And there was much neck-breaking.

His name's swami baba, and he's NOT gay?

/confused

Sure. Once you can bend yourself in a way that allows you to suck yourself, you don't need another person - man or woman.

We can cure that, just bend over.

Disapproves of these shenanigans

hell, if someone wants to call alcoholism a disease, why not gayism? Hell,... based on that, even NOT being gay could be considered a disease.

Forecast for this thread: Yoga Flame?

What a queer ruling.

If you can cure it with a herd of swine, I guess you can cure it with some deep cleansing breaths.

These people are total a**holes. A longtime family friend of ours is one and he charges $1000 an hour for his spiritual guidance. He also told me I needed to take part in womanly duties and I told him to go f*ck himself. True story.

Yeah, that should cure it (safe-ish)

I wonder what Baba O'Riley has to say about this.

/got nothing

scrumpox: We can cure that, just bend over.



/Approves

CURED by yoga? I thought yoga CAUSED it.

Butthurt Gays? It's all Greek to me.

He has a point. I guess if you were good enough at yoga being gay isn't all that necessary.

HappyLittleTree: I told him to go f*ck himself. True story.

That shouldn't be any problem for a dude who does yoga.

Oh please, this is as gay as it gets.

Yes, it is a disease. No, it can't be cured by Yoga.

Also, Yoga isn't just stretching. It's a religious concept.

HappyLittleTree: These people are total a**holes. A longtime family friend of ours is one and he charges $1000 an hour for his spiritual guidance. He also told me I needed to take part in womanly duties and I told him to go f*ck himself. True story.

A longtime family friend is an asshole? And he charges $1000 per hour for it? Man, I'm in the wrong business.

A thousand pardons Swami, but it seems your downward dog has inspried my penis to perform a glorious sun salutation.

So what? India is still in the late 50s or so, real time. They'll come around in another 60 years.

http://www.bettersexthroughyogaforgaymen.com/

unavailable for comment.

That is like saying all yoga insturtors have gay sex thoughts.

/penis

I wonder if Ted Haggard has tried yoga.

Lutrasimilis: And there was much neck-breaking.

Done in one.

Also, it's refreshing to see that other parts of the world are just as ridiculous about homosexuality as the good old U.S. of A.

/drtfa

Baba Ramdev looks like Charles Manson. That swami would scare the gay out of anyone

Oh for the love of Pete...

Um.....I'm not so sure about that......

How many gays out there are really deep into yoga (not just the excercises, but the whole spiritual concept) and deep meditation and pranayama?

if the answer is none... then he may be onto something.

DenisVengeance: Oh for the love of Pete...

You'll be needing some yoga to take care of that.

HappyLittleTree: These people are total a**holes. A longtime family friend of ours is one and he charges $1000 an hour for his spiritual guidance. He also told me I needed to take part in womanly duties and I told him to go f*ck himself. True story.

Yeah, and I'm shtooping Megan Fox. Now go clean the bathroom Toots.

I hear it's good for breathing fire too.

/hot like Yoga Flame

Atharaenea: So what? India is still in the late 50s or so, real time. They'll come around in another 60 years.

If only it was the US gay marriages would be legal...oh wait..

reginaradiodude

I've considered joining that sect just to get my hands on their mailing lists so I can revitalize my floundering stand-up career.

people of the opinion that homosexuality is a disease really just need to go ahead and farking die already, as they are holding back the progress of the civilized world. they use these antiquated notions of god and religion to foster their hatred, all the while ignoring the mountains and mountains of contradictory evidence no matter how rational and sane the argument may in fact be. the simple fact of the matter is anyone who really, honestly believes this bile about homosexuality being a disease is a detriment to the progress to humanity as a whole and should be ridiculed and shamed into either waking the fark up, or suicide.

/farking bigots.

I wonder if we'll be hearing Swami Baba's wide stance sometime soon.

oops. Forgot "about". I'm an idiot.

I was gay, but then I joined a yoga class:

Atharaenea: So what? India is still in the late 50s or so, real time. They'll come around in another 60 years.

Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better. But if you're trying to say that they're not yet as promiscuous as we are, I'll have to agree with you.

Don't cry
Don't raise your eye,
It's only teenage wasteland!


What? It's a different Baba, you say? Never mind.

Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better. But if you're trying to say that they're not yet as promiscuous as we are, I'll have to agree with you.

Yogi penis says what?

Gyrfalcon: HappyLittleTree: These people are total a**holes. A longtime family friend of ours is one and he charges $1000 an hour for his spiritual guidance. He also told me I needed to take part in womanly duties and I told him to go f*ck himself. True story.

A longtime family friend is an asshole? And he charges $1000 per hour for it? Man, I'm in the wrong business.

Ha! That actually made me laugh out loud AND put my hands together... which rarely occurs. Hats off.

Sounds to me like he's taken the cure....
From behind....
Repeatedly...

Funny, the whole reason I took yoga classes was so I could have better gay sex.

/it worked
//penis

But if it's a disease, what's the basis for trying to get it (re)banned?

/...only outlaws will have strep throat.

T.rex: hell, if someone wants to call alcoholism a disease, why not gayism? Hell,... based on that, even NOT being gay could be considered a disease.

dis·ease (d-zz)
n.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
3. Obsolete Lack of ease; trouble.

The genetic links for alcoholism are fairly well established, though the exact mechanism is still unknown Link (genetics of alcoholism), and the condition or tendency is regarded as harmful by society almost entirely. Calling alcoholism a disease is usually regarded as a result of Jellenik's disease model, though there is a LOT of conflict among professionals as to whether or not to treat addicts as having a disease. The main thrust of treating alcoholism as a disease is that the progression of alcoholism is invariably destructive to the organism.

The genetic links for homosexuality are in some ways better established, though the research is still in infant stages, see
Link (genetics of sexual identity). However, homosexuality is not invariably destructive, and in accepting societies seems to have no overall impact on group fitness. Thus, not a disease.

mike.thesauce:
people of the opinion that homosexuality is a disease really just need to go ahead and farking die already, as they are holding back the progress of the civilized world. they use these antiquated notions of god and religion to foster their hatred, all the while ignoring the mountains and mountains of contradictory evidence no matter how rational and sane the argument may in fact be. the simple fact of the matter is anyone who really, honestly believes this bile about homosexuality being a disease is a detriment to the progress to humanity as a whole and should be ridiculed and shamed into either waking the fark up, or suicide.

/farking bigots.

Silly boy, gays were put here by God to be ridiculed, discriminated against, and generally abused by those of us She really loves.

/Jesus doesn't love you.

Downward dog position?

Gayness?!
This... is... SPARTA!!1!

I would drive him to nirvana with the butt-end of a pool cue.

/Do you speak Hindustani?
/Howdy pardner
/Birdy num num

Headless Medusa , missed one.

/untrollable

I know I'm gonna get the crap kicked out of me for this, but what if... what if... not every gay person is gay for the same reason?

IonBeam2: Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better.

Which is why all the smart Americans are flocking to India to study at their universities and join their high tech-firms.

India is a backwards, third-world hellhole. Crowded, dirty, smelly and disgusting.

Squidgilum

I know I'm gonna get the crap kicked out of me for this, but what if... what if... not every gay person is gay for the same reason?


Every single gay man is gay for the same reason: Love of cock, dislike of pussy.

Squidgilum: I know I'm gonna get the crap kicked out of me for this, but what if... what if... not every gay person is gay for the same reason?

Heh. You are right, of course. Though most of the research is solely aimed at biochemical and genetic causes, because the rest of it is almost impossible to realistically quantify. Much depends on whether or not you are referring to underlying sexual identity, or how that identity is expressed.

Baba Ramdev? Sounds Indian for "John Holmes".

IonBeam2: Atharaenea: So what? India is still in the late 50s or so, real time. They'll come around in another 60 years.

Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better. But if you're trying to say that they're not yet as promiscuous as we are, I'll have to agree with you.

Hang on there, Dahlsim. Not. Even. Close.

IonBeam2:
Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better. But if you're trying to say that they're not yet as promiscuous as we are, I'll have to agree with you.

This isn't necessarily true.

Research has time and time again shown that humans are pretty much equally promiscuous everywhere. In cultures that are open about it, you just see it more. And in sexually conservative, people publicly frown on it or treat it like a taboo, so it's easier to assume that it doesn't happen.

This is why AIDS tends to spread like wildfire when it hits conservative Asian countries. Sex is such a taboo that everybody assumes nobody is doing it. So then young people who do it assume that their partners haven't slept around, and they spread it further, and so on and so forth.

Probably the only societies where promiscuity really probably is somewhat lower are places like Saudi Arabia, where young women are literally locked up. But that's a farked up act to try to follow. Cure worse than the disease, etc.

mike.thesauce: people of the opinion that homosexuality is a disease really just need to go ahead and farking die already, as they are holding back the progress of the civilized world. they use these antiquated notions of god and religion to foster their hatred, all the while ignoring the mountains and mountains of contradictory evidence no matter how rational and sane the argument may in fact be. the simple fact of the matter is anyone who really, honestly believes this bile about homosexuality being a disease is a detriment to the progress to humanity as a whole and should be ridiculed and shamed into either waking the fark up, or suicide.

