Has anyone noticed that women nowadays...

[TE]

it's still a bit abnormal for people of different skin color to marry each other...

...which would, in essence, go against the very essence of genetic diversity.

Abnormal? That's a matter of your opinion tbh.

It doesn't go against the essence of genetic diversity.

[TE]

Are you not aware of gay people all around you making the exact decision for themselves? Many carry it out very successfully and yet, they are still gay.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Do they conceive naturally? No. They adopt.

[TE]

You don't magically refute an argument by trying to ignore the perfectly valid definition of natural that we used. Our argument stands, blissfully unrefuted.

Take it as you will, chump. This ain't going anywhere, you're gonna continue to give me when you knew I wasn't posting on that definition (or expanded definition if you will) of natural.

Not until you realize and admit its conditional and therefore disingenuous. For all your whining about semantics, its all you really rely upon in a discussion -- which is sad because you are so ill-informed about the simple, broad definitions being used here. You're trying to use your ignorance as a shield and it's an abject failure.

It was an apology, move on.

[Blake]

Abnormal? That's a matter of your opinion tbh.

It's a matter of definition.

Same race marriage is easily the norm.

It doesn't go against the essence of genetic diversity.

Define the essence of genetic diversity so that we are on the same semantics page.

[mrsmaalox]

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Do they conceive naturally? No. They adopt.

Not all of them adopt Through surrogates, insemination, in vitro fertilization, gay people participate in the conception of their offspring all the time. I guess they haven't covered that stuff in med school yet.

[Blake]

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Do they conceive naturally? No. They adopt.

Is it detrimental to society that they adopt?

[Shastafarian]

My definition of natural relates to the order of things in biology, more so in genetics.

I don't know what you're talking about.

You give examples of things that exist in nature (reality), and that function as they do in nature.

Oral sex. Natural or not. If you say it is, explain how that act is different from gay sex as it relates to your definition of "natural".

Physiologic does not equal genetics man.

Genetics drive physiology. They are as intertwined as two things can be.

That's already been posted, the whole it happens in nature part. Is it the natural order of things? No. It isn't.

Natural order? What order?

[TE]

An unnecessarily strained hypothetical, but, sure. If you were sexually turned on by trees, you might want to them. But that wasn't really my argument. My argument was that we are a species who naturally has sex for pleasure (and for countless other reasons besides procreation) and that it is therefore pointless to argue that sexual sex is unnatural simply because it cannot lead to procreation. On a purely biological level, procreation is not our species' only motivation for sexual activity, so its lack alone is not enough to make something unnatural.

Yeah, there are other things. You're using the word naturally in your own way, and I'm using it in another. We're aren't going anywhere with this.

Every time you've ever had sex in your entire life it's been related to fathering? EVERY time?

Everytime I had sex in life, it has to deal with love. The fathering part surfaced when I decided to be in serious relationships that could potentially spawn a longer relationship...leading to marriage

When did neon become a unit of measurement?

Term is used a lot in science, just thought it sounded cool.

Except that it occurs in nature. A lot.

You still haven't given a concrete/consistent definition of natural as you're using it in this thread. When you say it's not natural, do you mean that it is artificial? Or do you mean that it is contrary to our biological need to reproduce?

If the former, you're just wrong. Because sexuality occurs in nature, often, and all on its own. If the latter, you're assuming that reproduction is the sole motivator for human sexual interaction AND natural is not the word you should be using for that argument.

Does it have to be concrete? You can't figure it out for yourself what I mean by natural? You're smarter than that CF. I believe natural is the appropriate word to be used.

Sorry, but no. You don't get to throw this out as fact for 13 pages and then pull the double whammy of calling it opinion and bemoaning your persecution for said.

I don't doubt that it is your opinion. Since its first post, this thread has pretty much existed to showcase your phobia and the fact you personally find sexuality to be icky and unnatural. But at some point you switched away from opinion and toward an argument that sexuality was unnatural according to human biology. You can at this point admit you haven't a clue what you're talking about and that your medical mumbo jumbo was intended as nothing other than a subject change away from your own phobia, but it's too late to pretend you didn't make this an argument of fact.

No I do get to dance around in my own thread. Just because I say it's an opinion of mine doesn't discredit anything, you're picking up that football and running to the opposite endzone if you know what I mean.

So it's phobia to think being gay is fundamentally not natural to what humans evolved to do? Okay.

You're still confused. The sexual bit is the attraction, not the activity.

Can it be both?

So, then, you didn't choose to be heterosexual.

