Just because heterosexual relations are required for species propagation does not make homosexual relations devient.

They are mutaully exclusive. As I already said, males in other mammal species often practice on each other before joining the mating game. Also, esp in pack type societies, sexual behaviors are practiced on both male and female members by both male and female members to enforce social order and dominance. This is important because in this structure, only the Alpha male are female are allowed to breed. All other sexual activity is play or social manuvering.

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window. </font>[/QUOTE]Not naturally(unaided by scientific apparatus)! And you still need both the egg and sperm from a female and a male respectively. Weak arguement. </font>[/QUOTE]Not weak, you said that scientifically heterosexuality is way its supposed to be done naturally and implied that scientifically sex is the only way to procreate. I demonstrated factual this is incorrect and not based in science.

Besides, how can argue something scientifically on one point, and then remove the apparatuses of science on rebuttal to the same point? You want to have the cake and eat it too.

In Nature, some organisms dont need sex to procreate. Naturally and unaided by science many animals practice homosexual behavior. So if you are looking to nature to back up your stance against homosexuality I think you will find more to debunk your argument than you could ever find to support it. </font>[/QUOTE]That is NOT homosexual behavior. That is Asexual or Bisexual(hermaphroditic) behavior and is perfectly within the realm of the natural order of things for those creatures. We are not Asexual or Bisexual animals.

Marriage was not founded on the the prinicples of a male/female monagomous relationship designed to raise a family.Marriage means different things to different cultures and is different through out the ages of history.

Simply put- the ideals of marriage have changed alot through the ages, so if anything, trying to fight this current change is inconsistent with the history of the "institution" of marriage.

[quote]Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:

Quote:

That is NOT homosexual behavior. That is Asexual or Bisexual(hermaphroditic) behavior and is perfectly within the realm of the natural order of things for those creatures. We are not Asexual or Bisexual animals.

Its natural behavior, just homosexual behavior is natural because it occurs in nature, both human and animal.

I know a hermaphrodite human, born that way, who would disagree with you by lifting up shis skirt.

Well, then they wouldn't be strictly female, would they? They would be a bisexual organism or hermaphroditic. They would not be homosexual at all and following their natural biological order. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No, that's not the hypo. Hypo is some lesbian couple. Lady licks lady, completely intending it to be like every other lady-licking-lady event in history. Licked lady begets lad, much to the surprise of licking lady. Perhaps it's some hermaproditic thingy, perhaps we can hypo something else. Now that they have begat their own get, do we let these licking ladies get together in a marriage??

(Whether it's hermaphroditic mutation or not does not matter to the licking ladies, who are quite oblivious, and simply consider themselves gay. They are not intending [thinking] anything you consider "natural," and are acutely aware of the "devient" nature of their licking.]

[ 08-08-2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Yes it does. That's my point and belief.

Lower animals don't marry, and we as humans should know better.
Animals don't have the cognitive ability. They have to learn from mistakes. I don't know of any animal that practices homosexual behavior for life and avoids mating with females.

Shis. [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] Sorry, I know it's a bad situation the person is in, but SHIS -- oh sh**, I think I just lost it. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Well, then they wouldn't be strictly female, would they? They would be a bisexual organism or hermaphroditic. They would not be homosexual at all and following their natural biological order. </font>[/QUOTE]No, that's not the hypo. Hypo is some lesbian couple. Lady licks lady, completely intending it to be like every other lady-licking-lady event in history. Licked lady begets lad, much to the surprise of licking lady. Perhaps it's some hermaproditic thingy, perhaps we can hypo something else. Now that they have begat their own get, do we let these licking ladies get together in a marriage??

(Whether it's hermaphroditic mutation or not does not matter to the licking ladies, who are quite oblivious, and simply consider themselves gay. They are not intending [thinking] anything you consider "natural," and are acutely aware of the "devient" nature of their licking.] [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]What you're speculating is impossible. To have male and female portions of the procreation process is Bisexual or hermaphroditic by definition. Once they can do that they are no longer homosexual and are excluded from all the restraints of this topic. I'm not sure what you mean with your hypothetical situation. If you mean would I allow them to marry once they became orally hermaphroditic then, yes I would. But they then would not be homosexual and marriage would STILL not apply to homosexuals.

<font color=deepskyblue>No, <font color=coral>Rokenn</font>, that isn't any better...because nobody has said this in any post in either thread. In fact, the Bible doesn't even say this. It does call homosexuality an <font color=white>"abomination"</font>, but it does not arbitrarily relegate all homosexuals to Hell.

I know you have a disdain for Christianity and the above statement seems a logical extension of statements made. Perhaps it would be IF <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> and myself had not both stated (more than once) than we "hate the sin but love the sinner". Specifically, I have pointed out more than once that I can "disagree" with homosexuality as a practice without being prejudiced against homosexuals. I have homosexual friends. I've had a friend tell me he finds me attractive and has always wanted to have a "date" with me. I told him I'm not interested in that, but he is still my friend and I still greet him with a hug when I see him because that's how I've always greeted him.

You've also asked repeatedly how homosexuality "harms" anybody? I realize this answer is an oversimplification, but the obvious response is the HIV virus and AIDS. From the time of it's emergence till present day, it occurs predominantly among those that practice homosexuality (either currently or at some point in the past). No, that's not the only way the disease is spread, but it is still the most common (TTBOMK anyway).</font>

Shis. [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] Sorry, I know it's a bad situation the person is in, but SHIS -- oh sh**, I think I just lost it. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Well, they do refer to themselves as a shim. Dont worry about the "bad" situation. A testimony of self-love (snicker- no pun intended though) and acceptance can be found in the way the person has embraced the way they were quite naturally born. S/he likes to say that God works in mysterious ways, and the s/he is just one of them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

A while back the discovery channel had a special on human hermaphrodites, very interesting what nature conjures up in the realm of humans.