Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
ali smack

why is homophobia commonplace?

421 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

To be honest, I'm sick of PC people who are brainwashed by anti-Christian propaganda. I will vigorously challenge them, and I couldn't care less what anybody thinks about that. I won't play the tired game where you try and fail to equate this issue to gender and race. The bottom line is that you think that people should change their cherished beliefs to suit what may *feel* good to you. You wrongly assume that they care if people lamely and weakly refer to them as "bigots". Well, your chants of "homophobia" are farts in the wind, and your pressure tactics don't work. We see through the campaign, and we take note of the blatant attempt at social engineering that it is. That's the real world.

Just because a belief is 'cherished' doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. If someone has a 'cherished' belief that anyone not of their faith should be executed should we support that? Nope. My poinr is that just because a belief is 'cherished' or enshrined in belief doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged. The comparison to sexism and racism was to show you that there are 'cherished' beliefs that are wrong and should be challenged.

I sounded strident in some of my posts. I was a bit too combative and confrontational. I was bothered by unfair labels. I was bothered by faulty comparisons. I never thought that the gay community was monolithic. It's made up of individuals with all that it brings with it. I have two gay cousins. They're creative and talented individuals who probably represent most of their peers. They, as well as other gay Americans, should have the right to handle their legal, health, private, etc. affairs as they see fit. The State should stay out of it in that gay couples should have the freedom to handle their own affairs as they wish. They're entitled to considerations and protections afforded to citizens by our government. That said, my annoyance was with the disingenuous use of "homophobia".

I was going to get more combative in my reply but I saw this psot so I figure it's best to answer here.

The thing is with people with religious beliefs against homosexuality is that, oddly, they want to impose that on everyone. Religious people (certainly those in leadership roles anyway) doesn't want gay people t have the right to handle their affairs as they see fit. They want gay people to have less rights than straight people and not just memeber of their congregations, but every gay person in society. Case in point, whenever gay people fight for marriage/civil unions what happens? Religious people come out against it to stop them gaining the same legal rights.

Now the big problem on this issue is the hypocrisy with religions. Take christianity. It says that pre-marital sex is wrong (as an example) yet do you see christians (even those that share that view) trying to prevent others from having sex before marriage by making it illegal? No.

Those christians have a nasty habit of comparing homosexuality to pedophia and bestiality but you can't challenge them because they'll scuttle behind their religion and their 'cherished beliefs'. And let's not forget those christians that disown or abuse their children for being gay and then act like their doing the right thing.

Anyone would think that being against homosexuality was rule #1 for being christian with the way cherished beliefs gets thrown around. Last I checked, it's nowhere near top of the list yet you wouldnt think it.

Edited by shadowhive
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How a straight man deals with the presence of gay men in their environment is something straight men have to figure out. At my age it isn't a problem, and when I was younger going to school in the States, gays were all very much in the closet and I didn't know they existed.

I suppose a good looking straight man occasionally gets propositioned, or maybe just little hints. That sort of thing would disturb me. It would make me worry that maybe there was something that gave them the idea I was gay, and I guess I would act strongly enough to eliminate any doubt.

I don't think that is the reality. The reality is more likely the gay man is attracted and therefore "projects" his desires. I did that a lot with women, convincing myself they were interested in me when it was just my imagination. The problem with people caught up in this kind of projection fantasy is that they often don't take "no" as an answer, but persist, somehow persuading themselves that the "no" is just game playing, and the situation becomes a nuisance calling for some rudeness. I have to imagine though that this happens very rarely: normally people have more sense.

I think straight men seem to have a very pranoid fear about that. Gay people aren't attracted to every memeber of the same sex, any more than hetrosexuals are attracted to every memeber of the opposite sex and to think so is a little odd.

I think the last part covered what I'd mostly say to that. I'd also add that gay guys don't specifically have a 'type' when it comes to who they're attracted to. Some like feminine looking ones, whle some like men that are masculine. It's like how straight men aren't all attracted to the same 'type' of women either.

