Graeme Le Saux

[Guest kingdawson]

THE POINT IS: IT'S A CHOICE

 

Carrying out the act of gay sex is a choice. Who you fancy isn't.

 

Exactly KD protests (a little too much if you ask me) he is straight, just because he hasn't had sex with a women it doesn't mean he isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the having sex with men which means he isnt!

 

Are you that sad that you have to keep refering to me or quoting me on near enough every single post. Weve got different opinions and nove of those opinions can be proven. Tbh your the suspect one getting so aggitated and confrontational over another persons bloody OPINION.

[Guest kingdawson]

I have nothing against homosexual people...and theres a but coming...but...

 

...surely its without a doubt unnatural, and there is something "wrong" with it from a biological viewpoint? We werent designed to be homosexual, it serves no purpose as we cant reproduce if we have that sort of sexual preference, and hence evolution should have wiped homsexuality out if it were natural. But it hasnt, mainly because homosexuality is like a mutation - something goes "wrong" at some stage during the physical or emotional development of a person, hence the eventual same-sex preference, beastality, necrophilia, etc.

 

Its why the sexual organs in a man and a woman are designed for the opposite sex, not the same. Thats why men have to take it up the arse and women...I mean really, I don't even understand how two woman can make love. I mean unless they kinda just scissor...

 

...Oh this is hot scissoring, Scissor me timbers!

 

1) So what if it's unnatural though? We've evolved and developed from simplistic creatures who act on their primal instincts (cavemen?) to being capable of thought, reasoning and doing something which goes against our genes. I think quite a few things that humans do nowadays can be described as unnatural because they're going against what our genes says we should (altruism maybe?). No point in saying homosexuality is 'wrong' because it's unnatural because then so many things that we do today can be classified as 'wrong' as well.

 

2) Also, I think there's been studies on homosexuality and it seems that the hypothalamuses (part of the brain) of homosexuals are larger than heterosexuals, so it's not a 'choice' whether they're gay or not.

 

1) My post was just furthering kingdawson's arguement that there is a difference between homophobia and racism. Its a pretty mute point since ultimately its still discrimination based on someone being different, but when homosexuals are using the "would you say that to a black person" arguement, if can seem wrong if you look at it from the viewpoint that homosexuality is unnatural and the result of a biological anomaly (even if somewhat common), and by comparing it to racism, theyre basically implying that its unnatural to be black.

 

For example, would someone like Emily Mauresmo retort to homophobia by pointing at a pair of conjoined twins and saying "you wouldnt make fun of them, so dont make fun of me"? There seems to be this element of denial in the gay community that "genetic" homosexuality is unnatural and the result of something biologically "going wrong", and thats all that my post was intending to point out.

 

From a different perspective, if you were a coloured person, how would you feel if everytime gays, dwarves, conjoined twins, people in wheelchairs, etc, are discriminated against, they point at you and say "erm, you wouldnt say the same to them either, would you"? I appreciate they are are merely pointing out prejudices and discrimination, but a coloured person would surely also be thinking "why are these freaks lumping me in with them everytime they get insulted?".

 

However small and mute the difference, since again the end result of discrimination and hatred is completely unaccpetable, it does exist for me.

 

2) Whether that study is true or not, and to be fair there have been a whole load of agenda backed studies from different sides that prove different things, I think its fair to say that homosexuality for some people IS a choice, but not for others (eg those who are born with the "wrong" genes for their body). Otherwise, how would you explain bisexuality, or those who "become" homosexual eg due to extremely bad experiences in the past?

 

And what about inmates at a hardcore prison? Arent they the perfect people to testify that homosexuality may be a "choice" for some in that its dependant on the persons' environment which shapes their mentality and eventually sexual preferrence? Maybe its not a direct "choice", but I dont think the "youre either gay or youre not" statement is true at all for many homosexuals. Ones who are born that way, yes, ones who arent, its impossible to tell and I doubt even they would know since theyd be the product of that "choice".

 

Best post ive ever read on this site.

[Cajun]

Why am I suspect? I am blatantly gay!

[Delima]

Unnatural, people keep talking about homosexuality being unnatural. How do you define unnatural? If it is unnatural, so what? Does unnaturality gives ground to abuse? Abuse is not right in any form, it is not right to abuse anyone because of his sexuality. It is not right to abuse anyone based on his religion; It is not right to abuse anyone base on his skin colour; It is not right to abuse anyone based on his hair colour; Actually, it is just not right to abuse anyone for whatever reason.

 

And homosexuality is not even morally wrong, unless your moral compass is that of a religion. So far no one has come forward to say that homosexuality is morally wrong, so what allows you to abuse a homosexual? You only abuse someone because you discriminate. What ground do you have to discriminate homosexuals?

 

Unless you think that homosexual is immoral, so far no one has told of this opinion in this thread. People keep harping about it being unnatural, so what? No animal (except human) use internet and post in forum. Does this make us unnatural? So is it ok to abuse forum posters?

 

Even if homosexuality is a choice, so what? What is the ground for abuse? Are homosexuals responsible for the sickness of the society? Are homosexuals the culprit of robbery, war, raping, terrorism etc?

