so i gues, in your mind... cutting on onesself is ok, because no one else's rights are infringed upon, what about suicide? and is it ok to drive 130 mph down the road, so long as no one else is rights are infringed upon?

so, wait, i can use crack, as long as i don't hurt anybodys rights?

there is nothing sexual about jabbing someone in the rear end, some people have sex with food, does that make it natural and ok?

comparing lefthandedness with being gay is like comparing a trip over a bump to falling off a cliff.

my daughter is lefthanded and it works well for her. i've never met anyone who gay as a child. whether you agree or not, you do have a choice when you decide which sex to sleep with

First, you're an idiot.

Second, even straight couples frequently engage in anal sex: perhaps you should tell them there is nothing sexual about it. (Particularly for men, it can stimulate the prostate).

Also, left-handedness was considered "evil" and "wrong" and "of the devil" for centuries; it's a valid comparison.

I think it's funny that you say you've never met a 'gay child.' How have you known all the children you met were straight?

no need to be hateful, i said it was wrong, i never purposely attacked anyone.

again, just because something feels good, doesnt make it right. a murderer "feels good" when he kills someone. its not right, you wont change my mind on that.

also the earth was "flat" for centuries, but that didn't make it right or true. some cultures thought tomatoes were poisonous, of course they aren't. again, your comparision makes no sense.

third, perhaps you are right, perhaps not all the children i've met were straight. i can say, i do not know of anyone i met as a child, that i know now that is gay.

in fact, i only personally know of one or two gay people anywhere.

it seems being gay is "fashionable"

in a few years it'll be a thing of the past, just like bellbottoms and nose rings

You really ought to read some history books, then.

And I'm not just talking about Greek history. Though Sappho is a good example.

More recent: Oscar Wilde, who was killed for being gay. He died in 1900: Do you think most "fashions" last over 100 years? (if you just want to start with Wilde; it goes back, as I said, farther)

Homosexuality has been around since humans; it was not always "out," but it's around.

But the murderer infringes on the rights of another. So does the pedophiliac, the animal molester, the rapist (no consent, you see).

Feeling good has nothing to do with this argument. Stop bringing it up, it has nothing to do with it.

Just like gay sex (and at times even straight sex) was thought to be evil for centuries?

Totally anecdotal, so not relevant.

What evidence is there for this claim?

Are you gay?

UMMMMMM...Lindsey Lohan.

LOL just kidding, and no I'm not but thanks for asking.

I was talking to the annoying people who keep repeating stuff that I have already disproved in my earlier comments which they keep ignoring.

The comparisons you attempt to draw are completely absurd and entirely irrelevant, but I'll humour you.

Yeah, cutting yourself is okay. Your body, if you decide to do that then fine. It might indicate that you have some problems and you should probably go see someone. Cutting yourself might be an indicator of issues, but it's not "wrong". It also has nothing to do with homosexuality, but then again, none of your arguments do.

Suicide can be an acceptable option at times, as is the case with euthanasia under some circumstances. Generally, suicide affects many others than just yourself, so I'd recommend you weigh the consequences of it before committing it.

Speed limits are set to protect other people on the road. Driving 210 km/h down the road can endanger other people's safety, so obviously it's not okay.

Driving 210 km/h while performing homosexual activities is "wrong" for the same reasons that driving 210 km/h while performing heterosexual activities is "wrong".
Some would probably argue that this is the case. The laws that prohibit certain kind of drugs have a complex social and political history, and in most cases, I'd be inclined to agree that those substances are banned for a good reason. In any case, crack isn't healthy for you and it's illegal, so using it might not be the smartest choice in the world.

Making a conscious decision to partake into an illegal activity is not in any way related to your sexual orientation.

I'm guessing you don't understand what the term "sexual" means. Anal sex can give sexual pleasure to both participants, so yeah, obviously it is sexual.

Different sexual fetishes, like incorporating food items in your sex life, is not even horribly uncommon - so yes, it's normal. It's also perfectly okay; no-one's rights are infringed and no one is harmed if you happen to have sex with an eggplant.
Most people agree that sexual preference is largely something you're born with, as is handedness. Sexuality is an aspect of human development that culminates in puberty, so most of the time sexual preferences wouldn't be obvious before that time.

Most children wouldn't show heterosexual tendencies either before puberty. Curiosity and semi-sexual experimenting can start before that, and can involve same or opposite genders regardless of what sexual orientation they turn out to be later in life, although most of it is experimenting with themselves (which has been observed to happen even before birth).

In general, yes, you have a choice of two genders to have sex with. Assuming that you're a heterosexual person, would you want to have sex with someone of your own gender? Does your own gender turn you on? Even just a little bit? If "no", then why would you assume that straight sex would be of any interest for a strictly homosexual person?


I get it - you firmly believe that homosexual behaviour is somehow morally "wrong". You're entitled to have that opinion. So, live your life without engaging into homosexual behaviour, and you'll be fine.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you have to have gay sex. To say so would be absurd. It's equally absurd for you to condemn their preference as it is for someone to condemn yours.

By definition, a murder is very likely something that infringes the rights of another (in that case, the murderee). Most of the time, murder isn't a consensual activity between consenting adults.