We only live once and sometimes its best to try. We all have our moments of thinking 'I wish I'd asked that person out' because not knowing can be worse than rejection. Personally a straight guy shouldnt act all offended and get defensive, but just act like they would if a woman asked them out that they weren't interested in. I'd say that the best thing to do is try and be polite and not act like an ass.

I agree, normlly people do have more sense than being persistant, but I've seen straight guys do that with women so I think it's just something some people have.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Homophobia could well be commonplace in Middleton for all I know.

But I can categorically say it hasn't spread like wildfire in our family.

If it does exist in Middleton it's culprits are Chavs who's motto is "go forth and multiply".

Speaking of which any homosexual relationship is an effective way of birth control.

You don't even need to delve into the murky world of Eugenics.

And besides Lesbians are probably the best foster parents a child could ever had.

They could always have a stand- in for a father if it comes to a parents meeting.

However a lot of religions think it goes against the teachings of their holy books.

An abomination for want of a better word.

Tbh homosexuals can do the hell they want unless they try to chat me up.

I'll just have to lay them down gently and explain I'm not ready for a relationship like that.

But I won't insult them while doing so.

Edited by Medium Brown
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowhive, most views on homosexuality are not in the same neighborhood as racism and sexism. That's a modern canard. There was a time when Black people were slaves. There was a time when women were "owned". Go to the twentieth century. There were de facto or de jure laws that banned both groups from voting. You rightly can say that many Christians were fine with this. You also rightly can say that many Christians weren't fine with this. The latter group was instrumental in ending the aforementioned injustices. It's a big Church and a big tent, so you'll be able to find all kinds of views to support any kind of charge. One church may preach that gay people should be stoned. Another one might have a gay minister.

My problem isn't with freedom of choice. My problem is with the Thought Police who try to tell us what to say and think. I don't bow to them. I stand up to them. On the one hand, gay people should have the right to make the choices that straight people make (inheritance, taxes, titles, etc.). On the other hand, clergy should have the right to condemn what they believe is sinful. It doesn't make them fearful or hateful if they do so, and it's lame to label them as homophobic to preach what they believe is God's will. That said, the State should stay out of both groups' lives, and I extend this philosophy to polygamous relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem isn't with freedom of choice. My problem is with the Thought Police who try to tell us what to say and think. I don't bow to them. I stand up to them. On the one hand, gay people should have the right to make the choices that straight people make (inheritance, taxes, titles, etc.). On the other hand, clergy should have the right to condemn what they believe is sinful. It doesn't make them fearful or hateful if they do so, and it's lame to label them as homophobic to preach what they believe is God's will. That said, the State should stay out of both groups' lives, and I extend this philosophy to polygamous relationships.

This is a fair point. But it goes both ways. Any individual, or group of individuals, should be able to express their opinions freely. But, if clergy have the right to condemn what they believe to be sinful (which I believe they do), then I have the right to tell them what I think of their opinions. The "Thought Police who try to tell us what to say and think" occur on both sides of any argument.

Some on this thread seem to be getting bogged down with the use of the word "homophobia". To condemn homosexual behaviour may not mean the same thing as to fear it (but in some cases it does), but as another poster pointed out the common usage of the word has diverged from it's root. For those that object to it's use - what word would you prefer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fair point. But it goes both ways. Any individual, or group of individuals, should be able to express their opinions freely. But, if clergy have the right to condemn what they believe to be sinful (which I believe they do), then I have the right to tell them what I think of their opinions. The "Thought Police who try to tell us what to say and think" occur on both sides of any argument.

Some on this thread seem to be getting bogged down with the use of the word "homophobia". To condemn homosexual behaviour may not mean the same thing as to fear it (but in some cases it does), but as another poster pointed out the common usage of the word has diverged from it's root. For those that object to it's use - what word would you prefer?