/farking bigots.

Wanna prove homosexuality is not abnormal?

Using the orifice of your choice, inject your semen into another man (or vice versa) and make a baby.

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps: Using the orifice of your choice, inject your semen into another man (or vice versa) and make a baby.

How does that prove it's abnormal?

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps: Wanna prove homosexuality is not abnormal?

Using the orifice of your choice, inject your semen into another man (or vice versa) and make a baby.

Are you saying that ejaculation without the possibility of baby making is abnormal?

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps:
Wanna prove homosexuality is not abnormal?

Using the orifice of your choice, inject your semen into another man (or vice versa) and make a baby.

99.99% of sex acts are purely done for fun, with explicit action taken to prevent the making of a baby.

According to that logic, all sex except sex done purely with the aim for trying for a baby is "abnormal".

You = fail.

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps

Wanna prove homosexuality is not abnormal?

Using the orifice of your choice, inject your semen into another man (or vice versa) and make a baby.


Interesting hypothesis. Volunteering to be injected? For the sake of science, of course.

So ridiculous. I've blown about 10,000 loads in women and never made a baby. I take it blow jobs are abnormal? Any non-vaginal intercourse?

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps:

Wanna prove homosexuality is not abnormal?

Using the orifice of your choice, inject your semen into another man (or vice versa) and make a baby.
ab⋅nor⋅mal
/æbˈnɔrməl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ab-nawr-muhl] Show IPA
Use abnormal in a Sentence
-adjective
1. not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration; an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior.
2. extremely or excessively large: abnormal profit.


Actually, if it worked, it would be abnormal. Homosexuality NOT creating children is normal.

"We'd like to be able to reach things a little bit better."

/conversation over
//that better not be obscure

Damn, Rev. Bobby Bob Epps got caught in a Zerg rush.

FarkinHostile: Damn, Rev. Bobby Bob Epps got caught in a Zerg rush.

Successful Troll is Successful.

Wanna prove homosexuality is not abnormal?

Buy a sack of potatoes and see if they turn into onions (or vice versa) and call it a babysitter.

Farkin tags.

He's also claimed that yoga can cure AIDS and cancer so he's a pretty standard religious nut with a dash of curry.

Nentuaby \

Successful Troll is Successful.

It's trolling only if he doesn't really believe it and posted it just to get a rise. I don't think he is a troll, many ignoramus' believe that.

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps: inject your semen into another man (or vice versa) and make a baby.

I see "sex is only to procreate because nature tells me so" is your benchmark. Are computers and the internet as well as all other "unnatural" things that you like not abnormalities only because everyone else likes them too?

ck1938: HappyLittleTree: These people are total a**holes. A longtime family friend of ours is one and he charges $1000 an hour for his spiritual guidance. He also told me I needed to take part in womanly duties and I told him to go f*ck himself. True story.

Yeah, and I'm shtooping Megan Fox. Now go clean the bathroom Toots.

See that would be hilarious if it was not what he asked me to do. He "cleansed" each room in our house with "holy" water and some flower petals, and I was instructed, in much the same way you phrased it, to clean it up.

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps. So a beej is abnormal? Goddammit, I was duped!

Nentuaby: Successful Troll is Successful.

Troll or not, stupidity is contagious. It must be eradicated at the source.

FarkinHostile: Damn, Rev. Bobby Bob Epps got caught in a Zerg rush.

Hey... the Zerg are the BEST

I Live for the Swarm!

Come on, guys. Everyone knows that NARTH is there for you.

Give 'em a call. They'll "fix" your childhood-based problem with your domineering Mom and wussy Dad. There is hope. NARTH. Call now - operators are standing by.

FarkinHostile: Nentuaby \

Successful Troll is Successful.

It's trolling only if he doesn't really believe it and posted it just to get a rise. I don't think he is a troll, many ignoramus' believe that.

Oh, believe me, being bisexual I'm well aware how many ignoramuses have that view. (My favorite response is "Unnatural? You know what else isn't natural? Chairs. Go ban those before they destroy America.")

Nevertheless, I smell troll. Admittedly, I may simply be thrown off by the overwhelming trollstench soaked into the seat cushions here on Fark.

But seriously, let's focus on having sex with animals. Which is obviously where homosexuality leads.

/end sarcasm
//Fido consents

Everything is natural.

Nentuaby

Nevertheless, I smell troll. Admittedly, I may simply be thrown off by the overwhelming trollstench soaked into the seat cushions here on Fark.


Perhaps. Still, as Albert Einstein said:

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

What I want to know is why so many of us are obsessed with other people's sex lives?

I, quite frankly, don't give a rat's ass what your sexual interests are. You wanna suck a dick? Suck a dick. You wanna lick a pussy? Lick a pussy. You like gray meat? Hump somebody's grandma. It doesn't matter to me.

And it wouldn't affect any kind of (non-sexual) relationship I might have with you. If I am your friend, it doesn't matter whether you like men or women. The only thing that would have an effect on my opinion of you is if you're raping people or taking advantage of children.

Melgania: Everything is natural.

Bossy's glad to hear that.

/moo!

eraser8: What I want to know is why so many of us are obsessed with other people's sex lives?

They don't have one.

eraser8: What I want to know is why so many of us are obsessed with other people's sex lives?


I don't know, but those hidden camera feeds really help pay the bills.

IonBeam2 2009-07-09 07:48:14 PM
Atharaenea: So what? India is still in the late 50s or so, real time. They'll come around in another 60 years.

Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better. But if you're trying to say that they're not yet as promiscuous as we are, I'll have to agree with you.

You keep telling yourself that. That is why large sections of their population is dirt poor, and they still have a standard of living that allows them to take our jobs. If they were really equal to us we wouldn't be able to hire them for a dollar an hour. Plus they have one variant of food which is very good, but to say it's better than the US, where we basically eat the best of the planets food is just idiotic.

major-kong: With the yoga, you don't need someone else to rim ya!

So he's giving himself a reach-around?

eraser8: What I want to know is why so many of us are obsessed with other people's sex lives?

I, quite frankly, don't give a rat's ass what your sexual interests are. You wanna suck a dick? Suck a dick. You wanna lick a pussy? Lick a pussy. You like gray meat? Hump somebody's grandma. It doesn't matter to me.

And it wouldn't affect any kind of (non-sexual) relationship I might have with you. If I am your friend, it doesn't matter whether you like men or women. The only thing that would have an effect on my opinion of you is if you're raping people or taking advantage of children.

hating gays is the shibboleth of the religious right.

squidgilium: "I know I'm gonna get the crap kicked out of me for this, but what if... what if... not every gay person is gay for the same reason?"

How is it any of your business? Or anyone elses? What is this weird notion some people have that they should have the right to scrutinize other peoples' lives and determine what rights they get to have based on the findings?

And if that's "not what you meant", please think through the logical implications of your suggestion with regards to the gay marriage debate.

Can we just cut to the chase and post pics of hot Indian women?

An astrologer, Suresh Kumar Kaushal, has also filed a petition against the high court decision, arguing that if gay sex is legalised, "tomorrow people might seek permission for having sex with animals".

I suppose in a culture where many think people are reincarnated as animals this might be ever so slightly less ridiculous than average.

hmm. i've done yoga for five years. never noticed it "curing gayness." if anything, i'd say it would amp things up in the bedroom, whether you're gay or straight.

i kinda get his point... i took a yoga course at uw-milwaukee... lots of hot chicks wearing almost nothing bent over farting all day (yoga makes you fart).

don't see it curing this though.

But what does Swami Baba Rammed Ass have to say?

Kludge: Oh please, this is as gay as it gets.

beat me to it.

erewhon: Come on, guys. Everyone knows that NARTH is there for you.

Give 'em a call. They'll "fix" your childhood-based problem with your domineering Mom and wussy Dad. There is hope. NARTH. Call now - operators are standing by.


NARTH?

In an interview with the Times of India, Swami Ramdev said homosexuality caused "mental bankruptcy" and was "against God and creation".

They have republicans in India?

Homosexuality might mot indicate psychological abnormality, but gay affect certainly does. Screw whom you carefully and appropriately select, but stop pretending to be your Aunt Marjorie, or the nice lady who does the women's issues show in the afternoons. Or Judy Garland.

Strange. I'm a former yoga instructor (still certified), and I'm still queerer than a three dollar bill.

/["you're doing it wrong" gif here]

barefoot in the head: but stop pretending to be your Aunt Marjorie, or the nice lady who does the women's issues show in the afternoons. Or Judy Garland.

I won't be able to make it to the Friday Night Fag Drag... my truck is acting up... I'll probably take it in, maybe get some new Truck Nutz to go with my Confederate flag mud flaps... boy, you oughter see dem sunbiatches!

llamalord: Buy a sack of potatoes and see if they turn into onions (or vice versa) and call it a babysitter.

And if there's anything India needs, it's more heterosexual sex to produce more unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

Irrespective of what your forcably stylish notions of political correctness may happen to be, all behavior is conditioned behavior, sexual behavior specifically included.

In plain English that means what is not learned can be learned, and what is learned can be un-learned, then re-taught a different way.

