cutoff where it starts to become relavant? Because we really don’y know how many zoophiles and pedos are out there. And how many of the homosexuals are bisexual? A classification that has just as valid an argument for possible polygamy as homosexuality has for marriage itself.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mental-retardation?cat=health
“Mental retardation occurs in 2.5-3% of the general population”.
And you were saying?


I think that's a problem between our mindsets.
I look for reasons why things might be wrong, and if they are wrong, then I classify them as wrong.
YOU insist that others justify homosexuality as "right". You're leaving out the possibility that things just ARE.

I call that rationalization.

And moreover, technically, I have "justified" it. REPEATEDLY in points you DO NOT ADDRESS.
I have pointed out how homosexuals can adopt the surplus of the heterosexual population. How homosexual bonding gives two dedicated parents to a child, which is superior to one.

That’s a moral issue though isn’t it? Can I start applying morals too? While I agree two parents are better than one, if you were to ask a single parent, she would rightly answer it depends on the two parents. Two parent offspring rearing isn’t an absolute either. Male and female genetic material is an absolute for offspring among higher organisms, but after the genetic material is shared, all bets are off. Therefore human heterosexuals who decide to marry should be placed in a position of esteem over any defective variation that has no natural justification.

Wow. You just totally missed the point of my analogy. Not even an inkling.
NO. We WORK BETTER as a society when we are NOT all heterosexuals who reproduce willy nilly. It works BETTER when we have some people who are more diverse than just pumping out babies.

First I’ll admit I didn’t read that whole paragraph since I thought about whenever I make such a dissimilar analogy, I get told it’s not relevant. But… I just pointed out that the hard drive itself isn’t necessary to have a viable computer. My Dell Axim does just fine without a hard drive. A solid state hard drive one ups your analogy and would eliminate the need for separate short and long term memory modules. Everything can be done in one integrated system.

No. Not at all.
And it's very predictable that you ignore my point and respond with a strawman argument.

I wish I could answer your points like that. But there is no support for your assertion that homosexuals are created to “take up the slack” for rampant procreation. They don’t serve any purpose a single parent or infertile heterosexual couple could do.

Asked and answered.
I already told you that COUPLES are better at raising kids than individuals.
Moreover, "sterile heterosexuals" would not have the added advantage of being able to HELP REPRODUCTION in case it was needed.

And an infertile heterosexual couple is unable to how? And are you now saying homosexuality is a choice to be reversed if needed? Clarify. Cause I thought homosexuals couldn’t choose to be that way. And again couples don't necessarily raise better kids. There are several other arrangements that would work depending on the social structure.

Have you met your heterosexual counter-parts who pop out numerous kids even though we can't feed all the ones we already have on this planet?
Heterosexuals DO NOT "decrease the birth rate" kindly on their own. Places like China try, and they are denigrated for it.

My cousin is one of them. But that’s confusing human behavior with the heterosexual standard. That would be like saying men should be eliminated because we commit so much violent crime, especially against women. Heterosexual people can be just as careless and ignorant as homosexuals. Men seem to be predisposed to violence compared to women. So maybe we should simply harvest the sperm of a few strong verile men and do away our gender as a member of the general population. Make the human race like a farm with on stud bull that never gets to actually have sex with a cow.

My "theory" is a simple explanation of how homosexuality HELPS society.
It doesn't work perfectly, but neither does heterosexuality. Heterosexuality over-reproduces. Heterosexual cycles, unchecked, can lead to transitory surges and declines with short food supplies, over-abundant food supplies, disease, war, etc, etc.

Actually as it pertains to the healthy human body and it‘s reproductive system, heterosexuality does work perfectly. Our bodies are set up as perfectly for heterosexuality as our cardiovascular system is set up for our atmosphere. We can jack up our bodies with drugs like meth and crack, but if we just stick with the intended gas we were intended to breath, barring age and disease, we are perfectly set up. Just as we have dildos, bung balls, carrots, animals etc to bastardize and take advantage of the pleasure sex brings. And how exactly does homosexuality help raise kids yet control population. Those concepts totally opposite each other.

