Are there any homosexuals on Tour? - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by sofingaw 

What I meant (and said) was that if anyone argued that homosexuality was NOT natural, that would be a moronic argument. The laws and allowances of the natural world (see, science) are absolute as I understand them. To argue against them is what would make a moron, IMO.

Riddle me this Batman............

How is using your reproductive organs in a manner that doesn't lead to procreation natural? If all the world were homosexuals/lesbians how would we NATURALLY continue to exist as a species? We couldn't. Humans would have to manipulate things to bear children. As a species, NATURALLY we need both men and women to reproduce.

Fellatio and other acts other than straight sex between hetrosexual couples isn't natural but they do it because it feels good to them. That's the same for homosexuals. Just because people feel an urge to do something and act on it doesn't make it 'natural'.

Frankly, I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. It's the people who feel the need to flaunt their sexual preference that I find to be obnoxious. And I mean for homosexuals and hetrosexuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sofingaw 

Also, you can play both types of shots and be quite successful! Even on the PGA Tour!!

Does that bring this thread full circle?!

Does that mean we're having sausage?

One other thing on people's sexuals preferences being 'Natural' or not.

So pedophiles and rapists desires should be considered Natural? Of course not.

In no way am I putting homosexuality in the same category but you can't just say because a person wants to do a certain thing sexually, it should be considered Natural.

I see your point that since humans have these desires, it occurred 'naturally'. I'm referring to a natural state as in what people in general are naturally; not anomalies that since they occurred should be considered natural.

There are children born with deformities due to women doing drugs or smoking during pregnancies. They were born that way but not naturally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sofingaw 


No. Here's an example:

Gravity, a natural law. It works one way, and not the other. It pulls in a particular direction. Not more than one.

To deny the way it works is moronic.

Another, perhaps more apt example:

Ball flight laws! (Which are governed by laws of physics, which are natural laws and include gravity, for one)

A ball may either go left, or right. Lets call these ball flights, instead of hook and slice, just for example....something arbitrary... I dpnt know, how about.... 'Gay' and 'Straight' balls!

So, a set of circumstances in nature create the potential for the 'birth' of a shot, gay or straight, based on the particulars of those circumstances. Club face angle, gender, clubhead path, hormones, etc.

A shot is born! Is it gay or straight? Who knows right away? Not I. But once it matures, it is evident to all how that shot will be.

Also evident to all except for morons, should be that no shot, or person, can be born straight or gay, hook or slice, without being allowed such by natural conditions, or 'nature'.

To suggest that hooks come from the devil or slices are black magic, ignores the natural laws that created that shot, and is moronic.

If its only gays (or hookers of the ball) that understand ball flight laws, that doesn't make their argument and reasoning invalid. Just misunderstood by those who don't (or choose to ignore it.) THOSE people, I would call morons.


Your argument is that nature cannot be used to explain either straightness or gayness.

That's wrong, since it clearly explains BOTH.

I was saying that if the "it isn't natural" argument isn't ALLOWED, then it shouldn't be allowed from any side. Not that it cannot be used to explain either/or.  I.E.- if "anti guy" is forced to give a better reasoning than, "because procreation is not possible", then "pro guy" should have to have a better reasoning than, "they were just born that way".

Some would argue that the set of circumstances in nature that create the potential for birth are not two beings of the same sex, in any species. That seems pretty scientifically factual since i've never seen a pregnant man or a woman who was knocked up by another woman. I'm just assuming that's the premise on which that side would argue. I personally don't know or care if that makes gay right or wrong.

The parallel between ballflights and people is flawed in my view due to the fact that as much as it may seem like it, ballflights do not have free will or a mind of their own. People do. To date I haven't heard of a scientific fact that proves what makes gays gay or straight people straight. Right or wrong is a subjective judgement made by those with free will and a mind of their own. If the reasonings behind those judgements are not going to be permissable then why even have the discussion?

P.S. Hooks are definately from the devil and slices are black magic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sofingaw 

To the bit about never seeing a pregnant man, that's firstly, beside the point, and secondly... You haven't seen that YET.

