Why is opposition to gay marriage so strong?

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's because they don't value their own marriages.

I mean, what on earth could make them think that their own marriages would be devalued if homosexuals got married?

Of course, it's not that, they simply want to institute their religion into the law, and they are successful, mostly because the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, right?

 

[gingermeggs]

What I also mean by it is this- o'kay, there is a percentile of people with a genetic gayness, and then there is your psychological homasectual.
Now do we want to breed up large numbers of people with the gay gene?
What I have noticed personally is the children of families with an extremely masculine father and feminine mother tend to drop "gay" litters.
I knew a young fella 23y.o who's mother is a lesbo, he is a total mess as he has no normality to his family life, he has had a suicide attempt and suffers chronic depression.
Again a minority thats full of ideas, but what happens when it falls apart; you claim it won't. Tends to be the leso's that want to be a mother, but with no father around- tell me if they are using donor sperm or gifted sperm....what kind of seed are they really getting? I know 90% of men wouldn't "give" their seed away, it's only the ethically bankrupt that would and what does it say about their genes?
I am all for a healthy human gene pool, as this will be the long term way to a peaceful world with less diseases.
If you want the homo rainbow it all good, but its not a sustainable way to progress as a society genetically, this will come to light more as science unlocks mental health and dna problems- I am not into the sub-human treatment of homasectuals, but there are ethical lines to just how many freedoms you can have when you choose a way of life............whats next? bestiality? woman marries her horse? What about pedo's I suppose they have been a part of human culture for eons why aren't they allowed to have fun too?
you can't have your chocolate fudge and eat it!
What you want is at the expense of others right to respectably in human culture.
And this what comes after the right to marriage....thats why it's not going to happen!

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

So you suggest that nature intended animals to have sexual relations with the same sex? Not true. It may happen but that is not how they were designed. It is natural for two animals of the same sex to have a relationship(friendship). But "sexual" between the same sex is not. I don't know even know how you can argue that its normal/natural.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
What I also mean by it is this- o'kay, there is a percentile of people with a genetic gayness, and then there is your psychological homasectual.
Now do we want to breed up large numbers of people with the gay gene?
What I have noticed personally is the children of families with an extremely masculine father and feminine mother tend to drop "gay" litters.
I knew a young fella 23y.o who's mother is a lesbo, he is a total mess as he has no normality to his family life, he has had a suicide attempt and suffers chronic depression.
Again a minority thats full of ideas, but what happens when it falls apart; you claim it won't. Tends to be the leso's that want to be a mother, but with no father around- tell me if they are using donor sperm or gifted sperm....what kind of seed are they really getting? I know 90% of men wouldn't "give" their seed away, it's only the ethically bankrupt that would and what does it say about their genes?
I am all for a healthy human gene pool, as this will be the long term way to a peaceful world with less diseases.
If you want the homo rainbow it all good, but its not a sustainable way to progress as a society genetically, this will come to light more as science unlocks mental health and dna problems- I am not into the sub-human treatment of homasectuals, but there are ethical lines to just how many freedoms you can have when you choose a way of life............whats next? bestiality? woman marries her horse? What about pedo's I suppose they have been a part of human culture for eons why aren't they allowed to have fun too?
you can't have your chocolate fudge and eat it!
What you want is at the expense of others right to respectably in human culture.
And this what comes after the right to marriage....thats why it's not going to happen!

Homosexuality has never been linked to a specific gene. The best guess most researchers have is that it's caused by hormones while the child is in the womb. The precise mechanism and cause behind it this isn't understood at present.

Your ill-informed and purely anecdotal post makes extraordinarily little sense.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
What I also mean by it is this- o'kay, there is a percentile of people with a genetic gayness, and then there is your psychological homasectual.
Now do we want to breed up large numbers of people with the gay gene?
What I have noticed personally is the children of families with an extremely masculine father and feminine mother tend to drop "gay" litters.
I knew a young fella 23y.o who's mother is a lesbo, he is a total mess as he has no normality to his family life, he has had a suicide attempt and suffers chronic depression.
Again a minority thats full of ideas, but what happens when it falls apart; you claim it won't. Tends to be the leso's that want to be a mother, but with no father around- tell me if they are using donor sperm or gifted sperm....what kind of seed are they really getting? I know 90% of men wouldn't "give" their seed away, it's only the ethically bankrupt that would and what does it say about their genes?
I am all for a healthy human gene pool, as this will be the long term way to a peaceful world with less diseases.
If you want the homo rainbow it all good, but its not a sustainable way to progress as a society genetically, this will come to light more as science unlocks mental health and dna problems- I am not into the sub-human treatment of homasectuals, but there are ethical lines to just how many freedoms you can have when you choose a way of life............whats next? bestiality? woman marries her horse? What about pedo's I suppose they have been a part of human culture for eons why aren't they allowed to have fun too?
you can't have your chocolate fudge and eat it!
What you want is at the expense of others right to respectably in human culture.
And this what comes after the right to marriage....thats why it's not going to happen!