If we're going to use a standard of one aspect that we think would make things better which doesn't exist somehow disproves the whole idea, then heterosexuality is shot in the foot as well...

But homosexuality only makes sense as a choice that humans make. Heterosexuality is a mandate and our bodies happen to be perfectly evolved for heterosexuality all the way down to the perfect viscosity of the vaginal lubrication.

Considering your arguments are PURE rationalization, it should feel quite comfortable to you...

So how is my statement that the human body is perfectly set up for heterosexual reproduction, which happens to be the only way to procreate, and therefore heterosexuality should be held to a higher level than any other orientation. No more a rationalization than we have governmental holidays for past leaders and religious holidays. If we can celebrate labor day and easter, we can celebrate our creation. Every human created through copulation was created heterosexually.

You keep making up new rules as you go along, and its boring.
"need for homosexuality"? The system WORKS BETTER with homosexuality incorporated. Just because there is no "need" doesn't mean that the BENEFITS should be overlooked.
A computer does not "need" RAM. It could function purely off of a hard drive. But it wouldn't have the benefit of SPEED, like homosexuality adds benefits of extra care givers.

A computer doesn’t need a hard drive either. Computers are nowhere near as absolute as the human species, nor the planet’s species need for hetero.
Recognizing the benefits of a disorder is totally different level than deeming said disorder as important as the obvious natural condition.

You keep talking about "Why not create..." like nature is this omniscient thinking being that made the absolute best choices for its "creation".
Not true. And anybody making a "natural" argument like yours should know better.
But to justify homosexuality you use the word “could” as pointed out before. But only with heterosexuality does the absolute word “does” apply. It does already work. And it does already have a human system that compliments it.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Don't change the topic.
Or is this offered to prove heterosexuals aren't natural?

No.. It was offered to show heterosexuals can have defects which would render them incapable of caring for young. Just like a homosexual man. Quite relevant. Especially related to the "taking care of the overflow" argument.

And on another note, it's amusing how often you switch standards.
Earlier you talked about how we didn't "need" homosexuals, but now you talk about how homosexuals should have these things to be better caregivers.
But the truth is that homosexuals DO NOT NEED these things to be good caregivers. You can't show me ANY homosexual parent who was unable to the task because of lacking this feature you want to add on.

How is that switching standards? I never said that the world needed homosexuals did I? I just pointed out a physical manifestation that would indicate that homosexuals actually were meant to serve that purpose. Just as if homosexuals were meant to be, why not some physical difference to decrease the danger of anal sex or some type of phallus for homosexual women other than their fist? Womens' vaginas have a special skin, lubrication and muscles to enable coitus and childbirth. Homosexuals have what natural excretion? Spit?

Again, non-sequitur to my point.
And quite frankly, who the hell are you to declare it's not "natural" by your made-up definition of the word?

See above post for opinion. I have the same rights as you do to form them. Mine are based on what "is" while to justify homosexuality you have to base ideas on what “could” be.

If a human gives one of those kidneys to another to help the other live, I'd say that is very "natural"...
And I don’t. It’s a very difficult surgery to get the kidney out. We don’t have a zipper on our backs and there is no area in the abdomen set aside for an extra organ. I’ve had a transplant, the feeling isn’t “natural”, nor are the drugs necessary for immuno-suppression.

No. You couldn't.

Oh believe me I could.

And I don't mean that from the pretense that you couldn't dream up some nasty slurs against gays, but I think your true purpose is to attack gays and be spiteful.
And no. You couldn't do "better" than what you are doing now.
And that's not to say that what you're doing now is good. It's not. I don't think there is anybody on this board who hasn't seen through your charade.
I'm saying you're not capable of doing "better".

There’s no charade. If I wanted to insult for the sake of insulting, I could do a much better job. My opinion may not match yours but that doesn’t mean it’s insulting. I haven’t called gay people anything I wouldn’t call myself. Just because I’m not in some state of denial doesn’t mean I’m attacking anyone. Just because we disagree doesn’t mean I disrespect you as a person. I may not respect your opinion, but I do respect you right to have it.
I don’t hate racists. They have just as much a right to hate other races as anyone else. But they’d have a hard road to hoe to prove a valid difference in the races that justifies racism. Especially one that can cross gender/political/religious lines too.

