So Michael Sam Is Gay, Who Cares? Can He Rush The QB?

[PP2]

I answered your question twice. Once by laying out an example and the other directly. If you can't form a logical rebuttal to the explanation, then that's one thing. But I did answer your question...

I completely fail to understand the relationship between a grieving mother and a gay person thinking about what is "natural" and "unnatural." One is hysterical and overcome by emotion, and dealing with a traumatic loss, I doubt the other is.

I am right because I'm more capable of critical thinking on whether or not their lifestyle is unnatural than they are since it's more of a personal matter for them.

You are assuming that gay people are not as capable as you are of engaging in critical thinking.

Example: anything pertaining to the Patriots is much more of a personal matter to you than anything pertaining to the Titans. This does not mean any Titan fan is more right than you are about the Patriots just because anything Patriots isn't a personal matter to Titan fans.

Also, following your allegory, Jim Crow is therefore capable of critical thinking and thereby of sound judgment when he assigned segregation to black people, because being black is not a "personal matter" to him as it is to them, in that race/racism is a very sensitive and emotional issue to them, as it is to you.

And since race is not a personal matter to me, by your definition, that makes me more right than you are when it comes to race issues since "I'm more capable of critical thinking."

 

[PP2]

Nature has not intended for us to fly.

Does that make us any less human then? No.

From the point of view of birds, they must think us "unnatural" since we can't fly?

 

[Uncle Meat]

Thanks for the useless and passive aggressive reply. If you think so, attack the logic. Since the point I was making was in regard to a gay person's ability to think critically on whether or not their lifestyle is unnatural, I see the analogy as an apt one. A grieving mother is fundamentally incapable of thinking critically about whether or not a driver that killed her child purely by accident deserves to die themselves. It's a personal matter for them and critical thinking at that point in time would go completely out the window.

Not being passive aggressive. Just saying the analogy is stupid.

You are just stereotyping everybody in it in cartoonish ways.

First of all, you hear all the time about people struggling with their homosexuality, feeling that there is something wrong with them...that could go on for years. They won't come out of the closet or even admit it to themselves right away usually, or so I imagine. Lots of people hide it, deny it, and even hate themselves for it. Some commit suicide. They fear the reaction from their friends, family, and society in general. That's not uncommon. All that time, they are thinking about it more critically than any straight person ever could, especially if they don't WANT to be gay 'cuz *******s won't like them anymore if they are.

Are you saying that they are not capable of rational thought? Of course they consider whether their "lifestyle" is unnatural. That message has been broadcast to them for years all over the place, and that's why this very thread is happening. I'm positive that tons of gay people struggled with the question of whether or not being gay is unnatural before they can even admit that they are gay in the first place. Then they further ponder the issue before telling their mom and dad. There is a stigma placed on it.

A traumatized mother is completely different. Not all of them will be irrationally out for blood because of an accident. Maybe a lot of them will for a little bit before they could calm down and understand what happened, but the initial reaction would based on pure emotion of a sudden tragic event. She is in intense crisis. She would reflect on it later, and maybe still hate the person that killed her child...hopefully not. I doubt that she'd invite that person over for Thanksgiving dinner, though.

But the analogy is stupid, and I can't believe I'm actually talking about it. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

All gay people aren't in denial, if that's what you are trying to get at. Just about every one of them thought critically long and hard about whether being gay is natural. If they came to a different conclusion than you did doesn't mean that they didn't think critically about it.

 

[Boogs]

Does that make us any less human then? No.

From the point of view of birds, they must think us "unnatural" since we can't fly?

You are making things up that people never said. Nobody said gays aren't human or are less human.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No offense, but this is weak. Unless there's some sort of malfunction of your reproductive organs, you could procreate if you chose to. Now you're arguing on choice when homosexuality is not a choice.

Homosexuals could procreate if they chose to have unprotected sex with members of the opposite sex. But they don't do that. Instead, they engage in different sexual behaviors that more or less preclude reproduction.

Similarly, I could procreate if I chose to have unprotected sex with members of the opposite sex. But I don't do that. Instead, I engage in different sexual behaviors (protected sex) that more or less preclude reproduction.

So what's the difference? If you're using reproduction as the benchmark, then they're no more unnatural than I am.

And again, if someone has a genetic mutation that renders them unable to reproduce, does that make them unnatural? Most XXY women cannot bear children, but some can. Is your position that the ones that can't bear children are unnatural, while the ones that can bear children are natural?

Because if your position is that homosexuality is unnatural in the same way that protected sex is unnatural and some (but not all) XXY mutations are unnatural, then I'll agree while also pointing out that the term has been rendered completely meaningless.

1. Artifacts, for example, exist in nature but are not natural.

So I guess you're switching to the "not man-made" definition of natural. Well, homosexuality isn't man-made either. Homosexuality exists in lots of other species.

2. Animals such as bears, whales, tigers, and lions have no natural enemies or predators. Yet bears, lions, and tigers are frequently killed by humans and whales by sharks. Because this exists in nature does not mean it's natural.

Homosexuality is another aspect of that since, based on genetic makeup alone, men being attracted women is natural while men being attracted to other men and vice versa is not.

Now you're saying that homosexuality is unnatural because it's unnatural. I think we can dismiss that argument without thinking any further on it.

No, they're not. Without even touching on what a history of slavery to their ancestors has done to their genetic makeup, athletes train to get that way. Being able to run a fast 40 yard dash and lift more weight than most of their peers isn't unnatural, but a product of conditioning.

So the difference between you and Bo Jackson is purely one of conditioning? That's an interesting position.