So I can't proclaim I'm born a heterosexual, only for that to be fully understood at the surface as I riped in age and experience?

Being attracted to other men is what makes a man sexual.

Which makes them do sexual activity.

[TE]

what kind of med student doesnt know the definition of natural?

I'm calling bs, this guy has had plenty of re ed opinions in multiple threads iirc tbh imho

What kind of bystander whiffs through threads, doesn't participate at all in the discussion, and joins other posters in a circle jerk?

You're an idiot.

[TE]

It's conditional to everyone because "if I've offended any posters here for questioning sexuality and its acceptance" is a condition.

So because I used the word "if", it's a condition?! Holy , take it as you all will.

[TE]

A med student going into Psychiatry

You didn't know that was possible did you? After all, it's not the most common of specialties to choose out of med school...

[DisAsTerBot]

lol phobe

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170492

[Shastafarian]

You didn't know that was possible did you? After all, it's not the most common of specialties to choose out of med school...

I did know it's possible. That's why I laughed. Why not just be a Psychologist and save the $200,000 in loans?

[TE]

It's a matter of definition.

Same race marriage is easily the norm.

Can a big black man and white woman still conceive?

Define the essence of genetic diversity so that we are on the same semantics page.

What is genetic diversity?

Genetic diversity refers to the diversity
(or genetic variability) within species.

Each individual species possesses genes which are the source of its own unique features: In human beings, for example, the huge variety of people's faces reflects each person's genetic individuality. The term genetic diversity also covers distinct populations of a single species, such as the thousands of breeds of different dogs or the numerous variety of roses.

http://www.coastlearn.org/biodiversi...eneticdiv.html

If a man engages in a relationship with the same sex, he doesn't get to contribute any genetic diversity to the human gene pool.

[BacktoBasics]

It's going in a couple of different directions, currently, but I'll try.

triggeredexcellence: Ever noticed how women are less phobic than phobic men? S'up with dat?
most everyone else: What a way to go about creating a phobe thread. Ya damned phobe.
triggeredexcellence: I'm not phobic. I just am creeped out when gay people decide to act all gay.
most everyone else: Why?
triggeredexcellence: Because teh gayness is unnatural.
most everyone else: 'Cept it occurs in nature.
triggeredexcellence: But that doesn't make it natural. You guys must be a bunch of s or apologists to think otherwise.
most everyone else: What do you think the word "natural" means?
Answer TBD.

Somewhat tangentially...

Ginobilly: Gay men are icky because they have scary penises. Straight men are inherently threatened by what other men are doing with their penises because something something pit bull analogy. Lesbians are less icky because they don't have scary penises.
most everyone else: You're a ing idiot.
Ginobilly: Just kidding, y'all. I gots gay cousins.
most everyone else: That's pretty obviously bull , but thanks for giving us definitive reason to stop giving a what you say in here.



And also B2B.

so ing awesome!

[TE]

Not all of them adopt Through surrogates, insemination, in vitro fertilization, gay people participate in the conception of their offspring all the time. I guess they haven't covered that stuff in med school yet.

You people sure are pretty stupid if you don't know what I mean by conceiving naturally.

Yeah, while alternative methods to conceive exist, it's artificial and not natural.

[BacktoBasics]

According to her, it's natural to be gay because it occurs naturally (in nature, semantics much ).

Again this is what makes you so incredibly stupid. Its not according to her its according to the definition of "natural".

You're attempting to argue against a definition. Its not word games its the definition of the word which isn't up for debate with the exception of your world and your world only.

[TE]

I don't know what you're talking about.
Oral sex. Natural or not. If you say it is, explain how that act is different from gay sex as it relates to your definition of "natural".

Why has everybody decided to be ignorant of what I meant by natural? Goddamn.

Genetics drive physiology. They are as intertwined as two things can be.

You're right. But you're wrong in bringing up physiology, since I wasn't arguing on that sub-topic of human biology. Sure I could have argued that genetics drives the anatomical formation of a penis, as does the formation of a vagina. I could have argued that both organs connect like two pieces in a puzzle anatomically, and further subsequent physiological factors offer the ability to conceive. These are things we all know.

If you didn't understand my usage of genetics in this topic already, I feel really sorry for you man.

Natural order? What order?

The order in which another human being is conceived and simultaneously given a genetic make-up of it's own.

[BacktoBasics]

I see trigger sure took a beating all night long over this. Embarrassed himself repeatedly and resorted to furthering the insult olive branch by exhibiting even more phobia with his circle jerk references. Dude really knows how to drive home his own stake.

