homosexuality is not 'unnatural'

John Creasey---

Sex for procreation only is probably not nature's plan, since, strictly speaking nature does not have a plan--unless you invoke intelligent design, or a deity.

Quite possibly this idea -sex is for procreation- is the basis for the religious prohibition, as survival of the species (and the religion) required a high birth rate during biblical times. I think the force of that argument is greatly reduced if not completely nullified at a time when global population hovers around 6 billion.

It doesn't seem much of a stretch to forbid sex between heterosexuals as well unless the female is in heat, if nature's plan was procreation only. (I suppose some people -poor souls- would be willing to go there.) My understanding -and I don't have all the answers either- is that the sex drive is something very different from the need or desire to propagate. Nature tricks us into reprocuction by making the act (and countless variations that do not result in fertilization) a pleasure too difficult to resist.

0 Replies

Greyfan,

You wrote:

Nature tricks us into reprocuction by making the act (and countless variations that do not result in fertilization) a pleasure too difficult to resist.

Nature tricks us....too difficult to resist? Is man ever to blame?

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Unlike some here, I don't have all the answers. I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality is not just a religious issue.

You've yet to prove that it is anything more than a religious issue.

Humans have sex for pleasure as well as procreation so any form of sex is natural, IMO.

0 Replies

Hi Bella,

I love your avatar BTW.

Can I ask a question? And please, I don't mean to start anything, just trying to clarify, because I will assume nothing here.

....any form of sex is natural, IMO?

Do you mean between consenting adults only?

0 Replies

Of course! Don't be silly. :wink: What I meant by that is:

Any consenting sex is natural sex. Oral, anal, vaginal, bi, gay, tri, whatever; they are all natural IMO.

Now, of course you will all want to know WHY I think that. Here's my rational. Stay with me here, this is long and a little hard to explain.
:wink:

The human female is the only animal with an organ created strictly for pleasure. The wondrous, amazing, enjoyable clitoris. Why would God have give woman such a fabulous piece of equipment if he didn't intend for us to enjoy and use it? Why would we have this bundle of nerves and tissue very similar to the head of a penis if we weren't suppose to be having sex for enjoyment and fun?

Point? Sex isn't just for procreating, even looking it in a scientific and biological way.

--How does this relate to sex between gay persons and straight ones?

Well, the clitoris does not need a penis to stimulate it. In fact, very rarely is the clitoris stimulated by the penis but rather the hand, tongue or pelvic bone. Interpretation: Is it an unnatural part of a woman's body because it is stimulated and enjoyed by parts other than the traditionally accepted sex object? (the penis) Or is it unnatural because it doesn't serve any other function than to pleasure the woman? Absolutely not.

But hardly anyone talks about the clitoris or how it is stimulated and "used" by women. The clitoris is almost a "dirty little secret" that we don't want to think about because people recently (not always) have wanted to take the fun and pure enjoyment out of sex. Make it dirty if it isn't for baby making. They want to make it what it is not. And if we DO talk about it, we talk about it like only porn stars and naughty girls have them. It's like women are almost embarrassed to talk about their clits.

As if that was not enough proof that sex was made for the pleasure of it, female humans are also the only female species who can orgasm. Coincidence? I don't think so!

It's all in how you look at things and homosexual sex is looked upon as dirty because it is unconventional to most people and different and no one talks about it as the pleasure of sex. They focus on the reproductive aspect and completely disregard the equally important second half of sex: bonding and pleasure. They take one look at it and say "it doesn't work for me so it must be weird or wrong". If we opened up more about sex, more about homosexuality, bisexuality, OUR sexuality, I don't think that so many people would have a problem with homosexuals. They'd realize that gays are driven by the same thing straights are: desire for pleasure and closeness.

--That brings me to point number two. What makes some sex "dirty" and why?

Society and it's standards. I was watching a show on HBO last night called Sexual Intelligence and let me tell you I was blown away (no pun intended) by the history of the phallus and the vulva in certain civilizations of the world. The way that people used to prize the penis and "worship" it, rather than hide it like it was some dirty piece of equipment that we only got out when it was necessary. There were statues of men with full frontal nudity, drawings, paintings. Images of people engaged in sex and these were not considered dirty or pornographic, but beautiful and wonderful. They expressed virility and life. The vulva was praised and glorified where as now it's just "the money shot".

