• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bishop says kids ‘spontaneously’ gay and pedos

Who someone marries is ALWAYS a choice.

The biological sexual reaction is not a choice.

Procreation and its natural sexual requirement is not a choice.
 
I've already explained that 4 times in here. What part did you not understand about the biological sexual reaction in people always is in anticipation of heterosexual sex

Obviously that is just not true.
 
Really now? See... you were arguing differently before. :lol:

I absolutely was not.

My first post in this thread.

There are many half baked theories from the failed twins study to the fruit fly fiasco to relying on unsupervised questionnaires but it never changes the basic knowledge of science.

Biological sexual reactions are purely preparation for heterosexual sex. No matter how much the pro gay marriage group screams and cries the biological sexual reaction does not change for hetero or homosexual people. Men still produce and ejaculate sperm and women still divert blood to the uterus in anticipation for conception. These are measured and rock solid constants yet despite the evidence the religion of "homosexuality must be genetic" never ceases to draw new members to its flock based purely on faith alone.

I suggest you read more carefully next time.

What's that got to do with legally recognized marriage?

Marriage is recognized at the family unit our society is based on. One man, one woman. You support changing that to include a sexual behavior that has never been proven to be beyond a choice.
 
Wow. So full of facts and evidence to dispute my argument. :roll:

You have not posted a single fact about homosexual attractions. Obviously it exists and some people are turned on by the same sex and some people only by the same sex.
 
You have not posted a single fact about homosexual attractions. Obviously it exists and some people are turned on by the same sex and some people only by the same sex.

Please explain how homosexual men do not produce and ejaculate sperm or women no longer direct more blood flow to the uterus when sexually aroused.

Go ahead.

Love to see this.

There are dozens of fetishes that turn people on. The biological sexual reaction is the constant.
 
The biological sexual reaction is not a choice.

If that were true, then a male would NEVER get a sexual reaction from seeing another male and the same being true with females. Thus you are already proven wrong.

Procreation and its natural sexual requirement is not a choice.

Procreation IS a choice. When people have sex, the majority of times is by choice, thus procreation is a choice.
 
If that were true, then a male would NEVER get a sexual reaction from seeing another male and the same being true with females. Thus you are already proven wrong.

LOL Fetishes wouldn't turn people on either. No one is claiming they are genetic :lol:

Procreation IS a choice. When people have sex, the majority of times is by choice, thus procreation is a choice.

Sorry sport. To produce a child naturally requires heterosexual sex. There is no way beyond it.
 
Please explain how homosexual men do not produce and ejaculate sperm or women no longer direct more blood flow to the uterus when sexually aroused.

Go ahead.

Love to see this.

There are dozens of fetishes that turn people on. The biological sexual reaction is the constant.

So, your claim is that sex is only designed for procreative purposes? guess that blowjobs are out for you, huh? That explains a lot.
 
Please explain how homosexual men do not produce and ejaculate sperm or women no longer direct more blood flow to the uterus when sexually aroused.

Go ahead.

Love to see this.

What does that have to do with being attracted to the same sex?
 
So, your claim is that sex is only designed for procreative purposes? guess that blowjobs are out for you, huh? That explains a lot.

lol Your confusion is amusing. My argument supports heterosexuality having a concrete basis in genetics.

When you can prove the same for homosexuality, let me know :2wave:
 
What does that have to do with being attracted to the same sex?

Sigh. You are forgetting your own argument. You demanded evidence for genetic heterosexuality. (as silly as that is) and I provided it.

Waiting for you to prove genetic homosexuality :)
 
lol Your confusion is amusing. My argument supports heterosexuality having a concrete basis in genetics.

When you can prove the same for homosexuality, let me know :2wave:

Have you ever seen two female cows in the field humping each other? Many animal species engage in homosexual acts. Humans are no different.
 
I absolutely was not.

My first post in this thread.



I suggest you read more carefully next time.
You said the biological reaction wasn't a choice. Getting turned on is a biological reaction, which is not a choice. So how is getting turned on by one person and not another a choice?

But, the choice is completely irrelevant. Every time we have sex with anyone, it's a choice. Every time we marry someone, it's a choice. So this argument takes you nowhere.


Marriage is recognized at the family unit our society is based on. One man, one woman. You support changing that to include a sexual behavior that has never been proven to be beyond a choice.
Is having biological children from the bloodline of the marriage participants required for marriage?

Is even having sex required for marriage?

Is 'sexual behavior' a determinant for marriage licenses?

Is it even required to want children at all?


No?

Then you have no "biological" grounds for denying women and men equal rights in marriage choices. If a man can marry a woman, there's no damn reason I shouldn't be allowed to.
 
Have you ever seen two female cows in the field humping each other? Many animal species engage in homosexual acts. Humans are no different.

And humans also ate each other long ago on a regular basis. That isn't genetic either.

