Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?

Started May 11, 2012 | Discussions
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,750Gear list
Like?
Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
May 11, 2012

Actually Gay Rights has little if anything to do with politics. Yet in some strange manner the Republicans have managed to turn it into one.

Today a very Conservative Republican from upstate New York, announced that he's retiring, because he knows he'll lose the primary, and is quitting to avoid a primary fight 'that would hurt his Party." He had voted to legalise same sex marriage in New York. And no, mans not Gay.

When the Gay Rights movement got going back in the sixties, just as many Republicans as Democrats were supportive. What's changed?

Well the Republican Party a Political party has decided to become a Religious Party where religous issues that have nothing to do with politics have suddenly become a litmus test for whether you're a Republican or not.

Could Dick Cheney, a borderline Fascist, get back into active poltics today? I doubt it. Fanatical and Fascist as he is, he supports Gay Marriage. He's an f_ing RINO.

Well this is America, and religous parties don't do to well over here....

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

smallcams
Senior MemberPosts: 3,297
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to Chato, May 11, 2012

Chato wrote:

Actually Gay Rights has little if anything to do with politics.

I agree. Plenty Ds and Rs that don't support gay marriage. And Log Cabin Republicans oppose Clinton's DoMA.

Yet in some strange manner the Republicans have managed to turn it into one.

Really? The Republicans?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,750Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to smallcams, May 11, 2012

smallcams wrote:

Chato wrote:

Actually Gay Rights has little if anything to do with politics.

I agree. Plenty Ds and Rs that don't support gay marriage. And Log Cabin Republicans oppose Clinton's DoMA.

Yet in some strange manner the Republicans have managed to turn it into one.

Really? The Republicans?

Pay attention Small Cams - Pay attention! Once an issue is turned into a political issue, you can't turn it back.

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,640
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to Chato, May 11, 2012

Chato wrote:

Actually Gay Rights has little if anything to do with politics. Yet in some strange manner the Republicans have managed to turn it into one.

Today a very Conservative Republican from upstate New York, announced that he's retiring, because he knows he'll lose the primary, and is quitting to avoid a primary fight 'that would hurt his Party." He had voted to legalise same sex marriage in New York. And no, mans not Gay.

When the Gay Rights movement got going back in the sixties, just as many Republicans as Democrats were supportive. What's changed?

Well the Republican Party a Political party has decided to become a Religious Party where religous issues that have nothing to do with politics have suddenly become a litmus test for whether you're a Republican or not.

Exactly the reason I can only really think in terms of the religious right when I think of Republicans now (proves to be a safe bet the majority of the time). They no longer represent the rational conservative but have been hijacked by evangelists and extreme views. I doubt that they could front anyone these days with any reasonable ability for universal leadership.

Could Dick Cheney, a borderline Fascist, get back into active poltics today? I doubt it. Fanatical and Fascist as he is, he supports Gay Marriage. He's an f_ing RINO.

Well this is America, and religous parties don't do to well over here....

It's the religiously driven factions that are not so obvious you need to worry about (they are learning, slowly).

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,640
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a left wing issue?
In reply to smallcams, May 11, 2012

smallcams wrote:

Chato wrote:

Actually Gay Rights has little if anything to do with politics.

I agree. Plenty Ds and Rs that don't support gay marriage. And Log Cabin Republicans oppose Clinton's DoMA.

Yet in some strange manner the Republicans have managed to turn it into one.

Really? The Republicans?

Wel not purely the Republicans. More like the god botherers through the Republicans.
--

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
taintedcamera
Senior MemberPosts: 3,470
Like?
Is Gay Rights a Human Nature issue?
In reply to Chato, May 11, 2012

If sex was not a component of the human interaction principle, being gay wouldn't need the requirement of being accepted by all.... it would be already a Natural component of life.

Sex between gays becomes the issue for the majority of people who know that it goes against the fundamental Laws of Nature. A man cannot get pregnant for instance, or a woman cannot conceive a child with another woman.

For the individual who decides that being gay is what they want or need in life, this is not a problem for the majority. What is the problem for the majority who chose not to be gay, is how the acceptance of gays has gone well beyond that what was intended to sustain life itself, and is being propagated as being 'Natural for all', far beyond the 'acceptance only' principle.

