Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Friday, May 16, 2008

Homosexuality unnatural?

I just read this article on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

So if the natural world does it I guess they can't call it unnatural anymore;)

Big thanks to California for legalizing gay marriage. I don't care what the 'people' think. you can't take away others rights in a country that everyone is supposed to be equal in. And i don't understand how this will effect regular heterosexual couples? It's not like homosexuals are going to marry heteros is it? Once again a non issue that gets blown all out of proportions.;)

Best,

Brett

26 comments:

TCH said...

just to add to the topic
check out
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OIcrCZQkSlg

:D

TCH said...

sorry forgot to say. watch it all because his last comment is worth it!

christopher said...

I live in Sacramento and like I said before, I don't support gay marriage, but I'm not going to sign the petitions that are going around downtown nor will I vote against it, which it seems it will be on our ballet. Its just my personal opinion on the subject but I won't stop people from doing something that they care about until it effects my life.

Brett said...

tch, very funny! I honestly don't know why they didn't use photos unless he couldn't get the rights to use all of them. Or they would have printed to dark in black and white...or the pc police had a problem with animal sex. that last happens sometimes.

So the last joke you liked, was that the Julian Clarey one? I used to watch that show.;)

Just a side note for all who don't know, the guy in the video (one of the creatos of The Office) is an Atheist;)


Chris,

I thought the courts basically took it out of the hands of the voters? Because it's a matter of equal rights and not something that the masses can vote on, and dismiss it? As I've said you can't give rights to some and take away that rights from others. I'm glad you won't be protesting it.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I've been told homosexuals drag the economy down and cost 'regular' people money in medical bills. And to this I say, what about all those women on welfare who suck that money away form the people who actually need it?

Best,

Brett

Mountaineer_Elf said...

Well...not just women on welfare, mostly families (my mom, bro and sis, and her fiance once of them). I grew up on welfare, but I think it's something you can outgrow and finally contribute something back to your country. You know the bull shit thing though? The whole economis stimulus thing where you get basically 600 or 1200 bucks because you're breathing?

Those that are on welfare or collect unemployment, their money they get from the state don't count towards your yearly income, so they don't receive their stimulus check. How fuckered up is that?! My boyfriends out a job right now and collected unemployment, and they even had him fill out the paperwork and say, "No problem, you'll get your check directly deposited by May 9th", lies. He didn't get it at all.

Why don't we piss and moan about all of the things in this country that piss us off. Like the whole "free money to those who may not necessarily need it, but like having it," or that whole chestnut, "bring ID into schools because it's a legitimate learning tool for all children, even though it's a state run facility".

The separation of church and state has my thoughts more than, "hey, gays and lesbians can get married."

If you don't like gays getting married...then don't marry someone who's gay. :)

Anywho, I han't heard about Cali...congrats to them. If there's any state that needeed to do it first...it's Cali.

-Erin

christopher said...

Yeah the petitions started going out the day the courts ruled and from the looks of it, there will be enough signatures to bring it up in November, so the news said, which is why I guess a lot of gays are rushing to get married. I guess we'll have to see what happens.

Brett said...

Erin,

I was mostly refering to the women who go on welfare and start poppin gout kids to get more money.;) I do think that welfare is needed when people are in bad way, I just don't think you should get more if you start reproducing. In fact I might even go along with baring them from having more children until they are OFF welfare. It's just stupid to keep having more kids when you can't afford the ones you already have.

Remember that $600-1200 bucks will have to be repaid next year. It's a crock. That's how this is being funded. A $120 billion dollar stimulus package and the average person get $600? There are 300 milion in the US and you ONLY get $600?!? You do the math;)

Have you heard about that bill in Oklahoma? Were you can't get questions wrong in school if it goes against your religion? If asked how old the earth is and you put 6,000 years and it was created by God you get it right!?! Ugh... I'm glad we don't have kids.

Chris,

I'm not sure a note will change things. It's not a voter issue, it' s an equal rights issue, rights given to every American by the bill of rights/Constitution. You can't change it for a few because you don't agree with them (not a crack at you.) that's why they call them equal rights:) I still don't see how gay marriage can undermine strait marriage? It's not like al the laws will suddenly be tossed out the window and it will now be Ok for people to have sex with animals!