Until you can form a thought in a complete readable sentence, there is no point in reading the useless crap you are posting.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
What I also mean by it is this- o'kay, there is a percentile of people with a genetic gayness, and then there is your psychological homasectual.
Now do we want to breed up large numbers of people with the gay gene?

Before you form such poor conclusions you need to learn more about genetics, you have a very bad grasp on the subject.
Homosexuality appears to be genetic, but not hereditary.
That means we no reason to think that a parent can pass it on to their children.
That pretty much invalidates your entire argument.

But the rest of your 1920 era understanding of pop-genetics is just as bad.
Genetics do not determine everything about us, when talking about behavior genetics mostly give us attributes that might or might not be expressed. Those attributes can be expressed in many ways. The genetic makeup that makes one person a pedophile might be the exact same makeup that creates a wonderful preschool teacher, the makeup was to like children, how it was expressed (healthy desire to help children learn vs perverted sexual desire) was due to diffrent environments. So a campaign to wipe out all 'pedophile' genetics might also wipe out all those that would have a desire to teach.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

So you suggest that nature intended animals to have sexual relations with the same sex? Not true. It may happen but that is not how they were designed. It is natural for two animals of the same sex to have a relationship(friendship). But "sexual" between the same sex is not. I don't know even know how you can argue that its normal/natural.

Nature has no intentions. You can't argue about what a hurricane intended.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: justly
Equal treatment (under the law) can be achieved without the word marrage, but equal

Yes it can, just as soon as you are willing to give up the word marriage for your civil union.

treatment (respect/courtesy) and acceptance by the general population can't be expected without mutual respect. So if gays want their relationship to have real meaning outside of their own home they must first understand that respect and acceptance are earned.

They are going to earn your respect by continuing to not do what they haven't done since this country was founded? That is your answer? If that was going to work I think it would have done so a hundred years ago.

By trying to force gay marriage on a significant portion of the population that understands or intreprets marrage to be a religious ceremony between a man and a woman is not respectfull of their views, and those people will return the favor, by providing opposition.

How about we fix this all right now, and outlaw marriage altogether?
If marriage is a religious ceremony it is not allowed to be supported by law.
We can all have civil unions, and churches can marry anyone they so chose with what ever definition they chose to do it with.

 

[gingermeggs]

See what happens to the gay marriage idea.
Rosebud'

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

Cannibalism is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

Cannibalism is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

The wearing of pants is never observed in nature, either in the wild or captivity, and is therefore unnatural and reprehensible.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: justly
By trying to force gay marriage on a significant portion of the population that understands or intreprets marrage to be a religious ceremony between a man and a woman is not respectfull of their views, and those people will return the favor, by providing opposition.

There are two problems here. First is that in the eyes of the law, marriage is not a religious ceremony. If marriage were just a religious ceremony (one that gays have no right trying to alter), then it would unconstitutional for the government to legislate its details, including restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman.

Second, the "significant portion of the population" argument is nonsensical. The weight of being in a majority doesn't grant the right to trample fundamental rights of a minority.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

So you suggest that nature intended animals to have sexual relations with the same sex? Not true.

Nature doesn't "intend" anything, moron. Nature simply is, and from the facts that are you cannot derive an ought.

It may happen but that is not how they were designed.

Oh? You've seen the blueprints, have you, jackass?

It is natural for two animals of the same sex to have a relationship(friendship). But "sexual" between the same sex is not.

What happens in nature is natural, by definition. God damn if fucking HATE ignorance.

I don't know even know how you can argue that its normal/natural.

Maybe because it happens all the fucking time? Jesus Christ pull your head outta your ass.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

So you suggest that nature intended animals to have sexual relations with the same sex? Not true.

Nature doesn't "intend" anything, moron. Nature simply is, and from the facts that are you cannot derive an ought.

It may happen but that is not how they were designed.

Oh? You've seen the blueprints, have you, jackass?

