Pride parade in Mumbai!

[triam]

Well in that case a simple p-sec response can answer this --- "two wrongs don't make one right". agree, knowingly or unknowingly Human has caused great harm to nature...But then why cause further harm to our self by runing Gay pride Parades and chest thumping about going against nature, when it is proven that Human has yet not been given organs by nature which Gays falsely percieve as sexual organs. Since you first brought the arguement of Milkking Cow as veiled justification for gayism, hence I pointed that milking cow is adapting rather going against nature since cow is milked from the organ which is provided by nature to produce milk.

I did not justify homosexuality, because there is nothing to justify, I brought up milking cows as to understand what you mean by Natural and unnatural, and there is a growing argument that cows milk is not good for human digestive system etc, so that maybe completely unnatural too.

[Aditi]

there is a growing argument that cows milk is not good for human digestive system etc, so that maybe completely unnatural too.

As a lactose intolerant individual (I have been unable to drink milk and consume most dairy products for the past 2 years), I can personally vouch for that.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Why our political section is being gayised:giggle:

[fineleg]

Why our political section is being gayised:giggle:

the section is called "political and current affairs" - the CA part of it can include such topics

[THX_1138]

I did not justify homosexuality' date=' because there is nothing to justify, I brought up milking cows as to understand what you mean by Natural and unnatural, and there is a growing argument that cows milk is not good for human digestive system etc, so that maybe completely unnatural too.[/quote'] there is some truth to that... but personally i am still skeptical. i drink anything from 2 to 4 gallons of milk a week, most of it in two large helpings a day of a quarter gallon and i have not had any gastrointestinal issues.

[CC1981]

Nature has given different organs for different purposes, misusing of any of these organs for the purpose other than intended is GOING AGAINST NATURE!! Simple as that!

Ridiculous amounts of intellectual dishonesty and peddling your own (narrow) opinion as naturism abounds in your post. Nature didnt give us a manual for intended purposes for body parts. I am sure when nature (if nature can be personified, which itself is a flawed argument) gave us biceps, it didnt intend it for lifting two iron discs at the end of a bar- that is as unnatural as it gets. So is bench-pressing unnatural ? Nature didnt give us hair so we could put gel in it and style it - nature gave us hair for protecting the scalp. So is hair cosmetics and shampoo unnatural ? What is natural and what is not natural is not something YOU deciede. If there is examples of a certain act in the animal kingdom, it is as nutural as it gets.

If Gayism was natural, then nature must have provided both male and female reproductive Organs within single Human body. However it is NOT the case at least in Human.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Even a fifth grader can tell that the anal cavity is ONLY for discharging excreta of human digestive system --- It is a proven fact SCIENTIFICALLY.

And a 2nd grader will tell you that the oral cavity is ONLY for consuming food and nutrients. So is a blowjob unnatural in your world or what about kissing ?? What you are claiming a proven fact scientifically is utter boolsheet- there is no 'proven scientific fact' that says anal cavity is only for excrement- science does not define the limits of purpose of a bodypart. If we can find a purpose for it, it goes.

So human has used cow for their benefit without going against nature or cause any harm to cow.

Boolsheet. By milking a cow, you are holding it captive and causing emotional damage. Therefore, it is causal of harm. Its a very simple understanding - all creatures that are concious have emotions and thus subjecting them to a life of not their chosing is emotionally damaging. Your 'great ancient bharat' had zero considerations for that, eh ?

In order to milk a cow, you are NOT causing any harm to cow.

False. See above - you are causing emotional damage to the cow by holding it captive in the first place. The cow didnt come to you, turn around and jiggle its udders at you, indicating you should milk her. Most cows don't like being milked in the FIRST place, which is why all gowallahs will tell you that they watch out for the cow 'kicking the bucket' over when milking them and thus many gowallahs will tie the hind legs of a cow (to prevent them from kicking the bucket over) while they are being milked.

That is why any killing is often referred as "unnatural" death, simply because it is NOT natural.

Killing is as natural as it gets - right down from the smallest bacteria to the largest of creatures in nature exist solely by killing its food/competition. Your comment that killing is unnatural is as unnatural as it gets, since nature itself abounds with killing.

because in great ancient civilization of Bharat, this fertile land had produced plenty of food grains to sustain her population, so people were hardly forced to look for animal as a source of food unless it was for fun hunting in case of royal rulers etc.

Which is why the 'great nation of bharat', with its population of 1 billion + has never given us a worldbeater cricket team (despite being obsessed with it and having more than 70% of the playing population), has never given us a soccer team and fetched us our first individual olympic gold in 28-30 games. Your precious 'shaakahari' civilization has given us a population that cannot compete in basic fitness and physical ability of the 'maasahari' civilizations and even to this day, the average Afghan or Irani is a far stronger lad than the average indian. I guess your so-called God avatars overlooked the fact that to replace animal protien alone, we'd need a combined diet of 7-8 food items, which are out of reach for most of the population. Thanks to millenias of veggie-milk eating desis, we now have a society that is amongst the most unfit, physically challenged and unsound in the world. What a great accomplishment !

[CC1981]

And at the same time same very hyper-liberals by supporting un-natural practices like Gayism, beatiality-zoophilia etc. are going EXACTLY against what mother nature has made.

This is utter propaganda and usual in line with your lies. SHOW ME a single- JUST A SINGLE - 'hyper liberal organisation' that supports zoophilia and beastiality. Beastiality and zoophilia is wrong because it is RAPE. Homosexuality is not wrong because you nor anyone has ANY AUTHORITY to tell two adults what they are supposed to find titillating inside closed doors of their choosing. It is just as simple as that, vatz. If you want to regulate sexual behaviour beyond the golden rule, then only straight vaginal sex, no kissing, oral sex or anything else can be permitted, as they ALL will fall under the category of 'improper use of the body organ/not intended purpose for it' .

[CC1981]

Dude, the likelihood of contracting AIDS or any STD is far greater thru the backdoor than it is through regular vaginal sex. You cannot refute the irrefutable. Look at one of vroomfondel's posts - he even gave you a biological explanation.

The flaw in your logic is simple : You are saying anal sex is more dangerous for AIDS contraction and therefore, using it as a tool to discriminate against homosexuals. The flaw in your logic is simple : The practitioners of anal sex, on a pan-humanistic scale, are predominantly hetero sexual. Thats, right, its FAR FAR more prevalent (in sheer numbers) for guys to take a girl up the shut than guy-guy only. Therefore, your bone of contention is irrelevant to the issues of gays, since they are not the largest practitioners of it and your 'health concern' is victimisation rather than a concern in itself.

Notions ? What notions ? I am just stating facts. I don't need to hit gay clubs and talk to 12 different flamers in order to know that homosexuals make up 70% of the AIDS cases in the United States. This has already been proven in numerous studies by the US Department of Health and Human services, yuo can look it up yourself.

But homosexuals don't make up anywhere close to the majority of AIDS patients worldwide. What the percentage is in USA is utterly irrelevant to this conversation - i can easily prove that heterosexuals make up the largest % of AIDS positive cases in the world, as well as form the largest majority of cases in most nations. So now what ? we start banning heterosexual sex ?!