We are so repressed in our sexuality that we've decided that anything not "straight up make the baby get off me" is dirty or weird. Strip clubs and porno's are huge industries because it allows us to express our natural sexuality without being criticized or ostracized. We can go there and be the "freaks we are" and no one says anything (unless your wife catches you!!)

We've gotten so far away from the fact that we are incredible sexual beings that we are missing out on some of the greatest pleasures life has to offer us. The pleasures that God himself created for us!

If God had wanted us to simply procreate rather than enjoy our bodies, he would not have created the orgasm for women or the wonderful, magical clitoris. He'd have made us just like the other animals.

In closing, (finally!) my point is that people are afraid of their own sexuality, afraid that their fantasies are weird or that they shouldn't be having anal sex or oral sex. Anal sex is not new. Oral sex is not new. Nothing we do now is new. It's just that now, we don't talk about it and so it becomes some closet secret that we can't share, even though for thousands of years people just like us have been "getting down" with it. Homosexuality is no more unnatural than oral or anal sex in heterosexuals. It is no more unnatural than that because they both serve the same purpose: pleasure and closeness.

0 Replies

Holy crap is that long. Whew. I need a smoke after that one....

0 Replies

:wink: I was pretty sure that was what you meant, but like I said, I am not going to assume anything. I have certainly learned that much on these threads!

Ok, let's see. How do I state what I want to state without sounding like I am being judgmental or self-righteous. I am judging no one here and I for sure am no more righteous than anyone else. Please just keep that in mind when reading in case I say something in the wrong manner.

Bella, I guess my biggest question with all this is ~ where does one draw the line? I am pretty confident in the fact that you don't support paedophilia and such. But, isn't it true that pedophiles say, "It's a matter of love?" So, to them, is this any different? Now, in our minds, I am quite sure it is! We know how wrong it is. But, they claim it is for love.

Now, I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I will not deny that. I believe that because that is what God has put in His laws in the Bible. So, to completely go along with your theory (probably not the correct word) if you are correct, then God would be contradicting Himself, wouldn't He? Yes, I do believe He created man and woman to not just procreate but to also enjoy the act of sexual intercouse. I believe that between a husband and wife there are very few limitations to what God would not approve.

Bella, I believe that if homosexuality were natural, then there would be no need to ever have a discussion about it. I feel that if it were natural, God would have revealed that to us, just as I believe He reveals all His laws for mankind.

I do not believe that God changes His mind about His laws to accomodate man. I do; however, feel man tries to change God's laws to accommodate himself. What was tabboo years ago is tabboo no more. God didn't change that. Man did.

I also believe that the laws God set down for man are laws that will benefit man. I don't believe He gave us the laws just so we can't enjoy our life. I believe if we follow His laws, our life is more enjoyable.

And personally, I don't like strip clubs and such. They have nearly ruined our community here in Louisiana. Murders, rapes, etc., can be directly related to clubs around here. But, fortunately, most of them have been shut down now. Many families were ruined because of those clubs. Now, I am only speaking about what is happening in my community and in no way can I say this is the case everywhere.

We all have our beliefs. We all have our no no's in life. Unfortunately, they don't ever seem to be the same. But, I will say that civil discussions about these things are so very important in each point of view being brought to the surface so we can all understand each other better.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/heart.gif

P.S. BTW Bella, do you smoke after sex? (Not trying to be too personal here, I promise.)

0 Replies

The typical disgusting christian habit of equating homosexuality with paedophilia. At the very least, they always try to drag the topic into the discussion, to slander by inference.

You and pathetic imaginary friend god with his hatefulness and his condemnations of all but a narrow set of narrow-minded bigots disgust me . . .

0 Replies

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/bigeyedsmiley.gif

What is with you, Set? Did you not read where I said I wasn't being judgmental? Did you not read my post at all? Did you just stop where you saw the word pedophile?

All I was trying to ask was where do you draw the line? Now, there will be those that will draw the line a lot closer to heterosexuality than others, there are those that will draw the line closer to homosexuality than others and there are those that will not draw the line at all. I in no way meant that homosexuals were pedophiles! I did not say that and I believe you know that.

Set, you are (from what I gather in these posts) an extremely intelligent person. What I don't understand is why you try to change the focus of what I actually say? I said what I believe. I ask questions so I can understand others. If I don't ask questions and understand others then I would be the one being the fool.

