The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[stewstew03]

This is a pretty well-established biological fact, and if you doubt me, Google is your friend.

In other words, when you say “well-established biological fact” you mean Wikipedia, which cites such beacons of science as “Go Ask Alice.”

Are you contending that anal intercourse is not risky behavior? And that God intended humans to have anal intercourse?

 

[Debora123]

In other words, when you say “well-established biological fact” you mean Wikipedia, which cites such beacons of science as “Go Ask Alice.”

Are you contending that anal intercourse is not risky behavior? And that God intended humans to have anal intercourse?

No, A Simon is correct.

There are certain nerve endings that can make anal sex pleasurable to some people. Though I fail to see how this means that having anal sex is something that was somehow meant to be or something.

The fact that it’s the place where you know what comes out of is enough to show that no one else’s part was really naturally meant to go in there…

 

[prodigalson2011]

Ya know, I really think Alan Keyes said everything that needs to be said on the topic:

Interviewer: Mr. Keyes, on the Channel 7 debate last Thursday night, you said, and I’m quoting you, “Where procreation is in principle impossible, marriage is irrelevant.” You went on to say it was irrelevant and not needed. What about marriage between people well beyond their child bearing age irrelevant not needed?

Alan Keyes: No, it’s simply a misunderstanding. The term “in principle” means relating to the definition of, not relating to particular circumstances. So if an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple. It doesn’t change what the apple is in principle, so the fact… [interviewer interrupts] No, to act as if concepts are laughable means that you want to be irrational. Human beings reason by means of concepts and definition. We also make laws by means of definitions and if you don’t know how to operate with respect for those definitions, you can’t make the law. An individual who is impotent or another who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage, in principle, because between a man and a woman in principle procreation is always possible. And it is that possibility that gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place, as a matter of law… [interviewer interrupts again] but when it is impossible, as between two males or two females, you’re talking about something that’s not just incidentally impossible; it’s impossible in principle. And that means that if you say that that’s a marriage you are saying marriage can be understood, in principle, apart from procreation. You have changed its definition in such a way as in fact to destroy the necessity for the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations was to regulate from a social point of view the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So when you start playing games in this way you are actually acting as if the institution has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim.

Alan Keyes on Gay Marriage.

I don’t think anyone could have put it better. In addition, there is the issue of granting same sex financial benefits (at the taxpayers’ expense) which are given to heterosexual couples precisely because of the procreative function of marriage which contributes to the population and, consequently, the work force/economy. Why should a fundamentally sterile institution such as gay marriage would be receive tax benefits for a nonexistent contribution?

As much as the other side likes to say those who oppose gay marriage are reactionary and emotional, I haven’t seen any arguments from their side based on logic and economics (as this is a legal matter).

 

[Stephen168]

Until you give me a framework that justifies your resistance to something that would have no practical effect on you, then religion is all we have to work with. If your religion isn’t driving your thinking, then your opinions don’t even have a basis in a hypothetical reality.

Which religion is guiding your views on this subject? What religion guides your views on the correctness of robbery?

 

[stewstew03]

No, A Simon is correct.

There are certain nerve endings that can make anal sex pleasurable to some people. Though I fail to see how this means that having anal sex is something that was somehow meant to be or something.

The fact that it’s the place where you know what comes out of is enough to show that no one else’s part was really naturally meant to go in there…

Hi Debora - I don’t dispute that some find it pleasurable. But ASimon seemed to be making the claim that there was some sort of biological function associated with the location of the prostate vis-a-vis the rectum. I’d like to see some evidence for this, rather than take his word for it.

It’s also a fact that most people find anal intercourse rather painful. And even within the gay community male couples will abstain from intercourse in favor of other activities (e.g., “frotting”). Health professionals consistently refer to anal intercourse as a health risk. The assertion that vaginal intercourse is somehow equivalent to anal intercourse is ludicrous.

 

[Debora123]

Hi Debora - I don’t dispute that some find it pleasurable. But ASimon seemed to be making the claim that there was some sort of biological function associated with the location of the prostate vis-a-vis the rectum. I’d like to see some evidence for this, rather than take his word for it.

