Unnatural Love

Unnatural Love

Discussion (13)¬

  1. AnarchoJesse says:

    Starting to think maybe you’re hanging around me too much.

  2. Mark says:

    Bait racers . . .

  3. susan 28 says:

    “it’s only right that you should play the way you feel it..”

    Porc n’ Bubble are such an unlikely pair, but they seem to have a good thing going!

  4. Puke says:

    Jesus frowns upon your shenanigans.

  5. Rich Paul says:

    Haven’t you seen Draw Together? God Looovves the gays! Are you kidding? They’re Adorrrable!

  6. Agape says:

    Hahaha! God at a glory hole :D

    Or is that :O

  7. Truth-er says:

    Yea freedom and shit, if thats your excuse for being gay and damaging your ass, and acting like a fairy all the time then fine. Idiot.

  8. Travis says:

    Exactly what I think.

    I find being gay liberating. Judgmental people that you might’ve been spending time with if you were straight are instantly identified as bigots when you come out to them.

    Way To Go Dale.


  9. Jim Profit says:

    Well considering it has no explaianble purpose in nature, then yes, by its very definition it is un-natural. All animals have an innate desire to find a mate and procreate. Instinct drives the sexual libido, humans however, have conscienceness that gets in the way.

    So either there’s something physically wrong with homosexuals, skewing their sexual instincts into a perversion of what evolution dictates. (And possibly being linked to more depraved sexual acts such as rape, pedophilia, polygamy, etc)

    Or it is simply a conscience effort to just engage in cardinal delights. Which is fine, but then you’re not a “people” you don’t have collective rights. You don’t see crackheads unionizing. You either smoke crack, or you don’t. You either take it in the ass, or you don’t.

  10. Iam says:

    @Jim Profit:

    I respect your desire to use science and logic in your formation of an opinion. However, I think you are oversimplifying things, and applying a false dichotomy that assumes everyone has to be exactly like everyone else. And assuming we are dumb apes who can not use reason and logic to make rational choices that go beyound basic primitive animal instincts.

    Homosexuality evolved naturally just as heterosexuality did. Who is to say that evolution couldn’t prefer a population that has some homosexuals and some heterosexuals, rather than all heterosexuals? Or some people that prefer pizza, while others prefer chinese food? Or some people that prefer baseball, while others prefer poker?

    Not everyone has to act exactly the same way. In fact, having a higher adult to child ratio, and/or a society where some people are specialized in parenting and some are not, etc, could potentially have benefits - or at least are not inherently bad. Things like liberty and quality of life are so much more important than blind conformity to so-called natural evolutionary desires.

    As for procreation, in the long-term, with advances in science… There is no definite necessity to reproduce using pregnancy. There is no definite necessity to have people age and die with brief (under 100 year) life spans. There is no definite necessity that we can’t replace this so-called natural evolution, with guided evolution (or bio-enhancements, or transhumanism) using our advances in science. We are not just a bunch of dumb mindless apes - or at least we don’t have to be.

    Humans have a higher level of consciousness and mind than other animals. There is no need for everyone to be a carbon copy of everyone else… It is okay for one person to prefer strawberries, and another to prefer apples.

    We should try to be good people and/or enjoy life and/or achieve great things, not just mindlessly pop out babies like rabbits (or dumb apes), in the name of blind conformity to so-called nature.

    In fact, everyone just tried to have as many babies as possible, to maximize the population as fast as possible, this would be just as disastrous as if everyone were homosexual. In fact it would be worse. Since, if everyone were homosexual (and/or used abortions), we would be more free to choose if/when to have children, and optimize it (for the benefit of both parents and children) with good healthy family planning. The important thing is to empower us to create offspring as a choice, and be free to have babies when we choose to have babies - not just by accident on account of being sexual aroused. Rational planned parenting is preferred to blind acceptance of primitive animal desires (ie, we should choose if/when to have babies as a choice - rather than be an unplanned side effect of sex).

    thank you for listening

  11. Iam says:

    Also, homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species non-human animals. There’s even a wikipedia entry on this.

    In fact, it has been argued that homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is somewhat of a false dichotomy, and that this false dichotomy is largely cultural. You can be comfortable with physical interaction and emotional attraction to someone of the same sex, even if your primary attraction is to the other gender. You can be comfortable (to varying non-boolean degrees) in a 3-some that includes someone of the same sex, even if your primary mate is the other gender.

    However, like I said in my previous comment… This is not the most relevant issue. The only reason I mention it is that I am also against pseudo-science, such as claims that homosexuality is a dichotomy and that it is somehow “unnatural”. Pseudo-science is also evil… But my main concern is hate / discrimination / negativity, and peopel who try to close-mindedly push their personal tastes on others.

    The important thing is liberty. And the right of an individual (or a minority group) to have tastes that don’t match the de facto majority. If I want to eat a block of cheese for breakfast, or play basketball on Sunday, that doesn’t mean you have to. If you don’t want to eat a block of cheese for breakfast or play basketball on Sunday, then you don’t have to. But what you shouldn’t do, is harass me about it.

    Homosexuality is a “victimless crime”. It is a personal preference. No one is being harmed, coerced, assaulted, etc, just by two individuals choosing to have an intimate (or sexual) relationship with each other.

  12. *sigh* says:

    “Well considering it has no explaianble purpose in nature, then yes, by its very definition it is un-natural.”

    Your definition of “un-natural” is fucking idiotic. Life has no explainable purpose either. In fact, intrinsic / transcendental / static “purpose” is a phantom.

    “All animals have an innate desire to find a mate and procreate.”

    No. See: homosexuals.

    “either there’s something physically wrong with homosexuals, skewing their sexual instincts into a perversion of what evolution dictates.”

    What evolution creates is what evolution dictates. That’s the cool thing about REAL “natural law” - it can’t be broken.

    “but then you’re not a ‘people’ you don’t have collective rights.”

    I’m sure your definition of what constitutes a real “people” is as well thought out as your idea of what constitutes “natural”.