T O P I C R E V I E W
Member # 49994
posted 06-15-2011 01:11 PM
I was having a comment battle with someone on YouTube who decided to message me about homosexuality and they presented so called facts
This is what he said. "Homosexuality isn't a "normal" lifestyle because homosexual relations cannot produce offspring. Basic biology proves that it is an abnormal, disoriented lifestyle because only the genitalia of a man and a woman combine to produce offspring (obviously assuming healthy and fertility). - Not that reproduction is the only purpose of sexual activity, **but our human bodies were not designed for homosexual relations**. Only male genitals and female genitals were designed for each other, pure and simple. Gay rights supporters cannot refute this. - Furthermore, humanity woud cease to exist with everyone being homosexual. Applying a practice to the entire world & measuring the effect determines whether something is positive or negative. Thus, homosexuality is a negative practice. - Homosexuality is unnatural. Why do lesbians act manly? Why do gay men act feminine? Because we really are attracted to the opposite sex. Homosexual intercourse also mimics heterosexual intercourse. - But I'm sure I'm going to be labeled a "homophobe," accused of "intolerance," be told to "stop living in the past," or the "hate" card is going to come out rather than any logical response, as always. Cue the name calling (or the *gasp* thumbs down)..." This is what I said "Well, for one thing, yes it is biologically not the same as being with a woman because we can't reproduce. But honestly, I don't get to decide what gender I like, I haven't liked a girl in my entire life. My brain won't let me, I get extremely uncomfortable whenever I am with a girl...with guys it feels right. IT FEELS NATURAL TO ME! That's all that matters in my mind. And what do biological facts have to do with having a normal life-style? Humanity has straight people whom reproduce correct. Gay marriage won't change that. Reproduction will occur everywhere, because not everyone in the world will just decide to be homosexual. Plus, the world is very overpopulated and homosexual couples adopt children who need parents, how in that negative? I am homosexual and I do not act feminine, I act like a heterosexual man, and I am attracted to MEN who act like normal guys. So how does that make me actually attracted to the opposite sex? I am not calling you a homophobe or intolerant, I just think you should probably stop trying to label all homosexual males as feminine or homosexual women as masculine. We aren't all like that." That is my view, I would just like to hear your opinions on the subject.
Member # 3
posted 06-15-2011 01:23 PM
Mostly I'm just sitting over here rolling my eyes.
I'm sorry you had to deal with that at all, and think you did a pretty great job responding well. Of course, if you wanted to ever add any more, there are a few things you could, like: Not all people with penises and vaginas who put them together have the ability to reproduce, and the majority of time people do that, it is not out of a desire to reproduce, either. As well, not all people with penises and vaginas who put them together -- whether for pleasure or for reproduction -- are heterosexual. At this stage of the game, intercourse is not the only way to create a pregnancy. Many people are using in-vitro technologies to create pregnancies, so the idea that if people stopped having penis-in-vagina intercourse, there would be no more children is archaic now. Biology actually tells us very little about sexuality for people of all orientations. Psychology and sociology are the fields of study which give us the most information about human sexuality. Sexual orientation isn't just about bonking, not for people of any orientation. I'm not sure what he even means by "heterosexual intercourse" and "homosexual intercourse," but whatever it is, it's going to be chicken and egg. We have no way of showing what the orientations were of whoever it was who first had intercourse in our history as people.
Member # 31388
posted 06-15-2011 09:43 PM
Ha! Wow! 0_o
The numbers of lesbians doing the god old turkey baster method and the number of gay couples that would love to adopt kids shows that even if -every last person- *on this Earth* was gay/lesbian people would still be having more kids. Some people just want to have kids. Period. And that's a good thing. On the other hand, yeah we are getting rather full up here on humans so we really don't need absolutely every human being having kids anyway. *shakes head*
Member # 41657
posted 06-22-2011 09:51 AM
Yeah, I kind of want to just say to that guy
* okay liek I kno this will liek totes blow ur mind but not all teh straights peeps want 2 have kidz, sum of us have lots of sexxeh sexxeh secks (even buttsecks!) and yoooze birf control and teh rubberz, and even ZOMG hav aborshunz, plus u forgot that bi ppl exzist. (the bad spelling is for two reasons: a) it's not your writing form that's important, it's the content and b) it helps me fit in with the rest of the youtube commenters). * how dare you tell any woman that she has to go through pregnancy or labour, because what you're saying implies you think that all women must do that. * There is zero evidence that we were designed. We evolved, and evolution does not provide moral imperatives to reproduce or do or not do anything else, it is an explanation of a process which produced the life we see on this planet today and which is ongoing, nothing more.
