Genetic abnormalities are entirely natural; they occur as a result of the natural process of variation and mutation in reproduction. Without this process, evolution would not occur.
There’s nothing more unnatural to gayness than there is to having AB-positive blood, blue eyes, or a tail (all recessive traits with low occurences).
Rook, there is no biological or instinctual reason why you should post to this thread. You might try working on your vocabulary a bit: that muscular sheath through which babies are brought into the world is a vAgina, and the concept of two things fitting well together is usually spelled “compatibility.”
Have you read anybody’s posts, and followed the train of arguments? I note you have quoted them, but you don’t seem to be grasping the points made. Hastur had an excellent, ironic point about presuming what “nature’s intention” might be based on the fact that a penis fits into an anus.
We fully grasp that sex can result in babies – most of us discovered that at age ten or so, if not earlier. That does not mean that reproduction is its sole function, even biologically. And we are aware that gays, at least unassisted by technology, cannot reproduce. Do you have a point you are driving at by all this stuff? If you’re confused by why people are angry at you about it, it’s because it’s the same old wornout antigay rhetoric that gays and people who care about how they feel have been seeing and hearing from bigots for years. I am not calling you a bigot – yet – but if the shoe fits…
Polycarp: it’s not my vocabulary that needs help, it’s my typing ability. I’m not a bigot, I’m not prejudice, I don’t hate gays and I’m not gay trying to come into grips with my homosexual tendencies. I’m thinking strictly from a scientific stand point and not from what I feel is right.
My argument is that there are certain natural instincts in the majority of all living organisms. One of them is reproduction.
Quote from Zen101:
“Being born with no desire to procreate in genetic aberration. Don’t get confused by the statement, it is not a value judgement it is simple science. A gamete exists to create a zygote. If you lack the desire to do so because of your genes then you are in a way a form of mutant.
None of this takes in to account en-vitro fertilization which is, in the strictest sense, not natural.”
This is what I was trying to explain. It doesn’t seem plausible that the anus was designed for sexual contact at all because of the amount of tissue damage done during intercourse
Have you ever heard of LUBRICANT? Tissue damage? Like ther e isn’t in heterosexual intercourse? The penis and the VAGINA both get inflamed and at times are rubbed a bit raw.
Does this mean penises aren’t meant to go in vaginas because they cause potential tissue damage?
First, why do you think the anus was designed for anything at all?
Second, if it wasn’t intended for sexual contact, why is it so pleasurable to some people?
Third, why do you think anal intercourse causes any more “tissue damage” than vaginal intercourse?
Now you guys are bring as narrow-minded as you thought I was
KellyM:
1st: The penis is a instrument for sexual intercourse and reproduction
2nd: For the same reason your mouth is designed for sex but feels good during oral sex
3rd: it’s a proven fact anal intercourse damages many more blood vessels then heterosexual sex. That’s the reason why gay men are more susceptible to aids because of the amount of blood vessels exposed during anal sex.
Hastur:
I have heard of lubricants thank you. Have you heard of natural vaginal secretions? And read number 3 for the answer to your comment of potential tissue damage
is there ANYONE who agrees with me or atleast understand i’m speaking from a scientifical stand point?
I’ve read this five times, and all I can say is…huh? (“If people were meant to have oral sex, God wouldn’t have given them teeth!”)
Okay, I’ll accept your points. The way in which you’ve expressed them has insulted some of the gay posters, as you may have noted, and offended a number of us who like them and don’t want them insulted.
Bottom line: you’re saying that ***gayness is unnatural because sex is solely for reproduction. *** I argued above that it has other functions in a behavioral-biology standpoint. A good marriage is far more than sex, and it’s the ultimate in pair-bonding in humans. Sex functions “sacramentally” (outward, physical sign of inward, spiritual concept) to cement such pair-bonding. No reason why two people drawn to each other cannot pair bond even if of the same sex – as Hastur is soon to do formally.