 

In fact homosexuality and bisexuality occur "naturally" in many other species apart from homo sapiens.

 

Ok, strictly speaking, discrimination based on sexuality is different from discrimination based on skin colour. After all, skin colour is not a kind of sexuality. But why make such fine but meaningless distinction? Discrimination based on religion is also different from discrimination based on skin colour, but these two are always lumped together in the fight against unjustified discrimination in the society. They are different, so what? Both are discrimination worth fighting against, just like the discrimination against homosexuality.

[Nobby]

Does unnaturality gives ground to abuse? Abuse is not right in any form, it is not right to abuse anyone because of his sexuality.

 

IT'S BANTER, HE IS NOT GAY

[Parky]

Unnatural, people keep talking about homosexuality being unnatural. How do you define unnatural? If it is unnatural, so what? Does unnaturality gives ground to abuse? Abuse is not right in any form, it is not right to abuse anyone because of his sexuality. It is not right to abuse anyone based on his religion; It is not right to abuse anyone base on his skin colour; It is not right to abuse anyone based on his hair colour; Actually, it is just not right to abuse anyone for whatever reason.

 

And homosexuality is not even morally wrong, unless your moral compass is that of a religion. So far no one has come forward to say that homosexuality is morally wrong, so what allows you to abuse a homosexual? You only abuse someone because you discriminate. What ground do you have to discriminate homosexuals?

 

Unless you think that homosexual is immoral, so far no one has told of this opinion in this thread. People keep harping about it being unnatural, so what? No animal (except human) use internet and post in forum. Does this make us unnatural? So is it ok to abuse forum posters?

 

Even if homosexuality is a choice, so what? What is the ground for abuse? Are homosexuals responsible for the sickness of the society? Are homosexuals the culprit of robbery, war, raping, terrorism etc?

 

In fact homosexuality and bisexuality occur "naturally" in many other species apart from homo sapiens.

 

Ok, strictly speaking, discrimination based on sexuality is different from discrimination based on skin colour. After all, skin colour is not a kind of sexuality. But why make such fine but meaningless distinction? Discrimination based on religion is also different from discrimination based on skin colour, but these two are always lumped together in the fight against unjustified discrimination in the society. They are different, so what? Both are discrimination worth fighting against, just like the discrimination against homosexuality.

 

There is no defacto scientific proof whether being gay is genetic or learnt behaviour.

[Delima]

The Le Saux confrontation' date=' for example, Fowler explains away simply as a case of his retaliating verbally against a defender's repeated, discreet use of a flying elbow. He remembered how violently Le Saux had reacted when David Batty, his team-mate at Blackburn, had baselessly called him a 'poof', and so chose to pursue the same line. Le Saux responded thus: 'But I'm married!' To which Fowler replied: 'So was Elton John, mate.' Cue: another elbow from Le Saux; followed by Fowler's shorts-down gesture.[/quote']

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1560059,00.html

 

Banter as retaliation against repeated, discreet use of a flying elbow?

 

I didn't realise that Robbie Fowler is such a civil, polite nicety footballer who returns physical attacks with harmless well meaning banter.

[Guest LucaAltieri]

Unnatural, people keep talking about homosexuality being unnatural. How do you define unnatural? If it is unnatural, so what? Does unnaturality gives ground to abuse? Abuse is not right in any form, it is not right to abuse anyone because of his sexuality. It is not right to abuse anyone based on his religion; It is not right to abuse anyone base on his skin colour; It is not right to abuse anyone based on his hair colour; Actually, it is just not right to abuse anyone for whatever reason.

 

And homosexuality is not even morally wrong, unless your moral compass is that of a religion. So far no one has come forward to say that homosexuality is morally wrong, so what allows you to abuse a homosexual? You only abuse someone because you discriminate. What ground do you have to discriminate homosexuals?

 

Unless you think that homosexual is immoral, so far no one has told of this opinion in this thread. People keep harping about it being unnatural, so what? No animal (except human) use internet and post in forum. Does this make us unnatural? So is it ok to abuse forum posters?

 

Even if homosexuality is a choice, so what? What is the ground for abuse? Are homosexuals responsible for the sickness of the society? Are homosexuals the culprit of robbery, war, raping, terrorism etc?

 

In fact homosexuality and bisexuality occur "naturally" in many other species apart from homo sapiens.

 

Ok, strictly speaking, discrimination based on sexuality is different from discrimination based on skin colour. After all, skin colour is not a kind of sexuality. But why make such fine but meaningless distinction? Discrimination based on religion is also different from discrimination based on skin colour, but these two are always lumped together in the fight against unjustified discrimination in the society. They are different, so what? Both are discrimination worth fighting against, just like the discrimination against homosexuality.

 

No one was making that point. The whole "unnatural" debate is just a  loosely related point started by tmonkey who made it clear that it wasn't really to do with the  Le Saux's situation.

[Delima]

Sorry I think I get carried away a bit.

[Parky]

Sorry I think I get carried away a bit.

 

...go for it Delima kick arse.. :parky:

[Nobby]

fresh FISH, fresh FISH, fresh FISH, fresh FISH, fresh FISH, fresh FISH

[Delima]

??

