A NOT politically correct view on Homosexuality.

[SaharaSunset 165]

Some people argue against the comparison of homosexuality to other acts that are considered sexually deviant. For example the comparison of the sexual preference in homosexuality to that of a 50 year old man wanting to be with a 12 year old girl. They argue that "its different" - "homosexuality involves consenting adults." I too shudder at such a scenario. But, if you use the same logic about why we must accept homosexuality, you really must argue for the rights of that 50 year old man and his 12 year old lover. The trouble is, Homosexuality is going against a social norm that has existed since the dawn of civilization. So, one could argue that if homosexuals have a right to break out of their social stigma, why not the 50 year man? Who decides what is socially acceptable? Why isn't it relative to the humans involved, as it is with homosexuality? If its acceptable to them, then shouldn't all be required to accept it?

We all know that in the world today, societies exist where polygamy is the social norm. Yet in America we mock those "crazy Mormons" and their 6 wives (which p.s., officially ended in the Mormon church back in the 1890's). We shudder at men who have such a voracious sexual appetite as to want multiple wives. And we laugh at those backwoods, incestuous hillbillies and their disgusting sexual preferences of immediate family members. But we have no grounds to feel that way. Why do we believe our views to be superior to the social standards of others? Why? Because we have created social standards about acceptable sexual partnerships regarding age and relation...and we used to have them regarding homosexuality. But social norms are shifting. And the argument can be made that if we embrace what was formerly considered sexually deviant based on nothing but the current "wave" of social standards, then what stops us from eventually being asked to embrace everyone's sexual preferences?

Take for example the "50 yr old/ 12 yr old" relationship. Today, this relationship is forbidden, even illegal, based 100% on our socially constructed ideals about the appropriate age of independence and self governance, aka: adulthood. But you must know that "adulthood" standards vary time in history, by society, individuals, and a wide range of other social factors. Bear in mind, this age taboo is not based on ANYTHING else - pure social standards. Technically a 12 year girl who has started her period can give birth to a child and therefore, by all physical logic, is capable of adulthood. It is purely social standards by which we consider her still a "child." Society can argue that a 50 year old man and a 12 year old girl together is "sexually deviant" until they are blue in the face, but it will ALWAYS be subject to the current "social cultural norms and standards" of that society. It will never be an irrefutable fact. Homosexuality on the other hand, can be argued against based on irrefutable physical evidence. So lets take out the social element. The biggest social factor against homosexuality is found in religion. And while religious objection must be considered a viable objection, for arguments sake, let take out the social/religious standard, and base an argument against homosexuality on, factual, physical, human processes.

It is a simple fact, whether you believe in God, or science, or any other version of how we came to be, that the physical act of sex is the means and the method for the pro-creation of life. Yes sex is about love(social standard), and its fun, and although enjoyable, we all know its real purpose. Kind of like food. Its fun, its enjoyable - but its real purpose is to fuel us and help us sustain life. So lets not get side tracked by emphasizing other uses and social standards about the purpose of sex. Our argument is taking out the social elements and focusing on physical fact. Sex is technically a physical process to create life.

Technically speaking, if a man and man have "sex" and the process does not create life, then their "sexual" behavior does not follow the natural functions intended by the human body. Without getting too graphic, when a man and a woman unite in the proper "channels" - they CAN create life, provided that all internal systems are functioning properly. And spare me the silly arguments of "What about infertile couples?" etc. Even if two men have all internal and external organs functioning properly, under no circumstances can they create life, without the help of 3rd party woman. We are not talking about a malfunction of ones natural body, as is the case in infertility. Nor are we discussing the natural aging process that prevents fertility in post-menopausal women etc. We are talking about a physical act, homosexuality, that was clearly never physically intended for the human body. I know its highly Un-PC to say it like this, but it is NOT natural. And I say that with zero "social standards" - I say it based purely on the physical process of pro-creation. Its just the facts.

Now, before I get lynched, allow me to offer this statement. I can love and appreciate individuals that are homosexual just like any other human being - and believe it or not, I do. I do not think they are evil, or terrible people in any way. However I do NOT think that means I MUST embrace homosexuality as natural and normal. It's not. Do I have a firm stance on same sex marriage? I frankly think the whole argument about same sex marriage is really just a bid for social approval of homosexuality and has very little to do with the title of marriage itself. I do however believe that nature, God, or whomever you want to give credit to, intended for men and women to be together as parents. I also think that the best case scenario for children is to have a mother and father, male and female. Science also proves that. Does that mean that two gay parents can't bring up a child in a loving home? Of course they can. But again, it is not natural, and it not the best case scenario. And yes I am fully aware of bad situations involving father/mother households, and single parents etc. But comparing apples to apples, if all other factors equal, in a side by side scenario comparison of 2 sets of loving parents, one homosexual, one heterosexual- physical evidence in the natural process of the human body, clearly considers a man and woman as the superior union.

Now, you can call me closed-minded if you want. But you must see the irony, because the very moment you label someone as "close-minded," you yourself are refusing to accept their views, however "offensive" you may deem them, and therefore you are being "close-minded" yourself. Ironic huh? You cannot be "Open-minded" unless you are "open" to ALL views....not just what it's currently trendy to be "open" about, and not just what you and other supposedly "open-minded" people have deemed good and right. If you are truly open-mind then you will be open to other views even if they they differ from yours, or don't follow the latest trend. You don't have to agree - but if you get angry and mad, and call someone backwards or ignorant or other silly Jr High things, just because of different views....then perhaps its a bit of pot calling the kettle black.

