Before DS answers here is the standard answer:

We are all created for a purpose and each one of us has specific tasks to accomplish, hence we each have the flaws/vices that God created us with that we need to overcome, thus the specific "wrong" Genes that are part of our makeup. For some of us its the tendency to be lazy and for some its Homosexuality.

Did I get it right?

I don't even want to try to understand that kind of thinking. You can make up all kinds of fantasies about whatever god you believe in, and twist it to conform to your religion. It can lead to dogma and fanaticism.

Why not just edit this comment to say what you want? Better yet, PM me with what you want to say, I'll post it for you. :)

The human race has shown that it can't take anything to an extreme, not just religion. We pretty much suck at doing anything in moderation. I'd rather be insane about God than insane on cocaine or obsess over some pro athlete.

And yes, some insane about God types have killed people but I was more referring to being sane in all other areas.

There is that open mind I heard all about from the left.

and ZW....

While I kind of agree with your overall perspective, I disagree with the whole premise that G-d created something wrong. Everybody is born with characteristics that define them. People have animalistic tendencies that are inborn. It's overcoming these instincts that make us human. If we gave in to every instinct we had, we would all be lazy, fat and violent. Sexual urges are those that can run wild when not contained. We grow physically, mentally and emotionally by controlling our instincts - and not letting our instincts control us.

btw ZW are you religious?

Soo... you ignored several calm comments to get upset about one semi-negative one.

Sounds like a troll.

I did edit the comment and pasted in what I wanted to say, but no matter how many times I hit the submit button, it wouldn't submit...

I would PM it to you, but I'm afraid that you wouldn't be able to open the PM...

The same thing happen a while back when I was having a discussion about something with AbandonedCouch and my comment would not submit on the thread and when I sent her a PM, she couldn't open it either...

:(

Did something I wrote give you any indication of my political leanings? What would that have to do with religion and spirituality anyway?

Unintentionally, you've nailed the fact that I have an open mind when it comes to religion. I have no problem at all with whatever path a person chooses, be it organized religion, agnosticism or atheism. The only thing I object to is when a person's beliefs negatively impact someone else. Otherwise, you have every right to your beliefs, and I have every right to debate any flaws in logic. That shouldn't bother anyone whose beliefs have a strong foundation. I'm not an atheist, though.

Though someone could definitely choose to subscribe to the homosexual lifestyle, one's attraction is somewhat more inherent. This does not mean that it's genetic, in fact, it doesn't seem to indicate so. It doesn't mean it's environmental, though it certainly could as well. It does mean that it's simply something that is, eventually, through some mechanism, wired into the brain. Something brain-altering, such as a stroke, would cause that to be changed.

There's still many ways to interpret it. All this proves is that your attractions are determined by brain wiring. It doesn't state how that wiring came to be.

So, would you say you ascribe to the right-handed lifestyle?

I mean, what is the "homosexual lifestyle" anyway? A stereotype of a gay man? I have no idea what "homosexual lifestyle" means.

I'm fairly sure, as a heterosexual even, my lifestyle is probably fairly different from yours, and doesn't make sense to be categorized as the same.

I was on the train - I promise. I saw but couldn't respond. I went to the last page by habit. Just so you shouldn't feel left out, here is my response to you lynx:

First, thank you for the calm response
Second, the mule comparison is flawed. You mated two species that are each capable of producing - but you still mated opposite sexes.
Third, please don't compare race to sexuality. We all belong to one race or another. Nobody is race-neutral. As for sexuality, nature (I'd say G-d, but that scares people)designed us to produce only sexually.

Its not me. It's biology.

Honestly, it is the stereotype. I know not all homosexuals fit that stereotype, but it's the thing that people associate homosexuals with, and you can't have a stereotype without there being some truth to it. In fact, I would cite the preponderance of some of the things that go on in California as an example, such as the flamboyant and excessive displays at some Gay pride rallies, the in your face sort of homosexual attitudes, and yes, even engaging in homosexual sexual activity (though that really isn't limited to homosexuals).

But to be honest, I was making that statement to the people that would subscribe to that view of homosexuals. The thing that I notice is that many of these people equate homosexuals to the things they partake in. I saw one person in particular, in encountering a homosexual that described himself as such but also stated he, as a Christian, lives a chaste life, tell him point blank: "Do you have sex with men?" "No." "Then you are not gay."