[Guest LucaAltieri]

On a side note:

 

"Graeme Le Saux" is an anagram of "A Male Sex Urge"

[Nobby]

??

 

do we have to go through this again

[koven]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

 

1) Alright, by the sctrictest use of "unnatural" you are correct. However, I didn't pick the word. My point still stands in the grand scheme of things homosexuality is a tiny deviation hardly worthy of mention.

 

2) There are not "many" other cases of homosexuality in other species. It's a common misconception. And in those species where it does occur, again its very isolated.

 

3) Using the term "gay" to describe other animals is a bit misleading. They may engage in homosexual acts, but from what I've understood they don't do this exclusively. At best you could describe them as bi-sexual. However, this isn't something I've read a lot about.

 

Homosexuality in animals (as well as bisexuality) is widespread in the animal kingdom.

 

No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis.

 

Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams).

 

... gay penguins that mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.

 

Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[117] For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[118]

 

Wikipedia (I know) but read it.

 

1. Can't be arsed.

 

2. Bold above.

 

3. Bold above.

 

[Cajun]

Gay pengiuns, could this thread get any more random?

[Guest toonlass]

 

In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[118][/i]

 

 

Awww...bless them 

[tmonkey]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/32887

 

Old school video that covers every topic in this thread and basically settles all of the arguements on here.

[Guest toonlass]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/32887

 

Old school video that covers every topic in this thread and basically settles all of the arguements on here.

 

It talks about Robbie Fowler making bumming gestures to Graeme Le Saux?

[madras]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/32887

 

Old school video that covers every topic in this thread and basically settles all of the arguements on here.

 

It talks about Robbie Fowler making bumming gestures to Graeme Le Saux?

thanks.......saves me watching

[Guest LucaAltieri]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

 

1) Alright, by the sctrictest use of "unnatural" you are correct. However, I didn't pick the word. My point still stands in the grand scheme of things homosexuality is a tiny deviation hardly worthy of mention.

 

2) There are not "many" other cases of homosexuality in other species. It's a common misconception. And in those species where it does occur, again its very isolated.

 

3) Using the term "gay" to describe other animals is a bit misleading. They may engage in homosexual acts, but from what I've understood they don't do this exclusively. At best you could describe them as bi-sexual. However, this isn't something I've read a lot about.

 

Homosexuality in animals (as well as bisexuality) is widespread in the animal kingdom.

 

No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis.

 

Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams).

 

... gay penguins that mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.

 

Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[117] For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[118]

 

Wikipedia (I know) but read it.

 

1. Can't be arsed.

 

2. Bold above.

 

3. Bold above.

 

 

I'll take the penguins... but generally it all depends on your definition of a homosexual act.

[OzzieMandias]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

 

Well, tbf, the gene that says you're gay would naturally cease to exist because there's no way that this gene can be passed on to future generations. The fact that this gene is actually created certainly has to be down to a 'mutation' which isn't beneficial to the gene itself (because it can't be passed on). So I guess homosexuality can actually be argued to be 'unnatural', but that has no bearing on whether it's morally right or wrong. And I mean 'unnatural' as in it goes against what our body was 'naturally' created for (to reproduce and pass on our genes).

 

Edit - It's pretty important for science to try to understand why this mutation is happening though, especially since it's not isolated to a certain race nor gender.

 

So are you saying that there has never been a case of a gay man fathering a child? Because I know a bloke who was married for several years, had two kids to his wife and then came out as gay as he couldn't keep on living a lie and has for the past 32 years(he was a friend of my dad's and that is how I know him) has lived in a relationship with another man.

 

I wonder how many straight men here only ever have sex to reproduce?

 

I mean naturally as in if he was gay and admitted it from a young enough age, there isn't a 'natural' way to pass on those genes. The case you mentioned is an exception. I don't think it's normal for a gay man/woman to be in a marriage and have two children before coming out as being gay.

 

In regards to your last sentence, I echo it (and have said so in this thread). Natural or unnatural is really irrelevant because of how we've evolved and how we're capable of doing much more than what was/is 'natural' to us.

 

I think there are many men who attempt to make a straight relationship work before admitting their true feelings. Not because they do not realise they are gay, but because they want to be straight. But that is just my opinion.

 

It's not just an opinion. It's obviously true. I've one friend, known him since we were in our early teens, who struggled with the fact he was gay until his late 20s, because he really wanted to be a family man and have children. In the end he had to face up to the fact that he would be living some kind of lie. Well, actually, it was his girlfriend who made him face up to it. And she had to move to Australia to get over him.

 

I know another guy who came out in his 30s after having two children.

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

If homosexuality wasn't genetic why would so many humans have done it for so long throughout history?

[Delima]

A colleague and friend of mine, who fathers 2 kids, has a mother-in-law who divorced her husband to marry another woman last year.

 

No doubt the homophobics here would think that she gains pleasure from causing family conflicts and hence deserving the persecutions and bashings.

[Delima]

If homosexuality wasn't genetic why would so many humans have done it for so long throughout history?

 

Unhelpful environment and unbalanced upbringing?