Faried Becomes First NBA Player To Join Group Fighting Homophobia In Sports

Some other dude did...

That's impressive though, pointing a very minor spelling error to try to "get me"

I've spelled a lot words wrong and will spell a lot more wrong, you think I care what you think about it?

 

If you want to bring in science to this fact, then you may want to know that there are a thousands of animals who have been documented to display homosexual behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

The point that homosexuality will somehow cause the extinction of a species has never had any scientific basis behind it. You might as well abolish all anti-social or introverts or permanently single people as well because they won't be contributing to the gene pool anytime soon.

 

Deff. helping Westbrook out.

 

So you are saying that because ANIMALS do it that that makes it natural/normal?

And I never said that homosexuality will cause the extinction of a species, you made that up because I used the word procreation.

You can't make me think two men having sex is natural or normal or anything else. But if they choose to do so, I won't treat them harshly or abuse them. That's my stance on it if you haven't figured it out yet.

 

The first sentence is two questions. So I will answer it in two parts:

1a.

"nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCHərəl/
Adjective
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

Is it natural? Well, we know with absolute certainty that it exists in nature. Because it has been recorded in most known animals, including humans, and there is evidence of a genetic cause, we can also conclude it is caused by nature. We can also safely conclude that it is not made or caused by humankind, because we know it occurs in animals as well. A behavior that is not exclusive to humankind cannot be caused by humankind.

1b.

"normal  
Use Normal in a sentence
nor·mal [nawr-muhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural."

Is it normal? This a bit more complex. Homosexual love/sex is certainly not the most common type in our species or in any other - but yet it occurs in our species and in many others, which means that while it is not the most common type, it is still common, regular and, as I've already shown, natural.

So while I can't say one way or the other if the person you asked this question was saying it is natural/normal, I can say that, according to the definitions of natural/normal, YES! IT ABSOLUTELY IS!

Now, on to the second sentence.

2.

You sure seemed to strongly imply that gays are a threat to sustaining the human species. Please explain to me what you meant by that otherwise.

And if you did not mean to imply that homosexuality is a threat to the survival of our species, then why do you care if a portion of our populace doesn't procreate? And while we're at it, I'm a 36 year old heterosexual who has never procreated and is unlikely to ever procreate (and I'm not even close to alone in not planning to never have children among the heterosexual populace), does that mean I (and others like me) shouldn't be allowed to get married either?

 

Read jmwilliamson's post. He summarized it perfectly.

Also, you are the one who said "for the procreation and sustaining of human species". Sustaining of human species = avoiding extinction.

You need to read your own post properly, and to add to that, the world is overpopulated and could do with a few less people. So less procreation would be advantageous, both to consevse limited resources being used and to reduce the human damages to the environment.

 

I feel like this thread could safely be moved to D&D lol

 

Maybe you should read all of that article carefully before using it as a support for scientific acceptance of homosexuality in humans because of some animal behavior.

 

We also know that black widows kill their mate after having sex, so I guess it is natural if a woman wants to do that as well. Some dogs eat their newborn pups, guess it's natural for some human mothers to do that as well since it is "natural" according to your definition. Evidence of a genetic cause? Where?

Here is a more complete definition of "natural" by http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural maybe you should use a few of these definitions instead of the one you choose:

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2
a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3
a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents>
b : illegitimate <a natural child>
4
: having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5
: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>
6
: of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7
: having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>
8
a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>
b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights>
c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9
: possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble … brother … ever most kind and natural — Shakespeare>
10
a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow>
b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities>
c : relating to or being natural food
11
a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man>
b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12
a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>
b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13
a : closely resembling an original : true to nature
b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint
c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14
a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major>
b : being neither sharp nor flat
c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15
: of an off-white or beige color

It's a bit more complex because of your lack of fully understanding normal. Here are some more definitions for you:

: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2
a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3
: occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4
a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development
b : free from mental disorder

So no, according to the definitions I have given you, it is not "natural" or "normal" behavior, but rather "unnatural" and "not normal" behavior.

Again, this is not an excuse to abuse gay people, I am still against that. But you can't make what is not natural or normal so, just because you want civil rights for it.

I don't care if a portion of the populace don't procreate. But human survival depends on procreation, so supporting that is a "natural" and "normal" thing to do.

You want to redefine marriage as between a man and a man or woman and a woman. Give me your examples in all of human history where this was normal or natural? I could give you examples where it was natural and normal for men to marry more than one woman at a time, but I'm sure you already know about those.

 

What you quoted supports my point.

I don't think you understood what the highlighted portion meant, nor do you understand anything at all about science.

I would like to hear your interpretation of what you highlighted.

 

pretty much D&D material.

 

The definition of marriage has changed countless times throughout history. Marriage for love, religion, family, political reasons, power, etc have been found time and again.

Simply saying "This is the way that it's always been done" is a pretty poor argument against anything.

Extending the benefit of marriage to homosexuals hurts no one, and only serves to make us a more tolerant society. If it isn't in line with your religion - tough. Atheists can get married. If you don't like that they can't have kids naturally - tough. Infertile couples can still get married.