For the majority, sex between gays is too extreme for most, because of it's implications against the 'Law of Nature'.

Politically speaking, Conservative or Liberal... the 'Law' of everything human is being challenged daily, and just because it called 'Law'. There has to be "two or more sides to every issue"...

We cannot become monopole, It's the 'Law' of the Universe.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,312Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a Human Nature issue?
In reply to taintedcamera, May 11, 2012

taintedcamera wrote:

If sex was not a component of the human interaction principle, being gay wouldn't need the requirement of being accepted by all.... it would be already a Natural component of life.

Sex between gays becomes the issue for the majority of people who know that it goes against the fundamental Laws of Nature. A man cannot get pregnant for instance, or a woman cannot conceive a child with another woman.

Laws of nature endorse:

  • Infanticide

  • Forced sex

  • Xenophobia

  • Massmurder

and, here it comes:

  • homosexuality

Homosexual activity has been witnessed among many other species than just humans. Biologists have seen this among zebra's ducks etcetc. And it was not in some prison with only other male ducks or zebra's, no: they had a lot of choice but preferred the same sex.

But nature is not a law at all in a free society. It does not matter if it is uniquely human or not. The fact is that some people feel attracted to the same sex. They do not have a problem at all, nature does not collapse at all. Using "nature" as some kind of standard, even if it were true that same sex relations do not exist among other creatures, is just another way for people who themselves have a problem with accepting something they automatically reject.

Now I know that religion has never been observed in nature. May be we should therefor quite with all sorts of religious systems because they are unnatural.

For the individual who decides that being gay is what they want or need in life, this is not a problem for the majority. What is the problem for the majority who chose not to be gay, is how the acceptance of gays has gone well beyond that what was intended to sustain life itself, and is being propagated as being 'Natural for all', far beyond the 'acceptance only' principle.

I have never decided to be heterosexual, I just am and can't envision myself being with a guy. So what makes you think that gay people actually chose? But if someone does not chose, like 99% of the gays will tell yo, you cannot blame them anything.

It is natural for those who feel like that. They can propagate their lifestyle, they can do whatever they like to convince others being gay is better. I know of many religious heterosexuals doing just that and it is fine with me.

For the majority, sex between gays is too extreme for most, because of it's implications against the 'Law of Nature'.

So because of a misconception of nature, because there are gay ducks etc. In reality, most anti gay people are religious and are brought up to dislike gays although I do think the antipathy against gay people is inborn aswell. many things are inborn, but that does not mean we should automatically say that they therefor are good.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JasonMI
Regular MemberPosts: 475
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a Human Nature issue?
In reply to taintedcamera, May 11, 2012

taintedcamera wrote:

If sex was not a component of the human interaction principle, being gay wouldn't need the requirement of being accepted by all.... it would be already a Natural component of life.

Sex between gays becomes the issue for the majority of people who know that it goes against the fundamental Laws of Nature. A man cannot get pregnant for instance, or a woman cannot conceive a child with another woman.

For the individual who decides that being gay is what they want or need in life, this is not a problem for the majority. What is the problem for the majority who chose not to be gay, is how the acceptance of gays has gone well beyond that what was intended to sustain life itself, and is being propagated as being 'Natural for all', far beyond the 'acceptance only' principle.

For the majority, sex between gays is too extreme for most, because of it's implications against the 'Law of Nature'.

Politically speaking, Conservative or Liberal... the 'Law' of everything human is being challenged daily, and just because it called 'Law'. There has to be "two or more sides to every issue"...

We cannot become monopole, It's the 'Law' of the Universe.

There is no 'law of nature' against homosexuality; it's quite common in nature.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,750Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a Human Nature issue?
In reply to taintedcamera, May 11, 2012

taintedcamera wrote:

If sex was not a component of the human interaction principle, being gay wouldn't need the requirement of being accepted by all.... it would be already a Natural component of life.

Sex between gays becomes the issue for the majority of people who know that it goes against the fundamental Laws of Nature. A man cannot get pregnant for instance, or a woman cannot conceive a child with another woman.

