How can you feel something that isn't natural? You could argue that when you are under the influence of drugs you feel things that are unnatural, but I doubt all homosexuals are under the influence of drugs. Sexual arousal is one of the most fundamentally 'natural' things about human beings and need I say most animals, how could homosexuality not be natural?
Nature does different things to different things. If it didn't, we wouldn't even be here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
real minecrafters are attracted to rana and bookcases
madk, religion was made up to put people at ease. It isn't real nor will it BE real. It's something to believe in, and taking it too far is something you shouldn't do, particularly on the internet.
Just a warning to everyone involved. If I see any sexual preference hate being spewed, or any "you're an idiot if you don't believe what I do" going around, this thread is heading to the trash at warp speed. Also, specific offenders can expect at least a three day ban, depending on the severity of their offenses. We've been through this before, and I simply will not tolerate hate speech here, be it towards sexual preference or beliefs.
How can you feel something that isn't natural? You could argue that when you are under the influence of drugs you feel things that are unnatural, but I doubt all homosexuals are under the influence of drugs. Sexual arousal is one of the most fundamentally 'natural' things about human beings and need I say most animals, how could homosexuality not be natural?
Nature does different things to different things. If it didn't, we wouldn't even be here.
What about sexual arousal by weirder fetishes? Beastiality? Pedophilia? Tentacles?
Are they too natural and should not be hindered? And to take it further, what about that same sort of love between siblings?
If we're going to say that whatever the mind or someone decides is they're natural attraction, then who are we to say any of it is wrong?
I'm not directly comparing them, but the way you're justifying it being Natural is rather decisive and picky when applied to other subjects.
Humans define their own nature, but some of us have decided only a few things are acceptable while promoting tolerance.
This also touches some base with Towel's post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Co-Founder of the PokeCraft Pokemon World Mapping Project
Also known as 'Rils'
I think that Beastiality and Pedophilia and Tentacles are also natural, yes, it's just that not all of them are good things to act on, for obvious reasons. The worst homosexuality can do is gross you out, pedophilia can cause a lot worse then that and although I do believe it is natural I do not believe people should act on it, just like how people will be naturally inclined to hurt or kill other people, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
real minecrafters are attracted to rana and bookcases
Additionally: There is no reason "Gay people" would not have existed throughout history -- it's just that, had they existed (which I believe they did) they very rarely dared to come out and say it, because of the extreme prejudice around that general topic and the extreme reactions to "strange" things in general. (Like, you know... resulting in murder and all that.) There would also be little to no way to learn that other like-minded people existed without exposing your secret which would probably just end up with you dead, alienated, or "cured" somehow (i.e. through the placebo effect combined with upbringing and environment all convincing you that homosexuality is wrong, etc).
---
Quote from Tormented »
I believe that god created all this unless you want to randomly put that brain of yours, arms, kidneys and whatnot into the hands of a big bang.
Evolution is not a mere toss of the cosmic dice resulting in "oh wow! people with functioning reproductive systems and body parts and sophisticated organs!", and it isn't in the slightest related to the Big Bang. An incredible amount of time has passed since life was first estimated to exist. Any significant evolutionary changes would take more time than any of us could even begin to comprehend -- there is so much going on, all the time; billions of years of so much random **** going on, all the time, slowly chances upon something different that manages to survive better than whatever already existed... and it keeps happening, over and over, over such a long period of time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
I believe that god created all this unless you want to randomly put that brain of yours, arms, kidneys and whatnot into the hands of a big bang.
Evolution is not a mere toss of the cosmic dice resulting in "oh wow! people with functioning reproductive systems and body parts and sophisticated organs!", and it isn't in the slightest related to the Big Bang. An incredible amount of time has passed since life was first estimated to exist. Any significant evolutionary changes would take more time than any of us could even begin to comprehend -- there is so much going on, all the time; billions of years of so much random **** going on, all the time, slowly chances upon something different that manages to survive better than whatever already existed... and it keeps happening, over and over, over such a long period of time.
Designing something can be considered creating it, in most cases it is. I agree with this statement though, just that it was Intelligently Designed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Co-Founder of the PokeCraft Pokemon World Mapping Project
Also known as 'Rils'
pedophilia can cause a lot worse then that and although I do believe it is natural I do not believe people should act on it, just like how people will be naturally inclined to hurt or kill other people, etc.