Bestest,

Brett

Mountaineer_Elf said...

Yeah, I figured you meant the baby machines.

Wow...I guess I never did do the math on the whole stimulus thing. I don't really pay attention to much politics. And why does it have to be repaid next year? I missed that part of the whole thing.

And yes, Amendment 9 to the U.S. Constitution states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, it's like you're believing that we need to have free speech but gays can't get married - when honestly, if gays can't get married then we don't free speech.

Kind of a violation in my mind, and in many others. I don't care if it says "...God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another... Romans 1:26-27", in the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible isn't our Constitution.

That's right, I busted out the Bible from its dusty corner and turned to the page I had marked "Amendment 9).

-Erin

Brett said...

Erin,

You have to repay it because it's not in the budget! Of course they could take the money and pay down the national debt, but that would make sense;)

Watch what you say about the bible and the constitution, you'll be told we're a Christian Nation;)

I find it funny that a book that's supposed to be about love and the like is so fricken hate filled. Also I wonder why Jesus (if his message was so important) didn't write his story himself. I mean he could have written after he 'returned' from the dead. But no we get stuff written 100 years after his death.

If your only going to accept the good stuff in it why not just re edit it so it's ONLY filled with the positive?

Best,

Brett

Mountaineer_Elf said...

Touche. :)

That sucks. I'd like to see them take it back. I've already spent it. NEW CAMERA! lol

And no...the United States of America weren't created as a Christian nation. They were created so all Americans can have a freedom to decide for themselves.

Funny how it's gotten obscured so much from the original idea and thought of a united state system.

lol Get it? United States? As in, cooperative? As in, I don't give a shit about what my neighbor believes in, only that he's my neighbor and I'm apparently supposed to treat him or her like a human being.

I don't know why it's so hard to do that now-a-days. :sigh:

Oh well I suppose. Grin and bear it :/

Anonymous said...

So by this reasoning it is okay to eat your young? But I've seen footage of animals doing it, so it must be natural, unless somethings are wrong for humans to do. If we are just animals, then sex with animals is okay because we are part of nature so anything and everything we do can be described as animal behavior. This logic would prevent anything from ever being considered unnatural or immoral. I think I would rather keep my head firmly attached to the rest of my body.

-Steve

Anonymous said...

Can someone give me a link to a better article on all these animals in the wild practicing gay sex? I keep reading about animals in the zoo deprived of the ability to practice natural mate selection choosing to act out sexually against their cage partner or animals using sexual actions to dominate another. Or silly people anthromorphizing the actions of animals and reading human emotions into animal actions. These half truth articles scare me.

A decision by the California Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional any ban on gay “marriage” overturns both the referendum of the people and the representatives of the people.

The only way the California Supreme Court could override the people is by saying that gay “marriage” is a natural right. But nowhere do we see this in the federal or state Constitutions.
These judges have created a new right out of thin air. This is an example of abusive use of governmental power regardless if you agree with their decision or not. This is not how our government was designed to work.
-Steve

Brett said...

Ugh, What seperates us form the 'animals' is advanced culture. Most animales DON"T eat their young, stop overreacting. And just so you know, humans will occasionally eat there young too. Modern Culture says it's bad, so we don't normally do it.

'If we are just animals, then sex with animals is okay because we are part of nature so anything and everything we do can be described as animal behavior."

And there is it. That's some great logic there. LOL! This need to be better than everything is very unflattering.

While the article might have some things wrong (I don't honestly know) it has been well documented in the wild, I know for a fact that Bonobo's, dolphins and some wild goats in the UK do it. I've heard reports of a prize winning horse that refused to mate with the mares (in horse racing the male must cover or breed naturally with the female to have registerable young) There is also the penguin couple that paired off and even raised chicks together.

