I'm ignorant? Humans are the only species that engages in strictly homosexual behavior.
If you're referring to animals that engage in bi-sexual behavior that is something different.
I explicitly mentioned STRICTLY HOMOSEXUAL behavior, because there isn't a single animal in the wild that engages in that because if they existed they would quickly go extinct because animals with the same gender cannot create offspring.
Which means that the behavior isn't natural. You can argue it all you want, but you won't find a single animal that does that.
If gay dudes are fully functional and self sufficient, I don't have a particular problem with what they do behind the closed doors of their own home that they pay for.
I do have a problem with seeing it positively reinforced in any sort of mass media.
We get it already, gays exist. Nobody is going to burn gays at the stake for their lifestyle choice. They can keep it to themselves.
You won't find a single animal who cleans its teeth with toothpaste either, or uses cutlery to eat with or toilet paper to wipe its bum .. On the basis of your argument you wouldn't be using the internet or driving a car or accessing medical treatment because animals in the wild don't do that?
Gays may not be burnt at the stake these days but they are still killed, ostracised, discriminated against and victimised for their sexuality. When straights keep their sexuality to themselves I'll agree that gay people should do the same.
Oh why am I expecting a homophobe to be logical .. will I never learn?
Why can't I have an opinion Ellena? Because you disagree with it, and because you have a liberal outlook on lifestyle choices in general, you suddenly have the high ground to label me with what you consider a negative term like "homophobe".
Everything you mentioned regarding human civilization has nothing to do with a discussion on homosexuality. Should someone who chooses to do those things that you mentioned be subjected to scorn by others who don't? Sure, they may actually be. Doesn't mean those same people have a logical viewpoint. Doesn't make the scorn any more sensible.
Did I say you can't have an opinion? Just as I have, but I still reckon you're homophobic, otherwise why would you care how much coverage gay people and gay issues get?
I will explain (Oh again why am I bothering?)*: your argument is that homosexuality is not "natural" because no animal species is 100% homosexual. OK, firstly, very few homosexuals are 100% homosexual, ditto heterosexuals. Secondly, if it happens in nature then it's natural. Thirdly, I used deliberately silly analogies to show that humans do a lot of things which aren't "natural" but which are beneficial or at least neutral, so what is the problem here? Except in your head, of course.
* because some undecided people may be reading this: I don't expect to convince someone with a mind as closed and irrational as yours
So because only some engage in activity that is proven to spread disease. You condone the act because it's still mostly bi-sexual? A reasonable person could say, "that activity spreads disease and isnt beneficial to society, therefore it's probably not good".
Bisexuality wasn't the topic. The spread of gay media is. Being gay has no natural benefit, it's neutral at best.
All the human activities you mentioned are what a reasonable person could consider beneficial.
dumb fuck gorillas have committed homosexual acts chimpanzee's dogs wolves all animals can just as easily have gay sex. More easily in fact ignorance is bliss
So when are we going to be over gay people?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'm ignorant? Humans are the only species that engages in strictly homosexual behavior.
If you're referring to animals that engage in bi-sexual behavior that is something different.
I explicitly mentioned STRICTLY HOMOSEXUAL behavior, because there isn't a single animal in the wild that engages in that because if they existed they would quickly go extinct because animals with the same gender cannot create offspring.
Who's ignorant again?
--
GreyWulfen
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
JojoThomas
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So what if only humans would engage in it? What would be the issue with that? Humans are also the only animals to argue over the internet.
--
8=====D~~~~~
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Which means that the behavior isn't natural. You can argue it all you want, but you won't find a single animal that does that.
If gay dudes are fully functional and self sufficient, I don't have a particular problem with what they do behind the closed doors of their own home that they pay for.
I do have a problem with seeing it positively reinforced in any sort of mass media.
We get it already, gays exist. Nobody is going to burn gays at the stake for their lifestyle choice. They can keep it to themselves.
--
Ellenna
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
You won't find a single animal who cleans its teeth with toothpaste either, or uses cutlery to eat with or toilet paper to wipe its bum .. On the basis of your argument you wouldn't be using the internet or driving a car or accessing medical treatment because animals in the wild don't do that?
Gays may not be burnt at the stake these days but they are still killed, ostracised, discriminated against and victimised for their sexuality. When straights keep their sexuality to themselves I'll agree that gay people should do the same.
Oh why am I expecting a homophobe to be logical .. will I never learn?
--
8=====D~~~~~
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Why can't I have an opinion Ellena? Because you disagree with it, and because you have a liberal outlook on lifestyle choices in general, you suddenly have the high ground to label me with what you consider a negative term like "homophobe".
Everything you mentioned regarding human civilization has nothing to do with a discussion on homosexuality. Should someone who chooses to do those things that you mentioned be subjected to scorn by others who don't? Sure, they may actually be. Doesn't mean those same people have a logical viewpoint. Doesn't make the scorn any more sensible.
--
Ellenna
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Did I say you can't have an opinion? Just as I have, but I still reckon you're homophobic, otherwise why would you care how much coverage gay people and gay issues get?
I will explain (Oh again why am I bothering?)*: your argument is that homosexuality is not "natural" because no animal species is 100% homosexual. OK, firstly, very few homosexuals are 100% homosexual, ditto heterosexuals. Secondly, if it happens in nature then it's natural. Thirdly, I used deliberately silly analogies to show that humans do a lot of things which aren't "natural" but which are beneficial or at least neutral, so what is the problem here? Except in your head, of course.
* because some undecided people may be reading this: I don't expect to convince someone with a mind as closed and irrational as yours
--
8=====D~~~~~
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
So because only some engage in activity that is proven to spread disease. You condone the act because it's still mostly bi-sexual? A reasonable person could say, "that activity spreads disease and isnt beneficial to society, therefore it's probably not good".
Bisexuality wasn't the topic. The spread of gay media is. Being gay has no natural benefit, it's neutral at best.
All the human activities you mentioned are what a reasonable person could consider beneficial.
dumb fuck gorillas have committed homosexual acts chimpanzee's dogs wolves all animals can just as easily have gay sex. More easily in fact ignorance is bliss
--
8=====D~~~~~
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your reading comprehension absolutely sucks. I'm not going back to tell you where you are wrong.