Pedophilia does not equate to sexual predation.
Plus: You do realize there are consensual, healthy relationships between two people with a huge age difference between them, don't you? (Although these would probably more frequently fall into "ephebophilia")
Quote from Hunter2458 »
Designing something can be considered creating it, in most cases it is. I agree with this statement though, just that it was Intelligently Designed.
Are you saying that the billion-years process of trial and error, of random mutations (some of which failed and some of which succeeded), and of extinction and evolution in general was all guided by some intelligent entity, but that it did happen?
If not, I'm confused -- and you should explain yourself better.
edit Also. I design and create games (as well as other programs sometimes). Designing something is not the same as creating it. Not by a long shot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
Designing something can be considered creating it, in most cases it is. I agree with this statement though, just that it was Intelligently Designed.
Are you saying that the billion-years process of trial and error, of random mutations (some of which failed and some of which succeeded), and of extinction and evolution in general was all guided by some intelligent entity, but that it did happen?
If not, I'm confused -- and you should explain yourself better.
edit Also. I design and create games (as well as other programs sometimes). Designing something is not the same as creating it. Not by a long shot.
I'm saying something wrote those trial and error rules, not that they singlehandedly designed each thing, but they created the overall system. The whole system having come about randomly seems to be a stretch :/
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Co-Founder of the PokeCraft Pokemon World Mapping Project
Also known as 'Rils'
Anyway, two creatures - human or animal - cannot reproduce with the same sex. I think this should be an obvious enough indication that we're naturally meant to have heterosexual relationships. Not that having a friend of the same gender is improper, but there's a reason why hormones only work with the other sex. That kind of loving relationship is not supposed to happen between two males or two females; it just does not biologically work that way.
Oral sex does not biologically work: Therefore, it is unnatural and shouldn't be tolerated. Earrings weren't planned by nature, either, those unnatural things. What about medicines? Surgery? Physical therapy? All just our own exploitation of the human body to fit our own means, and homosexuality is no different.
Furthermore, there's an entire species of bisexual ape- the Bonobo. They just say "hi" through mutual masturbation, regardless of gender. Believe it or not, they all get along with everyone pretty well, and "nature" hasn't stepped in to tell them to knock it off.
Umm what about, people going into mariage with walls for example, one very weird example but it has happened.
there are fetishes where people actually are atracted to red baloons, the mind likes what it likes, i am not gonna rage at any1 for liking what they like....
like seriously if some1 came in on this thread and said I LIKE TO MAKE LOVE WITH A RED BALOON, would you start this discussion for that?
oh well that concludes my thought's do whatever you want to do, you only live once why make it worse than it is? -.-
Furthermore, there's an entire species of bisexual ape- the Bonobo. They just say "hi" through mutual masturbation, regardless of gender. Believe it or not, they all get along with everyone pretty well, and "nature" hasn't stepped in to tell them to knock it off.
REMIND ME NEVER TO GO INTO THAT JUNGLE.... DAMN.. sudenly some weird white matter falls down on my head, that would be so weird like seriously D=
I daresay the Bonobo may be an unusual and isolated incident.
Additionally, you are mistreating the subject. I'm talking about what two human bodies are designed to do.
Towel:
Are you assuming that I'm putting down something like the love between family, or close friends? That's great, but homosexuals don't necessarily appear interested in that. You don't try to marry your pal.
Madk, you didn't even try to refute my points. Rather, you just picked one of the points and said it was off-topic. Why is gay oral sex any more "unnatural" than straight oral sex? What is the penalty of doing something "unnatural"? Also, is anyone else getting the feeling that "nature" in the sense AI and Mad are using it is simply an allegory to work religious beliefs into what should be a non-religious issue?
Quote from madk »
I daresay the Bonobo may be an unusual and isolated incident.
A wide variety of animals engage in homosexual behavior and even coupling. No less than 26 gay male penguin couples are kept in zoos the world over, and attempts to "turn them straight" are universal failures. Dolphins are even known to have gay orgies, participating in the only example of animal nasal sex via the blowhole.
Quote from madk »
Additionally, you are mistreating the subject. I'm talking about what two human bodies are designed to do.
Sir, are you implying dolphins were built with gay nasal sex in mind? Besides, like I said, we do a LOT of things we aren't designed to do. As I said to AI, homosexuality is natural to homosexuals. Asking a homosexual to change to a more "natural" orientation is as ridiculous and laughable as asking YOU to convert to homosexuality.