If the subject fights his therapist every step of the way, that is not terribly likely to happen, and if the therapist is lazy or a coward or professionally unfit, or all of the above, he can very easily dismiss the behavioral tendency as "---just another variation---" and send the patient on his way, none the better and much the worse for the time and money wasted.

The net result is, the patient never gets to the root of the behavioral causes which manifest themselves in a morose obsession with sex, a morbid preoccupation with the self, chronic inability to mature and grow up, and a fundamental inability to form any type of lasting relationship with any person, whether hetero or homo.

That is a general overview of the malfunction; a professional could add a lot more commentary.

The net result is, conservatives bash such people as morally deficient, pseudo-liberals defend their "right" to be that way, and no one anywhere has the slightest sympathy for the patient himself, who merely wants to benefit from therapy, and be happy and content.

The study of psychology is in the stone age in this country, and this thread really proves it.

eraser8: IonBeam2: Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better.

Which is why all the smart Americans are flocking to India to study at their universities and join their high tech-firms.

India is a backwards, third-world hellhole. Crowded, dirty, smelly and disgusting.

Your second sentence is correct. It is also full of win and awesome. And Indians are cool. New Delhi is easily the most amazing place I've ever lived.

olddinosaur: Irrespective of what your forcably stylish notions of political correctness may happen to be, all behavior is conditioned behavior, sexual behavior specifically included.


Proof? References? You can't give an axiom like that and then expect everyone to accept your word as supreme expert of all that is psychological.

skinned: Rev. Bobby Bob Epps: inject your semen into another man (or vice versa) and make a baby.

I see "sex is only to procreate because nature tells me so" is your benchmark. Are computers and the internet as well as all other "unnatural" things that you like not abnormalities only because everyone else likes them too?

So they changed the name to "pleasure organs" to reflect your belief that sex is not for procreation first? Oh, they didn't? So testicles are still "reproductive organs"? I guess that makes everything else secondary.

Mind you, I don't care what other people do. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to tell some consenting adult he can't play with another consenting adults penis. It's none of my business as long as it stays out of my business. I wouldn't like a straight pride parade anymore than I like gay pride parades. What's next, BJ pride parades? Foot Fetish pride parade? Keep your business to yourself.

olddinosaur: Irrespective of what your forcably stylish notions of political correctness may happen to be, all behavior is conditioned behavior, sexual behavior specifically included.

In plain English that means what is not learned can be learned, and what is learned can be un-learned, then re-taught a different way.

Hey, I see you've been to NARTH!

olddinosaur: The net result is, the patient never gets to the root of the behavioral causes which manifest themselves in a morose obsession with sex, a morbid preoccupation with the self, chronic inability to mature and grow up, and a fundamental inability to form any type of lasting relationship with any person, whether hetero or homo.

Every gay person is sex obsessed, narcissistic, immature and antisocial?

That's an interesting take on the origin of homosexual behaviour you have there, but try not to litter it with your own petty personal prejudices next time. That way people might be more willing to engage with you and dispute your ideas in an intellectual fashion rather than dismiss you as what you have just so painfully shown yourself to be.

Al!:
Mind you, I don't care what other people do. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to tell some consenting adult he can't play with another consenting adults penis.

I'm curious....

What does this mean?

I find that people who say "I'm not X, but..." actually, almost by definition, are X to some extent, and are justifying their Xness.

What exactly does it mean "not to agree with" homosexuality?

Al!: Keep your business to yourself.

We tried keeping it to ourselves for a few thousand years, it didn't really work out.

It's kind of funny that the only way I could ever be accepted as just another person was for others to make a complete spectacle of themselves.

olddinosaur: Irrespective of what your forcably stylish notions of political correctness may happen to be, all behavior is conditioned behavior, sexual behavior specifically included.


Its... Its a verbose Le Trole! Anyways... I would hope that you, despite your forced "stylish notions of political incorrectness", can make the distinction between an inheritable trait and it's expression.

Behavior is regarded by clinical psychologists as a gestalt of both inherited traits and environment, not one or the other. Great quote on wikipedia, if you like that sort of thing. Its a good jump off point, if you care to actually learn
Link (Warning! Wikipedia, may not be suitable for research papers!)

In plain English that means what is not learned can be learned, and what is learned can be un-learned, then re-taught a different way.


Which means that all sexuality, including heterosexuality, is learned, and it's entirely up to the individual. Thus, the only thing making you NOT homosexual is social training?

If the subject fights his therapist every step of the way, that is not terribly likely to happen, and if the therapist is lazy or a coward or professionally unfit, or all of the above, he can very easily dismiss the behavioral tendency as "---just another variation---" and send the patient on his way, none the better and much the worse for the time and money wasted.


Irrelevant to the subject at hand, though very vivid!


The net result is, the patient never gets to the root of the behavioral causes which manifest themselves in a morose obsession with sex, a morbid preoccupation with the self, chronic inability to mature and grow up, and a fundamental inability to form any type of lasting relationship with any person, whether hetero or homo.

Again, not specifically related to homosexuality. This has to do with obsessions with sex, and sex addiction, not sexuality.

That is a general overview of the malfunction; a professional could add a lot more commentary.


Professionals don't regard homosexuality as a malfunction. Not unless they are also religious zealots, at any rate.


The net result is, conservatives bash such people as morally deficient, pseudo-liberals defend their "right" to be that way, and no one anywhere has the slightest sympathy for the patient himself, who merely wants to benefit from therapy, and be happy and content.


Actually... liberals contend that their actions are not morally deficient. Can't really speak for the pseudo-liberals though. Can you enlightenment me as to the difference? And the majority of homosexuals don't want to be "cured", they want to be accepted. Man... are you copy pasting this from some cheese "cure gayness" site?


The study of psychology is in the stone age in this country, and this thread really proves it.

Baseless assertion.

IonBeam2 2009-07-09 07:48:14 PM
Atharaenea: So what? India is still in the late 50s or so, real time. They'll come around in another 60 years.

Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better. But if you're trying to say that they're not yet as promiscuous as we are, I'll have to agree with you.

The only Indian education system I've heard about is the "buy and cheat" system. Works great for degrees, industry certifications and post doctorates

Melgania: I'm curious....

What does this mean?

I find that people who say "I'm not X, but..." actually, almost by definition, are X to some extent, and are justifying their Xness.

What exactly does it mean "not to agree with" homosexuality?

That means that I feel homosexuality is an aberration. If society is cool with a 73 year old man marrying an 18 year old girl, I'm OK with 2 consenting adults of any sexual combination doing whatever they want behind closed doors. I don't agree with it, and I don't practice it, but I won't stop it or act out against it as long as it isn't harmful to society. If you're calling me gay because I think 2 guys getting it on is disgusting, then I think you need to look up the definition of homosexual. I'm not in the closet, and I'm not bi. I'm a straight man who thinks that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Swami Baba Ramdev has challenged a landmark Indian court ruling legalising gay sex, claiming it is a "disease" that can be cured by yoga
I thought that yoga was the cause?

olddinosaur: In plain English that means what is not learned can be learned, and what is learned can be un-learned, then re-taught a different way.

Does that mean there is hope for you?

Al!: I'm a straight man who thinks that homosexuality is morally wrong.

You should think about all the good things homosexuality has brought all Americans... gay or straight. Consider brunch, hot lesbian porn, hair product for dudes, women on softball teams, the early work of the Indigo Girls, not to mention that every two dudes you see holding hands in New Hope are two less dudes you have to compete against to get some poo-nah-nee.

Al!: morally wrong

how can it be morally wrong if you have just stated that it is consensual and not harming society?

The_Gallant_Gallstone: not to mention that every two dudes you see holding hands in New Hope are two less dudes you have to compete against to get some poo-nah-nee.

Ok, I'll warrant that not every facet of homosexual behavior is without its merits.

Edd17: Al!: morally wrong

how can it be morally wrong if you have just stated that it is consensual and not harming society?

Because sexual intercourse is for procreation first, and anything else second and beyond. It isn't harming modern society because we have a very robust population, easily able to overcome the lack of a large percentage of it behaving productively (or 're'productively, as the case may be). If the US population was 100,000, homosexuality would indeed endanger society by robbing future generations of children. As it is, there is no true harm to homosexuality, because for every homosexual there are thousands and thousands of heterosexuals. So many so that our planet is on the verge of having too many people, and the arguement can be made that this is the reason homosexual behavior is becoming more pervasive.

Al!: So many so that our planet is on the verge of having too many people, and the arguement can be made that this is the reason homosexual behavior is becoming more pervasive.

If reproduction and such is the cornerstone of morality, could it be possible that the planet becomes so overpopulated that homosexuality could become moral precisely because it prevents an exacerbation of the issue?

Al!: Edd17: Al!: morally wrong

how can it be morally wrong if you have just stated that it is consensual and not harming society?

Because sexual intercourse is for procreation first, and anything else second and beyond. It isn't harming modern society because we have a very robust population, easily able to overcome the lack of a large percentage of it behaving productively (or 're'productively, as the case may be). If the US population was 100,000, homosexuality would indeed endanger society by robbing future generations of children. As it is, there is no true harm to homosexuality, because for every homosexual there are thousands and thousands of heterosexuals. So many so that our planet is on the verge of having too many people, and the arguement can be made that this is the reason homosexual behavior is becoming more pervasive.