It’s also a fact that most people find anal intercourse rather painful. And even within the gay community male couples will abstain from intercourse in favor of other activities (e.g., “frotting”). Health professionals consistently refer to anal intercourse as a health risk. The assertion that vaginal intercourse is somehow equivalent to anal intercourse is ludicrous.

Agreed.

 

[buffalo]

Well, try not to get so worked up over other people being happier. It gets better.

The evidence is very poor that they are happier.

 

[CopticChristian]

Who decides that the ability to reproduce is the defining characteristic of a marriage? It’s not biology. It’s theology. And your opinion is based on theology, which appropriates specific facts from biology (and other disciplines) to confirm its original thesis.

Incidentally, **biology also tells us that the human prostate, which can be felt by pressing against the inner wall of a male’s rectum, actually has nerve ends, which, when stimulated, are capable of producing pleasurable sensations. Isn’t that weird? **That a gland located right up against the human rectum would be capable of that? What possible use could that have?

Asimon,

There are nerve endings throughout the entire body. The sensations that are percieved are sensations. The mind adds meaning to them. The colon has nerve endings that are also pressure sensors so that when the colon is full you feel like defecating.

You propose that the inner wall of a male rectum/prostate has nerve endings, the same nerves that traverse from the spinal cord to the end male organ…Do you find it surprising that similar nerves traverse the Prostate to the end organ…

Where are the pleasure sensors in the mouth?

The body has nerve endings in the body everywhere that serve the purpose of protection, procreation, identification and more.

The rectum has nerve endings that provide the senation of itch. Why do I itch? Who knows…Itch occurs on my skin and wherever there is skin, there is itch…The skin, that covers your entire body, as it becomes lips/rectum at either end has the same nerves that the body has outside and inside.

You can sense pressure on your skin, heat on your skin, pleasure with light touch and a tickle…do you find that odd…You focus on one area because the mind makes up meaning to what is experienced.

The brain has no ability to feel pain and that is why brain surgery can be done awake. Do we conclude that the brain should be hammered or conclude that it is protectected by a skull and should be left alone?

One track minds, lead to one track thoughts, that lead to one track agendas.,

 

[JimG]

Ya know, I really think Alan Keyes said everything that needs to be said on the topic:

I don’t think anyone could have put it better. In addition, there is the issue of granting same sex financial benefits (at the taxpayers’ expense) which are given to heterosexual couples precisely because of the procreative function of marriage which contributes to the population and, consequently, the work force/economy. Why should a fundamentally sterile institution such as gay marriage would be receive tax benefits for a nonexistent contribution?

As much as the other side likes to say those who oppose gay marriage are reactionary and emotional, I haven’t seen any arguments from their side based on logic and economics (as this is a legal matter).

Yes, Alan Keyes got it exactly right. Marriage between same sex couples is impossible in principle. Same sex marriage is simply an impossibility because marital relations are impossible between individuals of the same sex.

And yes, biology does have an opinion, unless biology has no opinion as to the continuance of the species and the purpose of male and female reproductive systems. Biology is primary.

Obviously it’s not a matter of theology. Same sex “marriage” was not recognized among societies regardless of their theology. Opposition to same sex marriage pre-dates Christianity, pre-dates Judaism. (As does marriage itself. Marriage pre-dates theology.) Actually, I should not say “opposition to” since most cultures saw no need to oppose the impossible. It never would have occurred to them.

 

[buffalo]

Asimon,

There are nerve endings throughout the entire body. The sensations that are percieved are sensations. The mind adds meaning to them. The colon has nerve endings that are also pressure sensors so that when the colon is full you feel like defecating.

You propose that the inner wall of a male rectum/prostate has nerve endings, the same nerves that traverse from the spinal cord to the end male organ…Do you find it surprising that similar nerves traverse the Prostate to the end organ…

Where are the pleasure sensors in the mouth?

The body has nerve endings in the body everywhere that serve the purpose of protection, procreation, identification and more.