For some that would be the whole point. You're right... I haven't seen one yet.... because men don't have a uterus. Scientific fact.

Not sure about any players, but I think it is reprehensible that the PGA tour allows such labels on the back of the caddies:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81 

A person can be against the practice of homosexuality and not against the person who does it.

How?

I don't personally plan to participate in any homosexual activity, but I don't condemn those who do. Homosexuality is not an illness (mental or otherwise), nor something that can be "cured," so to be against homosexuality is, to me, to be against the people who are homosexual. It's like saying you're against blonde hair but not people who have blonde hair. Or you're against shooting animals legally but not against hunters. Etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nututhugame 

But a gay person citing nature as the reason they are gay is not moronic? I'm just saying that if the nature argument is not acceptable from one side it should not be acceptable from any side.

I simply meant that I don't want to hear about the procreation aspect. There are gay animals in many species so there's nothing to be discussed when talking about whether homosexuality occurs in nature. Homosexuality is not specific to humans. There's little to be gained in discussing facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo68 

How is using your reproductive organs in a manner that doesn't lead to procreation natural?

I worked in concessions at the Erie Zoo one year. During the winter we made cotton candy indoors. One of the monkeys was not allowed to be outside with the other monkeys during the day because, well, his nickname was "Spanky" if that gives you any indication as to why he was kept in the back during the day. And these weren't the smart monkeys that can read or do sign language or anything.

In other words, we must have different definitions of "natural" when it comes to masturbation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo68 

If all the world were homosexuals/lesbians how would we NATURALLY continue to exist as a species? We couldn't.

I think that's a bizarre argument given that 98.3% of us aren't (by the above post), nor does homosexuality preclude reproduction. It's not like gays and lesbians are infertile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo68 

It's the people who feel the need to flaunt their sexual preference that I find to be obnoxious. And I mean for homosexuals and hetrosexuals.

 

Great. That's not the topic, and nobody's doing that here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nututhugame 

I was saying that if the "it isn't natural" argument isn't ALLOWED, then it shouldn't be allowed from any side.

If you think that homosexuality is a "disease" or a "choice," good luck with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nututhugame 

I.E.- if "anti guy" is forced to give a better reasoning than, "because procreation is not possible", then "pro guy" should have to have a better reasoning than, "they were just born that way".

I disagree. They're different arguments. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction or the survival of a species, especially when it's a small fraction of the population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nututhugame 

Some would argue that the set of circumstances in nature that create the potential for birth are not two beings of the same sex, in any species. That seems pretty scientifically factual since i've never seen a pregnant man or a woman who was knocked up by another woman. I'm just assuming that's the premise on which that side would argue. I personally don't know or care if that makes gay right or wrong.

You've forgotten about budding and other forms of asexual reproduction. And artificial insemination. And the fact that 1.7% of a species being gay does not end the entire species. In fact, I'm unaware of any species in the history of time that has died out because of too many homosexual members.

Someone being homosexual does not force YOU to stop procreating because you're heterosexual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nututhugame 

To date I haven't heard of a scientific fact that proves what makes gays gay or straight people straight. Right or wrong is a subjective judgement made by those with free will and a mind of their own. If the reasonings behind those judgements are not going to be permissable then why even have the discussion?

I don't think you've done a lot of looking for them, either.

Since this has (predictably) strayed from the topic of whether there's a gay player on the PGA Tour, I'm moving this thread to the Grill Room where you can continue to discuss it so long as you remain mature, civil, and so on.

And to answer your question, tuffluck, no, I don't think there are any openly gay members of the PGA Tour. I do not believe there are any openly gay members of the Champions or Web.com Tours.

The LPGA Tour has a few known lesbians (less now than 20 years ago). Ditto the Symetra Tour or whatever it's called now.

I'm content with my position on homosexuality - I see those people as humans and hope that we will soon see the day where they're simply seen as humans. I have a hard time getting worked up over anything which doesn't infringe on my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, as they say.

Can you quote where I said that I think homosexuality is a disease or a choice? Your response didn't even address what you quoted. My whole issue actually has nothing to do with the gay issue. It's the limiting of debate to certain criteria.