Your argument is based on nothing but bigotry, not facts, and certainly not history. Time and again, history has proved that progressives have lead social change, and that those in the way will only be judged harshly by future generations. No one is saying that you have to be gay, but if you're still around in 50 years, you might not want to have to explain yourself to your kids and grandkids.

"Well kids, I just didn't agree with it" doesn't sound too great coming from someone that was once against interracial marriage, either.

 

Ah you bring up an excellent point here! So is the gay rights agenda looking for equality or superiority? A lot would agree with me that they are in fact looking for equality. Equality means that we redefine the words themselves and strip away the past of negativity and equalize it to the term heterosexual and/or straight. By doing this the community is seen to be alike to the heterosexual community itself, correct? That is to say, they strive to purge the negativity around being gay and make it to be aligned with being straight. If that is so, the taboo of being gay should also be melted away as well. That is their end goal, to end the taboo of the word "gay".

This means the two words in our society should be analogous with distinctions arising in small details. This means using the word gay or straight should be somewhat similar to assigning a color, like green would be to red. With that said, if you impose that calling something green to mean stupid is innocuous but calling something red to be stupid is taboo and/or wrong, then green and red lose their equality. Red becomes different, almost superior to green. Red can only be used in a certain way.

The equal rights agenda for any platform, gay, straight, red, green is looking to equivocate the terms with their only differences being in minor details. With that said, then if what you seek is equality then calling something gay to mean stupid should evoke the same reaction as calling something straight to be stupid as well.

Then again, as I said before, if the use of one word bothers you this much, you are a sad and overly sensitive person to begin with.

 

Where is your proof that it has changed "countless" times throughout history? References? What changes were there? Reasons for marriage is not the same as changing the "definition" of marriage.

I haven't made any "this is the way that it's always been done" argument that stands alone. If anything, that is a part of the bigger argument. Trying to marginalize the point by ignoring everything else that I have said, is not a sufficient rebuttal to make any points that you are claiming to have made.

It confusing kids that are growing up as to what the proper behavior for human adults is in my view...but again that's my view. I can be tolerant of someone else's extreme behavior, but asking me to accept it as something natural and normal is going beyond being tolerant, you actually want me to change my viewpoint, and that I won't do for you or your movement.

I agree to be tolerant, but I won't accept gay sexuality as being normal or natural ever, nor teach it to my children regardless of any religious beliefs or not. I don't have a problem with atheists, infertile couples or interracial couples getting married, as long as it's a man marrying a woman (women).

Your trying to equate all of those categories to homosexuality doesn't work with me.

You can call what I consider "normal" and "natural" bigotry all that you won't. You can try to make it to be equal with the same cause as racism all that you want. But my facts still say that what you say ain't true or valid.

I am not worried about history looking back on my views as those who look back on on history at slave owners and racists. No matter how many failed arguments you put forth, the two are NOT the same.

I hope to be around another 50 years or longer to tell my grandkids and great grandkids the same thing that I am telling you.

Again, another point that you failed with. Being gay is in no way the same as being a race.

That fact is simply that you can't accept that someone is not against abusing gay people, but don't support gay marriage and doesn't accept that being gay is normal and natural.

You are not satisfied with basic human rights, but you want the world to accept that homosexuality is a normal behavior and like it. I won't be joining your bandwagon if you haven't already figured that out.

 

That isn't necessary. Just reread it again and again without your blinders on and you will get what I mean.

 

No I do not.

What you quoted in no way disproves any of what I said, that is homosexuality is heavily observed amongst the scientific community and has a scientific basis. In fact, it supports it.

So I don't know what you are trying to get at. Give your interpretation and stop dodging the question.

 

I'm not dodging the question, what I quoted just speaks for itself and I don't feel like interpreting for you what is clear that I bolded and point out.

Homosexuality among some non human species is not an acceptable foundation for it's acceptance among the human species, if that's the point you are claiming.

Nevertheless, I'm am growing quite tired of this subject. You can believe what you want and I will continue to believe what I want, and the public will do as it pleases as a whole and lead by those that lead.

I still don't believe in abusing people for being gay though.

 

You still don't seem to understand, and you are still using false equivalence.

If you substitute something negative with the term "gay", then you are inherently associating the word "gay" with undesirability.

It's not a hard concept, and none of your reasoning makes any sense. You are trying to say that people won't be offended if they were called "straight", so therefore they shouldn't if they were called "gay", because both words are "equal". That is flawed logic, and I already pointed out why.

And your last paragraph is just laughable. I'm personally not offended, it's simply immaturity and ignorance. What's annoying though, is trying to justify that immaturity and ignorance.

 

I knew you completely missed the point and didn't understand a thing with what you quoted initially.

We are not talking about whether it's "right", we are talking about whether it has a scientific basis.

That was my point from the very beginning, and you thought that you could refute it by taking a moral standpoint?

 

Clutch, send this to the D&D. Got completely off topic. Some people are stupid.