It is natural for two animals of the same sex to have a relationship(friendship). But "sexual" between the same sex is not.

What happens in nature is natural, by definition. God damn if fucking HATE ignorance.

I don't know even know how you can argue that its normal/natural.

Maybe because it happens all the fucking time? Jesus Christ pull your head outta your ass.

Just for Dyna's sake, the definition of natural is "present in or produced by nature". If homosexuality occurs in nature, and it does, it is natural. Period.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

Cannibalism is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

So fucking what? Nobody with any sense is arguing that people ought or ought not be homosexual. We're simply pointing out that people, among myriad other species, are homosexual, even when left to their natural devices. It you retards that try to argue form some ridiculous naturalistic fallacy that somehow homosexuality is wrong.

Fuck. Nothing pisses me off more than ignorant bigotry.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
What I also mean by it is this- o'kay, there is a percentile of people with a genetic gayness, and then there is your psychological homasectual.
Now do we want to breed up large numbers of people with the gay gene?
What I have noticed personally is the children of families with an extremely masculine father and feminine mother tend to drop "gay" litters.
I knew a young fella 23y.o who's mother is a lesbo, he is a total mess as he has no normality to his family life, he has had a suicide attempt and suffers chronic depression.
Again a minority thats full of ideas, but what happens when it falls apart; you claim it won't. Tends to be the leso's that want to be a mother, but with no father around- tell me if they are using donor sperm or gifted sperm....what kind of seed are they really getting? I know 90% of men wouldn't "give" their seed away, it's only the ethically bankrupt that would and what does it say about their genes?
I am all for a healthy human gene pool, as this will be the long term way to a peaceful world with less diseases.
If you want the homo rainbow it all good, but its not a sustainable way to progress as a society genetically, this will come to light more as science unlocks mental health and dna problems- I am not into the sub-human treatment of homasectuals, but there are ethical lines to just how many freedoms you can have when you choose a way of life............whats next? bestiality? woman marries her horse? What about pedo's I suppose they have been a part of human culture for eons why aren't they allowed to have fun too?
you can't have your chocolate fudge and eat it!
What you want is at the expense of others right to respectably in human culture.
And this what comes after the right to marriage....thats why it's not going to happen!

I've never said this before to any poster, on any forum, ever, but in all seriousness: Stop posting. At no point in your blathering, ignorant ramble did you say anything which even approximated reality, and I feel robbed of the time that I spent reading it. Your post is a literal waste of bandwith, and I regret the loss of energy consumed to reproduce and maintain it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

Cannibalism is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

You, in your ignorance, have stumbled across an issue I'll address - the definition of 'natural'.

I'm going to point out two definitions of the word, and say that you have mistakenly chosen one when the other is the relevant one.

The relevant one is natural as in the 'nature vs. nurture' debate; in other words, the one that differentiates between 'you feel sexual attractions naturally' with 'you believe that honesty is the best policy' that comes from experience, and is not something you are born to believe.

The one you picked is 'it's natural if it occurs in the universe', by which standard all sexual and other behavior is natural; the Empire State Building is as natural as a beach.

What's 'unnatural' there is, say, 2+2=5, or gravity not existing.

We do need to clarify for discussing gay marriage that only the first definition would have any relevance to the discussion.

Having said that, I don't think 'natural' is the issue, anyway. It's helpful for one purpose: for debunking those who oppose homosexuals because they think that it's people just like them who choose 'perversion', just as they condemn people like them who coose to, say, commit burglary. "It's wrong to choose that". These people have an utter lack of understanding of homosexuality and think it's just some choice.

Insofar as it's useful for them to not misunderstand homosexuality, it's helpful to point out their error. But 'natural' has limited usefulness. While homosexuality is generally 'natural', what if it wasn't? Since when do the wide range of heterosexual sexual practices fall under judgement to tell straight couples whether or not they can get married - if you like to watch porn, no marriage for you! If you like oral sex, no marriage for you! If you are a swinger, if you choose abstinence, if you like maid outfits, no marriage for you!

It it weren't 'natural', it woudl raise the issue of whether it was 'real' marriage in terms of a loving couple the same way as a man and woman; but I'd ask, is every couple with a CEO husband that marries a 'trophy wife' based on the same values, and since when does the government scrutinize those relationships for approval? The only reason to treat gay marriage differently is the bigotry that exists against gays, and that's not a reason.