I wish you'd lighten up on me. I get the feeling you think I am attacking something about you personally at times. I am not.

I was really enjoying this discussion with Bella, as I always do. She tells it like it is. She tells me what she really means and I have no problem asking her questions because of it. Also, she does not attack or condemn me for my beliefs. She may not agree with them, but she still tries to help answer my questions so I can gain an understanding I may not have.

You, on the other hand, attack my beliefs. You don't have to believe what I believe. I don't have to believe what you believe or don't. But why do you feel it necessary to interject negativity on either side, when someone is having a civil exchange of information trying to gain understanding?

I am asking you these questions, Set, because I really would like to know. I try to understand everyone as much as I can. I do not understand you so I ask you questions.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Bella, I guess my biggest question with all this is ~ where does one draw the line? I am pretty confident in the fact that you don't support paedophilia and such. But, isn't it true that pedophiles say, "It's a matter of love?" So, to them, is this any different? Now, in our minds, I am quite sure it is! We know how wrong it is. But, they claim it is for love.

Paedophilia is not conscentual sex therefore there is no discussion on whether or not that's "the line". The line is where the consentual ends.

Momma Angel wrote:

Now, I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I will not deny that. I believe that because that is what God has put in His laws in the Bible. So, to completely go along with your theory (probably not the correct word) if you are correct, then God would be contradicting Himself, wouldn't He?

This is open to debate only because there are some who believe that 100% the bible is Gods word. Others (like me) believe that they are the teachings of Christ and may have been misinterpreted and written by fallible man.

Momma Angel wrote:

Bella, I believe that if homosexuality were natural, then there would be no need to ever have a discussion about it. I feel that if it were natural, God would have revealed that to us, just as I believe He reveals all His laws for mankind.

But then that would mean a lot of things were sins. Things like any behavior in the bedroom. You stated above that there is little God would disapprove of in a marriage bed, yet people still feel the need for discussion of sexual practices and what is right and what is wrong. I think that the problem is the lack of discussion, not the discussion.

Momma Angel wrote:

I do not believe that God changes His mind about His laws to accomodate man. I do; however, feel man tries to change God's laws to accommodate himself. What was tabboo years ago is tabboo no more. God didn't change that. Man did.

Again, this goes back to the belief in the the infallible nature of the bible. None of us knows God personally and can only speculate.

Momma Angel wrote:

I also believe that the laws God set down for man are laws that will benefit man. I don't believe He gave us the laws just so we can't enjoy our life. I believe if we follow His laws, our life is more enjoyable.

Your argument is religious only. I am also trying to break into the scientific reasons why I believe homosexuality to be a natural occurence in life. What you believe religiously is one thing. What humans actually are is a whole other story.

Momma Angel wrote:

And personally, I don't like strip clubs and such. They have nearly ruined our community here in Louisiana. Murders, rapes, etc., can be directly related to clubs around here. But, fortunately, most of them have been shut down now. Many families were ruined because of those clubs. Now, I am only speaking about what is happening in my community and in no way can I say this is the case everywhere.

Me either, really, but my point is that they exist because of the secret dirty world that we all live in behind closed doors. We can't express those desires out loud for fear of rejection and persecution. So we lock our doors and watch porn until we burst. Like I said before, there used to be art we'd consider pornographic that was literally hanging around everyone's houses. The reason porn is such a popular industry is because we make it that taboo and dirty thing.

Momma Angel wrote:

We all have our beliefs. We all have our no no's in life. Unfortunately, they don't ever seem to be the same. But, I will say that civil discussions about these things are so very important in each point of view being brought to the surface so we can all understand each other better.

Dialogue is so important and learning about where we came from. You'd have your socks knocked off if you saw some of the art from Pompeii, for example. I am a little shocked even and I consider myself pretty liberal sexually. But the point is that sex hasn't always been viewed as it is today. If you are interested, check this site out. I will warn you that there are "pornographic" images of statues and paintings. I think that once you move past the initial shock, they are beautiful and express life in in it's barest form.

Pompeii

Momma Angel wrote:

P.S. BTW Bella, do you smoke after sex?

I quit smoking all together but never really got the urge to do it after sex anyway.

0 Replies

Perhaps a tad bit over the top.