I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here; most people have, I think, written your making your points the way you have as trolling. Please respond to the issue that I raised in the last paragraph and my first post.
The penis is a fleshy appendage. It can be used to facilitate sexual reproduction, but it has a variety of other uses as well. I still don’t see how you’ve shown any evidence that it’s designed for any of these uses. You haven’t produced any evidence of deliberate design at all.
that was in response to the question of why some individuals get pleasure from anal sex if the anus wasn’t made for sex. My example was oral sex, how the mouth wasn’t designed for it but it’s still pleasurable
Gaudere, restraining myself from making bad puns on that sentence was something I did in hopes that Rook was not trolling and could be dialogued with. But the sole meaning I got out of it was “I get pleasure in my mouth from giving oral sex” – which shoots the first sentence of his OP out of the water and confirms Satan’s thrust, or else implies something I don’t want to think about regarding his tongue and technique. 
We are bring? Oh, you must mean “being”.
Wow, and all this time I thought it was designed for eating, exhaling breath, and talking. Gee willikers, you learn something new every day!
It was my understanding that anal sex is risky because the HIV virus can easily pass through the rectal membranes. And how would the blood vessels (I think you mean capilaries) be “exposed”? So, youre saying the penis rips away the lining of the rectum?
I dont think so. Usually ignorant people learn to stay out of GD’s after a while. Oh and i think you also mean “scientific”, not scientifical (that’s like soooooo 6th grade!)
Polycarp:
If you’re talking about your friends nephew, I explain that as mutation. It can skip generations. I bet every homosexual who reads this will get upset but Zen101’s scientific explanations pretty much sums it up.
KellyM:
Before artificial insemination, how did human and animals reproduce? In nature, the smallest mammal has an instinct to use his penis in reproduction. By just saying, “I still don’t see how you’ve shown any evidence that it’s designed for any of these uses.” And, “You haven’t produced any evidence of deliberate design at all,” just shows your stubborn frame of mind and unwillingness to understand what I’m saying at all.
Not to nitpick, but being gay is not inherently contra-survival. As stated later in the post, it is an ‘abberation’, with respect to procreation, but that is not an individual survival characteristic. You compared it to having webbed feet in a species that was not aquatic or semi-aquatic. In and of itself it’s not a development that will hinder or even effect the survival of the organism in question.
Um, why not? If a chimpanzee making a tool to fish termites out of the nest is a natrual expression of its intelligence and improves its survival opportunities, thereby possibly making a more attractive partner for possible mates, why is the development of fertility techniques any less a ‘natural’ expression of intelligence?
A beaver’s dam is natural but Hoover Dam isn’t?
What do the larger ones use? Their nose?
I must admit I have never had an instinct to use my penis in reproduction. :
: I’m unnatural!
[sub]This is like MST3K. I can’t resist.[/sub]
Well, Gaudere, I recall that over in C&L II you noted that you had misplaced yours at a very young age. That may account for it.
The concept of elephants using their noses definitely deserves exploring.
Gaudere:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Comp_Articles/AIDS_Info_System.html
“Homosexuals and bisexuals are particularly risk if they have unprotected anal intercourse either by blood exchange (eg. if there is a scar), but mainly through seminal transfer.”
Why even mention blood exchange if not more prevalent in anal sex?
The rest of your insults pertaining to my typing ability doesn’t deserve an answer. I’m sure someone of your superior knowledge can decipher my comments
Doobieous: the last comment was for you also since you feel anal sex can’t cause scarring/bleeding
My opinion is that homosexual’s are eager to make excuses for why they are “different” but there’s no genetic proof that homosexuality is encoded in DNA. There is, however proof that the male gender is designed to have sex with the female gender. Therefore homosexuality isn’t part of nature’s original plan for a species to reproduce and evolve
Hmm. I haven’t seen anyone on these boards making excuses for being “different”.
We’re here, we’re queer… get over it.
(Damn I wish that line was mine… don’t remember where I got it though.)