Not really and you know it..
Well, so what if it happens in "nature"... I think that is a lazy way of arguing. Dude, everything can be said to be natural. Heck why don't you tell me about something that is unnatural to you, and I'll show you how it is I natural. It's a superficial way to argue, and unproductive. YOU know what people generally mean when they say unnatural, but instead choose to be obtuse. Like somehow, you're making an argument that because penis in the old pooper happens, it's natural. Instead why not say, homosexual sex, both female and male, is inconsistent with the observable function of both penis and vagina in accordance with successful procreative sex. Seems easier to say unnatural, eh?
So what? Ooh, homosexuals think about sex as often as heterosexuals. Gee golly beav, are they thinking about the same kind of sex? Are homosexuals thinking about procreative sex when they're doing all this thinking? You just proved or tacitly acknowledged my point. purposefully obtuseness will always land you in hot water eventually. You just need a skilled debater to bring it out. Really, Dress? You're going to have to do better, bud.
Dude that seriously made me laugh out loud. So you're not going to engage that angle then? Why, Dress?
My gosh really, are you saying that homosexuals can reproduce? I'll be darned.. Like I said, silly goose, the argument is not whether they can reproduce, it's whether it is natural for them to do so.
Great..
So, let's see. Because you challenged forum members to define why homosexuality was/is unnatural, you balk at an explanation using a reference to the dirtiness of anal sex, and that even though it can be observed in nature, is quite rare. In fact, that all animals on the entire Earth will avoid poop on their penis is not enough, you must accuse me of not knowing how human reproduction works, although I have 4 kids, and insinuate that I do not know the difference between orientation and behavior. I contend that you nor anyone else on this forum has ever been able to describe sexual orientation without referring to a specific behavior that confirms the orientation. In other words, Dress, you can't define orientation without a specific reference to a sexual action, whether physical or psychological it does not matter, the mere thought of homosexual sex is exactly like having it, and whether or not they go through with it means diddly squat. It's not enough to say that a sexual orientation is an attraction to that of the same sex, it is specific to include a "sexual" attraction. Otherwise, if you're attracted, well what the hell are you attracted to and or about that person? Go ahead and try, love to see ya attempt that one.
Tim-
Get lost, spammer.
