Yes it is under the same umbrella.
Is it then? So, under the same umbrella in what sense? Behavior and or orientation....to what degree to they effect the totality of human sexuality.
However, to use an analogy, Geology and Oceanography are both under the earth sciences umbrella, yet they are obviously different. So just because they are under the same umbrella doesn't mean that there are not major differences.
No no no....Sir....another colossal error here, please attend to your analogies. Both are absolutely necessary to Earth Science. Critical and vital. Necessary. Earth Science doesn't exist without geology, it cannot exist without oceanography either. It relies on both and many other sciences to be complete, along with studying our atmosphere and universe. Human sexuality doesn't require homosexuality. It is wholly irrelevant. It has never created anything. It hasn't added to mankind in the slightest. It isn't relevant to geneolgy, it isn't relevant to ancestory, it isn't necessary for mankind whatsoever. In it's absence the world wouldn't change an iota, no one here is contributing to this forum as a result of ANY homosexual orientation or behavior. Everyone here is present because of heterosexual behavior and orientation, every single one of us. Your analogy isn't worth the glass it's written on.
Actually it is very much relevant. You are trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Doing something that repulses you is not a choice. Doing something that repulses you is something that you either HAVE to do or are forced to do.
'Gay' parents were 'forced' to conceive children? Is that what you're trying to tell me? And then you're going to tell me children of 'gays' aren't affected, you'd be ok if one of your parents conceived you from an act that they found repulsive? And as a 'gay' person.....is one going to consider heterosexual behavior repulsive.....the very act that created them.....is repulsive? This gets more comical as we go, who was it....CC I think...asking me if I'm frustrated. I'm absolutely amused, the arguments in there are shredded and defeated and yet....like a fish ut of water, flopping around trying to make sense while eating its own tail. Heavens to mergatroid, Kal, give me some competititon!
And yes you could still ejaculate and have an orgasm by having sex with another man.
I'm going to have to take your word for this, I;ve simply never been repulsed upon reaching orgasm. I'm sorry. Never in my life have I reached a peak where I was repulsed. Ever. Please...can someone weigh in here who has had an orgasm while being repulsed? BEcasue I think Kal is completely in error here, in fact, I defy anyone to support this joke of an argument. Who has EVER been repulsed by what they were doing while reaching orgasm?
Now...for an analogy of my own, I have heard of this.....on these shows that speak to mass murderers. Many times, demented people will hate themselves for killing, many times rapes are involved or some sexual pleasure is being taken from these sickos killing people. Now....they may be "repulsed", they may be whatever, is this perhaps what you're speaking to, I've NEVER heard anyone even tell me a story that began with I was so repulsed I orgasmed. Ever. Who do you know that's experienced this?
You are again confusing sexual behavior with a sexual orientation. You have not argued the exact same thing.
Ah yes, the retreat position so famous now. THe other arguments are entrenched in this same position, the untenable "you're confused, you don't know" arguments. Yes Sir, I do know...and you've just retreated, I know that as well.
Taking things out of context will get you no where. There is a reason that when we write we write in paragraphs. And that is to put things into context.
I'm right on context in fact, all over it. But, thanks.
Since, with the exceptions of humans (who are still instinctual) animals cannot reason it stands to reason that they only go by instincts.
Sexual instincts? Cause uh....I've heard it's a power thing with dogs and some other pack animals in fact, a female will often mount a male dog, seen that myself on National Geo's channel and the neighbor's dogs. That a "sexual instinct?" Your "stands to reason" here just another one of your colossal misunderstandings I'm afraid.
Incorrect. You are trying to say that a family must have both a male and a female couple for the child to turn out normal.
I'm not saying that at all, please quote me, Sir.
Relationship with parents: If the relationship is good with both parents this also promotes happiness and self confidence. If the relationship is bad..well guess what?
What of no relationship at all? A boy raised in a home without a male.....isn;t the best foot forward, are you arguing that?
It's not the lack of a father, its the lack of a second parental figure.
Links please.
A child raised in a household where there is no mother suffers the same as a child raised in a household without a father.
Are you saying a child must have two parents to be raised normally?