The rectum has nerve endings that provide the senation of itch. Why do I itch? Who knows…Itch occurs on my skin and wherever there is skin, there is itch…The skin, that covers your entire body, as it becomes lips/rectum at either end has the same nerves that the body has outside and inside.

You can sense pressure on your skin, heat on your skin, pleasure with light touch and a tickle…do you find that odd…You focus on one area because the mind makes up meaning to what is experienced.

The brain has no ability to feel pain and that is why brain surgery can be done awake. Do we conclude that the brain should be hammered or conclude that it is protectected by a skull and should be left alone?

One track minds, lead to one track thoughts, that lead to one track agendas.,

The gut has the most sometimes referred to as the second brain.

The anal epitheleal layer is one cell thick. Think about that and the ability to contract and spread disease.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Better to have an atheist group do it.

Why is it that every time information is presented atheists always discredit the source without even addressing its content?

Watch what happens:

Homosexual Behavior & Pedophilia
Homosexual Activists Work To Normalize Sex With Boys

Kevin Bishop, an admitted pederast (pedophile), is promoting the wo rk of the North A m e ri c a n
M a n - B oy Love A s s o c i ation (NAMBLA) in South A f rica. Bishop, who was molested at the age of six, i s
also an admitted homosexual who is blunt about the re l ationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.
“ S c rat ch the ave rage homosexual and you will find a pedophile,” said Bishop in an interv i ew with
the E l e c t ronic Mail & Guard i a n ( June 30, 1 9 9 7 ) .1

This is entirely irrelevant. There are Catholic priests that rape young boys, and yet I don’t go around claiming that all Catholic priests are paedophiles. Yes, it is true that some homosexuals are paedophiles, but the majority aren’t. The fact is, you can do this with any minority group. The majority of people in US prisons are black. Are all black people criminals? Of course not. The comment from the Bishop can be ignored. He isn’t a psychologist, and if all homosexuals were paedophiles then there’d be a hell of a lot more child abuse cases. There’s also the fact that, once again, this can hardly be considered an unbiased source.

The reason I ignored your source is because it was a survey conducted by a group that already had their own agenda. If a survey is to be done, it needs to be conducted with a group neutral towards the issue or a group with mixed feelings towards the issue. The reason I don’t trust your source is the same reason I wouldn’t trust a source by the KKK on the physical well being of African Americans. I’ve also seen sources that suggest the opposite.

Regular,

You miss the point…you say that you observe something in nature and therefore it is natural…look and see what animals eat feces…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

It is observed in nature and yet we do not have people asking for rights that others don’t have because they eat feces…

Next you must ask yourself this…what makes humans different than animals…this is a trick question…

Some people may eat faeces. A human paraphilia exists called coprophilia. I’d like to know what kind of rights these people would need.

As for the questions about the difference between humans and animals, it’s because we’re more highly evolved.

And do you regard everything that is natural to be good? Cancer, AIDs, disease in general, deformities, etc.? Perhaps we should stop treating people for this and accept them and be proud of these things the way society values homosexuality?

No. I never said natural things are all moral or good. I just said homosexualiy is natural, so therefore you cannot claim it isn’t natural.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I haven’t read some of the posts, so perhaps this is redundant. If so, please forgive me.

The following will mean nothing to atheists or to some of those who are not Catholic.

From a Catholic perspective, homosexual marriage cannot, of its nature, be about “love and love.” Love is desiring and acting to promote the good of another. From a Catholic perspective, that “good of another” must necessarily include the salvation of the other. Homosexual activity is, from a Catholic perspective, sinful. Entering into a sinful union cannot possibly redound to the salvation of the other. Quite the contrary. Therefore, homosexual marriage can never be about “love and love”.

 

[Crescentinus]

I haven’t read some of the posts, so perhaps this is redundant. If so, please forgive me.

The following will mean nothing to atheists or to some of those who are not Catholic.

From a Catholic perspective, homosexual marriage cannot, of its nature, be about “love and love.” Love is desiring and acting to promote the good of another. From a Catholic perspective, that “good of another” must necessarily include the salvation of the other. Homosexual activity is, from a Catholic perspective, sinful. Entering into a sinful union cannot possibly redound to the salvation of the other. Quite the contrary. Therefore, homosexual marriage can never be about “love and love”.