I can't tell if he's attempting Esuicide or actually thinks he can dig his way out of this mess.

[TE]

Again this is what makes you so incredibly stupid. Its not according to her its according to the definition of "natural".

Arguing? I'd say it was more directing a discussion toward an expanded application of the word natural. Process that and if you can't I can dumb it down for you.

You're attempting to argue against a definition. Its not word games its the definition of the word which isn't up for debate with the exception of your world and your world only.

I'm attempting to engage in discussions with an expanded definition of the word natural as it relates to humanity and sex, not the broad generality of mother nature. Damn, it can't get any easier than that.

[BacktoBasics]

Why has everybody decided to be ignorant of what I meant by natural? Goddamn.

I mean really is this guy for real.

What next? Why not just call a basketball a football and then and moan about how ignorant we are for not agreeing with you every time you talk about how awesome SJax shoots that football.

[Shastafarian]

He's trying to make his own definition, saying because sexuality can't diversify the genetic pool, it must be an unnatural (his definition) occurrence in relation to modern genetics. It's not an expected occurrence because it won't spread genes. And what else are we here for except to reproduce aimiright? It's detrimental to their genetic progeny (or lack thereof) but that certainly doesn't equate to "natural". He's been taken in by the colloquial use of the term "natural" as it's used by bible thumpers, rednecks, and phobes.

"Excuse me ma'am, how do you feel about sexuals?"

[We hear the characteristic *cling* of a spittoon]

"Them gays? I tells ya, it ain't natural. Naw."

[BacktoBasics]

Arguing? I'd say it was more directing a discussion toward an expanded application of the word natural. Process that and if you can't I can dumb it down for you.


I'm attempting to engage in discussions with an expanded definition of the word natural as it relates to humanity and sex, not the broad generality of mother nature. Damn, it can't get any easier than that.

No you're not. You're attempting to redefine "natural" to fit into your delusional misinformed bigoted perspective.

How many people need to tell you that you're wrong for you to wake up and ing get it?

[TE]

I see trigger sure took a beating all night long over this. Embarrassed himself repeatedly and resorted to furthering the insult olive branch by exhibiting even more phobia with his circle jerk references. Dude really knows how to drive home his own stake.

I can't tell if he's attempting Esuicide or actually thinks he can dig his way out of this mess.

Nah, as long as I'm continuing to live and enjoy life, I don't feel offended on a personal level when others oppose my opinion in topics... especially not this controversial one.

[CuckingFunt]

Yeah, there are other things. You're using the word naturally in your own way, and I'm using it in another. We're aren't going anywhere with this.

I have made very clear how I am using the word "natural" in the context of this argument. As has everyone else in this thread. If you were to do the same (coherently and consistently) we actually possibly could go somewhere with this. Getting somewhere, however, has never been your goal in this thread.

Everytime I had sex in life, it has to deal with love. The fathering part surfaced when I decided to be in serious relationships that could potentially spawn a longer relationship...leading to marriage

So, then, you have sex with women because you love women. The people you love determines the type of sex that you have. Your attraction to women is not, then, a choice you made based on the desire to be a parent.

Does it have to be concrete? You can't figure it out for yourself what I mean by natural? You're smarter than that CF. I believe natural is the appropriate word to be used.

If you're attempting to build an argument around a particular term -- in this case your argument against sexuality is based upon it being unnatural -- then, yes, you need to have a definition of that term that is clear and concrete. It is impossible to figure out what you mean by "natural" because the way you have used the term has been unclear and inconsistent.

No I do get to dance around in my own thread.

Okay. And we get to call you out for doing so.

So it's phobia to think being gay is fundamentally not natural to what humans evolved to do? Okay.

It's phobia to dislike and/or be bothered by gay people and their assumed behaviors/activities for no reason other than its difference. It's phobia to be as preoccupied as you clearly are with what gay people do in the bedroom. Further, it is also phobia to jump through such extensive hoops as you have in order to manufacture a medical/biological argument against sexuality in order to justify your personal discomfort.

So I can't proclaim I'm born a heterosexual, only for that to be fully understood at the surface as I riped in age and experience?

You can't proclaim you were born a heterosexual when trying to argue that you made a conscious choice to be attracted to women.

Which makes them do sexual activity.

Not always. There are plenty of sexuals who deny their own attractions and who therefore do not participate in " sexual activity." There are also plenty of people who engage in " sexual activity" (which I assume based on your previous posts you're defining in terms of sex acts) but who aren't gay. I'm thinking prisons and porn here, for example.