Sperm banks.

There is no reason to have sex to procreate, there's plenty of ways to create human life without having heterosexual relationship.

Even in a 100% gay and lesbian community, there can be reproduction.

Got 'em all stirred up again, I see.

Always fun to cause so much trouble.

Fark to me has always been a place to educate a few people while simultaneously pissing off huge numbers of them; looks like it pays off today.

Sigh. I'm just now reading a book on Hinduism and the various yogas. I was all excited about how nice and peaceful and usable many of the techniques discussed could be - way to bring me back down to Earth Fark.

Al!: So many so that our planet is on the verge of having too many people, and the arguement can be made that this is the reason homosexual behavior is becoming more pervasive.

You could make the argument, but it would sure be a terrible one. Homosexuality is no more 'pervasive' now than it was 50 years ago, and that number ain't going anywhere any time soon.

olddinosaur: Fark to me has always been a place to educate a few people while simultaneously pissing off huge numbers of them; looks like it pays off today.

You gotta watch out... change up your troll personalities every once in a while...

If you repeat the same crap long enough, you will internalize it and start to believe in it for real.

olddinosaur: Got 'em all stirred up again, I see.

Always fun to cause so much trouble.

Fark to me has always been a place to educate a few people while simultaneously pissing off huge numbers of them; looks like it pays off today.

All stirred up?

Pissed off huge numbers?

Mighty high opinion of what your saying (a lot of unnecessary words for lollearntbeahvior) considering the one sentence refutations of your points...

olddinosaur: The study of psychology is in the stone age in this country, and this thread really proves it.

Only your post does that.

Ali Baba and the 40 Ass Thieves?

Al!: Because sexual intercourse is for procreation first, and anything else second and beyond.

So it's morally wrong to have sex for any reason other than to make babies.
Gotcha.
How's that life of abstinence working out for ya?

/morals are like opinions, which are like assholes. Everybody has them, and nobody really wants to see yours.

hourheroyes: Al!: Edd17: Al!: morally wrong

how can it be morally wrong if you have just stated that it is consensual and not harming society?

Because sexual intercourse is for procreation first, and anything else second and beyond. It isn't harming modern society because we have a very robust population, easily able to overcome the lack of a large percentage of it behaving productively (or 're'productively, as the case may be). If the US population was 100,000, homosexuality would indeed endanger society by robbing future generations of children. As it is, there is no true harm to homosexuality, because for every homosexual there are thousands and thousands of heterosexuals. So many so that our planet is on the verge of having too many people, and the arguement can be made that this is the reason homosexual behavior is becoming more pervasive.

Sperm banks.

There is no reason to have sex to procreate, there's plenty of ways to create human life without having heterosexual relationship.

Even in a 100% gay and lesbian community, there can be reproduction.

Yeah, but you'd have to be pretty desperate to do it with a robot.

I can cure what now?

hourheroyes: Even in a 100% gay and lesbian community, there can be reproduction.

On that note, British scientists have claimed to have fabricated artificial sperm using stem cells from the mother.

Fano: hourheroyes: Al!: Edd17: Al!: morally wrong

how can it be morally wrong if you have just stated that it is consensual and not harming society?

Because sexual intercourse is for procreation first, and anything else second and beyond. It isn't harming modern society because we have a very robust population, easily able to overcome the lack of a large percentage of it behaving productively (or 're'productively, as the case may be). If the US population was 100,000, homosexuality would indeed endanger society by robbing future generations of children. As it is, there is no true harm to homosexuality, because for every homosexual there are thousands and thousands of heterosexuals. So many so that our planet is on the verge of having too many people, and the arguement can be made that this is the reason homosexual behavior is becoming more pervasive.

Sperm banks.

There is no reason to have sex to procreate, there's plenty of ways to create human life without having heterosexual relationship.

Even in a 100% gay and lesbian community, there can be reproduction.

Yeah, but you'd have to be pretty desperate to do it with a robot.

Turkey baster molded after Jodie Fosters fist.

Fano: Yeah, but you'd have to be pretty desperate to do it with a robot.



/It's SFW, it's a shoulder massager!

Al!: Because sexual intercourse is for procreation first, and anything else second and beyond

By your logic if someone can't reproduce then they shouldn't be having sex. Also, plenty of gays have reproduced and do reproduce. Thanks to modern medicine they no longer even need to have sex with someone they'd rather not have sex with to do it.

ninjakirby: On that note, British scientists have claimed to have fabricated artificial sperm using stem cells from the mother.

heh just figure out how to use the genetic material from one egg to fertilize another egg and you don't even need to worry about sperm. Granted you can only produce females that way.

Zamboro: squidgilium: "I know I'm gonna get the crap kicked out of me for this, but what if... what if... not every gay person is gay for the same reason?"

How is it any of your business? Or anyone elses? What is this weird notion some people have that they should have the right to scrutinize other peoples' lives and determine what rights they get to have based on the findings?

And if that's "not what you meant", please think through the logical implications of your suggestion with regards to the gay marriage debate.

I'll tell you exactly why it's an important question.

Let's say that everyone is gay or straight. There's a straight boy who is five years old; we'll call him Billy. Billy's developing a crush on little Suzie across the street. While he's looking at her one day and thinking, "She's cute, and I'd like to kiss her someday," he's not paying attention to the van that pulls up next to him. Evil pedophile man in the van scoops him up and whisks him away. Pedophile man holds him prisoner for ten years, raping him at least once a day. Billy is not going to come out of that decade-long event the same as he went in. His instincts and penchants have been screwed with in a major way. He just might grow up to be one of those self-loathing homosexuals who marries a woman but cruises airport bathrooms for young men.

Even if you don't want to think it, I think there are men lost in a homosexual lifestyle who don't belong there and they do need therapy to extricate themselves from it. Even you must admit that there are men living a straight lifestyle who aren't being honest with themselves. So you're telling me that it doesn't happen in a mirror image; men in the gay lifestyle who shouldn't be there but they got messed up along the way? Or is it only a one-way deal? That's just not logical.

While you're all making fun of the latest Republican politician or televangelist who is caught with young men, maybe you should wonder if their Uncle Billy boofed 'em in the boathouse when they were five.

I know, I know "We've thoroughly debunked the idea that a kid can get the ghey from another ghey." Yeah. "The debate is over." I'm sorry. I'm just not so convinced that a child can shake off such an event and get right back on track.

We now live in a world where a man can say, "I was born as a man, but I don't think I'm really a man," and everyone says, "How brave of her." But if a man says, "I've been living a gay lifestyle, but I don't think I'm really gay," everyone says, "He's been brainwashed by Christians!"

I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

What the hell would that have to do with gay marriage? If two men want to get married, they get married. If a man says, "I'd like some thearapy to help me stop being gay," that's his free choice to do so... unless some activists shut down his therapist for being a hater.

Your fear that the idea of some men being mistakenly thrown into the gay lifestyle is going to interfere with your gay marriage plans only proves to me that you need to avoid difficult questions for emotional and political reasons.

ReverendJasen: morals are like opinions, which are like assholes. Everybody has them, and nobody really wants to see yours.

We also would've accepted... "everyone has them and most of them stink"

ninjakirby: Fano: Yeah, but you'd have to be pretty desperate to do it with a robot.

/It's SFW, it's a shoulder massager!

I liked the "milady's needs" part

Squidgilum: Zamboro: squidgilium: "I know I'm gonna get the crap kicked out of me for this, but what if... what if... not every gay person is gay for the same reason?"

How is it any of your business? Or anyone elses? What is this weird notion some people have that they should have the right to scrutinize other peoples' lives and determine what rights they get to have based on the findings?

And if that's "not what you meant", please think through the logical implications of your suggestion with regards to the gay marriage debate.

I'll tell you exactly why it's an important question.

Let's say that everyone is gay or straight. There's a straight boy who is five years old; we'll call him Billy. Billy's developing a crush on little Suzie across the street. While he's looking at her one day and thinking, "She's cute, and I'd like to kiss her someday," he's not paying attention to the van that pulls up next to him. Evil pedophile man in the van scoops him up and whisks him away. Pedophile man holds him prisoner for ten years, raping him at least once a day. Billy is not going to come out of that decade-long event the same as he went in. His instincts and penchants have been screwed with in a major way. He just might grow up to be one of those self-loathing homosexuals who marries a woman but cruises airport bathrooms for young men.

Even if you don't want to think it, I think there are men lost in a homosexual lifestyle who don't belong there and they do need therapy to extricate themselves from it. Even you must admit that there are men living a straight lifestyle who aren't being honest with themselves. So you're telling me that it doesn't happen in a mirror image; men in the gay lifestyle who shouldn't be there but they got messed up along the way? Or is it only a one-way deal? That's just not logical.

While you're all making fun of the latest Republican politician or televangelist who is caught with young men, maybe you should wonder if their Uncle Billy boofed 'em in the boathouse when they were five.

I know, I know "We've thoroughly debunked the idea that a kid can get the ghey from another ghey." Yeah. "The debate is over." I'm sorry. I'm just not so convinced that a child can shake off such an event and get right back on track.