:clapping:

 

[Viviphilia]

You don’t have to be married to be monogamous, and being married doesn’t prevent someone from being promiscuous.

Obviously that much is true. But the social pressure of marriage adds an element of motivation to promote and keep the relationship monogamous, as the couple will experience public shame if any cheating occurs. By denying that pressure, and indeed, by denying the possibility of public relationships, homosexuals are forced to keep their relationships private and secret where there is no external social pressure to motivate monogamy.

This is not an accusation, it’s just speculation, but It’s almost as if some individuals want gays to be promiscuous and to spread disease.

 

[Debora123]

Homosexuality is a disorder.

Yes, it came about through natural causes, but that doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be the normal healthy way of things.

Kind of like clubbed feet. It’s found in nature, but it isn’t the way we were meant to be.

 

[stewstew03]

Obviously that much is true. But the social pressure of marriage adds an element of motivation to promote and keep the relationship monogamous, as the couple will experience public shame if any cheating occurs. By denying that pressure, and indeed, by denying the possibility of public relationships, homosexuals are forced to keep their relationships private and secret where there is no external social pressure to motivate monogamy.

This is not an accusation, it’s just speculation, but It’s almost as if some individuals want gays to be promiscuous and to spread disease.

So… gays need government pressure to stay committed to one another? I haven’t heard this argument before.

 

[buffalo]

This is entirely irrelevant. There are Catholic priests that rape young boys, and yet I don’t go around claiming that all Catholic priests are paedophiles. Yes, it is true that some homosexuals are paedophiles, but the majority aren’t. The fact is, you can do this with any minority group. The majority of people in US prisons are black. Are all black people criminals? Of course not. The comment from the Bishop can be ignored. He isn’t a psychologist, and if all homosexuals were paedophiles then there’d be a hell of a lot more child abuse cases. There’s also the fact that, once again, this can hardly be considered an unbiased source.

The reason I ignored your source is because it was a survey conducted by a group that already had their own agenda. If a survey is to be done, it needs to be conducted with a group neutral towards the issue or a group with mixed feelings towards the issue. The reason I don’t trust your source is the same reason I wouldn’t trust a source by the KKK on the physical well being of African Americans. I’ve also seen sources that suggest the opposite.

Some people may eat faeces. A human paraphilia exists called coprophilia. I’d like to know what kind of rights these people would need.

As for the questions about the difference between humans and animals, it’s because we’re more highly evolved.

No. I never said natural things are all moral or good. I just said homosexualiy is natural, so therefore you cannot claim it isn’t natural.

See what I said…:sad_yes:

You would be wrong - 85% of the molestations were homosexual males on post-pubescent males.

Do you disregard homosexual funded research as well?

We are more highly designed.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You would be wrong - 85% of the molestations were homosexual males on post-pubescent males.

Also, 80% of the offending priests had a simultaneous history of adult homosexual encounters, apart from the more youthful encounters.

 

[buffalo]

Also, 80% of the offending priests had a simultaneous history of adult homosexual encounters, apart from the more youthful encounters.

It is obvious to those with open minds what the real deal is. Many here seem so good at applying logic, but on this subject fail miserably.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

See what I said…:sad_yes:

You would be wrong - 85% of the molestations were homosexual males on post-pubescent males.

Do you disregard homosexual funded research as well?

I disagree - we are more highly designed.

I disregard your sources for perfectly valid reasons, I believe.

Do I disregard homosexual funded research? Eh, possibly, depending on the circumstances. However, while I do believe many cases of paedophilia happen between men and young boys, it’s important to note that lots of paedophiles aren’t considered to have a sexuality, and I do believe the 85% figure to be inaccurate. I also would like to state that I don’t support same-sex paedophile acts, but I don’t see the problem with same-sex acts between consenting adults.

Besides, if paedophilia is such a good argument against homosexuality, then why isn’t it a good argument against the Catholic church:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054674/Roman-Catholic-churchs-paedophile-investigator-jailed-possessing-thousnds-child-porn-images.html
economist.com/node/15720386