You're right. Freedom of speech applies to all people and groups. Fred Phelps has that right just as Larry Kramer had that right. I don't like the words of either man, but they have/had the right to express themselves in peaceful manners. That said, the Westboro Cult and Act Up used our First Amendment to do some quite odious things. It seems like both sides of this discussion like to use those kinds of outliers to unfairly represent most individuals on both sides, marginalizing their opponents through dishonest associations. I stress that *both* sides often use this tactic to tarnish people who don't share their views. It could be that both sides can find common ground in their shared disdain for extremism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Shadowhive, most views on homosexuality are not in the same neighborhood as racism and sexism. That's a modern canard. There was a time when Black people were slaves. There was a time when women were "owned". Go to the twentieth century. There were de facto or de jure laws that banned both groups from voting. You rightly can say that many Christians were fine with this. You also rightly can say that many Christians weren't fine with this. The latter group was instrumental in ending the aforementioned injustices. It's a big Church and a big tent, so you'll be able to find all kinds of views to support any kind of charge. One church may preach that gay people should be stoned. Another one might have a gay minister.

Why aren't they in the same neighbourhood? It's still a form of predjudice against a group of people. It's still treating another group as inferior. The only difference to me is that is seems more excusable.

I am hoping that a similar thing will happen now with christians, that the change will happen on this issue, just like it did on other things.

I think the problem is that one church may preach that gay people should be stoned. Preaching violence against another group of people was, last I checked, wrong. Yet if it's violence against gay people? It's magically fine. I don't know why. I don't understand why people are ok with violence being preached towards gay people or why I should accept it. You know why I don't? Because those people that hear that message will be encouraged by it, encouraged to be violent against any gay person they see (at worst, at best treat them as inferior).

My problem isn't with freedom of choice. My problem is with the Thought Police who try to tell us what to say and think. I don't bow to them. I stand up to them. On the one hand, gay people should have the right to make the choices that straight people make (inheritance, taxes, titles, etc.). On the other hand, clergy should have the right to condemn what they believe is sinful. It doesn't make them fearful or hateful if they do so, and it's lame to label them as homophobic to preach what they believe is God's will. That said, the State should stay out of both groups' lives, and I extend this philosophy to polygamous relationships.

My problem is that those clergy that do condemn did, often do so in fearful or hateful terms. In any other circumstances comparing someone to a pedophila would be cause for condemnation, but it a member of the clergy does it (and many do) its ok because it's 'preaching god's will'. I think there is a line an I think many members of the clergy are willing to cross it because they know they have religious protection to do so.

Now from where I'm sitting, comparing gay people to pedophiles is hateful. I don't care what your religious beliefs are, the comparison is the same to me. The comparison is still wrong.

You know what else the problem is? That people in the church are told these comparison and they go into the world and believe them. They treat any gay person they meet with fear and hatred, because they think they might molest their children or smething based on what those clergy say. As long as the church isn't called on it's behaviour (like any other organisation) then people will still leave the church and treart gay people negatively which will include denying them the rights to those things you say gay people should have.

I think the attitude that religious groups foster against gay people is a huge problem and I don't see why it should be protected. God's will should not be a magic get out clause.

If I said 'I think it's god's will that black people should be stoned' is that not racist? If I said 'I think it's god's will that women are inferior' is that not sexist? If I said 'I think its god's will that all jews should be killed' is that not anti-semetic?

God's will does not act as get out for these things, nor does it change those statements from being anti-semetic/rascist/sexist simply by it's presence. Nor does it matter how sincerely held I believe those views to be. Why, then, does a view that would otherwise be considered homophobic, become ok because of the presence of god's will in the belief? Why does the sincerity of the belief matter nd make it ok? It wouldn't for those other things, would it?

Like I said, religious groups need to be called out on these actions and beliefs, not shielded.

That's not to say religions can't preach it's a sin (although I'd rather they didn't) it's just that, well. You don't see them comparing people that lie or have sex outisde marriage to pedophiles, or calling for them to be stoned do you?

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both cases not natural period.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both cases not natural period.

I honestly find the 'not natural' arguement to be a rather moot one because honestly? How much of what we do is natural? We live in brick built houses, we have electricity and internet. The food we eat and what we drink is (for the most part) processed in someway. We fly in planes, we drive cars, we go across the ocean in boats, we go under it in submarines, we go into space. We wear clothing. None of those things are natural. Yet there's no uproar because of them.