Again, a non-sequitur ignoring my point.
Ignoring the flaw I have pointed out in your argument.

Where is the flaw? The choice to use a condom is as much a choice as the choice to use it as a balloon and blow it up. Heterosexuality is the attraction as well as the act. Just like homosexuality. A heterosexual couple can have homosexual sodomy but a homosexual couple can never have coitus.

And sky-diving is more dangerous than picking daisies.
But how many people actually die sky-diving?
And how many gay or straight people actually get damaged like the above discussion in anal sex?
Just because anal sex may be a little more risky doesn't mean that it's not more fun for those who aren't scared of a little risk...

Depends on if you want to deal in percentages or actual numbers. I’d be willing to bet the percentage starts pretty low for homosexual women and goes off the chart for homosexual men. I’m running out of time though to find percentages.


AGAIN a NON-SEQUITUR.
You keep trying to change the subject when you lose a point.
This was originally brought up to demonstrate that straight men who use contraceptives during sex would be considered "defective" by your categorization.

I didn’t change the point. Birth control is a choice. We aren’t born with a condom.

I cut him off because he's engaging in another shameless attempt to CHANGE THE POINT.
The point, and what I was actually saying, was that YOUR standards would declare straights who use contraceptives during sex as "defective".
If a guy goes to the doctor to have an operation so he can't have kids (or a girl does it), they would be MENTALLY defective, in your opinion.

Straights that use condoms are making the choice to have sex recreationally. Just like the choice of which orifice. I’m not supporting individual heterosexual people, just the heterosexual orientation. I have my own perversions. That 100 virgin thing in that last post would make for a great video. Ask Mel Gibson. “snuff film anyone”?

THAT is my point.
Quit changing the subject when you lose.

I don’t lose.


There is a rational difference. Homosexuality is the attraction to have sex exclusively in a manner that the body isn’t built for. You can choose to be a perv out of curiosity but an instinctual desire to have solely sodomic sex is a defect. As defective as pedo, it’s just that homo is socially accepted…now and here in this country. Other countries, not so much.

And he does it AGAIN.
I was talking quite clearly and explicitly that the use of contraceptive is "deviant" by his standards.
And because that obviously includes some blame for heterosexuals, which in his mental diarama he cannot have, he AGAIN CHANGES THE SUBJECT.

I’ve covered this already. Sorry for the short answer. I gotta get.

Say whaa?
I fully grasp that.
YOU are the one who keeps trying to claim they are analogous and similar.
I have been explicitly saying they are NOT.
If you acknowledge they aren't related, then stop bringing up pedophiles in these discussions.

Pedophilia is related to homosexuality in that they both defective behaviors. They are related. Just as if we were discussing behaviors in general, bestiality is related to both.

Have a great Tuesday...

It's already been proven that marriage has nothing to do with procreation - nor the ability to do so.

I'm so glad you wrote that statement at the start of your ten thousand word essay - it meant I could just skip the rest of it and assume it's as erronious as the beginning was.

So much faster.

Just when you thought you were on ignore. So much for integrity. Marriage..nothing to do with procreation...It would be very ignorant to say that marriage has nothing at all to do with procreation. That's like saying hunting has nothing to do with eating. You can go hunting and not catch a damn thing. You still went hunting. You can go hunting and give everything away. Still hunting. You can go fishing, another form of hunting, and put all you catch back. You can get married and not procreate. But if you get married and not have coitus(implied due to sodomy being illegal at the time) but then you don't have a marriage.

Marriage doesn't require procreation, but it does imply it. The first thing people assume when you get married is when is the baby coming. It is assumed the couple will consummate the marriage, which is a legal term..
consummation - legal definition
Now whether procreation results afterwards is up in the air. But since sodomy became legal long after marriage laws were written, and homosexual sex is sodomy by default, it is pretty much an absolute that when the marriage laws were written, homosexual sex was not meant to be included. If they change the wording in the marriage laws to coitus that would further protect matrimony since a homosexual couple can't, by the strict definition of the word.

Maybe you ought to go back and actually read. Or remain on "convenience ignore". LOL