Are you NOT actually reading things correctly? You can't give rights to one group, and not to others it's unconstitutional, the court did NOT overstep, it read the letter of the law and acted accordingly. This was a prodominently conservative court too. There is also nothing IN the constitution that prohibits gay marriage. That's why the Prez was so worked up about getting that marriage amendment. The courts are there to protect the rights of the individual, in case congress or the prez goes to far. They did their job. Wake up, it's the 21st century, not the middle ages.

Brett

Anonymous said...

"Are you NOT actually reading things correctly? You can't give rights to one group, and not to others it's unconstitutional"

We aren't discussing withholding rights. They have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. One man, one woman. No special treatment and no exclusion. They are asking for special rights. I'm reading things fine, thank you.

-Steve

Brett said...

They are not asking for special rights they are asking for the same rights. If all men (and women) are created equal then it makes no difference if it's 2 men or 2 women who want to marry they are all the same. You just want it to be different because of you dislike of homosexuals. No one forcing you to like them or marry them. Get over you bigoted ways and move on.

Brett

magentaraves said...

Interesting!

Anonymous said...

I don't support gay marriage, that does not mean I dislike homosexuals or that I'm bigoted; unless your definition of dislike or bigotry is "doesn't support gay marrige." That is what we call circular reasoning.

Do you really believe all men are created equal is speaking of who we should marry? What is necessary to create a family? To make a baby? Really?

-Steve

Anonymous said...

Steve is right Brett. Your letting your own prejudice blind you. You can disagree without hating.

Using your logic "all men (and women) are created equal then it makes no difference if it's 2 men or 2 women who want to marry they are all the same" I should be able to marry my Mother, Father, Sister or Brother. Why not? Unless you're prejudice against it. It's not hurting anybody. The truth is it's not right or natural. Even though animals do it all the time.

Why people in this country want to force themselves into organizations to which they don't fit is besides me. Girls don't belong in the Boyscouts and Boys don't belong in the Girlscouts. Gays don't belong in marriage.

However they should be afforded the same tax benefits if they have a life partner. They need to create their own union not force themselves into a pre existing one to which they don't fit.

Just because animals do it does not make a thing natural. Man was made to fit woman for intercourse. Just because you crammed your square peg into a round hole doesn't make it normal. It wasn't designed to fit there.

There is however, in my opinion, nothing immoral about homosexuality. It is in most cases an uncontrolable preference, nothing more. Like prefering vanilla over chocolate. You can't control that. And neither choice is right or wrong.

Tom

Brett said...

Tom,

Marrying another man or another woman (who is not related to you) is completely different than marrying a mother or father. I really doesn't happen much in Nature, unless the animals numbers are very small. And I will be honest, if they really want to do it as long as they are 18 then they should be able to. I don't agree with it, In fact I think it's sort of icky, but they are both legal adults. It doesn't affect me. If you want to marry 4 women and everyone is over 18 and agrees I don't care either.

I know what Steve really feels about homosexuals so I can say yes you can disagree without hating, but that's not what he's doing. He's trying to put his religious views into a political setting, basically forcing his views on others. He gave himself away with the one man one woman crack. That's a violation of church and state. California legalized the civil marriage, the church's can choose not to do them if they want. They are not being forced.

Why change the name for the exact same thing? Its pointless. I didn't get married in a church, I'm more than happy to get divorced and then get one of those civil unions but what's the point if it's the same thing with a different name? It smacks of separate but equal to me.

I don't care if you want to argue it is unnatural, if animals do it and man does it, without being sent to jail, then it is natural for them. you might not agree but nature is natural, so whatever an animal does would be natural.

As for Steve, after some of the cracks I heard on the other gay posts, you are very bigoted. You tell me love the sinner hate the sin, but then I hear all sorts of lies about pedofilia, how they bring down the health system, ect.... It's homophobia. I was hesitant to bring it up before, but you don't see it. One man, One woman, it's right wing code for gays are evil.

As for kids, not everyone whats to have them. And maybe the gay couples could actually adopt the unwanted kids from the unwed mothers who don't have abortions. Solves a problem doesn't it?

I'm actually so sick of hearing about the kids. If you cared so much maybe you would have pushed to solar and wind power before the planet turned to crap and we started using our food supply for fuel.