Are you assuming that I'm putting down something like the love between family, or close friends? That's great, but homosexuals don't necessarily appear interested in that. You don't try to marry your pal.
No, his point was that love isn't defined on a biological level, and that love can even be achieved without any kind of sexual attraction. Also, yes, homsexuals ARE interested in having strong friendships and family ties. People like you make it hard for them, though.
All my successful relationships evolve from strong friendships, and I believe your partner should be one of your best friends. If you can't relate to your wife on a very personal level, I'd say you're the one in an unnatural relationship. If you're going to accuse me of insulting you, I'd like to remind you that you've accused my relationship of being unnatural to the point that it disgusts you.
pedophilia can cause a lot worse then that and although I do believe it is natural I do not believe people should act on it, just like how people will be naturally inclined to hurt or kill other people, etc.
Pedophilia does not equate to sexual predation.
Plus: You do realize there are consensual, healthy relationships between two people with a huge age difference between them, don't you? (Although these would probably more frequently fall into "ephebophilia")
I know that pedophilia does not equate to sexual predation, but if a pedophile were to go about his sexual life in the same way a "normal" person did, there would be a lot of problems he would encounter, be they fundamental parts of human nature or just the results of cultural standards. I understand that many arguments could be used against that claim, but I was only using pedophilia as an example and am not particularly well-versed in the psychology and such that surrounds it, so there's really not much else I can say on the subject.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
real minecrafters are attracted to rana and bookcases
We aren't going to change our lifestyle because it makes you "feel icky". If you think two adult, loving, equal, monogomous partners being together is "wrong", that's your own problem. Frankly, you're fine to feel it's "wrong", but don't keep us from marrying the person we love because it makes you uncomfortable.
Maybe I portrayed my thoughts wrongly. I'd never ask or even want someone to change themselves by my account, nor would I expect so. No one is here to try and persuade anyone else, just to share their own thoughts. As you already ready, I do not like the idea of homosexuality. As I have read, you do. Therefore, there is a conflict; when that happens, the best course to take (in this thread) is to find another subject or possibly elaborate on what you had previously said. With that, I'll ask that you and madk stop arguing, or at least come to a quick accord.
(@ AI) Wait. If you don't want to turn gay people straight, but you also don't want them to be gay with each-other, what do you expect them to do? Be without romance for life?
Quote from A.I. »
Therefore, there is a conflict; when that happens, the best course to take (in this thread) is to find another subject or possibly elaborate on what you had previously said.
I prefer the latter. Changing the topic whenever there's a conflict of opinions in a thread about opinions seems counter-productive to me.
With that, I'll ask that you and madk stop arguing, or at least come to a quick accord.
Impossible! We are both much too stubborn and angry. Besides, it's pretty civil at this point. No-one's calling anyone crooked or condemning them to hell like the last thread, so that's something, right?
So before we get personal and stuff, people don't suddenly decide to hate gay people for the sake of being nasty or arrogant.
Of course not. I'm more than aware why people dislike or disagree with homosexuality.
I would be in on this talk of homosexuality but really what I'd have said is already covered. I have never considered it wrong - just different, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Quote from Hunter2458 »
I'm saying something wrote those trial and error rules, not that they singlehandedly designed each thing, but they created the overall system. The whole system having come about randomly seems to be a stretch :/
System?
---
I could just leave it at that one word, but I won't. There is no system. By random chance (radiation, genetic differences, error in replication), a random mutation occurs. Sometimes the mutation is beneficial, and as a result of that, anyone with that mutation survives and reproduces just a little more frequently than someone without the mutation.
If a rabbit is born in the woods without the ability to hear, or without legs, it is much less likely to survive. This mutation would very likely not be passed on.
If a rabbit is born in the woods with sharper eyesight, it is slightly more likely to survive. This mutation would probably be passed on, and if it were to spread, the sharp-eyed rabbits would obviously have an advantage over those without sharp eyes.
Let's say you have a little blind blob of genetic material that wanders around until it bumps into food.
Then it reproduces (through whatever means) and the new little blob has the ability to faintly detect light due to a genetic mutation. Now it has a greater ability to find its bearings, and if this helps it succeed at survival and reproduction, then in the future more and more of these little genetic blobs will have the ability to faintly detect light.