For the individual who decides that being gay is what they want or need in life, this is not a problem for the majority. What is the problem for the majority who chose not to be gay, is how the acceptance of gays has gone well beyond that what was intended to sustain life itself, and is being propagated as being 'Natural for all', far beyond the 'acceptance only' principle.

For the majority, sex between gays is too extreme for most, because of it's implications against the 'Law of Nature'.

Politically speaking, Conservative or Liberal... the 'Law' of everything human is being challenged daily, and just because it called 'Law'. There has to be "two or more sides to every issue"...

We cannot become monopole, It's the 'Law' of the Universe.

There have been many societies where being Gay was being "normal." I.e. Sexual orientation simply was! Straight, Gay or anywhere in between was being normal. In other words individual sexuality meant nothing.

Indeed, one of the most influential of cultures on our present society (Ancient Greece) never gave Homosexuality a thought. And Plato, a Christian hero because of his views on Monotheism, was exclusively homosexual.

But since many Americans are dependant on the Bible for their opinion of what is normal, then their response is not a response of rationality - But of religion.

Of course, even they don't believe everything the Bible tells them. We don't stond adulterers, we don't kill children who takk back to their parents, and we don't stone people who change their religion.

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,750Gear list
Like?
Why is Obama being called evil for this?
In reply to Chato, May 11, 2012

When an ubber Right Winger like Cheney gets a pass?

Cheney came out over a year ago to favor Gay Marriage, and yet not a word about him is spokan in the Corporate Liberal media. True, it was reported and then fropped out of the sky...

One would think that NOW, at this moment, as they are wailing and screaming at Obama; at the Conspiracy of his decision, that they would mention Mr. Cheney?

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
taintedcamera
Senior MemberPosts: 3,470
Like?
They even made a children's book about the male couple.
In reply to Chato, May 11, 2012

Chato wrote:

taintedcamera wrote:

If sex was not a component of the human interaction principle, being gay wouldn't need the requirement of being accepted by all.... it would be already a Natural component of life.

Sex between gays becomes the issue for the majority of people who know that it goes against the fundamental Laws of Nature. A man cannot get pregnant for instance, or a woman cannot conceive a child with another woman.

For the individual who decides that being gay is what they want or need in life, this is not a problem for the majority. What is the problem for the majority who chose not to be gay, is how the acceptance of gays has gone well beyond that what was intended to sustain life itself, and is being propagated as being 'Natural for all', far beyond the 'acceptance only' principle.

For the majority, sex between gays is too extreme for most, because of it's implications against the 'Law of Nature'.

Politically speaking, Conservative or Liberal... the 'Law' of everything human is being challenged daily, and just because it called 'Law'. There has to be "two or more sides to every issue"...

We cannot become monopole, It's the 'Law' of the Universe.

There have been many societies where being Gay was being "normal." I.e. Sexual orientation simply was! Straight, Gay or anywhere in between was being normal. In other words individual sexuality meant nothing.

Indeed, one of the most influential of cultures on our present society (Ancient Greece) never gave Homosexuality a thought. And Plato, a Christian hero because of his views on Monotheism, was exclusively homosexual.

But since many Americans are dependant on the Bible for their opinion of what is normal, then their response is not a response of rationality - But of religion.

Of course, even they don't believe everything the Bible tells them. We don't stond adulterers, we don't kill children who takk back to their parents, and we don't stone people who change their religion.

You took what I said way out of context.

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

I'm not speaking of what one can consider to be "normal", that can be manufactured by any society. But rather what nature provides us to propagate life itself. Which cannot be accomplished with a same sex couple, it can't... unless you are of a specific species that can change sex if there is no other opportunity to mate with the opposite sex... it doesn't mean these species are 'gay'.

And since man does not have child bearing ability, or a woman without means of being impregnated, it should be considered outside the norm of the 'law of nature'.

Human loving is one thing, having same sex intercourse for pleasure is another.

Everyone loves the story of Roy and Silo... the gay male penguins who hatch a chick of their own. This is part of what I mean by 'manufactured' gay normalcy, and that which the zoo keepers around the world took to the next level.

