To: Kevin Rose who wrote (425944 ) 7/12/2003 9:28:48 AM From: Johannes Pilch Read Replies (1) | Respond to [Homosexuality is naturally foreign only] as it pertains to procreation. only as it pertains to procreation. The fact is, every single one of our cells is imprinted with the genetic contributions of exactly one man and exactly one woman. Heterosexuality is literally present in every cell of your body. It is literally an organic part of your most fundamental construction and nature. There is no homosexuality here at all – and that is objectively apparent. Homosexuality is naturally foreign to fundamental human identity.In many other instances, evidence points… that homosexuality is a natural portion of widely diverse human sexual behavior. then judge its actions against our findings. If the actions have integrity with the organism’s material identity, those actions are “natural,” since they logically flow from the extant nature. If not, the actions are “unnatural,” since they run counter to this nature. Homosexuality underlies not a single human on earth. Heterosexuality underlies all humans and objectively so. Complete the thing from there…To limit sexual behavior to reproduction is 'dehumanizing' our sexual nature. only in heterosexual coupling. Homosexuality is “dehumanizing” to humans because it serves as no basis for humans at all. It is literally “dehumanizing.” This is why using the might of law to force humans to ‘recognize and respect’ homosexuality is a crime against humanity. It forces humans to ‘recognize and respect’ as human, that which is naturally inhuman.You cannot argue both sides; the biological argument that you use is that heterosexual is more natural biologically. The original poster made such a lame claim; it is standard rightist stuff. That's how we got into the whole 'domino' discussion. His position was that homosexuality led to all sorts of 'bad' behaviors; I think bestiality and man/child love were the examples he cited. [Here is an argument that forbids bestiality and polygamy, but that accepts homosexuality:] Same-sex partners have formed loving life commitments with stable families and strong morales. They have their own children, or adopt, and wish to raise those children in a world that is free from ridicule and scorn, and to enjoy the same rights as other heterosexual married couples. I believe the humanity of the situation in itself, along with the fact that they are not harming each other or other people, makes it evidence enough. all of these corruptions. And this is precisely the position of society.[Homosexuals] have their own children, or adopt, and wish to raise those children in a world that is free from ridicule and scorn, and to enjoy the same rights as other heterosexual married couples. not have their own children. In every single case children most fundamentally belong to a man and a woman, and not to a homosexual “couple.” But getting back to the point, by your standards polygamists and those who have sex with animals have also had their own children and they have wished to raise them in a world free from ridicule, etc… There is nothing here that forbids polygamy and bestiality and that accepts homosexuality. If you accept any one of the three, you are logically compelled to accept the other two.I believe the humanity of the situation in itself, along with the fact that they are not harming each other or other people, makes it evidence enough. However, just because you believe others are dead wrong in their beliefs does not give you the right to take aways *their* rights… There are many people who hold beliefs that are not only contrary to yours, but so contrary as to be distasteful. We know, however, that our country was founded on the principle that men (and, now, women :) are free to hold beliefs that are contrary to the majority, and still have their rights protected. The real issue is: do homosexuals harm others in a way that *requires* the government to take away their rights?