Now why take the time to write this? Because frankly it drives me crazy that some people condescendingly feel that any views opposing homosexuality are offensive, backward, ignorant, or worse yet- bigotry. My argument is simply an attempt to prove that even if you take away the social or religious objections(which are very valid), there is still a logical, physical reason why it is acceptable and totally okay for people NOT to accept homosexuality, no matter how much the "wave" of social pressure pushes them. As I stated before, I have no ill will towards homosexuals....but I also do not have to accept their lifestyle choices as normal and natural. I can love people, but I hope we are never forced to accept the sexual lifestyle choices of all people. I and millions of others should be entitled to stand for something that consequently can be argued both socially, and factually, without being accused of bigotry. I'm just a lover...not a hater

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Amazing the offensive ####### people get away with posting here.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Amazing the offensive ####### people get away with posting here.

What did you see that's offensive? A different view than yours? Personally I think everyone that's pro homosexual should be deported to an island in the middle of the Atlantic. That's just my opinion which I'm entitled to.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

What did you see that's offensive? A different view than yours? Personally I think everyone that's pro homosexual should be deported to an island in the middle of the Atlantic. That's just my opinion which I'm entitled to.

Luckily your opinion doesn't matter.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

It's just as offensive as saying one wants all black people shipped to a desert island.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I personally think it's the ANTI homosexuals who should be deported. After all, they are the smaller group.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Why the f^ck do any of you prurient ninnies give a toss about what I do in privacy, and with whom, and in what position, and indeed if the sex act is procreative? Lots of straight up and down sexytime stuff is most certainly not procreative.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Don't you know? They want the government out of everyone's lives - unless you're doing something they think is icky.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Don't you know? They want the government out of everyone's lives - unless you're doing something they think is icky.

I guess BJs are icky now. Poor men.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I personally think it's the ANTI homosexuals who should be deported. After all, they are the smaller group.

The OP isn't "anti" homosexual (definition of anti: Opposed to; against). I suggest you re-read the OP with an open mind rather than reading into it what's not there. Specifically the last paragraph:

My argument is simply an attempt to prove that even if you take away the social or religious objections(which are very valid), there is still a logical, physical reason why it is acceptable and totally okay for people NOT to accept homosexuality, no matter how much the "wave" of social pressure pushes them. As I stated before, I have no ill will towards homosexuals....but I also do not have to accept their lifestyle choices as normal and natural. I can love people, but I hope we are never forced to accept the sexual lifestyle choices of all people. I and millions of others should be entitled to stand for something that consequently can be argued both socially, and factually, without being accused of bigotry. I'm just a lover...not a hater

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Are you against a man and woman "uniting" in the "not proper channels". Should they be able to get married if they do?

Edited November 21, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[Penny Lane 8,159]

The OP isn't "anti" homosexual (definition of anti: Opposed to; against). I suggest you re-read the OP with an open mind rather than reading into it what's not there. Specifically the last paragraph:

I don't care what the OP is. I was responding to the comment that "pro homosexuals" should be deported.

I suggest you stop making suggestions if you don't know what I was actually talking about.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Evylin

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Do I want the homosexual agenda pushed on me and my family? That's a big no. Do I want to see those people adopt children? Another big no. Is homosexual marrage legal where I live? Another big no. Did the homosexual rights bill pass up here when voted on? It got killed in a landslide.

Iv'e told his story before on here and I will once more. Had my nephews with my in McDonalds in Seattle some years back now and two guys standing in line in front of us were holding hands and then they kissed each other. I didn't hesitate to let them know I had my nephews with me, one in Kindergarten and the other one a year younger and if they did it again in front of my nephews I would do my best to clean their clock right then and there.

When you subject little children to that lifestyle is when I draw the line.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Do I want the homosexual agenda pushed on me and my family? That's a big no. Do I want to see those people adopt children? Another big no. Is homosexual marrage legal where I live? Another big no. Did the homosexual rights bill pass up here when voted on? It got killed in a landslide.

Iv'e told his story before on here and I will once more. Had my nephews with my in McDonalds in Seattle some years back now and two guys standing in line in front of us were holding hands and then they kissed each other. I didn't hesitate to let them know I had my nephews with me, one in Kindergarten and the other one a year younger and if they did it again in front of my nephews I would do my best to clean right then and there.

When you subject little children to that lifestyle is when I draw the line.

But you want the anti-homosexual agenda pushed on other families.

If I was in that McDonalds, I would've been so embarrassed for you. A public display of affection that had absolutely nothing to do with you and you felt it was your right to tell strangers how to act in a public place. There aren't any rules about holding hands or kissing while waiting in line for food. I don't know who made you the PDA police, but there was nothing you could have or should have done about it.

I don't like watching heterosexual people make out in public. You know what I do about it? I stop looking.

You should try that next time. You won't make a fool out of yourself that way.

If I'd seen you talk to them that way, I'd have bought them their food. Some people need to be reminded that not EVERYONE sucks.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Evylin