Thank you guys for thoughtful and provocative comments. Webdip brings an interesting assortment of views when not interrupted by roaming and raging assholes... I commend Obi and Kyler in particular for taking the time to share in such a thoughtful manner.
@Kyler - my fundamental issue, however, with what you are saying is your belief that a person living in sin, including not accepting Jesus (not a believer), is going to hell (not getting into heaven). That is judgmental on its face, as you can't be a Christian and not be judgmental.

"Don't knock something if you have never tried it, you might actually enjoy giving another man a blow job, how do you really know unless you try it."

Nigee, this is beside the point. You make the leap that saying something is illogical/deviant = no fun. I never said that at all. If you want to suck a cock, go for it. If you want to marry your gay lover, go for it. But that doesn't mean that it is normal human behavior.

No doubt you are an evolutionist - please explain to me how, from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is anything but a destructive, deviant behavior. From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a 100% dead end to the species, and therefore, strictly scinetifically speaking, it is illogical behavior.

If you want to take that, get your panties in a bunch and assume that this is some sort of moral judgement, that is just your own guilty conscience and judgement, not mine.

Jamie - The Tv Redneck said it was sinful because it was illogical to which obi (I think) replied it wasn't illogical. I answered it was illogical. I don't believe it is a sin but it is illogical. I am in the same position as you, married with no loss and no possibility of having a biological child. So from the biological perspective, my fidelity to my wife (who can't have kids after a radical hysterectomy) is illogical. But I love her just the same. We humans aren't logical. We are driven by emotion and should be proud of it. Beimillogical and acting illogical are not insults, just observations.

Being illogical and...

@josunice - Making a judgment about a person (righting or wrongly) because you care about their long term well being is not being judgmental. Holding them in lower esteem and thinking you are better is being judgmental. The true Christian knows this and does not sit in judgment like he is better than others. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

I don't think anyone is arguing here that homosexuality deviates from the norm. How destructive homosexuality is as a behavior to humanity is very questionable though. First off, I'll state that I definitely don't think there's a "gay gene" in the straightforward sense "you're gay if you have it, you're straight if you don't", but I also don't think it's a choice by any means either. I think nurture over nature plays a bigger role in determining what the sexual preferences of an individual will be, which is why a community welcoming of gays is going to see more people grow into those sexual preferences because they aren't ashamed of it growing up like our society has historically tried to shame it at every turn. A gay person can obviously have sex with someone of the opposite sex and procreate, they just don't want to, and it's being argued that the lack of desire to have sex and procreate by those means is destructive. Maybe when homo sapiens were first starting off thousands of years ago, homosexual tendencies would have directly gone against the ability of the species to survive. Obviously that's not the case now with the world population still on the rise (right?). There are even multiple ways for gay individuals to procreate now without having heterosexual intercourse. The only outright "destructive" aspect to homosexual behavior that I can possible see in society today is that it brings out the hateful, misunderstanding comments of social conservatives and religious evangelicals who are uncomfortable with the behavior.

Correcting the first sentence, I don't think anyone is arguing that homosexuality DOESN'T deviate from the norm.

I don't know anyone here says it is destructive to our race. We are a blight on this planet anyhow, seriously overpopulating it with unwanted and or abandoned children in nearly every country. And I personally think a gay couple *should* be able to adopt as they obviously have as loving and caring a hole as a straight couple. Anyone willing to dedicate themselves to another should have that opportunity along with everything that comes with it. Our society has survived far worse than some small percentage of the populace being unwilling to procreate biologically.

Krellin to Nigee: "No doubt you are an evolutionist - please explain to me how, from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is anything but a destructive, deviant behavior. From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a 100% dead end to the species, and therefore, strictly scinetifically speaking, it is illogical behavior."

Sounds like he thinks it is, unless I'm interpreting your point here incorrectly Krellin?

Krellin was carrying it to the logical extreme. But arguably, if you are the only child and the last to carry your name down the line, homosexuality (without finding an alternative means to impregnate a woman with your seed) is a dead end to your line. So from the *biological* perspective, Krellin is correct. But from a practical perspective, no it isn't.

Understandable. I personally put way more weight on the practical perspective, as is apparent.

"Homosexuality is illogical. My friend Gary would have agreed. The reason the animal kingdom evolved to have genders was for procreation. To simulate the act of procreation knowing the end result will not be a child is illogical. Do you deny this logic?"

1. Asexual single-celled organisms multiply quicker and are far more prolific than multi-cellular organisms that are heterosexual...and then there are certain multi-celled fish that can change their gender at will, or at least to suit the conditions, and there are more fish than humans...so...from a pure numbers standpoint, I question your assertion that heterosexuality is for "procreation," as the above cases have us beaten in that area in the key area that matters for survival, numbers.

2. "To simulate the act of procreation knowing the end result will not be a child is illogical." ...I have to ask then, Draug...have you ever had sex with someone with birth control, or not intending/knowing the end result will not be a child?

3. Last time I checked, babies don't arise from penis-in-ass or penis in *select orifice here* but penis-in-vagina, so it's not really "simulating the act," now, is it? They're engaging in their OWN act, having their own fun and fulfilling their own inborn sexual desires.

4. For the above reasons, especially #1 and #2, yes, I reject your argument and don't accept it as logical as it doesn't mesh with #1 and #2 in particular.

Saying that not having biological offspring is illogical is too narrow. The idea is for you to perpetuate your line/species in a broader sense, not that every one of your offspring also perpetuate. Maybe there is an imperative to collectively accumulate resources, not spreading across too many child bearing offspring so that those few of a line have an advantage to go on which would be lessened by everyone of the line having children. Plenty of animals take that to the extreme with the idea of sterile workers or communal raising of offspring.

@Draugnar - "Making a judgment about a person (righting or wrongly) because you care about their long term well being is not being judgmental." First, I believe that actually is nearly the definition of being judgmental, and second, super judgmental and condescending to believe on such a shallow level you KNOW what is best for another's long term well being...

Obi - You really are a dense fuck, aren't you. Being illogical is in our basic nature. We are driven by emotion, passion, and pleasure. It doesn't male it wrong. You interpret the word like Spock or Sarek. Humans are not 100% rational and logical creatures. So sto taking offense at being told you are illogical. I'm illogical. I am in love with a woman who can't have kids. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

"And obi, are you ever going to come out of the closet and give up this "sexual uninterested" charade?"

"Amen, brother. I would have infinitely more respect for him if he did so."

Well, no, because I am...and it's ludicrous to try and prove that over the Internet, so you can believe me or not, it really doesn't matter, now, does it?

If I was sexually interested it'd be in women and not guys, but given the fact I live in Liberal Land, Los Angeles County, I thus have plenty of Latino, Jewish, Atheist and Gay friends (kind of an obvious hotbed for all four) so when someone says that one of the four are "illogical" and that their very nature doesn't make sense, I take that a bit personally and seek to defend that position...the same way I defended the Dream Act beneficiaries, ie, young Latino immigrants in college, since hey, I know a good amount of such people as well, and wouldn't want them deported when they're working hard and are good people and came to the US when they were kids and had no choice, so I empathize with that position and therefore find it one I'd like to defend. Same with the LGBT community--if someone said that my very being was illogical, I'd be unhappy, so naturally I take it as something to fight against when someone says that against a group I'm familiar with.

"Assuming that people are "born" gay - that it is genetic, a different brain construct, whatever, that doesn't mean it "normal" to the human condition, any more than a brain tumor is "normal" and acceptable.

Cancer is a deviation - we call it a disease and seek to eradicate it, even though it is wholly natural."

1. Cancer and Homosexuality are completely different conditions...and I'm just going to leave that there before you pass Bio 101, you schmuck.

2. Cancer is also a HARMFUL condition...it will KILL YOU...Homosexuality is NOT and will NOT kill you...people have different tastes in many things, krellin.

3. "Left-handedness is a deviation, we should seek to correct it.
Oh wait, we tried that. Then we dragged ourselves out of the fucking dark ages." <--What Hazel said...except krellin's brand of firebrand Christian thinking (a brand of thinking which keeps losing conservatives elections, but hey, keep it up!) love the Dark Ages, that was when Christianity was at its HEIGHT, the Dark/Middle Ages, when we knew fuck all about anything...and then along came the pesky Renaissance and Humanism and Copernicus and Galileo proving the Earth went around the Sun and not the other way around, and it's been a downward slide ever since...can't we all just return to the glory years of serfdom, low life expectancies, brutality towards minorities, and paying the Church to say "OK, you've paid your dues, you can spend less time in Purgatory now, thank you, sin again!"

WHERE *HAVE* the Golden Years gone, people?!

Oh and... obiwanobiwan, come out of the closet.

Read my post about illogical =/= wrong then try again for another epic fail obi.

"Being illogical is in our basic nature. We are driven by emotion, passion, and pleasure. It doesn't male it wrong. You interpret the word like Spock or Sarek. Humans are not 100% rational and logical creatures. So sto taking offense at being told you are illogical. I'm illogical. I am in love with a woman who can't have kids. But I wouldn't have it any other way."

1. Sure-fire way NOT to convince me to alter my stance? Compare me to Spock. :p

2. That's not an irrational or illogical decision if you love her, Draug. Human society does NOT need more kids...we have over 7 billion on the planet as it is...any species with half a brain and an over-population problem would realize at some point more and more kids is probably not such a great idea...that being said, people will always want to be in love and always want sex, and there's nothing illogical about having sex without the possibility of kids. Furthermore, you're taking the quote differently too--you say it's "illogical" that you love a woman who can't marry, but that's your calling a CHOICE illogical (I disagree, but whatever.) Phil here is calling someone's NATURE illogical, which nut jobs like krellin here spin off into likening to aberrations like cancer...and it's generally not nice to liken the way someone is to a deadly condition we would all get rid of if we can...it's a bit like saying Group X = cockroaches and then saying "What, cockroaches are part of nature, right, we're all part of nature?" Yes, but human beings (in the West, at least) generally hate cockroaches and stamp them out, so the CONNOTATION there is that you hate Group X and would potentially like to see them gone the same way you'd like to see Group X gone.

It cuases no harm to the species/society, therefore it is OK is the argument. Some people like to do it, therefore it should be mainstreamed and normalized as long as no harm to anyone else comes from it - that is the argument.

Fine, heroin use can be contained to an individual, too. In fact, there are a wide variety of drugs that can be safely used within one's life without harm to society, and especially the species. In fact, if we lose a few from the species to overdoes, it probably strengthens the gene pool

Bestiality is a harmless act to humanity/society, and given the proclivity of male dogs to hump people's legs, I think the dogs are down with it, too.

Gun ownership - range firing, hunting, home defense - is a favored past time of many, and overall, humanity seems to be thriving despite the rare occurence of gun violence. It can be argued that despite the media hype, most gun violence is probably between individuals engaged in some sort of negative behavior...so again, probably some genes being weeded form the pool that we won't miss. as for the statistically irrelevant numbers of innocents killed by guns (given the billions populating the earth) gun violence really isn't harming the species.

...oh here it goes...but guns harm innocents *some* times...therefore they are bad. So does gay sex, which at time, when used incorrectly, spreads disease, which in the past has gotten in to the general blood supply and spread infection to innocence...so like it or not, there is documentation to support the idea that gay sex, like gun violence *can* harm others...

So...you know...play with those ideas for a while, and fling you poo at me while you are at it because you will no doubt try to assign moral judgement to the simple statements of fact I have presented, even though I have attached no moral judgement...

And 3. I reject your argument--human beings ARE rational...even emotional outbursts come from a rationally-rooted, causal place in their psyche...if they fly off the handle and kill 20 people, we can trace the chain of causality in their life backwards and find the reasons WHY they did what they did. Human beings always operate according to causal laws and their own internal rationality--

The trouble is that where ramming a plane into a building is rationally-consistent with the ideology and thoughts and beliefs and "software" that has been put into to one person's brain/"hardware," it isn't with the rest of us.

We always act according to what we feel is rationally-consistent with our own internal logic; the trouble is those internal logics don't always match up with one another.

@Draug - the the emoitonally driven children you are dealing with the argument that illogical =/= moral judgement is beyond them. You are talking to people that are so emotionally wrapped up in their desires they can't see past their blazing emotions. It's very much like the AGW crowd who are so emotionally invested in their (religious) belief that they can no longer accept the most recent data that suggest that they are wrong, because it crushes their beliefs. it's difficult to have beliefs challenged - can be emotionally traumatic - and since they are desperate to be "normal", they react very emotionally to the very basic fact that they are not normal, even if that doesn't automatically assign moral judgement. I kind of pity them...

"It cuases no harm to the species/society, therefore it is OK is the argument. Some people like to do it, therefore it should be mainstreamed and normalized as long as no harm to anyone else comes from it - that is the argument."

That's one basic facet of it, there are others, krellin...

Though I would point out the above is basic Libertarian rationalizing...ie, "If it doesn't hurt anyone, do it" as opposed to we Liberals who love to get involved in everybody's business (to play up the stereotypes of both positions) so make of that what you will. (On a side note, if the GOP ran more Libertarians and less Religious Right and Tea Party members, I think they'd do a LOT better in the elections, but hey, that's just me. And I'm not conflating the RR with the Tea Party, I'm saying it'd be best for the GOP if BOTH took a back seat to Libertarian thinking...but again, hey, throw us more elections, fine by me.)

"Fine, heroin use can be contained to an individual, too. In fact, there are a wide variety of drugs that can be safely used within one's life without harm to society, and especially the species. In fact, if we lose a few from the species to overdoes, it probably strengthens the gene pool"

Basic difference, krellin--drugs are something you CHOOSE to take, whereas YOU DO NOT *CHOOSE* TO BE BORN GAY. Elton John was born Gay as the day is long from Day 1. That's just how he was born. This isn't "We want to do it because it's fun, and it doesn't hurt anyone, so let us do it," it's "This is who we are, stop discriminating against who we were BORN AS NATURALLY."

Gun ownership, all the rest are CHOICES.

Homosexuality is NOT. A. CHOICE.

Homosexuality is not genetic and therefore not "nature". 'nuff said.

Homosexuality is not a choice: true
Gays are born that way: much more debatable

They have a saying in certain parts of the globe 'Boys for recreation, women for procreation'. I do not condone sex with a child, of course the lines of what a boy becomes a man varies from country to country.
However in this situation the man is comfortable having gay sex for fun whilst having children with their wives to continue the lineage. How illogical or deviant is this if the boy is 19 and the wife is 16.
The simple truth is that some people find gay folk offensive and they want us to know it and they seek to marginalise and persecute these people. Hate destroys the vessel that contains it ...."hey haters, leave those gays alone"

People here have some very fucked up notion of logic. Biology has nothing to do with logic, so acting according to "nature" is not logical. There is nothing logical about having sex just because it makes babies. Human species is not a hivemind, each specimen is acting logically when it successfully follows some kind of self-interest.

People are having sex e.g. because they a) want babies b) enjoy having sex c) want something from someone... If you're a gay man having consensual sex with another gay man, you are acting logically. The logical way to satisfy your lust for sex is, surprisingly, by having sex with someone you want to have sex with. If you are having sex because it might bring end to a drought in Death Valley, you are acting illogically. If you're a gay man having sex with a woman you don't want to have sex with, then you are acting illogically. It doesn't make sense for you to have sex with her, no matter for what purpose your biological equipment evolved.

@obi
There is no evidence that being gay is part of the hardware in some peoples' brains, a proclivity if you will. What makes you think it is not part of the software imbedded by the presence of homosexual ideas and acceptance/mainstreaming in today's society or perhaps some sort of psychological difference caused by some event or series of early on in life.
If it is in fact genetic, it would seem it is a recessive trait, and as those with homosexual inclinations tend not to reproduce, would the number of LGBT participants not be shrinking in number? It seems to me they are growing rather rapidly quite to the contradiction of genetics and reproduction.

TV Buffoon has buffoonish views; news at 11!

Logical behavior goes like this:

1. Set a goal.
2. Find the best mean for meeting that goal.
3. Apply that mean.
4. If you fail to succeed, return to 2, else go to 5.
5. Achieve your goal

Example:

1. Have an enjoyable intercourse this week.
2. Find a woman willing to take it up the ass.
3. Have sex with her.
4. Realize I'd rather fuck a man (spoiler alert: this is not how it works)
2b. Find a man willing to take it up the ass.
3b. Have sex with him.
5. Have an enjoyable intercourse this week. QED