I do understand the argument that something that feels good doesn't necessarily mean that it's right, acceptable, or a good thing in general. Many things that feel good aren't.

However, as far as sexuality is concerned, any activity that happens between consenting adults (two or more) of whichever gender composition, that doesn't infringe on the rights of others, is, and should be, legal and acceptable. Your experiments with vegetables in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business, what others do in theirs is their business.

You can argue that it's not "right" from a subset of religiously or otherwise influenced moral point of view, but that alone isn't a reason to ban, suppress, condemn or discourage it.

I think you're confusing two different definitions for the word "right", and confusing "theories" with "opinions".

Statements like "earth is flat" and "tomatoes are poisonous" can be refuted with experimental and observational evidence.

A statements like "left-handedness is evil" or "homosexuality is evil" are matters of opinion and cultural morals rather than scientific claims that could have values of "true" or "false". In your moral views, the evilness of left handed people is an old and ridiculous opinion. Morals are mostly built in concepts common to all humans as a byproduct of the social aspects of our evolution, but those parts of them that are perverted or otherwise influenced by religion or other social concepts are indeed fluid and change over time. Moral acceptance of homosexuality is another thing that's slowly becoming the norm and replacing condemnation.

Statements like "left-handed people were considered evil by some people in the past" or "homosexuality was considered to be evil by some people in the past" have historical evidence and are both likely "true" (and "right").

An opinion based on morals is not a fact. You can have an opinion that homosexuality is wrong. The fact that you have that opinion can be a fact, the opinion itself is just an opinion, as is my opposing one.

Homosexuality and left-handedness are traits that are present in human populations (in roughly 5% and 9% of the total population, respectively).
Seems like you don't believe in the whole concept of sexual preference. If there was no such thing, what exactly is the main reason stopping you from engaging in homosexual activity? Moral opposition? If your moral views are the only thing that's keeping you from having gay sex, you might be bisexual.


Homosexuality has been observed throughout the documented history of mankind. It's also documented in (significant parts of) the rest of the animal kingdom.

Do you think gay penguins and monkeys engage in homosexual activities only because it's a "fashionable thing to do"?

seems as if you guys are all gay. perhaps i wandered into the wrong forum?

Even if we all were, what difference would it make?


Most people don't have negative views on homosexuality, straight or gay.

Holy cow! I go away for two days and look what happens. Duffle you are a freak - but funny. I don't think you believe half of what you say. I think you appreciate pushing people's buttons.

Imagine biologists come out tomorrow and say that homosexuality is not genetic. That they found out that they were mistaken - which happens frequently. Can I then say it is unnatural and should be condemned? No. Because people will argue that it's a life-style choice that doesn't harm anyone. Please don't hang your hats on genetics, because my latter statement is the real basis of your arguments.

I hate to bring the Nazis as an example, since people already know they were freaks and murdering scum, but I want to prove a point.
When you have a sense of wrong and right that is based on what society dictates, then we have a problem. Early 20th Century Germans were considered among the most civilized nations around. By the time the '30s came there was a breakdown in societal norms to the point that to be a good German meant killing or at least beating the crap out of Jews. Killing the infirm. To be a good German meant doctors should secretly kill the handicapped and the infirm. That is what society dictated. If you disagreed, you weren't a good German. You were abnormal.

Again, my point is not to compare Nazis to Homosexuality - because that is not where I am going with this. My point is, that society can not dictate what is right and what is wrong. There is a standard of morality that is absolute.
Don't think this can happen today? Well it is happening. In the UK they have a big problem, because a racist party recently had a big success in Parliament. It's what the people wanted.

I am religious. I have a standard of morality that doesn't bend in the winds of societal pressure. Don't like it? That's OK. But I have a right to feel that what they do is immoral. I have a right to disagree with society. Should people discriminate against homosexuals? No. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

I don't think there's a scientific consensus on what exactly causes sexual orientation - most would agree that it's a combination of multiple factors, including genetic, environmental and hormonal influences.

What's known is that is usually a lifelong trait that rarely shifts - although the article would suggest that changes in the brain might at least temporarily cause such thing to happen. There's no evidence that it could be intentionally changed.


Changing society and culture shapes moral standards and redefines right and wrong. It also changes religions, and their definitions of right and wrong - for better or worse. Even religions that base their doctrine on an unchanged rulebook can have huge shifts due to what is emphasized and what is de-emphasized, and how scripture is interpreted. Even literal interpretation is just that; interpretation. That's why we have hundreds of different flavours of Christianity that have vastly different and contradicting opinions on issues, although most base their faith on the same documentation.

Sometimes religious interpretation is used to achieve goals for contemporary needs, be it condemning interracial relationships, justify slavery or condemning homosexuality. Much like any other form of propaganda, it can be used as a tool to shape opinion.

Everyone is allowed to have opinions. Racists are free to hold their views just like anti-gay people are. Most of us might feel their views are misguided and ignorant, but they're opinions and people are free to have them.

What we shouldn't allow to happen is to have these opinions creep into legislation, restricting the rights and freedoms of any minorities. This is where many western countries have failed, and continue to fail, due to pressure from those who support discrimination for moral reasons.

Then again, you can consider homosexuality as a sin, and still support gay marriage (or have racist views and support interracial marriage, for comparison).