Glenn D
Leading Member
Good work on both of your parts 
Even athiests like myself have Cristian type morals
God speed George Bush
Even athiests like myself have Cristian type morals
God speed George Bush
A person's sexual orientation in no means suggests they can not be
beneficial to a society. As a matter of fact, there are many great
contributions made to humanity by homosexuals.
I speak from a spiritual context as I'm a Christian and the canon
of scripture teaches clearly that homosexuality is "un-natural".
My first post to this thread was not wise and has caused a flurry
of responses. However, I still hold to the belief that
homosexuality is a violation of the natural laws of human
reproduction. Within the confines of this argument alone; natural
= right.
--I find the assumption "natural=right" to be a little too simplicistic.
Is Internet "natural"? Is digital photography? Is cancer natural?
What can be defined natural after all? Different behaviours are
generated to help races survive just in case something really
unexpected happens. Homosexuality is surely not useful for survival
of the single individual, but from a social point of view I'm not
100% convinced humanity will be better without homosexuals.
Ancient philosophers used to have sex with both men and women but
the scripts of Aristoteles (to name an example) were still useful
not too long ago to help discover the flow of blood inside veins
(the Aristotelic assumption of "if it's there there must be a
reason" was used in that case).
I also believe that if gays want to be recognized as "normal" they
should avoid walking around naked with funny things tied to their
intimate parts
Simone
http://www.simonenavarra.it
![]()