They even made a children's book about the male couple who hatched then adopted a chick of their own... How about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

-- hide signature --

Hi :>

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,750Gear list
Like?
I believe you miss the point
In reply to taintedcamera, May 11, 2012

taintedcamera wrote:

You took what I said way out of context.

I'm not speaking of what one can consider to be "normal", that can be manufactured by any society. But rather what nature provides us to propagate life itself. Which cannot be accomplished with a same sex couple, it can't... unless you are of a specific species that can change sex if there is no other opportunity to mate with the opposite sex... it doesn't mean these species are 'gay'.

The propagation of a species is just peachy with me. But just because a society doesn't give a sht about whether someone is Gay or someone is straight, the species still seems to thrive. If Gay people don't propogate, what does that have to ndo with marriage? Whether they're outlawed or legal, tolerated or accepted, they still don't "propogate," unless of course as with many Gay woman, they propogate anyway.

And since man does not have child bearing ability, or a woman without means of being impregnated, it should be considered outside the norm of the 'law of nature'.

The law of nature recognises homosexuality - Yet all these spieces still survive. Homosexuality, now that the blinders are off, serves very important functions in nature.

Human loving is one thing, having same sex intercourse for pleasure is another.

Everyone loves the story of Roy and Silo... the gay male penguins who hatch a chick of their own. This is part of what I mean by 'manufactured' gay normalcy, and that which the zoo keepers around the world took to the next level.

They even made a children's book about the male couple who hatched then adopted a chick of their own... How about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

Many social species take advantage of their homosexual members to assure the survival of offspring. In humans, while We restrict it, many primitive cultures still make use of this to optimise the odd's of survival.

Take the WIld dogs of Africa - In a pack only a few of them will actually breed, the others act to assure the survival of those pups that are born.

But the plain fact of the matter, as I point out above, is that people choose to propogate - And last time I checked, a Hetrosexual couple that chooses not to propogate is not discriminated against; not forced to hide from their neighbors - Not looked upon as objects of shame - Or people to be bullied. The desire to have children, is met in many different ways. Adaption, surrogates, etc, etc.

The plain fact of the matter is that many people are afraid of Gay people - Either because they fear that they are actually homosexual, or they fear that their children will "choose" to be gay. No one chooses their sexual orientation.

Nature doesn't discriminate - Why do we?

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,312Gear list
Like?
Re: I believe you miss the point
In reply to Chato, May 11, 2012

What he is talking about is the naturalistic fallacy in philiosophy in which "natural" equates "good" or "how it is supposed to be". It is one of the many ways to circumvent what is at stake. Nature is not at stake. Nature is no entity and it does not care about anythong of course. What people mean when they say "natural" is just another way what in their mind should and should not be allowed. Just like religion, a doctrine etc. And always it means that indvidual rights or preferences are not fully or partially accepted.

There are two same sex people who want to have intercourse. There is no problem as long as one of the two is not forced to do so. Not a single person is hurt, no ones lifes is at stake. Nothing. Simply the views of some what should and should not be allowed. Nothing more, nothing less.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,750Gear list
Like?
Heh, heh, he
In reply to Jorginho, May 11, 2012

Jorginho wrote:

What he is talking about is the naturalistic fallacy in philiosophy in which "natural" equates "good" or "how it is supposed to be". It is one of the many ways to circumvent what is at stake. Nature is not at stake. Nature is no entity and it does not care about anythong of course. What people mean when they say "natural" is just another way what in their mind should and should not be allowed. Just like religion, a doctrine etc. And always it means that indvidual rights or preferences are not fully or partially accepted.

There are two same sex people who want to have intercourse. There is no problem as long as one of the two is not forced to do so. Not a single person is hurt, no ones lifes is at stake. Nothing. Simply the views of some what should and should not be allowed. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's are other on-going threads on this subject...

In one of them started by Woody, he points out that gay sex is completely "unnatural."

I was inspired to point out how often I engage in "Unnatural Sex" with my girlfriend. Sex with no aim to reproduce or propogate...

Now not that long ago, the above kind of sex was illegal. In fact, there are laws on the books in some states that STILL make it illegal. Of course, these laws are not enforced. In fact, I do believe the Supreme Court rulled them unconstitutional.

Did anyone complain about the Courts rulling?
"Activist Judges?"