We now live in a world where a man can say, "I was born as a man, but I don't think I'm really a man," and everyone says, "How brave of her." But if a man says, "I've been living a gay lifestyle, but I don't think I'm really gay," everyone says, "He's been brainwashed by Christians!"

I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

What the hell would that have to do with gay marriage? If two men want to get married, they get married. If a man says, "I'd like some thearapy to help me stop being gay," that's his free choice to do so... unless some activists shut down his therapist for being a hater.

Your fear that the idea of some men being mistakenly thrown into the gay lifestyle is going to interfere with your gay marriage plans only proves to me that you need to avoid difficult questions for emotional and political reasons.

Butt sex is like broccoli, you don't like it if you were forced to have it as a kid.

Squidgilum: I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

Remove the social stigma attached to being gay or bi and your entire premise disappears like a puff of smoke. It only can exist so long as there is any stigma attached to being gay. If there isn't, then there is no reason to not be honest with yourself.

Squidgilum: We now live in a world where a man can say, "I was born as a man, but I don't think I'm really a man," and everyone says, "How brave of her." But if a man says, "I've been living a gay lifestyle, but I don't think I'm really gay," everyone says, "He's been brainwashed by Christians!"

Squidgilum: Zamboro: squidgilium: "I know I'm gonna get the crap kicked out of me for this, but what if... what if... not every gay person is gay for the same reason?"

How is it any of your business? Or anyone elses? What is this weird notion some people have that they should have the right to scrutinize other peoples' lives and determine what rights they get to have based on the findings?

And if that's "not what you meant", please think through the logical implications of your suggestion with regards to the gay marriage debate.

I'll tell you exactly why it's an important question.

Let's say that everyone is gay or straight. There's a straight boy who is five years old; we'll call him Billy. Billy's developing a crush on little Suzie across the street. While he's looking at her one day and thinking, "She's cute, and I'd like to kiss her someday," he's not paying attention to the van that pulls up next to him. Evil pedophile man in the van scoops him up and whisks him away. Pedophile man holds him prisoner for ten years, raping him at least once a day. Billy is not going to come out of that decade-long event the same as he went in. His instincts and penchants have been screwed with in a major way. He just might grow up to be one of those self-loathing homosexuals who marries a woman but cruises airport bathrooms for young men.

Even if you don't want to think it, I think there are men lost in a homosexual lifestyle who don't belong there and they do need therapy to extricate themselves from it. Even you must admit that there are men living a straight lifestyle who aren't being honest with themselves. So you're telling me that it doesn't happen in a mirror image; men in the gay lifestyle who shouldn't be there but they got messed up along the way? Or is it only a one-way deal? That's just not logical.

While you're all making fun of the latest Republican politician or televangelist who is caught with young men, maybe you should wonder if their Uncle Billy boofed 'em in the boathouse when they were five.

I know, I know "We've thoroughly debunked the idea that a kid can get the ghey from another ghey." Yeah. "The debate is over." I'm sorry. I'm just not so convinced that a child can shake off such an event and get right back on track.

We now live in a world where a man can say, "I was born as a man, but I don't think I'm really a man," and everyone says, "How brave of her." But if a man says, "I've been living a gay lifestyle, but I don't think I'm really gay," everyone says, "He's been brainwashed by Christians!"

I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

What the hell would that have to do with gay marriage? If two men want to get married, they get married. If a man says, "I'd like some thearapy to help me stop being gay," that's his free choice to do so... unless some activists shut down his therapist for being a hater.

Your fear that the idea of some men being mistakenly thrown into the gay lifestyle is going to interfere with your gay marriage plans only proves to me that you need to avoid difficult questions for emotional and political reasons.

Wow that shiat is just straight up retarded.

So. What your saying is that rape victims can become screwed up.

How does this matter?

Also some people are just straight up bisexual. Most 'straight' men have at least one homosexual experience in their lives. Human sexuality is more of a bell curve then anything else. By restricting marriages to heterosexual relationships, then true human sexuality can never be explored.

hourheroyes:
By restricting marriages to heterosexual relationships, then true human sexuality can never be explored.

Minus that 'then'. Distracted by all the gay talk.

WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

Remove the social stigma attached to being gay or bi and your entire premise disappears like a puff of smoke. It only can exist so long as there is any stigma attached to being gay. If there isn't, then there is no reason to not be honest with yourself.

Disregarding the notion that a social stigma can be removed so easily and that an ingrained problem becomes a puff of smoke, I still say "Nope." If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be. It's not social stigma that causes the problem. His own proclivity creates an inner personal stigma. His own concept of himself has been invaded and vandalized.

olddinosaur: Irrespective of what your forcably stylish notions of political correctness may happen to be, all behavior is conditioned behavior, sexual behavior specifically included.

Agreed! Those schizophrenics and people with personality disorders should just PULL THEMSELVES UP BY THE BOOTSTRAPS! Alcohol has no effect on behavior whatsoever, and DUI laws are bullshiat! Shim-pua marriages fail because the children are conditioned to dislike each other, because their parents clearly want no grandchildren!

In plain English that means what is not learned can be learned, and what is learned can be un-learned, then re-taught a different way.

Oh, yes, just yesterday I unlearned my enjoyment of food and taught myself to eat only plain boiled eggplant and gruel. I HATE food that tastes good now!

If the subject fights his therapist every step of the way, that is not terribly likely to happen, and if the therapist is lazy or a coward or professionally unfit, or all of the above, he can very easily dismiss the behavioral tendency as "---just another variation---" and send the patient on his way, none the better and much the worse for the time and money wasted.

You DO know the DSM has always required that a mental illness negatively impact the person's ability to function, right? And homosexuals have no problem holding jobs, having social lives, taking care of themselves or being happy? That's WHY THEY TOOK IT OUT.

The net result is, the patient never gets to the root of the behavioral causes which manifest themselves in a morose obsession with sex,

Interesting how self-proclaimed asexuals will list themselves as "homoromantic" because they enjoy romantic relationships with the same gender but have no interest in sex. Indeed, many homosexual couples will go to couples therapy because they have the same problems in relationships with lack of sex as heterosexual couples do.

a morbid preoccupation with the self,

Oh. I see. You're confusing "homosexuals" with "Baby Boomers" because baby boomers were the first generation to accept homosexuals. Here's a hint-- Everyone born from 1950 to 1980 could be accused of a "morbid preoccupation with the self."

chronic inability to mature and grow up,

Spoken like a person who has never known an open homosexual. Here's a hint-- they're usually more mature and self-reliant than heterosexuals their age, because they have to stand up for themselves.

and a fundamental inability to form any type of lasting relationship with any person, whether hetero or homo.

Yes! So they would NEVER want something like MARRIAGE RIGHTS, what would they DO with them? They can't form relationships that last fifty years, all those elderly couples seeking marriages in Mass after living together for fifty years are figments of our collective imagination!

That is a general overview of the malfunction; a professional could add a lot more commentary.

Professionals have already decided that homosexuality can't meet the criteria for a mental illness because it does not cause physical harm to anyone and the individuals can and do lead happy and successful lives, except when assailed with bigotry; they then react just as anyone else treated with bigotry would. So, their commentary was a lot more-- just completely the opposite of yours.

The net result is, conservatives bash such people as morally deficient, pseudo-liberals defend their "right" to be that way, and no one anywhere has the slightest sympathy for the patient himself, who merely wants to benefit from therapy, and be happy and content.

The only people who want this therapy are those who have been told their whole lives that they need it and they are evil and sinful, and thus are ostracized by their families. Funny thing is, it NEVER WORKS. It has never worked except to force people into the closet. At most you could claim homosexuality was a personality disorder, and thus incurable, because it is; no proposed cure has ever successfully helped individuals not be gay.

And another funny thing-- those individuals raised in supportive environments go on to live their whole long, happy lives with a loving partner.

The study of psychology is in the stone age in this country, and this thread really proves it.

Yes, I've long felt the fact that NARTH has anyone working for it was a sign the psychology business is still in the stone age. We have a long way to go before we'll teach everyone that homosexuality is incurable and cannot count as a mental illness.

Squidgilum: WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

Remove the social stigma attached to being gay or bi and your entire premise disappears like a puff of smoke. It only can exist so long as there is any stigma attached to being gay. If there isn't, then there is no reason to not be honest with yourself.

Disregarding the notion that a social stigma can be removed so easily and that an ingrained problem becomes a puff of smoke, I still say "Nope." If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be. It's not social stigma that causes the problem. His own proclivity creates an inner personal stigma. His own concept of himself has been invaded and vandalized.

No rape victim would be 100% there without years of therapy, and probably won't be after that.

Gays are the "Canary in the Coalmine" in terms of warning signs that religious fundamentalism is infecting a country.

I just wish someone had chosen the troll's orifice to try to make a baby in.

/best lay the troll ever would have had
/only one

Squidgilum: WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

Remove the social stigma attached to being gay or bi and your entire premise disappears like a puff of smoke. It only can exist so long as there is any stigma attached to being gay. If there isn't, then there is no reason to not be honest with yourself.