Yet homosexuality, something which has a natural component unlike those other things, is the one that people have the problem with and use the 'it's not natural' excuse for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly find the 'not natural' arguement to be a rather moot one because honestly? How much of what we do is natural? We live in brick built houses, we have electricity and internet. The food we eat and what we drink is (for the most part) processed in someway. We fly in planes, we drive cars, we go across the ocean in boats, we go under it in submarines, we go into space. We wear clothing. None of those things are natural. Yet there's no uproar because of them.

Yet homosexuality, something which has a natural component unlike those other things, is the one that people have the problem with and use the 'it's not natural' excuse for?

LOL! What you mentioned up there is US human race... That is what we do like ants building those pillars, like beavers making homes on rivers, birds making nests,... Humans are smart they build things and explore... That is natural for our intelligence, like mating is entire known history while homosexuality isnt...Because it simply doesnt produce children that makes a race unsustainable and if such things were practiced a 1000 years ago i wonder if we would be here... The more homosexuality there is the more our degrade will go..

Once you go over 50/50 numbers we begin our decline in population, that might take ages but it will happen if such behaviour continues. In 100 years in future if more of this laws will be taken in,and more people will go gay if you will be alive you will see what i ment

Not to mention the impact on children... kids need mom and dad, mother and father, because that are 2 different characters, 2 different ways of knowledge, 2 different natural sexes, 2 different ways of behaviour,... Mom tends to love their children and gives them love and soft edge of life, while father must give him the hard and stiff edge of life... 2 gays,2 lesbians on the other hand will give their kids 1 same view of the things in life. I cant explain that very good in english but every kid needs 2 different view on life and world.

We are the most evolved race so everything we build and do is somewhat natural to a evolving species, but there are things that arent..

Now you can go explaining why you justify non natural behaviour, for you this is natural and there will always be a opinion war between us, but i wont comment much on this subject because there wont be end to it.

I didnt want to comment at first place so i've decide to put is as short as i could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our race evolved by eating meat and vegetables, and making love/sex to opposite sex...

We didnt evolved from eating leaves and grass only. we didnt evolve from making sex with same sex...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isnt.

As a young child my instincts automatically told me those people arent normal. Thats without anybody trying to indocturnate me to a particular way of thinking. I say my disapproval of homosexuality was inherited.

But that's just you, you even think slavery should be legal for **** sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the impact on children... kids need mom and dad, mother and father, because that are 2 different characters, 2 different ways of knowledge, 2 different natural sexes, 2 different ways of behaviour,... Mom tends to love their children and gives them love and soft edge of life, while father must give him the hard and stiff edge of life... 2 gays,2 lesbians on the other hand will give their kids 1 same view of the things in life. I cant explain that very good in english but every kid needs 2 different view on life and world.

I bet you can't back it up either.
We are the most evolved race so everything we build and do is somewhat natural to a evolving species, but there are things that arent..
Wait, so you're saying love between two people of the same gender isn't natural but building computers is?

You're just confusing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

LOL! What you mentioned up there is US human race... That is what we do like ants building those pillars, like beavers making homes on rivers, birds making nests,... Humans are smart they build things and explore... That is natural for our intelligence, like mating is entire known history while homosexuality isnt...Because it simply doesnt produce children that makes a race unsustainable and if such things were practiced a 1000 years ago i wonder if we would be here... The more homosexuality there is the more our degrade will go..

Once you go over 50/50 numbers we begin our decline in population, that might take ages but it will happen if such behaviour continues. In 100 years in future if more of this laws will be taken in,and more people will go gay if you will be alive you will see what i ment

Not to mention the impact on children... kids need mom and dad, mother and father, because that are 2 different characters, 2 different ways of knowledge, 2 different natural sexes, 2 different ways of behaviour,... Mom tends to love their children and gives them love and soft edge of life, while father must give him the hard and stiff edge of life... 2 gays,2 lesbians on the other hand will give their kids 1 same view of the things in life. I cant explain that very good in english but every kid needs 2 different view on life and world.

We are the most evolved race so everything we build and do is somewhat natural to a evolving species, but there are things that arent..

Now you can go explaining why you justify non natural behaviour, for you this is natural and there will always be a opinion war between us, but i wont comment much on this subject because there wont be end to it.

I didnt want to comment at first place so i've decide to put is as short as i could.

