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

[lurker1965]

You're right, it's been a long day.

What gives you the right to judge what is unnatural and what is natural? Just because there are more straight people does not make them any more "natural."

Sorry, got to call you out here. He calls it natural because of, drum roll please, nature.

Hey, you can argue with Charles Darwin. Sexual selection is natural and it occurs when a male and a female have sex.

And, no, I don't care if two guys want each other. More chicks for me then. As for two chicks wanting each other - that is fricken' hot. Unless they are real Lesbians.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You think so? A guy who is a pillar of moral rectitude like this?

If **** Cheney can come around, anyone can.

I think a huge part of the shift in attitude toward gay acceptance comes from people realizing that it's an issue that affects people who are close to them. It's easy to be anti-gay when it's an abstract concept that only affects people that you see in pride parades on TV (as far as you know). It's a lot harder to say that gay people shouldn't have equal rights and the ability to live their lives without shame when it turns out that you're talking about your son.

 

[PP2]

And, no, I don't care if two guys want each other. More chicks for me then. As for two chicks wanting each other - that is fricken' hot. Unless they are real Lesbians.

Funny that you think one act is natural but the other isn't. Two chicks wanting each other is appealing to you, but isn't that an unnatural act?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Sorry, got to call you out here. He calls it natural because of, drum roll please, nature.

Hey, you can argue with Charles Darwin. Sexual selection is natural and it occurs when a male and a female have sex.

And, no, I don't care if two guys want each other. More chicks for me then. As for two chicks wanting each other - that is fricken' hot. Unless they are real Lesbians.

No argument with Charles Darwin needed. Homosexuality occurs in nature, and in fact there's some evidence to suggest that it's a genetic means of population control.

The real fact of the matter is that there's no simple definition for "natural". Technically, anything that exists in nature is natural, in which case homosexuality is absolutely natural. I assume that that's not the definition you want to go with, though.

Seriously, though - not trying to disparage your point, I just think that this is something that everyone who uses the 'natural/unnatural' argument should consider. I've yet to hear a sensible definition for 'natural' that excludes homosexuality without excluding a ton of other things (like death) that we pretty much all agree are natural.

 

[PP2]

It depends how strongly his beliefs are. If he's a man of incredible stupidity, that might overcome even the fact that it is his son.

Fixed. No need to thank me.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Fixed. No need to thank me.

It is a weird form of integrity, or at least sincerity, if he continues to hold fast against accepting his son because of his anti-gay beliefs. In much the same way that someone who continued to believe that the world was flat even after circumnavigating it would be displaying incredible integrity in their (asinine, objectively wrong) belief.

 

[PP2]

You think so? A guy who is a pillar of moral rectitude like this?

Who knows? There's hope. He may wake up one day and realize what is important to him, and take his other son to Key West to lose his virginity.

 

[Joker]

welp....some people say my entire life has been one long unnatural act...guess I'm fooked ...more or less...if this thread is any indication.

 

[Sciz]

So... can he rush the QB?

 

[Kontradiction]

You're right, it's been a long day.

What gives you the right to judge what is unnatural and what is natural? Just because there are more straight people does not make them any more "natural."

Are you sure you want to pursue this? I've chosen my words very carefully here in a way where you would stand little to no chance of winning this debate. Take a breath, go back and read what I said, and ask yourself if you truly think it's natural for a man to want to sleep with another man and vice versa.

 

[PP2]

So... can he rush the QB?

He sure can rush threads to the subforums.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Are you sure you want to pursue this? I've chosen my words very carefully here in a way where you would stand little to no chance of winning this debate. Take a breath, go back and read what I said, and ask yourself if you truly think it's natural for a man to want to sleep with another man and vice versa.

I'll take up that debate. Define natural.

That's the starting point, since by the closest thing that there is to a generally accepted definition-- that things that exist in nature are natural--homosexuality is totally natural.

My position is that any definition of natural that excludes homosexuality also exclude a bunch of things that are near-universally acknowledged to be natural.

 

[Joker]

Holy Shiite!!!! I just read back through this thread and found out...I'm part of the "About To Croak Generation"...thanks for sugar coating things....anyway, in the words of Cody Jarrett from my generation's favorite, White Heat...

 

[lurker1965]

Funny that you think one act is natural but the other isn't. Two chicks wanting each other is appealing to you, but isn't that an unnatural act?

Thanks for focusing on the joke.

I see you have no response for regular sex being natural. Unless you can produce evidence of gay sex leading to reproduction of the gene pool you should focus on the joke.

What, I made no joke? You mean you have to focus on regular sex having "natural" purpose in reproduction?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Thanks for focusing on the joke.

I see you have no response for regular sex being natural. Unless you can produce evidence of gay sex leading to reproduction of the gene pool you should focus on the joke.

What, I made no joke? You mean you have to focus on regular sex having "natural" purpose in reproduction?

When someone dies, they are incapable passing on their genes. Is death unnatural?

When someone sacrifices himself to protect his community, he's no longer capable of passing on his genes. Is self-sacrifice unnatural?