Disregarding the notion that a social stigma can be removed so easily and that an ingrained problem becomes a puff of smoke, I still say "Nope." If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be. It's not social stigma that causes the problem. His own proclivity creates an inner personal stigma. His own concept of himself has been invaded and vandalized.

Moreover, all you're doing is finding a situation (anyone you can create) to 'show' you can create a gay. But you offer no actual proof.

Of course there are tons of examples of people driven to suicide because of their forbidden sexuality, people who were never 'repeatedly raped'.

hourheroyes: you can create a gay. But you offer no actual proof.

You said "a gay"

Besides, it's true you can make people gay. I make chicks gay all the time.

Squidgilum: If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be.

You're picking a singular example that doesn't extend out to any more general point you're trying to make. And given that plenty of men who have experienced what you describe have gone on to marry women, it's not even really a example relevant to the point.

hourheroyes: Squidgilum: WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

Remove the social stigma attached to being gay or bi and your entire premise disappears like a puff of smoke. It only can exist so long as there is any stigma attached to being gay. If there isn't, then there is no reason to not be honest with yourself.

Disregarding the notion that a social stigma can be removed so easily and that an ingrained problem becomes a puff of smoke, I still say "Nope." If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be. It's not social stigma that causes the problem. His own proclivity creates an inner personal stigma. His own concept of himself has been invaded and vandalized.

Moreover, all you're doing is finding a situation (anyone you can create) to 'show' you can create a gay. But you offer no actual proof.

Of course there are tons of examples of people driven to suicide because of their forbidden sexuality, people who were never 'repeatedly raped'.

Nope. I'm not saying a gay can be created. I'm saying a confused person can be created. And I didn't create the scenario for my own purposes. It actually occurred and it did so many times. I've read about boys who were used in porn as very small kids. They generally grow up not knowing which way to go. Maybe you think that's a good thing. I find it rather sad.

You're still tap-dancing around my notion that if there are gay men living straight lives then perhaps there are straight men living gay lives, and both varieties need therapy.

Squidgilum: hourheroyes: Squidgilum: WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I just don't think everyone who's gay wound up that way from the same circumstances, and some of them may need to get out of it to be who they really are.

Remove the social stigma attached to being gay or bi and your entire premise disappears like a puff of smoke. It only can exist so long as there is any stigma attached to being gay. If there isn't, then there is no reason to not be honest with yourself.

Disregarding the notion that a social stigma can be removed so easily and that an ingrained problem becomes a puff of smoke, I still say "Nope." If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be. It's not social stigma that causes the problem. His own proclivity creates an inner personal stigma. His own concept of himself has been invaded and vandalized.

Moreover, all you're doing is finding a situation (anyone you can create) to 'show' you can create a gay. But you offer no actual proof.

Of course there are tons of examples of people driven to suicide because of their forbidden sexuality, people who were never 'repeatedly raped'.

Nope. I'm not saying a gay can be created. I'm saying a confused person can be created. And I didn't create the scenario for my own purposes. It actually occurred and it did so many times. I've read about boys who were used in porn as very small kids. They generally grow up not knowing which way to go. Maybe you think that's a good thing. I find it rather sad.

You're still tap-dancing around my notion that if there are gay men living straight lives then perhaps there are straight men living gay lives, and both varieties need therapy.

And both can receive therapy. But NO ONE would protest a victim of child rape receiving therapy. You have no point.

WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be.

You're picking a singular example that doesn't extend out to any more general point you're trying to make. And given that plenty of men who have experienced what you describe have gone on to marry women, it's not even really a example relevant to the point.

People come out of similar circumstances differently. That really is my point. It's a big world with lots of people. I offered up the notion that perhaps not all gays are gay due to the same single cause. I was (largely as predicted) hit with "straight up retarded" and "think of the political implications!"

Homofag threads sure are a great place to populate your ignore list.

Squidgilum: WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: If a kid is straight and he's experienced repeated homosexual rape, he's still not going to be 100% where he should be.

You're picking a singular example that doesn't extend out to any more general point you're trying to make. And given that plenty of men who have experienced what you describe have gone on to marry women, it's not even really a example relevant to the point.

People come out of similar circumstances differently. That really is my point. It's a big world with lots of people. I offered up the notion that perhaps not all gays are gay due to the same single cause. I was (largely as predicted) hit with "straight up retarded" and "think of the political implications!"

"If two men want to get married, they get married. If a man says, "I'd like some thearapy to help me stop being gay," that's his free choice to do so... unless some activists shut down his therapist for being a hater."

That is your point.

Squidgilum: I'm saying a confused person can be created

Social stigma can create a confused person too. What's more, for the person in your example there is always ready help available. There is no shortage of people lining up to help someone in their situation.

WhyteRaven74: Squidgilum: I'm saying a confused person can be created

Social stigma can create a confused person too. What's more, for the person in your example there is always ready help available. There is no shortage of people lining up to help someone in their situation.

There's no point. The 'activists' and 'gay marriage proponents' are always out there to demonize and attack victims of child rape.

olddinosaur: Got 'em all stirred up again, I see.

Always fun to cause so much trouble.

Fark to me has always been a place to educate a few people while simultaneously pissing off huge numbers of them; looks like it pays off today.

Well, fool. What do you think is gonna happen when you try to address about a book's worth of shiat in like, five paragraphs?
Kinda forces you, to, oh I don't know, gloss over a few things?
Don't be disingenuous. You wanted to whup up the peanut gallery, and you did. Now don't whine about it. Or gloat, either.
You're lazy. And it shows.

ReverendJasen: So it's morally wrong to have sex for any reason other than to make babies.

I didn't say that at all. What you quoted me saying is a basic fact of life. Sexual behavior in any form came about in order to create future generations of life with a diversified genetic base. It works that way in trees, bees, snakes, whales, mice, frogs, flies, marmots, grasses and on and on and on. Because in higher mammals it has evolved a pleasure factor as well has nothing to do with its original purpose. Sexual intercourse is for procreation. When frogs have sex, they don't do it to get off. They do it to make more frogs. In humans it is also fun, but it is really there to make more people, hence the term "reproductive".

WhyteRaven74: By your logic if someone can't reproduce then they shouldn't be having sex. Also, plenty of gays have reproduced and do reproduce. Thanks to modern medicine they no longer even need to have sex with someone they'd rather not have sex with to do it.

For your first statement, no. We all have basic rights, and that is what my original post was about. If you are unable to procreate but can still go through the motions, you are simply sexually inviable. That does not mean you can't have sex. It means you cannot reproduce sexually.

For your second point, no child has ever been born from a homosexual relationship. For a child to come about, there must be a man and a woman involved. The ability of a person to reproduce without the constraints of a sexual relationship with the other parent of the child is based off of our robust population, one facet of which I mentioned earlier. We, as humans, have invented billions upon billions of ways to cheat nature out of her natural course. We cure diseases and fix broken bones. We ship food thousands of miles to feed the hungry. We develop fertility methods to help those that cannot normally have children. Homosexuals cannot "normally" have children. If you park 2 men or 2 women on a desert island with all the supplies they need to live lengthy, healthy lives, no matter how long they live or how hard they try, there will never be a second generation on that island without the intervention of a member of the opposite sex in some form or another.

Agarista: But seriously, let's focus on having sex with animals. Which is obviously where homosexuality leads.

/end sarcasm
//Fido consents

Of course it does.
Because sex with ducks and gay marriage are one and the same:
Link (possibly NSFW)

Al!: That does not mean you can't have sex

You said that makes it immoral. Maybe you have a different idea of what that word means to me, but it is generally held to convey the fact that something happening is wrong. That doing it is violating the rights of others.
I can see how non reproductive behaviour is not useful but you've thrown everybody off by saying that it is immoral and that you do not agree with it (unless by that you just mean you wouldn't want to do it).

olddinosaur:
... a fundamental inability to form any type of lasting relationship with any person, whether hetero or homo.

My partner of 16 years and I would like to have a few words with you. None of our son's friends straight parents have ever had a relationship last that long.

Al!: Because in higher mammals it has evolved a pleasure factor as well has nothing to do with its original purpose.

Are you insane? The reason animals have sex is because it's pleasurable. Do you really think they sit down before intercourse and ponder the necessity of propagating the species?

Al!: So they changed the name to "pleasure organs" to reflect your belief that sex is not for procreation first? Oh, they didn't? So testicles are still "reproductive organs"? I guess that makes everything else secondary.

I really don't see why a name change would make any difference to a person with intelligence. They are what they are. My point was the primary function does not invalidate whatever secondary functions people may implement. To suggest there is one function only - the primary one assigned by nature - when clearly people have found other uses that you may not particularly like is rather myopic. That's like saying do it for children only, and don't enjoy it. Sorry, I like the taste of a smooth beaver regardless of what plans nature had for it and will continue to do my thing.

Personally I think piercing is stupid, but people can knock themselves out if they want to look like a tacklebox. If it's not physically harming any one else and there is no danger there is no need to legislate it.

Mind you, I don't care what other people do. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to tell some consenting adult he can't play with another consenting adults penis. It's none of my business as long as it stays out of my business. I wouldn't like a straight pride parade anymore than I like gay pride parades. What's next, BJ pride parades? Foot Fetish pride parade? Keep your business to yourself.

