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.