See a lot ofwht you just said is ridiculous. Gay people are the minority. The vast majority of the human race are hetrosexual. as a result, there's never going to be even gay people to make a significant dent. However, even though gay people don't have hetrosexual sex, that doesnt mean they can't have children. Via artifical insemination and surrogacy gay people are capable(and mre importantly) willing to have children. The difference is that gay couples have to plan for children while straight ones can have them simply by accident.

What happened, or didn't happen, a thousand years ago is a moot point. 1000 years ago we had slavery, we had rampant sexism, very few people had the vote and we had people dying from the simplest diseases. Should we go back to that? N. We shuld keep improving our society which includes giving equal and fair rights to everyone.

To the 'every kid needs a mom and dad' I'll give two examples. Firstly, let's you have a family and one parent is killed by an accident/disease. Should we take the children right away from the surviving parent or force them to find a replacement? Second, what about cases where one parent has been abusive so the other leaves with the kids. Should we force them to remain together, or force the other parent to find someone else?

I ask these things because everyone that says what you do uses it to justify same sex parents not having children. But in those situations where one parent is lost from a hetrosexual relationship it doen't seem to matter as much does it?

You know what a child needs? A child needs love. That's the most important thing. A kid needs a loving parent/parents that will raise and care for that child nd who are ready for the responsibility. Having parents of different enders means nothing if they're not loving.

It is important to note that child doesn't just have one male and one female role model in its life. There are other family members, teachers, carers that can fill the missing role just as well sometimes better. A kid doesn't need two views of life on the world. A kid needs, and gets much more that that.

Natural behaviour is a rather odd concept since much of what we do isn't natural.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you can't back it up either.

Wait, so you're saying love between two people of the same gender isn't natural but building computers is?

You're just confusing yourself.

Dont need to back a evolution theory...

Men... Tell me what is natural for a highly evolved species then before you go smartass ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont need to back a evolution theory...

We aren't talking about the evolutionary theory.
Men... Tell me what is natural for a highly evolved species then before you go smartass ?

Are you thick? Please look up the word natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "normal" and "natural" are being confused. Pretty much anything that happens without human control is "natural." Therefore homosexuals are natural. I suppose one can say that what is normal is what is in the majority, although there are other definitions available. So in that definition homosexuals are not in the majority.

But then genius or sainthood are not in the majority either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See a lot ofwht you just said is ridiculous. Gay people are the minority. The vast majority of the human race are hetrosexual. as a result, there's never going to be even gay people to make a significant dent. However, even though gay people don't have hetrosexual sex, that doesnt mean they can't have children. Via artifical insemination and surrogacy gay people are capable(and mre importantly) willing to have children. The difference is that gay couples have to plan for children while straight ones can have them simply by accident.

What happened, or didn't happen, a thousand years ago is a moot point. 1000 years ago we had slavery, we had rampant sexism, very few people had the vote and we had people dying from the simplest diseases. Should we go back to that? N. We shuld keep improving our society which includes giving equal and fair rights to everyone.

To the 'every kid needs a mom and dad' I'll give two examples. Firstly, let's you have a family and one parent is killed by an accident/disease. Should we take the children right away from the surviving parent or force them to find a replacement? Second, what about cases where one parent has been abusive so the other leaves with the kids. Should we force them to remain together, or force the other parent to find someone else?

I ask these things because everyone that says what you do uses it to justify same sex parents not having children. But in those situations where one parent is lost from a hetrosexual relationship it doen't seem to matter as much does it?

You know what a child needs? A child needs love. That's the most important thing. A kid needs a loving parent/parents that will raise and care for that child nd who are ready for the responsibility. Having parents of different enders means nothing if they're not loving.

It is important to note that child doesn't just have one male and one female role model in its life. There are other family members, teachers, carers that can fill the missing role just as well sometimes better. A kid doesn't need two views of life on the world. A kid needs, and gets much more that that.

Natural behaviour is a rather odd concept since much of what we do isn't natural.

