Immorality of Homosexuality

you say that like it's a bad thing. but I digress. sex for humans is a powerful bonding tool. it's not just for procreation, and imo shouldn't be argued for such. hm. that's still a digression.{/uselessABE}:
funny. my posts number thanks to this one here is at "1666". looks like i'm related to the devil. maybe he was causing my off-topicness? darn little imaginary trickster. {/useless ABE}Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

presumably he was born in 1887.My personal bet is he meant to type in 1987.

So . . .when you state: What do you mean?Is lust greater than or less than homosexuality? Is lust equal to homosexuality? Is lust an increasing magnitude or of a decreasing magnitude of homosexuality? How about the reverse?The first rule of good writing (in arguments, at any rate)--use a clear style. Do not obfusticate your writing, do not confuse your audience. Unless, of course, your goal is to confuse the audience.However, confusing the audience is precisely what you did. Instead of going on to explain how you were going to quantify homosexuality into lust, you go on to explain how lust is immoral. You follow with a tirade about how gays aren't born gay. Neither paragraph clarifies how you are quantifying homosexuality into lust. The rest of your post doesn't.In fact, the rest of your post (aside from possibly stating that homosexuality and lust are equal) doesn't really deal with quantifying anything.You are qualifying homosexuality as lust. Not quantifying. There is such a thing as using the right word, not just any word. You have opted for the latter, and continue because no "college" professor has corrected you.Have you taken a writing course in college?

No, he isn't.
I certainly don't have sex with the idea of creating little versions of me (or my girlfriend). We do it because it is pleasureable. It does bring us closer. Reproduction is not an after-thought though. We actively try to avoid it. Mayhaps your missing the contrast?
Bonoboes have sex year round. Humans have sex year round.
The animals that only have sex for reproduction have a specific time in which they do. Now then, think about when most of them are in heat. They are in heat when the gestation time would put the birth of their offspring in a time when resources were plentiful. You think it's coincidence that most animal births are in spring to summer (or wet season versus dry season)? When is it easier to raise offspring: when resources are plentiful or in the dead of winter when there is nothing but your own fat reserves?I was born in december, about 120 years after you. If I had been born in the Ice Age, I would have most likely been screwed. The resources just didn't exist in the winter season.What this suggests, is that humans, because they don't have a set time for breeding, have sex for pleasure, closeness, and intimacy. It does not suggest that we have sex for recreation purposes. Crash didn't. You did. By invoking the creator. We're dealing with evidence here, right? YOu have no evidence for the creator (beyond personal belief and a millenium old compendium that doesn't even have a single version) And yet, he has one, and answered based on his sexual preference. When you pointed him to bodybuilding women, he was disinterested. This means that it is men he finds attractive, especially the shoulders of men.Suppose you ask me what part of the body I like (with the idea of no sexual preference). I respond by saying "the breasts". You point me to fat men with flabby breasts. You follow by saying--do you like those? I will answer "no, I don't".
This would mean that I am potentially attracted to women.If you were trying to prove that I chose to be heterosexual, (or with the case of your friend, proving that he chose to be homosexual), you haven't. All you have done is to show that we like specific body parts on specific sexes.

Funny. Genetic evidence actually supports the supposition that gays (at least some) are born that way, and thus, being gay is natural.Whereas the gay bashers require homosexuality to be unnatural.Nuggin is no basher of gays from what I'm aware of. Funny thing to say to an anthropologist. Good question. Why did you bring it up then? Seeing as how you did bring it up, I would hope you have some idea as to how it relates to your inane arguments. Is this your MO? Bringing up totally irrelevant points to your own arguments?