Ths whole 'natural' issue is harmful in implying that gay rights rest on the 'naturalness' of homosexuality, when they don't - even while it's worth correcting the false beliefs.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I find these kinds of threads interesting, the pro-gay-marriage crowd is just as rabidly irrational as the anti-gay-marriage folks, but they fail to see it. Anyone who opposes their viewpoint must be bigoted, a homophobe, hateful, stupid, uneducated etc etc etc. I'm none of those, and yet very much support a ban on gay marriages, including donating money to make sure the Ohio version of the DOMA act was set in the constitution so no activist judge could throw it out on a whim. Unfortunately a legitimate discussion on the legitimate questions posed by Rainsford is very unlikely because of the irrational folks on both sides.

Fair enough. What is your rational basis for opposing gay marriage?

Rainsford's question boils down to "what makes this such a visceral issue to a large number of people that they are more willing to spend time, resources, energy etc fighting for their position than they are for other (more important) things?".

To me it comes down to an assault on my freedoms, and I take that very seriously. To me the modern concept of "marriage" is really a mix of two things: a legal status of two (or more?) individuals. Society has a vested interest in establishing boundaries as to what constitutes a marriage and what does not. Legalizing gay marriage essentially forces legitimacy onto a behavior that many do not agree with, and inevitably leads to absurd situations like eharmony being forced to provide matching services to gays even though it goes against their principles and goes beyond their area of expertise. Government enforced political correctness would simply extend it's reach even further. It would not be long before churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, doctors would be forced to provide IVF services to "married" gay couples against their religious convictions, etc etc etc. I'm sure the list of such absurdities would be endless.

I edited out the part of your post that has absolutely nothing to do with the legal status of gay marriage. Incest? wtf? Are you capable of critical thinking? What does incest have to do with gay marriage??

Gay marriage did not lead to eharmony being forced to provide matching services.

And, you exhibit extreme lack of critical thinking if you think the government can EVER force a church to marry gay couples.

Oh, and you claim you're not bigoted, but what you've written contradicts that. You are bigoted, you just apparently don't know what that word means.


"To me it comes down to an assault on my freedoms"
What freedom of yours is being assaulted? Do you even understand the definition of the term? What is there that you'll no longer be able to do if gay marriage is allowed?
"I should not be forced to accept their life choices as a legitimate marriage"
And, you think that being gay is a "life choice"??

+++

"Legalizing gay marriage essentially forces legitimacy onto a behavior that many do not agree with"

Since most bigots are blind to their bigotry, allow me to open your eyes, using most of your own words: couldn't that just as easily read "legalizing marriage between a black man and a white woman forces legitimacy onto a behavior that many do not agree with." There's absolutely no argument that this revised statement is bigoted and racist. Why do you think your statement isn't?

 

[David Victorious]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It's because they don't value their own marriages.

I mean, what on earth could make them think that their own marriages would be devalued if homosexuals got married?

Of course, it's not that, they simply want to institute their religion into the law, and they are successful, mostly because the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, right?

If I move a broken down trailer next door to your beautiful new home, would you consider it devalued?

People that want to join thir sexual organs in a way they weren't designed for, is just another sin. We Christians have to pick our battles. This one we can live with while we take care of more pressing issues, like abortion.

Don't ask the government to devalue marriage by allowing any old union to be classified as a marriage.

Be happy with the civil union title.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: David Victorious

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It's because they don't value their own marriages.

I mean, what on earth could make them think that their own marriages would be devalued if homosexuals got married?

Of course, it's not that, they simply want to institute their religion into the law, and they are successful, mostly because the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, right?

If I move a broken down trailer next door to your beautiful new home, would you consider it devalued?

People that want to join thir sexual organs in a way they weren't designed for, is just another sin. We Christians have to pick our battles. This one we can live with while we take care of more pressing issues, like abortion.

Don't ask the government to devalue marriage by allowing any old union to be classified as a marriage.

Be happy with the civil union title.

The divorce rate in the US paints a pretty clear picture of how valuable and sacred most Americans consider marriage. There is no logical argument that allowing gays to marriage could possibly further damage the institution considering what straight people already do to it on a regular basis.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: David Victorious

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It's because they don't value their own marriages.

I mean, what on earth could make them think that their own marriages would be devalued if homosexuals got married?

Of course, it's not that, they simply want to institute their religion into the law, and they are successful, mostly because the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, right?

If I move a broken down trailer next door to your beautiful new home, would you consider it devalued?

What relevace do property values have to fundamental rights?

People that want to join thir sexual organs in a way they weren't designed for, is just another sin.