 

[Boogs]

Homosexuals could procreate if they chose to have unprotected sex with members of the opposite sex. But they don't do that. Instead, they engage in different sexual behaviors that more or less preclude reproduction.

Similarly, I could procreate if I chose to have unprotected sex with members of the opposite sex. But I don't do that. Instead, I engage in different sexual behaviors (protected sex) that more or less preclude reproduction.

So what's the difference? If you're using reproduction as the benchmark, then they're no more unnatural than I am.

And again, if someone has a genetic mutation that renders them unable to reproduce, does that make them unnatural? Most XXY women cannot bear children, but some can. Is your position that the ones that can't bear children are unnatural, while the ones that can bear children are natural?



So I guess you're switching to the "not man-made" definition of natural. Well, homosexuality isn't man-made either. Homosexuality exists in tons of other species.

2. Animals such as bears, whales, tigers, and lions have no natural enemies or predators. Yet bears, lions, and tigers are frequently killed by humans and whales by sharks. Because this exists in nature does not mean it's natural.



Now you're saying that homosexuality is unnatural because it's unnatural. I think we can dismiss that argument without thinking any further on it.



So the difference between you and Bo Jackson is purely one of conditioning? That's an interesting position.

The difference is the unnatural attraction and acting on it. It's a fundamental problem in a person's psychology when the opposite sex does not turn you on, yet your same sex does turn you on.

 

[condon84]

You are making things up that people never said. Nobody said gays aren't human or are less human.

It's pretty clear he has nothing solid to stand on in this debate.

 

[condon84]

Yes we can. Through science buddy, we can create test tube babies, they don't need actual woman, they just go to a lab with frozen embryos and their sperm and we're all good.

You lose

LOL. Including science in this argument proves that it is not how nature intended.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The difference is the unnatural attraction and acting on it. It's a fundamental problem in a person's psychology when the opposite sex does not turn you on, yet your same sex does turn you on.

So that must mean that my desire to actively avoid reproducing through protected sex is also unnatural and 'a fundamental problem in my psychology'.

If you define unnatural as "sexual behavior which precludes reproduction", then what you're actually saying is that nearly all sexually active Americans are deviants. I'm totally fine with that conclusion, because again, it illustrates how completely meaningless this distinction really is.

 

[Boogs]

Bradyftw, You don't even listen to what I said. Your attraction to a woman is natural. Whether or not you are aiming to reproduce. That attraction is what nature intended, which could result in reproduction. In addition, the male and female bodies were made and built for each other sexually.

 

[PP2]

You are making things up that people never said. Nobody said gays aren't human or are less human.

You have said many times that what they do is "unnatural" and that their behavior is "unchristian."

If that isn't demeaning or dehumanizing, I don't know what is.

 

[PP2]

The difference is the unnatural attraction and acting on it. It's a fundamental problem in a person's psychology when the opposite sex does not turn you on, yet your same sex does turn you on.

Who are you to decide what is "natural" and what is "unnatural"?

Speaking of which, don't you think your bigotry is unnatural and much more of a fundamental problem than anyone's sexual orientation is?

 

[Boogs]

You have said many times that what they do is "unnatural" and that their behavior is "unchristian."

If that isn't demeaning or dehumanizing, I don't know what is.

Nope. Those things mean something totally different. Unnatural does not mean unhuman. When humans do unnatural things.

 

[Boogs]

Who are you to decide what is "natural" and what is "unnatural"?

Speaking of which, don't you think your bigotry is unnatural and much more of a fundamental problem than anyone's sexual orientation is?

I didn't decide. It just is.

 

[PP2]

Bradyftw, You don't even listen to what I said. Your attraction to a woman is natural. Whether or not you are aiming to reproduce. That attraction is what nature intended, which could result in reproduction.

You are presumably attracted to fancy cars, or to big HDTV's, or other consumer goods.

Is that what nature also intended?

 

[Ring 6]

The difference is the unnatural attraction and acting on it. It's a fundamental problem in a person's psychology when the opposite sex does not turn you on, yet your same sex does turn you on.

Why?
That is who they are. Your version of attraction is not any better than theirs.
That is like saying anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs has a fundamental psychological problem. Do you believe that?

 

[PP2]

Nope. Those things mean something totally different. Unnatural does not mean unhuman. When humans do unnatural things.

Your criteria for what is unnatural and what is natural is subjective.

For example, you do not think eating with your left hand is unnatural.

However, in India and in most of Asia, eating with your left hand is very unnatural, as the left hand is reserved for sanitary functions.

Which one of you is right?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Bradyftw, You don't even listen to what I said. Your attraction to a woman is natural. Whether or not you are aiming to reproduce. That attraction is what nature intended, which could result in reproduction. In addition, the male and female bodies were made and built for each other sexually.

So it seems like we're now playing the "natural = evolutionarily advantageous impulse" game, in which case I've got a whole bunch of questions for you.

Do you think that monogamy is natural? Or do you think that a man having many wives, so as to maximize his number of offspring, is natural?

 

[Ring 6]

Nope. Those things mean something totally different. Unnatural does not mean unhuman. When humans do unnatural things.

You just said that gay people are attracted to the same sex. You are attracted to the opposite sex.
Therefore gay sex is natural to gay people because it is the attraction they were born with, just as straight sex is natural to you.

By the way, if we are condemning gay sex as unnatural because it cannot result in reproduction are you saying that oral sex between a man and a woman is unnatural? How about a man having sex with a woman after menopause?

 

[PP2]

I didn't decide. It just is.

You are confusing "I' with "it."

That is the definition of bigotry.