When a man marries a barren woman, and remains faithful to her, he is no longer capable of passing on his genes. Is being faithful to a barren woman unnatural?

Mules are incapable of reproducing. Are they unnatural?

There are many genetic mutations that render people unable to reproduce. Are these people unnatural?

Through sexual selection, women express preference for men with full heads of hair. Is male pattern baldness unnatural?

I can keep doing this all day. You may even have a reasonably compelling argument against any one of these points, but again... there are hundreds more, and I'm sure you can't account for even half of them, let alone all.

If your definition of unnatural is "a trait that harms the reproductive prospects of an individual", then unnatural becomes so trivial of a term that it loses all meaning.

 

[lurker1965]

No argument with Charles Darwin needed. Homosexuality occurs in nature, and in fact there's some evidence to suggest that it's a genetic means of population control.

The real fact of the matter is that there's no simple definition for "natural". Technically, anything that exists in nature is natural, in which case homosexuality is absolutely natural. I assume that that's not the definition you want to go with, though.

Seriously, though - not trying to disparage your point, I just think that this is something that everyone who uses the 'natural/unnatural' argument should consider. I've yet to hear a sensible definition for 'natural' that excludes homosexuality without excluding a ton of other things (like death) that we pretty much all agree are natural.

Yes, I have heard about gay dolphins and such. Point stands. A penis evolved to deliver sperm to an egg via a vagina. (We'll forget urination as irrelevant.)

Other uses are contrary to that. (Yes, I enjoy some - every man does, but I ca not name them in a "G" rated forum. I'm on the edge as it is. Yes a line backer leads to a sexual discussion.)

Yes, it occurring in nature, say 10% of the time (I'm being very, very generous, take it) does not make it "natural." Heck, killing off spring of genetic competitors occurs in nature and my ex-wife's replacement for me killing my kids would not be "natural."

 

[lurker1965]

It is a weird form of integrity, or at least sincerity, if he continues to hold fast against accepting his son because of his anti-gay beliefs. In much the same way that someone who continued to believe that the world was flat even after circumnavigating it would be displaying incredible integrity in their (asinine, objectively wrong) belief.

For what it is worth, that was the "integrity" that lead to Tony Dungy's gay (or more accurately confused sexually) son's suicide. Yeah, St. Dungy hate is a tad off topic.

 

[lurker1965]

I'll take up that debate. Define natural.

That's the starting point, since by the closest thing that there is to a generally accepted definition-- that things that exist in nature are natural--homosexuality is totally natural.

My position is that any definition of natural that excludes homosexuality also exclude a bunch of things that are near-universally acknowledged to be natural.

I call your definition bogus.

Bears and other mammals will kill unattended cubs if they are not possibly the father.

When my ex-wife remarried his killing my kids would not be "natural" despite him being a mammal.

(Or a reptile if you ask me.)

Of course we would be arguing definitions, so your point as a whole stands.

 

[Jetssuck]

Something that is found throughout nature cannot be unnatural. Scientists have found homosexuality in hundreds of species.

It occurs in nature so it cannot be unnatural. It violates nobody's rights so it cannot be immoral. It may upset someone's religious principles but who cares we don't live in a theocracy.

 

[lurker1965]

When someone dies, they are incapable passing on their genes. Is death unnatural?

When someone sacrifices himself to protect his community, he's no longer capable of passing on his genes. Is self-sacrifice unnatural?

When a man marries a barren woman, and remains faithful to her, he is no longer capable of passing on his genes. Is being faithful to a barren woman unnatural?

Mules are incapable of reproducing. Are they unnatural?

There are many genetic mutations that render people unable to reproduce. Are these people unnatural?

Through sexual selection, women express preference for men with full heads of hair. Is male pattern baldness unnatural?

I can keep doing this all day. You may even have a reasonably compelling argument against any one of these points, but again... there are hundreds more, and I'm sure you can't account for even half of them, let alone all.

If your definition of unnatural is "a trait that harms the reproductive prospects of an individual", then unnatural becomes so trivial of a term that it loses all meaning.

1) Death is natural. Sex with dead people is not. (Remember, we ARE talking about sex.)
2) Mules (like coyote-dogs) exist. How many horses, given the option of other horses will breed with donkeys? The answer is we don't have groups of wild donkeys to find out. Your example is man made - not natural. As for my example of coydogs - dogs, as domesticated animals, are not natural. (I assume you do not have a link for wild Chihuahua's roaming the Mexican plains.) Yes, humans can screw with nature.
3) Male pattern baldness occurs roughly after breeding as is not selected for or against. (I say "roughly" because it starts based on age and one can delay one's own breeding. Just because one goes through puberty at 13 or 14 [roughly] does not mean you must breed then.) Yes, it is "natural" as is death, but we are talking about sex. Would you call a bald 40 year old guy with a 18 year old woman natural?

Innocent error easily made. In the future remember we are talking about sex if you bother with your "hundreds" of examples.

I have one. Is my ex-wife's new husband's murder of my children natural because bears will kill another bears off spring if given the chance and they could not be the father?

I'm going to bed. I'll answer your hundreds if you answer my one - tomorrow.