I was making the distinction for that purpose.

Mule isn't flawed: You asked for examples of ways that nature creates creatures that can't reproduce; I gave one. And there are animals that reproduce asexually, so it's not like it has to be "boy-girl."

By your definition, it's sounding increasingly like those who are born or become infertile are also "mistakes" or "living an abnormal lifestyle." After all, they can't reproduce, what's the point?!

No, sorry, it's just like racism. We all belong to one race or another, and we all have a different placement on the Kinsey scale of sexuality. White was considered "race-neutral" for a great portion of human history, just like heterosexuality is considered the "only normal."

And why does it have to be about reproduction? In a world that is already overpopulated, why can't we accept that some people find love in other ways?


And sid: The person you describe in your example is just wrong.

For both of you: Why does the way you have sex have to be the largest definition of who a person is?

1. There are actually lots of homosexual/bisexual animals in nature; it occurs in several species. So biology is kind of not on your side.

2. Why would this result in any sort of legal constraints on gay sex? It seems like its a 'your personal dislike of homosexuality' issue, not a policy issue. There are some things that the government shouldn't interfere in, and this is probably one of them. There would be no public benefit from this sort of legislation.

(Also see my previous comment on this matter.)

All of those 'it's not natural' complaints are based on opinion, not on any science-backed research.

So go ahead, have your opinion. It's just as relevant as my 'opinion' that the sky is day-glo orange and the sun covered with little green puppies.

No impact on reality.

To say that evolution should have "taken care of" the factors that form human sexuality is a simplification of a complex issue.

The opposite is actually true - homosexuality actually improves the chances of reproducing (through increasing the fertility in the maternal lineage), thus maintaining the somewhat high proportions of homosexuals in human population. So, from evolutionary/biological point of view, it does make sense.


In general, sexuality in humans, and in most animals, is also much more than just reproducing. Very small percentage of human copulation actually leads to pregnancy, whether contraceptives are used or not. One could argue that we weren't designed to have sex just so we could produce offspring. Otherwise the exact time when females are capable to get pregnant would be more obvious.


There's no moral argument against homosexuality unless some form of religious interpretation is used. Even when applying Bible as a guide, it's questionable and open to individual interpretation.


The subject of the link is interesting, and seems to confirm that sexuality is a biological trait and not something you can change at will (not that that standpoint needed any more confirming, but it gives an insight into what makes our sexuality what it happens to be).

WOW, I just finished reading all the comments. It's a bad book at best, although I loved all the different comments. I've said it before, these sites open up for your comments. Having 5 or more comments is what makes Plime interesting. Plime on brothers ans sisters!

you know, i've said this before. just because something may feel good, that doesnt make it right.

it has no basis in nature, it doesn't assist in reproduction, it serves no purpose.

(switch gears)

when are we going to recognize the rights of child molesters, they need love too. i mean c'mon, he was born to love kids, give him his rights.

wait, she is in love with that goat. what about her rights to be a goat-sexual?

btw, i'm an autosexual, thats right, i'm in love with my car, who are you to judge, we love each other. we sleep together, we love, boo-hoo we just want to get married.

it may sound stupid, but its the same principle.

justifying something DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT!

Funny that you mention that, as all these arguments appear to be incorrect.

While absurd arguments like this get thrown around often by people with little or no understanding of about things like "consent", they make zero sense. A sexual relationship between consenting (human) adults cannot be compared to raping kids or goats. It seems unnecessary to even having to state this, but a kid is not mature enough to give consent. How can a goat give a consent? Have you ever tried to summon a goat as a witness in court? Have you ever had a discussion with a goat to find out what sexuality it represents?


Yeah, perhaps the reason that it sounds stupid is... because it is stupid?

Your last sentence doesn't make much sense either, but could you then justify what in the concept of "homosexuality" exactly makes it "not right"?

Indeed. But, as long as that whatever feels good doesn't infringe on the rights of others, it's not "wrong" either.

Some people are gay. It's perfectly normal, just as left-handedness is normal in human population. Neither of those traits have negative impact on the rest of the population, so there's no point or need to argue against them.

that is great, thanks for sharing . interesting one