For some reason the poltical right hasn't yet made a big deal of this - Although I wonder what would happen if we asked Romney?

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,312Gear list
Like?
Re: Heh, heh, he
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

YEs, I know of some southern Stateshaving problems with anal sex and licking some parts of the body etc. Incredible for a Northern European and I think a lot of other regions in the world as well.

I noted Woody and his rant. I let him rant. Some people have views that are so far from mine that any discussion has no purpose, it only costs a lot of time. With Woody, it is almost a constant. No need to react. People like Woody are almost non existent in The Netherlands. I always have som difficulty in truely believing those people I cannot imagine people having such trouble with what others do in their homes and how single sided it is. They are not complaing all the time about Sadomasochism (not a problem for me either btw, if people like it please go ahead), of course the obligatory sex versus weapons/violence argument in which they have no problem with extreme violence in TV but private part is totally out of question it seems. Etcetc.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger99
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,640
Like?
Re: Why is Obama being called evil for this?
In reply to Chato, May 12, 2012

I do have to ask Chato. Why specifically the Corporate Liberal media? How is this different to the Corporate Conservative media? While corporate interests work most directly through the "Liberal" media in fairly obvious ways they do the same through "Conservative" media with the addition of the back room political manipulation of its target demographic in concert with the more superficial levels.

Not trying to start an argument here. Just trying to clear up or find a clarification to this catch cry of yours.

Chato wrote:

When an ubber Right Winger like Cheney gets a pass?

Cheney came out over a year ago to favor Gay Marriage, and yet not a word about him is spokan in the Corporate Liberal media. True, it was reported and then fropped out of the sky...

One would think that NOW, at this moment, as they are wailing and screaming at Obama; at the Conspiracy of his decision, that they would mention Mr. Cheney?

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

-- hide signature --

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle
..oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KEVZPHOTOS
Forum ProPosts: 16,154
Like?
Re: Is Gay Rights a Human Nature issue?
In reply to taintedcamera, May 12, 2012

taintedcamera wrote:

For the majority, sex between gays is too extreme for most, because of it's implications against the 'Law of Nature'.

That's an incorrect statement.

Being gay is the normal law of nature ....for a certain percentage of human beings.

The social problem is....that any "minority" group...becomes the bully victim of the much larger majority group.

Think Jews, Blacks, Gypsies, lepers, and yes gays - you have it

No matter WHAT the minority group is - it will always be considered "unnatural" weird, strange, bad, wrong....by the majority masses.

IF 90% of humans were green and 10% were blue.....who do you think would be considered BAD/wrong - yep you guessed it

Natural human nature "includes" being gay...for approx 7-10% of the population.
For gay people....being sexually attracted to the SAME sex is normal.

Gay folks don't have any say in the matter, they did not 'choose' their sexual orientation....any more than us straight folks chose ours.

Get over it....

KEV

"It is a small gesture, but one that can be very effective - especially in a large crowd. So fart, and if you must, fart often. But always fart without apology. Fart for freedom, fart for liberty, and fart proudly" (Benjamin Franklin 'The Dream' 1751)

http://kvincentphotography.ca/stackedimages
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
taintedcamera
Senior MemberPosts: 3,470
Like?
I believe you miss my point
In reply to Jorginho, May 12, 2012

Jorginho wrote:

What he is talking about is the naturalistic fallacy in philiosophy in which "natural" equates "good" or "how it is supposed to be". It is one of the many ways to circumvent what is at stake. Nature is not at stake. Nature is no entity and it does not care about anythong of course. What people mean when they say "natural" is just another way what in their mind should and should not be allowed. Just like religion, a doctrine etc. And always it means that indvidual rights or preferences are not fully or partially accepted.

There are two same sex people who want to have intercourse. There is no problem as long as one of the two is not forced to do so. Not a single person is hurt, no ones lifes is at stake. Nothing. Simply the views of some what should and should not be allowed. Nothing more, nothing less.

"What he is talking about is the naturalistic fallacy in philiosophy in which "natural" equates "good" or "how it is supposed to be"
"Not a single person is hurt, no ones lifes is at stake."