Jacob at Scarleteen
Member # 66249
posted 06-23-2011 03:11 PM
Yeah Jill! A YouTube thumbs-up on your last point!
I get the impression nature has NO idea whatsoever what we "should" be doing with our genitals... but if you follow the "we must have xyz for a reason" logic, like "we must have penises and vaginas for a reason" then you have to continue; "we must have a capacity for homosexuality for a reason" and "we must have a capacity for not wanting to have babies for a reason"... and if a that legitimises something, then I guess that makes any sexual lifestyle justifiable, and that kind of argument completely redundant and useless for teasing out an idea what decisions to make with our bodies.
Member # 63794
posted 06-25-2011 05:08 PM
for those out there who are homophobic because of religion, i do not think the bible actually mentions homosexuality as a sin! Regardless of the evolution vs creation argument, if u read the bible, homosexuality is NOT MENTIONED. If i am wrong, please correct me and tell me where i can find this information.
Jacob at Scarleteen
Member # 66249
posted 06-26-2011 04:51 AM
It is kind of mentioned that men who sleep with other men living in an ancient city should, according to God, be stoned to death, and also says that the same punishment should be given for eating the wrong foods (shellfish) and that a rapist should marry their victim. But then Jesus comes along later in the bible and says that stoning is hypocritical and makes an argument for why not to do it... and says that a lot of things encourage people to freely rethink old laws.
It also says love everyone... and in my opinion it says "question things" too, very loudly. My reading of Jesus is of a pretty revolutionary force who for most of Matthew rallies against authoritarianism and hierarchies of power, knowledge and judgement especially within Church. So although it does mention male same-sex relations in a negative way... I think that if you look for ways to deal with that in the Bible it does provide tools to question that assumption and to overturn it. My thought is that people are homophobic because of a culture of homophobia and that unfortunately the Bible can lend itself to being used to make the case. I think it can probably do the opposite too, and perhaps more often is used to inspire people to fight for more rights and to give people hope in their difficult situations. A little off topic but hey... that's my amateur theology of homosexuality.
Member # 63961
posted 08-18-2011 10:17 PM
The thing about homosexuality and the Bible is that the idea of orientation didn't even EXIST back when it was written, so it's a completely foreign concept in that context. All the mentions of homosexuality in it are rape- which really says more about rape then homosexuality. And if you think about it, it makes sense. Rape is one of the most awful and degrading things you can do to a person, regardless of gender, because
rape is about violence and power, not sex. The righters of the Bible were saying that rape is wrong, and perhaps used men raping men as an example because they were the common perpetrators of rape at the time. And because women were essentially property back then, rape wasn't the same thing, or viewed as such a horrific crime when it was a man raping a woman.
Member # 60279
posted 08-19-2011 03:10 PM
I wish I had a thousand eyes so I could roll them all.
- If only that sex which can potentially produce a baby is "normal", why do so many straight people use contraception? - If male and female genitals were designed, why don't they work better together? Really, I can think of some improvements. - Applying a practice to the entire world and measuring the effect is a ridiculous way to make moral judgments. How about this - we can't bring irrigation systems to the Sahara, because bringing irrigation systems to Antarctica would be an ecological disaster. See how it doesn't work? - What do you mean "we", knucklehead? Just because *you* feel a certain way doesn't mean everyone does. And homosexual lovemaking doesn't have to mimic anything - just because some people can't imagine sex that doesn't involve Tab A in Slot B doesn't mean all sex is that way. What an idiot. I think you're giving him too much credit when you say he's not a homophobe, but it was very polite of you.