Where's this "system", apart from "some things work better than others"?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
I would be in on this talk of homosexuality but really what I'd have said is already covered. I have never considered it wrong - just different, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Quote from Hunter2458 »
I'm saying something wrote those trial and error rules, not that they singlehandedly designed each thing, but they created the overall system. The whole system having come about randomly seems to be a stretch :/
System?
---
I could just leave it at that one word, but I won't. There is no system. By random chance (radiation, genetic differences, error in replication), a random mutation occurs. Sometimes the mutation is beneficial, and as a result of that, anyone with that mutation survives and reproduces just a little more frequently than someone without the mutation.
If a rabbit is born in the woods without the ability to hear, or without legs, it is much less likely to survive. This mutation would very likely not be passed on.
If a rabbit is born in the woods with sharper eyesight, it is slightly more likely to survive. This mutation would probably be passed on, and if it were to spread, the sharp-eyed rabbits would obviously have an advantage over those without sharp eyes.
Let's say you have a little blind blob of genetic material that wanders around until it bumps into food.
Then it reproduces (through whatever means) and the new little blob has the ability to faintly detect light due to a genetic mutation. Now it has a greater ability to find its bearings, and if this helps it succeed at survival and reproduction, then in the future more and more of these little genetic blobs will have the ability to faintly detect light.
Where's this "system", apart from "some things work better than others"?
Something randomly happening randomly? Then how can anything be known for sure? How can there be any truth in the world if at random times random things may happen. We have many similar things happen at random (blindness, autism, retardation, etc), but to say at any moment and time something can be born with any matter of random appendages, or lack thereof, or other things? For things to be random, yet the same things happen more than others seems to be a real stretch. To say that, then turn around and have everyone trying to find a pattern to all these abnormalities is hypocritical of the scientific community :/
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Co-Founder of the PokeCraft Pokemon World Mapping Project
Also known as 'Rils'
Merriam-Webster is my good friend, and he's going to do me a favor and introduce my statements.
Quote from Merriam-Webster Dictionary »
Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1892
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
Now, as I said, two people of the same gender being great friends is fine. It's be horrible to say that's wrong. What I think is morally unjustifiable is what good ol' Webster defines as homosexuality. Personally, I find it pretty sickening when two people of the same gender try to have sex. That's my personal view, and I'm fairly of tired of you, Peri, trying to accuse me and others of some kind of hatred or bigotry towards homosexual people. I strongly dislike the acts that these people engage themselves in, but that doesn't mean I think the people are absolutely evil. I know your disposition against religon, but as I believe God's principles dictate, we are to hate the sin, but to love the sinner.
With that said, I think you may be assuming that I find something wrong with two people being close friends. I have several very good friends, and most of them are guys like I am. That doesn't make me attracted to that sex, it makes me sociable, and that's a good thing. However, when people would feel what Webster defines as homosexuality towards their friends, that's not a good thing at all in my eyes.
This is a thread about opinions, too. I'm certainly not trying to feed an argument. I've learned something new, and I'm planning on doing a bit of study into the Bonobo monkey to understand it better. I'm just trying to state my personal views and why I have them, without being blown out of the water. I didn't introduce myself into this thread defying anyone else's persoanl opinions, I merely gave my own. I respect your position on the matter, Peri, though I do not agree with it, and I'd certainly appreciate it if you would let go of whatever aggrivation you have and discuss the topic more cooly.
And pertaining to my last sentence, which if I know you at all, you're going to get fired up about it, but notice that I'm not debating. I know we had a pretty heated discussion at an earlier time, but I think we should be able to put that behind us and voice our thoughts like gentlemen, without the other attempting to disect the other's posts point-by-point.
Nature does different things to different things. If it didn't, we wouldn't even be here.
This includes your teaching of gays and lesbians.
What about sexual arousal by weirder fetishes? Beastiality? Pedophilia? Tentacles?
Are they too natural and should not be hindered? And to take it further, what about that same sort of love between siblings?
If we're going to say that whatever the mind or someone decides is they're natural attraction, then who are we to say any of it is wrong?
I'm not directly comparing them, but the way you're justifying it being Natural is rather decisive and picky when applied to other subjects.
Humans define their own nature, but some of us have decided only a few things are acceptable while promoting tolerance.
This also touches some base with Towel's post.