No... your now forcing your opinion down or throats... Who is being hurt here?

"There are two same sex people who want to have intercourse."

It is indeed against any consequence to natural propagation.... it is only for personal pleasure, not of any point I was making with your perceived religious overtones or otherwise. I have no problem with "Human Loving', only that which I was pointing out was never intended to be by nature, which again is male intercourse. This is the opinion of many, and is not being forced upon your opinion to do what you seem is right for you, which your allowed to do. No one is being forceful against your beliefs, you can do what you like. Can't say the same with your respect for others.

"What people mean when they say "natural" is just another way what in their mind should and should not be allowed."

I have absolutely no problem with what people do with their lives, but again, it seems that you have issues with anyone who sees intercourse between men as un-natural. So then you pull the religion ploy out of your bag of excuses. I have full understanding of this issue from both sides of the perspective... Do you?

I did not respond to this thread from a religious POV, you and you alone did that... that open minded are you?

I do find the story of the gay penguins Roy and Silo as being concocted by the gays rights folks, to indoctrinate children into the lifestyle of homosexuality. One only needs to educate themselves of the breeding habits, along with the evolution of the penguin, to know that most penguins incubate their eggs by singular groups of either all male, then with the first feeding of the newly hatch chicks by the female. Any other differences are now evolutionary, but started out being the way it is by means of necessity.

What is not unusual, and quite common, is that a female won't drop an egg which leaves her mate within the group of males with no egg to incubate. So the pairing of that male with one that is incubating an egg is not that uncommon. You should read up on the evolutionary being of 'anything', including the penguine... quite interesting.

There are no naturally conceived gay penguins outside of the rare physiologically and naturally occurring malformation, only gay zookeepers with an agenda.

Sorry, I digressed for a moment ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
KEVZPHOTOS
Forum ProPosts: 16,154
Like?
Re: They even made a children's book about the male couple.
In reply to taintedcamera, May 12, 2012

taintedcamera wrote:

I'm not speaking of what one can consider to be "normal", that can be manufactured by any society. But rather what nature provides us to propagate life itself.

Just because gay sex cannot propogate life...doesn't in any way make it less normal for that particular group of people.

Nature made gay people the way they are.....so therefore, nature's structural inclusiveness of the universe...intended that 'gay' human beings wouldn't have the ability to propogate.

Nearlly all women over the age of say 60 cannot propogate either. Obviously, there's a natural objective reasoning behind that too.

This idea that because gay people cannot propogate....so therefore being gay must be 'not natural'....bad, or wrong....is a big mistake in logic.

Humans merely create this non existant linkage between the two premises...because it serves their own self-interests.

No every incidence of human existance MUST have the ability to propogate.

Where is it written on the wall...that this MUST be the case?

It's only human bias, bigotry, preference, etc., that assumes to determine this.

KEV

"It is a small gesture, but one that can be very effective - especially in a large crowd. So fart, and if you must, fart often. But always fart without apology. Fart for freedom, fart for liberty, and fart proudly" (Benjamin Franklin 'The Dream' 1751)

http://kvincentphotography.ca/stackedimages
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
taintedcamera
Senior MemberPosts: 3,470
Like?
Re: Heh, heh, he
In reply to Jorginho, May 12, 2012

Jorginho wrote:

YEs, I know of some southern Stateshaving problems with anal sex and licking some parts of the body etc. Incredible for a Northern European and I think a lot of other regions in the world as well.

I noted Woody and his rant. I let him rant. Some people have views that are so far from mine that any discussion has no purpose, it only costs a lot of time. With Woody, it is almost a constant. No need to react. People like Woody are almost non existent in The Netherlands. I always have som difficulty in truely believing those people I cannot imagine people having such trouble with what others do in their homes and how single sided it is. They are not complaing all the time about Sadomasochism (not a problem for me either btw, if people like it please go ahead), of course the obligatory sex versus weapons/violence argument in which they have no problem with extreme violence in TV but private part is totally out of question it seems. Etcetc.

So your the bigot... and you conveniently blame others of the same.

This is what I fear waiting for the teachings of the impressionable minds of children, buy the deluded mind of only a few , for what cause you stand for...
--
Hi :>

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads