"But a man and woman are more natural anatomically."

Your sexuality is not up for debate.

 

Kind of off topic, but I think my Philosophy professor said it best: ''When people say that same sex marriage isn't natural or because they can't have kids, then why do older people who can no longer have kids get married?''

 

To add to what thedreamwatch said, on the other side of the coin, there's a lot of natural stuff that's morally wrong too. Like the human tendency to initiate force.

This is actually a phallus of relevance: Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I don't think that the moral neutrality of homosexual and transgender feelings can be reasoned to anybody. It simply has to be something you reveal about yourself to someone who has respected you for a long time. That person has to deal with the following cognitive dissonance: "I believe homosexuality is not normal. Here's a normal person. This normal person said he was gay. He appears to be normal, so I might have to re-evaluate."

That's the only kind of education.

 

"But a man and woman are more natural anatomically."

Yeah, but the idea of a man and a woman having sex (ew) is totally disgusting...therefore gay sex is obviously more natural.


Or, in the lovely words of Jack McFarland:

"I mean, if God intended men and women to be together, he would have given them both penises."



There, philosophical issue settled! (*cough* SARCASM ALERT *cough*)



In other words: Well DUH it seems more natural to straight people making that argument, you're freakin' straight! It makes no sense because you're not gay!!! Good grief! Is it that hard to figure out!?

P.S. The above isn't directed at you mulligan, I'm just venting.

 

"But a man and woman are more natural anatomically."

Then why's your g-spot halfway up your arse?

 

Phallus of relevance? Talk about Freudian slips, eh?:lol:

 

I fell on purpose, thank you very much!

 

Here's the thing.

I like guys. I like the hair on their bodies, I like bulges of their muscles, I love the way their cock hangs between legs, I love the stubble on their face when they don't shave for a couple of days. I love that feeling when a guy kisses me, when he holds me.

What causes these feelings. It is the response to sexual attraction. I hate to break it to them, but sexual attraction is very natural.

The only thing wrong is them thinking they have any right to pick who I am attracted to.

 

Until 100% of married couples only have missionary style sex, that argument is a mute point. A University of British Columbia study found that 30-50% of straight married couples have tried anal sex. Straight people don't exclusively have vaginal intercourse, there are a variety of holes to try, toys to play with and positions to use.

To judge a homosexual couple because of their sexual practices is hypocrisy, as the exact same sexual practices are widespread among heterosexuals and receive no criticism at all.

If they then turn and condemn sexual practices within a heterosexual marriage, I wouldn't waste another breath talking to them...

 

Also, I hear that while it is extremely rare, heterosexual men in the wild have been known to give women oral sex.

 

Well anatomy being correct is usually code for being able to have vaginal intercourse. That means that oral sex, anal sex, BDSM/Kinks, lubrication, and condoms are not natural/correct and therefore they can't exist in these heterosexual communities! So unless heterosexuals are going by the bible and only having sex to multiply, then I guess they're just as incorrect as the rest of us.

 

Dude, I've heard this argument a million and one times!! I've tried to argue against this with my father but their is absolutely no point as we just keep going around in circles.It doesn't matter how hard I try because they are entrenched so deep in their beliefs so honestly, I wouldn't even bother trying to argue it out. If someone is so set in their ways, it is unlikely that any convincing argument you give them will change their minds.

 

I'm okay with the animal thing. Sure, just because animals do it does not automatically make it morally okay to do. And actually, very few animals kill for no reason. It's usually for food. Except dolphins. They rape and murder all the time. But back to my point. It's not that it's okay if animals do it. We don't go, "Okay. If we can't prove that it's okay to do something, than it must be wrong." No. You need to prove that an action is immoral. And some people claim that it is immoral because it is not natural. Proving that it is seen in nature does not mean that it's okay to do it, it only proves that that particular argument is false. I'm not saying, "It's seen in nature, so it's okay." I'm saying, "It's seen in nature, so it is not unnatural."

If that's not enough, then to me personally, I think that

Spoiler

Putting two penises together seems more natural than a penis and a vagina. They're the same. They go together. When you go to a movie store, all movies of the same genre are grouped together. It just makes sense to put alike things together.

 

I would challenge them to consider what they're saying. They're claiming that being anatomically unnatural makes something immoral. What are the criteria for that? What effect do anatomically unnatural things have which makes them so reprehensible?

When they fail to answer those questions convincingly, I would urge them to produce a substantive argument for its immorality, something other than "it's weird" and variations thereof.

 

proof positive that intelligent design is false: your butthole and your genitals are mere inches away: I.E., your home entertainment center is right next to your waste chute.