Agreed on all points except I'm neither for or against homosexuality - I just don't believe the excuses I've heard for the persecution of those with that lifestyle are insufficient. But I definitely don't like like in-your-face attention whores of any stripe no matter what they're promoting, or parades of any kind ;)

eraser8: Are you insane? The reason animals have sex is because it's pleasurable. Do you really think they sit down before intercourse and ponder the necessity of propagating the species?

LOL. I suppose the orgasm is just dreadful in the lower-mammal, no pleasure factor animal kingdom - since it you know, increases the odds of conception for them like it does for us.

Yeah make it suck, that's how to encourage the extra effort.

eraser8
Are you insane? The reason animals have sex is because it's pleasurable. Do you really think they sit down before intercourse and ponder the necessity of propagating the species?

Holy crap, I'm now stupider from having read this.

You do realize that most of the animal world have baculum

skinned: I suppose the orgasm is just dreadful in the lower-mammal, no pleasure factor animal kingdom

Um, what?

natas6.0: You do realize that most of the animal world have baculum

Your point being?

natas6.0: You do realize that most of the animal world have baculum


Is currently unavailable for wild kingdom copulation.

eraser8: Um, what?

Forget it.

skinned: Forget it.

No, really, I want to know what you mean.

Animals don't reproduce because they have an urge to reproduce. They have sex because they have an urge to copulate. And positive sensations encourage that urge. If sex were unpleasant, it would be a less likely occurrence.

Edd17: You said that makes it immoral. Maybe you have a different idea of what that word means to me, but it is generally held to convey the fact that something happening is wrong. That doing it is violating the rights of others.
I can see how non reproductive behaviour is not useful but you've thrown everybody off by saying that it is immoral and that you do not agree with it (unless by that you just mean you wouldn't want to do it).

I meant what I said. I believe that homosexuality is immoral. From dictionary.com, so there is no more confusion as to what I may have meant by immoral:

"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

It says nothing about violating the rights of others, and I would say that immoral behavior generally does not violate the rights of others. If it did, I would be whole-heartedly against it, as I hold the freedoms of this nation sacred.

I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral.

But why is it "wrong"?

eraser8: skinned: Forget it.

No, really, I want to know what you mean.

Very well. I was agreeing with you on that point and gave my point about the orgasm that nature has various "hooks" to encourage animals to do it. There are other things at work too.

My point of it being unpleasant was the exact point you made - if it was unpleasant for animal species they wouldn't get very far. But the same thing would be true if it was boring or laborious with no "pay off". The "pay off" is actually better for the species. And the the ride is the pleasure to get there.

Yeah, I know I didn't make it very well. Probably still haven't. Screw it, I'm running on 4 hours sleep here after a 18 hour work day with no end in sight.

skinned: Yeah, I know I didn't make it very well. Probably still haven't.

Well, it makes a lot more sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification.

Al!:
I do not agree with homosexuality.

Then stop swallowing it.

Al!:
I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral.

I believe that the existence of cardboard is immoral.

mtudo: Al!:
I do not agree with homosexuality.

Then stop swallowing it.

Melgania: Al!:
I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral.

I believe that the existence of cardboard is immoral.

Give it up, guys. you can't reason with someone suffering from "center of the universe" syndrome.

I do yoga.

Downward Facing Dog is a pretty gay-looking position.

Just saying.

Al!: If you park 2 men or 2 women on a desert island with all the supplies they need to live lengthy, healthy lives, no matter how long they live or how hard they try, there will never be a second generation on that island without the intervention of a member of the opposite sex in some form or another.

THIS in conjunction with:
anyone ever consider that homosexuality is evolution's version of population control? this is given the assumption that homosexuality is in fact a biological condition. Why would nature/evolution come up with any organism, by a mutation or whatever means, that the moment it's conceived would not procreate and pass on genes to the next generation? It's the only thing evolution knows how to do! it would almost stand to reason that the growing number of gheys means nothing more than the planet is starting to feel overburdened.

all the same: So what if they enjoy anal, scissoring, vocal lisps, lilting wrists and penchants for plaid button downs with no discerning gender features? leave em be, i say, and let em adopt. probably way better parents than would be present in the black hole(teehee) that is the foster care system...

/new here
//hello
///flame on
/hic!

Melgania: Everything is natural.

I'm not!

ReverendJasen: Al!: Because sexual intercourse is for procreation first, and anything else second and beyond.

So it's morally wrong to have sex for any reason other than to make babies.
Gotcha.

Didn't you read the Bible? God smitten what's-his-face because he didn't want to impregnate his sister. Or had better morals than God. It's somewhere in the old Testament, but I forgot which, because God kills lots of people for being all just and stuff.

/I think he had better morals, that's why God got POed, and then smitten him.
//I love that word, smitten. Teehee.

rudcrudludprechwdfuddud: leave em be, i say!

And you would be agreeing with my original post. I don't care what free people do with their time. I don't care if they spend their lives masturbating over pictures of dinosaurs or raising a family of 18. To each their own. I don't agree with the lifestyle they have chosen, but I will defend their right to choose with my life, if need be.

eraser8: Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral.

But why is it "wrong"?

You didn't read anything I posted, did you? I'll say it one last time, for your clarity, if nothing else. From a (apparently my particular and no one elses) moral standpoint, sexual intercourse is for procreation. It is fun, and it is fun because if it was arduous we would not be here, but at the bottom line, it is fun because we need to procreate. On the basis that we need to procreate, sexually deviant behaviors, such as oral- or anal- or homo- sexual encounters, would be immoral. Going back to the definition that I posted above, from dictionary.com, homosexuality is immoral because it cannot in any way result in a viable offspring. It is, in this light, the same as masturbation or beastiality. Human emotions aside, homosexuality is purely sexual gratification.

Bringing in human emotions changes the entire picture, which is why I am accepting of homosexuality as a lifestyle. I do not persecute or harass anyone based on the way they live their lives, as long as their way does not infringe on others' way. It doesn't mean I would be the least bit tolerant of it in my particular lifestyle, but other people are not me. If we were all me, life would suck. Who would I argue with on the internet? Who am I kidding? I'd argue with myself.

T.rex: hell, if someone wants to call alcoholism a disease, why not gayism? Hell,... based on that, even NOT being gay could be considered a disease.

It would somewhat defeat the purpose of calling a condition a "disease" if not having the condition could be categorized the same way, wouldn't it?

Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

Okay, I see the the problem. You appear to be confusing "personal unease" with "immorality". Common mistake.

Rule of thumb: Anybody titled Swami or Guru (or Father, Rabbi etc) is a charlatan and a fraud.

I was sitting out the end of a yoga class in the studio's 2nd story hallway, when I saw a man across the street accurately gaydar the the class's gay teacher thru the window, across the street, two stories down--and from a rear view, I might add.

The man then came up to the studio and showed everyone how into yoga he was by flashing the giant "OM" tattoo across his chest.

Says something for the the Universal Mind & undifferentiated Ground of Being, that's for certain.

Biological Ali: Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

Okay, I see the the problem. You appear to be confusing "personal unease" with "immorality". Common mistake.

Ok, so enlighten me. What is moral about homosexuality. Tell me why it is right, and don't use human emotion as a reason, as I have stated that emotion is why I am completely accepting of homosexuality in modern society. Why do you feel that behavior that is absolutely at odds with success as a species is "right"?

Al!: Biological Ali: Al!: I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

Okay, I see the the problem. You appear to be confusing "personal unease" with "immorality". Common mistake.

Ok, so enlighten me. What is moral about homosexuality. Tell me why it is right, and don't use human emotion as a reason, as I have stated that emotion is why I am completely accepting of homosexuality in modern society. Why do you feel that behavior that is absolutely at odds with success as a species is "right"?

Well, the evolutionary utility of biological traits is another thing that's essentially amoral, and it's fairly silly to try and shoehorn it into categories of 'right' or 'wrong'. The development of opposable thumbs, for example, is another thing that was tremendously important to our success as a species, but it would be pretty ludicrous to term the lack of a thumb as 'wrong' or 'immoral'.

That said, if you wish to persist with this argument anyway, there's ample evidence to suggest that homosexuality biologically determined (for males in particular), and in fact, possessing a certain proportion of homosexual members appears to be the natural state for several species, humans being one of them. This would suggest that homosexuality is not in and of itself a threat to the 'success' of a species insofar as its prorogation goes, and there are powerful arguments to be made that it may actually be useful, particularly in cases where overpopulation is possible.

Ultimately, the appropriate way to deal with the issue is not to start with the assumption that a trait is 'wrong' or 'immoral' and then demand that someone show that it is 'right' - that's just backwards. The question that needs to be asked is "Is this trait wrong?", and if a logical case cannot be made, then one must accept that the trait is, in fact, right.

Al!: For your second point, no child has ever been born from a homosexual relationship. For a child to come about, there must be a man and a woman involved.

What sort of backing and filling are you going to do when you're eventually proven wrong?

Al!: What is moral about homosexuality. Tell me why it is right, and don't use human emotion as a reason, as I have stated that emotion is why I am completely accepting of homosexuality in modern society. Why do you feel that behavior that is absolutely at odds with success as a species is "right"?