0 Replies

Attempting to imply that homosexuality is a "perversion" on a scale to be measured with paedophilia is more than a tad over the top. The false and hypocritical claim of loving everyone from people who quote the hateful "laws" of their imaginary friend is more than a tad over the top.

0 Replies

You have a valid stance. However I doubt seriously that MA is "implying" anything. She's stating what her beliefs are, based upon what the religion she subscribes to demands. Paedophilia was a rather bad choice of comparisons, but I believe that was done for effect more than for intent.

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

John Creasey---

Sex for procreation only is probably not nature's plan, since, strictly speaking nature does not have a plan--unless you invoke intelligent design, or a deity.

Quite possibly this idea -sex is for procreation- is the basis for the religious prohibition, as survival of the species (and the religion) required a high birth rate during biblical times. I think the force of that argument is greatly reduced if not completely nullified at a time when global population hovers around 6 billion.

It doesn't seem much of a stretch to forbid sex between heterosexuals as well unless the female is in heat, if nature's plan was procreation only. (I suppose some people -poor souls- would be willing to go there.) My understanding -and I don't have all the answers either- is that the sex drive is something very different from the need or desire to propagate. Nature tricks us into reprocuction by making the act (and countless variations that do not result in fertilization) a pleasure too difficult to resist.

I didn't say that sex is strictly for procreation, but the only way you can procreate is by having sex. The pleasure is a secondary aspect that encourages reproduction, IMO. I'm not pretending to be holier than though, I'm just stating how I see things. I'm not perfect by any means.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

John Creasy wrote:
Unlike some here, I don't have all the answers. I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality is not just a religious issue.

You've yet to prove that it is anything more than a religious issue.

Humans have sex for pleasure as well as procreation so any form of sex is natural, IMO.

Since when do I have to "prove" anything?? Prove to me that it IS only a religious issue. We are both stating opinions and nothing more.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
Unlike some here, I don't have all the answers. I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality is not just a religious issue.

You've yet to prove that it is anything more than a religious issue.

Humans have sex for pleasure as well as procreation so any form of sex is natural, IMO.

Since when do I have to "prove" anything?? Prove to me that it IS only a religious issue. We are both stating opinions and nothing more.

I have. Go back and read my post. And if you want to run with the "big kids", you should be able to back up your argument. Not just throw a fit and cry about not having to prove anything.

Nature has several signs that point directly to this prudishness being religious zealots wanting to stifle everyone under their rules.

0 Replies

I had answered this but must have made a mistake when submitting it because it just disappeared. So here it is again:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

Bella, I guess my biggest question with all this is ~ where does one draw the line? I am pretty confident in the fact that you don't support paedophilia and such. But, isn't it true that pedophiles say, "It's a matter of love?" So, to them, is this any different? Now, in our minds, I am quite sure it is! We know how wrong it is. But, they claim it is for love.

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

Paedophilia is not conscentual sex therefore there is no discussion on whether or not that's "the line". The line is where the consentual ends.

I completely understand. Was just trying to get some specifics. I tried to explain what I meant in that post to Set. If that didn't completely explain it for you Bella, let me know so I can clarify it, ok?

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

Now, I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I will not deny that. I believe that because that is what God has put in His laws in the Bible. So, to completely go along with your theory (probably not the correct word) if you are correct, then God would be contradicting Himself, wouldn't He?

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

This is open to debate only because there are some who believe that 100% the bible is Gods word. Others (like me) believe that they are the teachings of Christ and may have been misinterpreted and written by fallible man.

True. But let me ask you this, Bella. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 it says: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexuality immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Now, to me, that means it doesn't look to good for any of us in one respective, doesn't it? But, what seems to always be left out is the fact that there is forgiveness. There is forgiveness!

So, my question is this. In this Biblical reference is man misinterpreting or should this be taken literally?

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

Bella, I believe that if homosexuality were natural, then there would be no need to ever have a discussion about it. I feel that if it were natural, God would have revealed that to us, just as I believe He reveals all His laws for mankind.

But then that would mean a lot of things were sins. Things like any behavior in the bedroom. You stated above that there is little God would disapprove of in a marriage bed, yet people still feel the need for discussion of sexual practices and what is right and what is wrong. I think that the problem is the lack of discussion, not the discussion.