There is no such design, there is no Designer, and in any case such religious beliefs are not constitutional premises for laws.

We Christians have to pick our battles.

No, you need to simply STFU and keep your religion to yoursef.

This one we can live with while we take care of more pressing issues, like abortion.

Ain't nothing gonna change about the legality of abortion either.

Don't ask the government to devalue marriage by allowing any old union to be classified as a marriage.

Fuck you. My freedom of religion grants me the right to start a church and call the unions i perform there marriages all I want.

Be happy with the civil union title.

Be happy nobody's trying to take away your rights you ingrateful hypocrite.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: David Victorious

If I move a broken down trailer next door to your beautiful new home, would you consider it devalued?

No, I would consider our beautiful new home to greatly increase the value of the broken down trailer you are currently calling marriage.

We Christians have to pick our battles. This one we can live with while we take care of more pressing issues, like abortion.

Here is the truth at last. This is not about your strange hang up on sex, but about your greater agenda to turn America into a christian theocracy.
You have forgotten your history. America was formed to enable religious freedom.

Don't ask the government to devalue marriage by allowing any old union to be classified as
a marriage.

I would prefer that the government devalue marriage by not allowing any union be classified as a marriage. I would rid us of as much religious bigotry as possible.

Be happy with the civil union title.

I will be, will you be happy with your civil union title?

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
The wearing of pants is never observed in nature, either in the wild or captivity, and is therefore unnatural and reprehensible.

FINALLY! Something I can fully agree with around here.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

Cannibalism is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

You, in your ignorance, have stumbled across an issue I'll address - the definition of 'natural'.

I'm going to point out two definitions of the word, and say that you have mistakenly chosen one when the other is the relevant one.

The relevant one is natural as in the 'nature vs. nurture' debate; in other words, the one that differentiates between 'you feel sexual attractions naturally' with 'you believe that honesty is the best policy' that comes from experience, and is not something you are born to believe.

The one you picked is 'it's natural if it occurs in the universe', by which standard all sexual and other behavior is normal; the Empie State Building is as natural as a beach.

What's 'unnatural' there is, say, 2+2=5, or gravity not existing.

Stop being an ignorant bigot and allow me my rights of cannibalism! Damn it, I've been persecuted for my natural feelings for far too long! :|

I just have to laugh at your utter failure at reading comprehension. :laugh::laugh::laugh: All I said is cannibalism is as natural as homosexuality as is also heterosexuality.

If you want a lecture, morality is about recognizing what is natural and at the same time making a distinction between what is "right" or "proper" for the benefit of a society. I've said nothing for or against homosexuality in this post or the last - only that because something is natural, doesn't not guarantee it is moral. Make your own decision on whether homosexuality is moral or not, I don't give a fuck.

But when you call me ignorant, I will reply.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: dyna
Its simple, its a morality issue. Its been considered for a long long time that homosexuality is immoral.

There is a psychological factor in the fact that two people of the same sex want this type of relationship. It is against the normal course of nature.

That is false. Homosexuality is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

Cannibalism is observed in nature, both in the wild and captivity.

It is perfectly natural.

You, in your ignorance, have stumbled across an issue I'll address - the definition of 'natural'.

I'm going to point out two definitions of the word, and say that you have mistakenly chosen one when the other is the relevant one.

The relevant one is natural as in the 'nature vs. nurture' debate; in other words, the one that differentiates between 'you feel sexual attractions naturally' with 'you believe that honesty is the best policy' that comes from experience, and is not something you are born to believe.

The one you picked is 'it's natural if it occurs in the universe', by which standard all sexual and other behavior is normal; the Empie State Building is as natural as a beach.

What's 'unnatural' there is, say, 2+2=5, or gravity not existing.

Stop being an ignorant bigot and allow me my rights of cannibalism! Damn it, I've been persecuted for my natural feelings for far too long! :|

I just have to laugh at your utter failure at reading comprehension. :laugh::laugh::laugh: All I said is cannibalism is as natural as homosexuality as is also heterosexuality.

If you want a lecture, you ignorant POS, morality is about recognizing what is natural and at the same time making a distinction between what is "right" or "proper" for the benefit of a society. I've said nothing for or against homosexuality in this post or the last - only that because something is natural, doesn't not guarantee it is moral. Make your own decision on whether homosexuality is moral or not, I don't give a fuck.

But when you call me ignorant, I will reply.

Who the fuck is talking about morality? We're talking about legality. Try to keep up.