Just because its happened in history does not make it genetic.
 
LOL Fetishes wouldn't turn people on either. No one is claiming they are genetic :lol:

Your comments STILL do not prove that heterosexuality is NOT a choice and homosexuality is. You lose boy.

Sorry sport. To produce a child naturally requires heterosexual sex. There is no way beyond it.

Whether something is natural or not, has no bearing by default on whether it is genetic or not. Again, you lose.

I'm going to love it when gay marriage is legalized and people like you are going to have to deal with it. What are you going to do, cry?
 
And humans also ate each other long ago on a regular basis. That isn't genetic either.

Actually, it is. Genetically, we're omnivores, which means that we are both carnivorous and herbivorous. Our bodies require protein + vegetables and grains to thrive. Human meat would fit our genetic requirements for protein just fine.

We don't eat other humans not for genetic reasons, but for cultural reasons.

In some cultures, eating other humans is normal.

From this, I see that your understanding of genetics leaves something to be desired, scientifically speaking.

You use the word, but I don't think you know what it means.
 
You said the biological reaction wasn't a choice. Getting turned on is a biological reaction, which is not a choice. So how is getting turned on by one person and not another a choice?

You are not listening. Fetishes can turn people on sexually but the boilogical sexual reaction remains constant despite what an individual claims to find sexually arousing.

Is having biological children from the bloodline of the marriage participants required for marriage?

Is even having sex required for marriage?

Is 'sexual behavior' a determinant for marriage licenses?

Is it even required to want children at all?

It is a choice we as a society made to recognize one man and one woman based on the nature's procreation requirments and our natural sexual attractions.

Are you really that far gone you think 95% of the world's population is heterosexual by coincidence?


Then you have no "biological" grounds for denying women and men equal rights in marriage choices. If a man can marry a woman, there's no damn reason I shouldn't be allowed to.

I've proven the genetic link in one man and one woman. You want to change the law based on feeling and not factual evidence.
 
Actually, it is. Genetically, we're omnivores, which means that we are both carnivorous and herbivorous. Our bodies require protein + vegetables and grains to thrive. Human meat would fit our genetic requirements for protein just fine.

We don't eat other humans not for genetic reasons, but for cultural reasons.

In some cultures, eating other humans is normal.

LOL That only explains that we are meat eaters not genetically inclined to eat humans.

From this, I see that your understanding of genetics leaves something to be desired, scientifically speaking.

You use the word, but I don't think you know what it means.

Is that why you can't dispute my argument on the constant biological sexual reaction found in all people both hetero and homo?
 
boilogical sexual reaction remains constant despite what an individual claims to find sexually arousing.

So, if the only purpose for sperm is for procreation, do you believe in sex only for the purposes of procreation?

Actually, sperm has chemical qualities that may increase female bonding to a male partner and is mood-altering to females when absorbed by the cellular layer of the vagina. It might also be mood-altering to men when swallowed or absorbed in other ways because it has high levels of melatonin, testosterone, and progesterone.

We don't know exactly what the role of sperm is, but it's more than procreation.
 
Sigh. You are forgetting your own argument. You demanded evidence for genetic heterosexuality. (as silly as that is) and I provided it.

I was just wondering if scientists had discovered a heterosexual gene. I really did not care what the answer was because to me it is not that important

Waiting for you to prove genetic homosexuality :)

I really don't care about it. Some people are born gay some people have an inclination to lean that way and some are just horny. And it occurs in nature.
 
Your comments STILL do not prove that heterosexuality is NOT a choice and homosexuality is. You lose boy.

See you have no argument which is why you are getting frustrated. I understand. :2wave:

Whether something is natural or not, has no bearing by default on whether it is genetic or not. Again, you lose.

So you are going to claim that a sexual reaction and your body's reaction to it isn't genetic? LOL Are you really that far out there?

I'm going to love it when gay marriage is legalized and people like you are going to have to deal with it. What are you going to do, cry?

Absolutely not.
 
So, if the only purpose for sperm is for procreation, do you believe in sex only for the purposes of procreation?

Absolutely not but I recognize the reaction and its genetic link to heterosexual sex.

Actually, sperm has chemical qualities that may increase female bonding to a male partner and is mood-altering to females when absorbed by the cellular layer of the vagina. It might also be mood-altering to men when swallowed or absorbed in other ways because it has high levels of melatonin, testosterone, and progesterone.

We don't know exactly what the role of sperm is, but it's more than procreation.

LOL You are only making my argument stronger.
 
I was just wondering if scientists had discovered a heterosexual gene. I really did not care what the answer was because to me it is not that important

The reaction and the fact 95% of the people living on this planet kind of makes that point :)

I really don't care about it. Some people are born gay some people have an inclination to lean that way and some are just horny. And it occurs in nature.

Yet you have zero evidence to support your "born gay" theory. And thats the point.
 
Back
Top Bottom