Ok, deliving into a bit of an uncomfortable thing for me to voice Embarrassed

but will do it out of respect for you being so honest. I believe that between a man and a wife, oral sex, anal sex, toys Embarrassed

, etc. would be okay by God. Now, bringing in others, animals (extreme case there), etc., I don't believe He would say is ok.

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

I do not believe that God changes His mind about His laws to accomodate man. I do; however, feel man tries to change God's laws to accommodate himself. What was tabboo years ago is tabboo no more. God didn't change that. Man did.

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

Again, this goes back to the belief in the the infallible nature of the bible. None of us knows God personally and can only speculate.

Ok I agree with the first statement, but I disagree with the second statement. I believe that I have a personal relationship with God. I believe I do know Him personally. So, we can agree to disagree here?
Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

I also believe that the laws God set down for man are laws that will benefit man. I don't believe He gave us the laws just so we can't enjoy our life. I believe if we follow His laws, our life is more enjoyable.

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

Your argument is religious only. I am also trying to break into the scientific reasons why I believe homosexuality to be a natural occurence in life. What you believe religiously is one thing. What humans actually are is a whole other story.

Ahhhh, so you believe all my beliefs are religiously based? Not so, Bella. Many of my beliefs I held before I became a Christian. Now, some of those beliefs I had before I became a Christian are now reinforced by my religious beliefs.

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

And personally, I don't like strip clubs and such. They have nearly ruined our community here in Louisiana. Murders, rapes, etc., can be directly related to clubs around here. But, fortunately, most of them have been shut down now. Many families were ruined because of those clubs. Now, I am only speaking about what is happening in my community and in no way can I say this is the case everywhere.

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

Me either, really, but my point is that they exist because of the secret dirty world that we all live in behind closed doors. We can't express those desires out loud for fear of rejection and persecution. So we lock our doors and watch porn until we burst. Like I said before, there used to be art we'd consider pornographic that was literally hanging around everyone's houses. The reason porn is such a popular industry is because we make it that taboo and dirty thing.

Yes, in some instances things need to be brought into the open. In the case of pornography, I don't think it needs to be brought anymore into the open than it is. And yes, I understand about what was once pornography is now art. Remember the Guyana Tragedy? Things like that don't have the same effect on the world today as it did when it happened. Same thing with Hurricane Katrina. All of a sudden, it's virtually disappeared from the public eye, replaced by some other tragedy or spectacular event. I believe society is becoming rather immune to too many things.

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

We all have our beliefs. We all have our no no's in life. Unfortunately, they don't ever seem to be the same. But, I will say that civil discussions about these things are so very important in each point of view being brought to the surface so we can all understand each other better.

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

Dialogue is so important and learning about where we came from. You'd have your socks knocked off if you saw some of the art from Pompeii, for example. I am a little shocked even and I consider myself pretty liberal sexually. But the point is that sex hasn't always been viewed as it is today. If you are interested, check this site out. I will warn you that there are "pornographic" images of statues and paintings. I think that once you move past the initial shock, they are beautiful and express life in in it's barest form.

Pompeii

I will look at that link because I appreciate your sharing with me and I won't discount anything out of hand.

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

P.S. BTW Bella, do you smoke after sex?

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

I quit smoking all together but never really got the urge to do it after sex anyway.

I answered this in a PM to you. Laughing

0 Replies

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/huggles.gif

Set,

We may not agree on anything, that is true. That is ok. That is one of the things that makes the world go around.

0 Replies

Couldn't resist the childish impulse to use the vacuous "emoticons," could you . . . hypocricy reigns . . .

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

John Creasy wrote:
Bella Dea wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
Unlike some here, I don't have all the answers. I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality is not just a religious issue.

You've yet to prove that it is anything more than a religious issue.

Humans have sex for pleasure as well as procreation so any form of sex is natural, IMO.

Since when do I have to "prove" anything?? Prove to me that it IS only a religious issue. We are both stating opinions and nothing more.

I have. Go back and read my post. And if you want to run with the "big kids", you should be able to back up your argument. Not just throw a fit and cry about not having to prove anything.

Nature has several signs that point directly to this prudishness being religious zealots wanting to stifle everyone under their rules.

Get over yourself. If being a "big kid" means being an internet geek like you, then no thanks. BTW, you didn't prove anything, you just spouted off your opinions and insulted me for disagreeing with you. There is no proof to this issue, only opinions.

0 Replies

homosexuality is not 'unnatural'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know