Cuccinelli: I still believe being gay is “against nature”
55 replies, posted
You're all just debating semantics, everyone has his own opinion of what "natural" means
I personally think homosexuality is not natural in the sense that an homosexual species (not hermaphrodite) would not have the means to procreate and by that not even exist
That said, it doesn't mean I have anything against it. Can we just agree that the guy that said this originally is an idiot?
[QUOTE=James xX;41541493]Aren't we also one of the 3 species who can actually have sex for fun? Therefore isn't it natural to do it with someone you are attracted to? (I'm playing devil's advocate, sorry).[/QUOTE]
Wait, three? What's the third one (aside from humans and dolphins)?
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;41541989]You're all just debating semantics, everyone has his own opinion of what "natural" means
I personally think homosexuality is not natural in the sense that an homosexual species (not hermaphrodite) would not have the means to procreate and by that not even exist
That said, it doesn't mean I have anything against it. Can we just agree that the guy that said this originally is an idiot?[/QUOTE]
If you say anything remotely or seemingly negative about personal things like that people will jump you no matter what your intentions are.
[QUOTE=MasterFen006;41542014]Wait, three? What's the third one (aside from humans and dolphins)?[/QUOTE]
Seahorses I believe. (or some primates, I forget). It's also spoken about in this quote from a Danish paper.
[QUOTE]Of course, we have to make many seemingly artificial distinctions to arrive at our conclusion. Animals other than humans have no awareness that their sexual activities are connected with reproduction: They engage in sex because they're biologically driven to do so, and if the fulfillment of their urges produces a physical sensation we might appropriately call 'pleasure,' it isn't the least bit affected by the possibility (or impossibility) of producing offspring.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Sex_for_pleasure"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Sex_for_pleasure[/URL]
[QUOTE=TCB;41541464]surely it kind of is, right? i mean, humans are supposed to breed, and two of the same sex can't breed together. it's not [I]wrong[/I], but surely it isn't [I]natural[/I]?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. The real problem is when people think "but it's not natural!" is a valid argument against something, when it really isn't.
It goes against natural selection to keep people with crippling disorders and the like alive and comfortable, and surely it isn't natural to have safe sex for pleasure, because then we don't get as much offspring as we could. Does that mean either is bad? Of course not.
Sorry, not having a go at you, just ranting about the "not natural" argument.
[QUOTE=Keychain;41542017]If you say anything remotely or seemingly negative about personal things like that people will jump you no matter what your intentions are.[/QUOTE] This is a forum, it's meant for discussion and I shouldn't have to sugar coat everything to appear politically correct to people that don't even take the time to read my post properly
I'll take criticism anyday but ignorant knee-jerk reactions I have no poblem ignoring
Well that's good, because I still believe Cuccinelli is a fucking dumbass, so I guess we can agree to disagree
I like how people go all "oh but it's against nature!!!!" as if that would've been a valid argument even if it was true.
They blatantly spew out all that hypocritical bullshit and then they return to their lives filled with human contraptions that
allow global communication and travel at speeds way beyond what is possible for a person.
sure is natural
Everything is natural because people and everything we make are a part of nature. We're not magic beings who entered an untouched universe and bend it to our will against the natural order. We're part of the universe just like anything else. Nothing is unnatural. When are people going to figure that out? It doesn't take a genius.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;41542630]Everything is natural because people and everything we make are a part of nature. We're not magic beings who entered an untouched universe and bend it to our will against the natural order. We're part of the universe just like anything else. Nothing is unnatural. When are people going to figure that out? It doesn't take a genius.[/QUOTE]
not to argue semantics but i suppose they're going by the definition "not made by humans" which is still bullshit and makes no sense
The saying of something "going against nature" stems from the erroneous thinking that mankind and nature are two seperate things, when in reality, humans are a part of nature, and so is everything they do and create.
It probably goes back to Religion as well, which would be no surprise.
Therefore, I find that anyone using this sentence as an argument to prove a point to be completely laughable.
Edit: fack, ninja'd by Johnny
[QUOTE=DeEz;41542687]not to argue semantics but i suppose they're going by the definition "not made by humans" which is still bullshit and makes no sense[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make any sense in context though.
Houses would be against nature.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;41542696]That doesn't make any sense in context though.
Houses would be against nature.[/QUOTE]
yeah exactly it makes no sense
[QUOTE=TCB;41541464]surely it kind of is, right? i mean, humans are supposed to breed, and two of the same sex can't breed together. it's not [I]wrong[/I], but surely it isn't [I]natural[/I]?[/QUOTE]
Breeding is not what survival of the fittest means. Lots of homosexuals had made major contributions to our species as a whole.
[QUOTE=DeEz;41542745]yeah exactly it makes no sense[/QUOTE]
Moral of the story: Ken Cuccinelli's idiocy is independent of interpretation.
Well, in some ways homosexuality could be considered "unnatural" in the sense that it doesn't produce natural offspring, which is the primary purpose of sexual intercourse. Even though other animals do it, that still doesn't make it natural. But natural or not, that doesn't excuse the amount of sheer hatred people have for gays. It's disgusting.
Oh man, I love seeing the same people who vote agree on this backward bullshit.
Homphobic brony, it doesn't get better than that.
Cuccinelli seems like it would be a rather Santorumable word
[QUOTE=DeEz;41542687]not to argue semantics but i suppose they're going by the definition "not made by humans" which is still bullshit and makes no sense[/QUOTE]
Nature is one thing, one thing only. People often use 'Nature' as a representative figment for 'Anything not involving mankind's influence'
The absolute definition of nature, though, is 'being'. Anything that has ever happened anywhere, is in nature. Homosexuality fits this definition 1:1.
[editline]21st July 2013[/editline]
People using nature as an adjective that fits the former definition are implying that mankind are not a part of nature, or somehow above it.
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41545631]Nature is one thing, one thing only. People often use 'Nature' as a representative figment for 'Anything not involving mankind's influence'
The absolute definition of nature, though, is 'being'. Anything that has ever happened anywhere, is in nature. Homosexuality fits this definition 1:1.
[editline]21st July 2013[/editline]
People using nature as an adjective that fits the former definition are implying that mankind are not a part of nature, or somehow above it.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't even matter which way you want to define nature, because homosexuality isn't unnatural anyway.
[QUOTE=Blueplastic;41544584]Oh man, I love seeing the same people who vote agree on this backward bullshit.
Homphobic brony, it doesn't get better than that.[/QUOTE]
No it gets worse than that, homophobic racist republican bronies. Yes that is a thing.
take the paint, for example red and blue
if you mix red with blue we get a purple
but if blue and blue?
or let's look at numbers 0 it's men and 1 it's woman
1+1 of course we get some, girls friendship :D and 2girls1men
but 0+0 ._. sad story
look any opposites things black:white,fast:slow,male:female that is nature.
I feel sorry for young people because they do not have an opinion about it
I can understand lesbians, girls love differently, but gays... it's just not the right education and perhaps a physical disorders with сocklover symptoms.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41545063]Cuccinelli seems like it would be a rather Santorumable word[/QUOTE]
it should have something to do with anal sex as with santorum, but you want it to stand outside of santorum's shadow and be equally gross
hmm
a puzzle for the ages
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41545063]Cuccinelli seems like it would be a rather Santorumable word[/QUOTE]
sounds to me like the name you'd call a zucchini that you've used to fuck yourself with
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41546727]sounds to me like the name you'd call a zucchini that you've used to fuck yourself with[/QUOTE]
oh yeah stick it in my "coochinelli"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.