Also known as 'Rils'
There is opinion, and then there is fact.
Additionally: There is no reason "Gay people" would not have existed throughout history -- it's just that, had they existed (which I believe they did) they very rarely dared to come out and say it, because of the extreme prejudice around that general topic and the extreme reactions to "strange" things in general. (Like, you know... resulting in murder and all that.) There would also be little to no way to learn that other like-minded people existed without exposing your secret which would probably just end up with you dead, alienated, or "cured" somehow (i.e. through the placebo effect combined with upbringing and environment all convincing you that homosexuality is wrong, etc).
---
Evolution is not a mere toss of the cosmic dice resulting in "oh wow! people with functioning reproductive systems and body parts and sophisticated organs!", and it isn't in the slightest related to the Big Bang. An incredible amount of time has passed since life was first estimated to exist. Any significant evolutionary changes would take more time than any of us could even begin to comprehend -- there is so much going on, all the time; billions of years of so much random **** going on, all the time, slowly chances upon something different that manages to survive better than whatever already existed... and it keeps happening, over and over, over such a long period of time.
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
Designing something can be considered creating it, in most cases it is. I agree with this statement though, just that it was Intelligently Designed.
Also known as 'Rils'
Pedophilia does not equate to sexual predation.
Plus: You do realize there are consensual, healthy relationships between two people with a huge age difference between them, don't you? (Although these would probably more frequently fall into "ephebophilia")
Are you saying that the billion-years process of trial and error, of random mutations (some of which failed and some of which succeeded), and of extinction and evolution in general was all guided by some intelligent entity, but that it did happen?
If not, I'm confused -- and you should explain yourself better.
edit Also. I design and create games (as well as other programs sometimes). Designing something is not the same as creating it. Not by a long shot.
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
I'm saying something wrote those trial and error rules, not that they singlehandedly designed each thing, but they created the overall system. The whole system having come about randomly seems to be a stretch :/
Also known as 'Rils'
Oral sex does not biologically work: Therefore, it is unnatural and shouldn't be tolerated. Earrings weren't planned by nature, either, those unnatural things. What about medicines? Surgery? Physical therapy? All just our own exploitation of the human body to fit our own means, and homosexuality is no different.
Furthermore, there's an entire species of bisexual ape- the Bonobo. They just say "hi" through mutual masturbation, regardless of gender. Believe it or not, they all get along with everyone pretty well, and "nature" hasn't stepped in to tell them to knock it off.
there are fetishes where people actually are atracted to red baloons, the mind likes what it likes, i am not gonna rage at any1 for liking what they like....
like seriously if some1 came in on this thread and said I LIKE TO MAKE LOVE WITH A RED BALOON, would you start this discussion for that?
oh well that concludes my thought's do whatever you want to do, you only live once why make it worse than it is? -.-
REMIND ME NEVER TO GO INTO THAT JUNGLE.... DAMN.. sudenly some weird white matter falls down on my head, that would be so weird like seriously D=
I daresay the Bonobo may be an unusual and isolated incident.
Additionally, you are mistreating the subject. I'm talking about what two human bodies are designed to do.
Towel:
Are you assuming that I'm putting down something like the love between family, or close friends? That's great, but homosexuals don't necessarily appear interested in that. You don't try to marry your pal.
A wide variety of animals engage in homosexual behavior and even coupling. No less than 26 gay male penguin couples are kept in zoos the world over, and attempts to "turn them straight" are universal failures. Dolphins are even known to have gay orgies, participating in the only example of animal nasal sex via the blowhole.
Sir, are you implying dolphins were built with gay nasal sex in mind? Besides, like I said, we do a LOT of things we aren't designed to do. As I said to AI, homosexuality is natural to homosexuals. Asking a homosexual to change to a more "natural" orientation is as ridiculous and laughable as asking YOU to convert to homosexuality.
No, his point was that love isn't defined on a biological level, and that love can even be achieved without any kind of sexual attraction. Also, yes, homsexuals ARE interested in having strong friendships and family ties. People like you make it hard for them, though.
All my successful relationships evolve from strong friendships, and I believe your partner should be one of your best friends. If you can't relate to your wife on a very personal level, I'd say you're the one in an unnatural relationship. If you're going to accuse me of insulting you, I'd like to remind you that you've accused my relationship of being unnatural to the point that it disgusts you.