<shrug> What's moral about your dog humping the furniture? You have asked either a meaningless question, or a religiously-loaded one.

Al!: I meant what I said. I believe that homosexuality is immoral. From dictionary.com, so there is no more confusion as to what I may have meant by immoral:

"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

It says nothing about violating the rights of others, and I would say that immoral behavior generally does not violate the rights of others. If it did, I would be whole-heartedly against it, as I hold the freedoms of this nation sacred.

I do not agree with homosexuality on the basis that I believe it is immoral. That does not mean I will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. I do not eat liver because it tastes disgusting. I'm not going to harass people that eat liver because the thought of eating liver makes my stomach turn.

So eating liver is immoral? We clearly cannot agree on the meaning of that word as I would have thought that anything immoral shouldn't be done (for example I think stealing is generally pretty immoral).
You've either turned it into meaning anything that you don't want to do (I don't know how that tallies with you saying masturbation and oral sex are immoral but I wont ask). Or you're actually trying to link it with whether it contributes to the continuation of the species, in which case everything you have ever done that was not for the prorogation of humanity is immoral.

mike.thesauce: people of the opinion that homosexuality is a disease really just need to go ahead and farking die already, as they are holding back the progress of the civilized world. they use these antiquated notions of god and religion to foster their hatred, all the while ignoring the mountains and mountains of contradictory evidence no matter how rational and sane the argument may in fact be. the simple fact of the matter is anyone who really, honestly believes this bile about homosexuality being a disease is a detriment to the progress to humanity as a whole and should be ridiculed and shamed into either waking the fark up, or suicide.

/farking bigots.

I would like to subscribe to your news letter, then take you to (insert your favorite bar here) for cocktails.

Is there anything that yoga can't cure ?

BobXXL:
So screwing my post menopausal wife is abnornormal.
Well, she's not going to like getting kicked to the curb.

I think you should take your argument, put it on a placard and wave it in front of all the HomosRevul types. Watch them go...durrrrrr.

hehehe - you used "asinine" with a story about gay sex

Not enough hot yoga chicks.


/Are leotards & legwarmers coming back?
//Hope so.

Sperm cells have one function: if the timing is right, one will fertilize the female egg and create new life. Happens all the time. The testicles produce the sperm. Sperm are carried by semen. Semen is produced by the prostate and other glands. The penis injects the semen.

On the other side,

The flexible, self-lubricating vagina is constructed to allow the penis to be rigorously stimulated unto ejaculation (w/o damage to the vagina), so that, if all is timed right, sperm enter cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes, meet egg, fertilization, etc.

Whether the vaginal sex is timed so that it produces a child or not is irrelevant. Anatomical form still and always follows biological function in this; the parts are clearly meant to go together; they actually "mate."

Likewise, the fact that men and women may enjoy engaging in non-productive sex (oral, anal) is also beside the point of the obvious intent of the male/female reproductive structures.

There's no way homosexuality can be anatomically or biologically justified apart from personal desire for it, or sympathy for such desires of another, resulting in a willingness to pervert [turn away] the normal usage of the body structures toward the abnormal.

Yet HomoFarkers and their sympathizers (and those who just want to argue) say all this counts for nothing...anatomy, biology, it all means nothing; coincidental at best. Sex is primarily about PLEASURE. So in your minds, shoving a cock up another man's anus and dumping a load of sperm therein is just as normal as vaginal sex. Okay, believe what you want, do what you want.

But the facts will always remain:

The anus is not meant to be, nor designed to be, a substitute vagina. The penis is not meant to stimulate and inseminate the anus. Semen is designed to facilitate fertilization, which only happens in the woman. One man's semen has no function when placed inside another man.

The reproductive organs do produce pleasure, but they weren't designed primarily for pleasure, but for reproduction.

Now go bite your pillows, you nancies.

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps: Yet HomoFarkers and their sympathizers (and those who just want to argue) say all this counts for nothing...anatomy, biology, it all means nothing; coincidental at best. Sex is primarily about PLEASURE. So in your minds, shoving a cock up another man's anus and dumping a load of sperm therein is just as normal as vaginal sex. Okay, believe what you want, do what you want.

You must have missed it, Rev. Pleasure is biology, too. People do all sorts of things for pleasure. Golf, for instance, serves no particular biological purpose and yet people really seem to enjoy it. And you'll find that the overwhelming majority of this planet's sexual encounters take place with only pleasure in mind.

IonBeam2: Well, their education system is better than ours, and so is their technology and overall grasp of science, and their food is better. But if you're trying to say that they're not yet as promiscuous as we are, I'll have to agree with you.
You know, it's sad that Indians actually believe this. My parents are convinced that Indians are genetically more intelligent than other races. If all of the untouchables were given an education they'd be smarter than any other person in the world...not kidding. After explaining to them that they can barely learn the English language or proper social interaction, they softened a bit.

Also Indian men like to hold hands (as friends of course) so you'd never be able to identify a gay man. I've seen dozens of men doing more than holding hands--arms around each other, lying close on the grass. But when I touch my boyfriend's arm it's stares all around. Besides, we all know there are no gays in India.

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps: Sperm cells have one function: if the timing is right, one will fertilize the female egg and create new life. Happens all the time. The testicles produce the sperm. Sperm are carried by semen. Semen is produced by the prostate and other glands. The penis injects the semen.

On the other side,

The flexible, self-lubricating vagina is constructed to allow the penis to be rigorously stimulated unto ejaculation (w/o damage to the vagina), so that, if all is timed right, sperm enter cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes, meet egg, fertilization, etc.

Whether the vaginal sex is timed so that it produces a child or not is irrelevant. Anatomical form still and always follows biological function in this; the parts are clearly meant to go together; they actually "mate."

Likewise, the fact that men and women may enjoy engaging in non-productive sex (oral, anal) is also beside the point of the obvious intent of the male/female reproductive structures.

There's no way homosexuality can be anatomically or biologically justified apart from personal desire for it, or sympathy for such desires of another, resulting in a willingness to pervert [turn away] the normal usage of the body structures toward the abnormal.

Yet HomoFarkers and their sympathizers (and those who just want to argue) say all this counts for nothing...anatomy, biology, it all means nothing; coincidental at best. Sex is primarily about PLEASURE. So in your minds, shoving a cock up another man's anus and dumping a load of sperm therein is just as normal as vaginal sex. Okay, believe what you want, do what you want.

But the facts will always remain:

The anus is not meant to be, nor designed to be, a substitute vagina. The penis is not meant to stimulate and inseminate the anus. Semen is designed to facilitate fertilization, which only happens in the woman. One man's semen has no function when placed inside another man.

The reproductive organs do produce pleasure, but they weren't designed primarily for pleasure, but for reproduction.

Now go bite your pillows, you nancies.


Fred Phelps?

Man On Pink Corner: Al!: For your second point, no child has ever been born from a homosexual relationship. For a child to come about, there must be a man and a woman involved.

What sort of backing and filling are you going to do when you're eventually proven wrong?

Al!: What is moral about homosexuality. Tell me why it is right, and don't use human emotion as a reason, as I have stated that emotion is why I am completely accepting of homosexuality in modern society. Why do you feel that behavior that is absolutely at odds with success as a species is "right"?

<shrug> What's moral about your dog humping the furniture? You have asked either a meaningless question, or a religiously-loaded one.

1: How does that prove me wrong? Line up every child in the entire solar system who was born without the use of both a man and a woman, and I will count them for you. I'll even let you dig up corpses. I would bet a very large sum of money that the number I reach upon finishing my head count would be zero. What happens in 125,000 years is not what is happening now, and thus has no relevance to the conversation.

2: Morality is a human notion. Animals have no sense of wrong or right. I did not ask a meaningless question, I asked the antithesis of the question posed of me. I gave reasons for my stance. No reasons were given to show that homosexuality is moral behavior other than the repetition of the one possibility that I gave concerning overpopulation.
I do not consider myself a religous person at all, so it is not a religously loaded question. If I were, what I mentioned in counterpoint 1 would be incorrect by my own beliefs, because Christians believe that Jesus Christ was immaculately concieved, and I was raised Catholic.
It is also not a meaningless question. I could find millions of people around the world that would agree with me that homosexuality is immoral. The people that don't believe it is immoral, apparently, do not believe it is moral either. It would appear that it is just behavior, with no right or wrong. For my final point, I pose this question: When engaging in homosexual intercourse, what are the primary biological functions of the organs involved? Defecation, ingestion/communication, locomotion/manipulation and reproduction. Which one of those things is going on? None of them? Then how can I be incorrect when I say you are doing it wrong?

Again, I emphasize that I do not care what people do behind closed doors. I love and enjoy the company of my homosexual friends and family. I will not persecute anyone for their personal life, as long as it does not interfere with others' personal lives.

Rev. Bobby Bob Epps: Now go bite your pillows, you nancies.

Dude, you have thought this through way too far.

Lutrasimilis: You must have missed it, Rev. Pleasure is biology, too.

The funny thing is, these sorts will spend hours with their Bible looking for end-runs around other aspects of biology. They're cafeterians when it comes to morality, and they're cafeterians when it comes to science.