Whatever really... If one familty member dies in normal family life goes on nothing changes except that they find other better half once wounds from loss heal. If you have abusive situtation in most cases it's someones fault in relationship that made an error but it's going for the other even if beaten or forced. There is law for such things and there are courts that if parent isnt fit the kid goes into certain homes for that. It is all up to parents how they will act upon certain situations

And if kids would only need love which is very plainly said you are not living on earh... Kids need upbringing ( that was the word it came out of translation dont have a clue how to say in english )... a sort of a manner so they arent plainly stupid, but they know how to behave in certain situations, if someone is provoking them very bad to know how to defend themself, if they fall in first love to know how to act on it, and so on... Giving them only love will spoil them and make them unprepared, they need manners and character...That is why you are ignoring the fact of mother and father part... From mother kid gets love and soft edge, from father he gets the courage and hard edge... Well every culture is different.. But basics stay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't talking about the evolutionary theory.

Are you thick? Please look up the word natural.

Listen ... one more insult and bad things will said ... Read this... do some education READ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife use to say that too many people grow their children instead of raising them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So technology isnt a natural product of human species... Hmmm so ones mind, brain power, capability to think, all of those arent natural...What are we than? Machines?

My wife use to say that too many people grow their children instead of raising them.

That was the word i was looking for raising... They need to be raised properly...

Thank you :D !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowhive - I wanted to like every single post you made on here but didn't want you to think I was stalking you lol.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whatever really... If one familty member dies in normal family life goes on nothing changes except that they find other better half once wounds from loss heal. If you have abusive situtation in most cases it's someones fault in relationship that made an error but it's going for the other even if beaten or forced. There is law for such things and there are courts that if parent isnt fit the kid goes into certain homes for that. It is all up to parents how they will act upon certain situations

And if kids would only need love which is very plainly said you are not living on earh... Kids need upbringing ( that was the word it came out of translation dont have a clue how to say in english )... a sort of a manner so they arent plainly stupid, but they know how to behave in certain situations, if someone is provoking them very bad to know how to defend themself, if they fall in first love to know how to act on it, and so on... Giving them only love will spoil them and make them unprepared, they need manners and character...That is why you are ignoring the fact of mother and father part... From mother kid gets love and soft edge, from father he gets the courage and hard edge... Well every culture is different.. But basics stay...

The point was that in such situations having two hetrosexual parents is less important than the child's welfare.

Yes they do need a good upbringing. I assume that went without saying. A good upbringing can come from a hetrosexual parent family, a single parent family, adoptive parents and, yes, same sex parents. They can all provide the same thing. That's a rather bland sterotype. Every parent is different. I've known a number of people who have had fathers more loving than their mothers and I've known mothers more courageous than fathers. You can't dilute prenting down to something so simple. Every family is different, every parent is different and every child is different.

Now one man + one woman doesn't = perfect child rearing material simply because they're hetrosexual and able to breed. Raising a child is a lot more than that. A same sex couple can have the qualities to rise a child and you know what? They have to go through significant effort to get a child, something your average hetrosexual couple simply doesn't have to go through.

All you're doing is thinking on stereotypes, which is meaningless in the real world.

Shadowhive - I wanted to like every single post you made on here but didn't want you to think I was stalking you lol.

Awww thanks :)

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Listen ... one more insult and bad things will said ... Read this... do some education READ.

Don't threaten me. If you're going to throw insults, don't expect a warm reception.

BTW Did you read the link before posting it?

So technology isnt a natural product of human species... Hmmm so ones mind, brain power, capability to think, all of those arent natural...What are we than? Machines?

According to this logic, homosexuality is therefore natural because it comes from brain power.

However from the link you failed to read;

"There are five branches of natural science: astronomy, biology, chemistry, the Earth sciences and physics.[2][3] This distinguishes sciences that cover inquiry into the world of nature from human sciences such as anthropology, sociology and linguistics, and from formal sciences such as mathematics and logic.[2] Despite their differences, these sciences sometimes overlap. For example, the social sciences and biology both study human beings as organisms while mathematics is used regularly in all the natural sciences.[2]"

Not very bright are you? You realise engineering is *artificial*. Does such a word exist in your vocabulary?

Artificial is the antonym of natural, that means the opposite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/artificial

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.