I know that pedophilia does not equate to sexual predation, but if a pedophile were to go about his sexual life in the same way a "normal" person did, there would be a lot of problems he would encounter, be they fundamental parts of human nature or just the results of cultural standards. I understand that many arguments could be used against that claim, but I was only using pedophilia as an example and am not particularly well-versed in the psychology and such that surrounds it, so there's really not much else I can say on the subject.
Maybe I portrayed my thoughts wrongly. I'd never ask or even want someone to change themselves by my account, nor would I expect so. No one is here to try and persuade anyone else, just to share their own thoughts. As you already ready, I do not like the idea of homosexuality. As I have read, you do. Therefore, there is a conflict; when that happens, the best course to take (in this thread) is to find another subject or possibly elaborate on what you had previously said. With that, I'll ask that you and madk stop arguing, or at least come to a quick accord.
I prefer the latter. Changing the topic whenever there's a conflict of opinions in a thread about opinions seems counter-productive to me.
Impossible! We are both much too stubborn and angry. Besides, it's pretty civil at this point. No-one's calling anyone crooked or condemning them to hell like the last thread, so that's something, right?
Of course not. I'm more than aware why people dislike or disagree with homosexuality.
System?
---
I could just leave it at that one word, but I won't. There is no system. By random chance (radiation, genetic differences, error in replication), a random mutation occurs. Sometimes the mutation is beneficial, and as a result of that, anyone with that mutation survives and reproduces just a little more frequently than someone without the mutation.
If a rabbit is born in the woods without the ability to hear, or without legs, it is much less likely to survive. This mutation would very likely not be passed on.
If a rabbit is born in the woods with sharper eyesight, it is slightly more likely to survive. This mutation would probably be passed on, and if it were to spread, the sharp-eyed rabbits would obviously have an advantage over those without sharp eyes.
Let's say you have a little blind blob of genetic material that wanders around until it bumps into food.
Then it reproduces (through whatever means) and the new little blob has the ability to faintly detect light due to a genetic mutation. Now it has a greater ability to find its bearings, and if this helps it succeed at survival and reproduction, then in the future more and more of these little genetic blobs will have the ability to faintly detect light.
Where's this "system", apart from "some things work better than others"?
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
Something randomly happening randomly? Then how can anything be known for sure? How can there be any truth in the world if at random times random things may happen. We have many similar things happen at random (blindness, autism, retardation, etc), but to say at any moment and time something can be born with any matter of random appendages, or lack thereof, or other things? For things to be random, yet the same things happen more than others seems to be a real stretch. To say that, then turn around and have everyone trying to find a pattern to all these abnormalities is hypocritical of the scientific community :/
Also known as 'Rils'
Now, as I said, two people of the same gender being great friends is fine. It's be horrible to say that's wrong. What I think is morally unjustifiable is what good ol' Webster defines as homosexuality. Personally, I find it pretty sickening when two people of the same gender try to have sex. That's my personal view, and I'm fairly of tired of you, Peri, trying to accuse me and others of some kind of hatred or bigotry towards homosexual people. I strongly dislike the acts that these people engage themselves in, but that doesn't mean I think the people are absolutely evil. I know your disposition against religon, but as I believe God's principles dictate, we are to hate the sin, but to love the sinner.
With that said, I think you may be assuming that I find something wrong with two people being close friends. I have several very good friends, and most of them are guys like I am. That doesn't make me attracted to that sex, it makes me sociable, and that's a good thing. However, when people would feel what Webster defines as homosexuality towards their friends, that's not a good thing at all in my eyes.
This is a thread about opinions, too. I'm certainly not trying to feed an argument. I've learned something new, and I'm planning on doing a bit of study into the Bonobo monkey to understand it better. I'm just trying to state my personal views and why I have them, without being blown out of the water. I didn't introduce myself into this thread defying anyone else's persoanl opinions, I merely gave my own. I respect your position on the matter, Peri, though I do not agree with it, and I'd certainly appreciate it if you would let go of whatever aggrivation you have and discuss the topic more cooly.
And pertaining to my last sentence, which if I know you at all, you're going to get fired up about it, but notice that I'm not debating. I know we had a pretty heated discussion at an earlier time, but I think we should be able to put that behind us and voice our thoughts like gentlemen, without the other attempting to disect the other's posts point-by-point.