Brett

Anonymous said...

Brett,

You got to remember I believe all people are evil. I think talk is cheap and it comes down to actions if you want to know if someone is intollerant. I guess you would have to ask my gay relatives if I act in a hateful way toward them or the hospice AIDS patient I met with for months.

-Steve

Brett said...

Steve,

Then maybe you should think about what you say before you start using that right wing reduric. I'm happy that you spent time with the aids patient, it doesn't mean you weren't trying to convert him, since I know you believe they can accept god and become strait. But I know you won't watch movies with homosexuals, you spout outright lies about them, what are people to think?

You know you can NOT post comments too. You don't seem to be able to do this. I don't agree with all the blogs I read but I rarely post comments. Plus you feel the need to get the last word in all the time. I've actually begun to ignore your comments.

Brett

Anonymous said...

Brett,
I didn't realize that you and Steve have had previous exchanges. Having learned that I apologize for accusing you of prejudice.

I think our disagreements are on the institution of marraige and the definition of natural.

I look at marraige as a man and woman. Not out of prejudice but tradition. I would hate to see a man run for the title of Miss America because he likes to wear dresses. But I wouldn't stop him from wearig a dress. I also wouldn't call it natural. There are people who love to push the envelope. Some have already tried to fight forr the right to marry their pets. It doesn't hurt anybody, but it's not what marriage is supposed to be. Most men and women who engage in it, abuse it's intent. I think it wouldd serve a greater good for those outside that institution to create something untainted and designed especially for them.

Using the word natural implies to me "by design". For example man was not meant to fly, so he developed the airplane. Flying is unnatural for man. Nothing wrong with it. It just wasn't in the design. I don't think very many of the things we do nowadays are natural. But whatever works. My normal is certainly different from everybody elses.

I can accept all the personal differences around me, I just can't call them natural. Maybe a slight distinction, but there it is.

Tom

Brett said...

Tom,

Steve and I have been arguing for years and years. We're polar opposites on most issues. He's rightwing, I'm mostly left. He's actually a nice guy when he's not on his mount.

It's this tradition stuff that needs to go. Yes tradition is fine, but curtailing other rights in the sake of it is just setting ourselves up for more civil right wars. I mean who hasn't thought it's be much easier to be married to a member of the same sex. No one to nag you when you want to watch the game, or someone who wants to go shopping with you.

I would agree that planes and computers are unnatural, because humans have taken control of our own destiny/evolution. We have taken nature out of it and replaced it with culture/science/religion. Where we go is anyone guess. But we still have things in common with our animal bretherin. You can pick your friends but you can't pick your family, and if some of that family is genetically gay, or hit with a hormone cascade while still in eutero, that would still be considered natural. No outside human interference. Now if people were grown in vats and were selected to be gay then that would be unnatural. But design on this blog usually implies by god. And if it didn't occur naturally, through nature, but through God. You could argue that nothing is then natural if it's been tinkered with by an outside being/force/intelligence. It bothers me that religions preach tolerance and love abut usually show none of it, just hatred and intolerance.

If a guy wanted to try out for Miss Universe, as long as he was in drag, I might actually watch it! At last it wouldn't be boring.

Acceptance is fine and usually all they ask for, but you ostracize them by making them call the same thing a different name. To me it's only fair to have the same rules/names apply to everyone.

Best,

Brett

Anonymous said...

Well that is one of the big pitfalls of the internet. Here I was enjoying a riveting conversation and you Brett felt it tedious. I was fascinated to see how so many of the blog’s topics were dovetailing together to form one larger picture, but I think it was not the same experience for you. Sorry to offend, it was rude of me to continue after my host had tired of my input. As I’ve said before just let me know when I need to shut up and I will be more than happy to.

-Steve

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Let me ask you a direct question. Do you believe there is anything wrong with being a homosexual?

Tom

Brett said...

Tom,

Steve, is a Born Again Christian or at least he was the last we spoke about it. If that helps.

He used to be a young earth Creationist but is now a Intelligent Design supporter.

Best,

Brett