Originally posted by PVS
again i see no connection.you make a point that laws are corruptable. well yes they are. but again, how is this concept exclusively applicable to homosexual civil unions?
are you saying caution should be taken in defining such a law? well of coarse, as with any law.
thats what I said awhile back I just didn't rehash............
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well..according to Darwinian theory..those who have a greater chance of producing healthy fertile offspring, are the more evolved species.
Not more evolved, more likely to survive. Besides, your argument is ridiculous. If gay people couldn't breed, then you might have something, since they can, "superior" is a flawed POV.
This post alone perfectly illustrates why you have no right to argue 'for' or 'against' anything that invloves evolution, you don't understand the theory. Which is most likely why you don't subscribe to it.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well if you think about it..that's kind of the direction we're headed in..many people would choose to abort children found to have genetic defects..if they were able to detect the defect before birth. Homosexuality could easily be categorized as but another defect....
As could stupidity.
Besides, baby Jesus wouldn't let people kill their babies! How Roman would that be of the parents? And we all know baby Jesus created humans to be totally different from animals and would never allow people to come up with the idea of abortion, becuase they didn't want a gay baby.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So what do we categorize it as..a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic defect"..which one do you all believe would be the more appropriate terminology in defining it?And If the law recognizes it as a "lifestyle choice", should the legislatures then attempt to "legalize" other lifestyle choices.
What about polygamy or beastality..or necrophelia? Don't individuals who have multiple wives, or have sexual intercourse with beasts /corpses deserve just as much legal right to carry on their lifestyle..as any hetero or homo couple?
Not "we" ...YOU!
And it has been pointed out to you in the other thread that it is genetic, but not a defect. There is no broken gene in the human chromosome that causes homosexuality. Broken genes cause down syndrome, but I seriously doubt you would have the balls to say that having down syndrome is like a dog eating it's own shit.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not more evolved, more likely to survive.
A sexual act which enabled one species a greater chance of reproduction, would be the more evolved one. In this case, natural heterosexual intercourse..is the only sexual act that can produce offspring.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Besides, your argument is ridiculous. If gay people couldn't breed, then you might have something, since they can, "superior" is a flawed POV.
Call me crazy..but I don't believe two people of the same sex possess the ability to produce offspring together while engaging in sexual intercourse. Unless you know something the rest of us don't Cap. Please give us some examples of how anal sex, oral sex, mutual masterbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, and other such sexual behaviors, have evolved over the years..and have given two individuals of the same sex..the ability to reproduce.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
A sexual act which enabled one species a greater chance of reproduction, would be the more evolved one. In this case, natural heterosexual intercourse..is the only sexual act that can produce offspring.
funny, since in nature many animals engage in homosexual intercoarse and then go on to be the alpha male once they establish dominace in a pack/herd/pride etc.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Call me crazy.
doubt you would listen to reason
Originally posted by whobdamandog
but I don't believe two people of the same sex possess the ability to produce offspring together while engaging in sexual intercourse.
they are not capable together, but (most) their genetalia are ideally equipped to take part in the conception of a child. they just dont want to because that would mean intercoarse with the opposite sex..........wow i cant believe im explaining this. are you really THAT frikin stupid?
Originally posted by PVS
funny, since in nature many animals engage in homosexual intercoarse and then go on to be the alpha male once they establish dominace in a pack/herd/pride etc.doubt you would listen to reason
they are not capable together, but (most) their genetalia are ideally equipped to take part in the conception of a child. they just dont want to because that would mean intercoarse with the opposite sex..........wow i cant believe im explaining this. are you really THAT frikin stupid?
1. The comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is broken, the analogy is logically flawed. There is nothing in common between the two. Also, just to cut it off before it's said, the argument of "well, if you allow gay people to marry then next we would allow bestial marriage, then may pedophilia marriage, blah blah blah" is also broken and holds no water. It's a slippery slope argument, their eis no evidence that homosexuality would actually lead to bestial marriage, or the legality of child/adult marriage. Just wanted to get that out of the way because stupid people always bring up the same broken arguments in these threads. Just thought I'd shoot it down beforehand to save everyone some time.
2. Since when is marriage about anything other then love? Procreation has nothing to do with it. Two straight people who don't have the ability to procreate can get married, so why can't homosexuals? What's the difference?
3. Gay marriage doesn't effect straight people, who it's stupid to oppose it if you are straight, just more evidence that simple bigotry is the real reason people oppose it, rather than the other "reasons" people often list.
4. In short there is no logically sound or argumentatively valid reasons to oppose gay marriage, and almost all pseudo arguments people make are in truth simply masks to try and hide their prejudice.
Originally posted by BackFire
1. The comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is broken, the analogy is logically flawed. There is nothing in common between the two. Also, just to cut it off before it's said, the argument of "well, if you allow gay people to marry then next we would allow bestial marriage, then may pedophilia marriage, blah blah blah" is also broken and holds no water. It's a slippery slope argument, their eis no evidence that homosexuality would actually lead to bestial marriage, or the legality of child/adult marriage. Just wanted to get that out of the way because stupid people always bring up the same broken arguments in these threads. Just thought I'd shoot it down beforehand to save everyone some time.
you're too late. that idiot bomb was already dropped in this thread. and guess who dropped it? 🙄
in fact the bar was lowered with the addition of necrophelia
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Choosing to have sexual intercourse with whomever one wants is a "human right".. correct? Why shouldn't a man be able to get married to a horse or cow? One could make the argument that having sexual relations with these animals..is a much kinder then using them for food or travel. At least the animal is getting some sort of gratification from a sexual act..and it still gets to stay alive as well right?And why shouldn't the law allow a man to have intercourse and get remarried to his dead wife? After all..he was married to the wife at one time.
If the law is about human equality when determining which lifestyle choices should be deemed as legal marriages..then it's only fair that it applies to all types of lifestyles..not just hetero or homo..
Originally posted by PVS
you're too late. that idiot bomb was already dropped in this thread. and guess who dropped it? 🙄in fact the bar was lowered with the addition of necrophelia
Well, necrophelia is just silly. It would be impossible for a dead woman to consent to marriage. Not to mention it's dangerous.
Originally posted by BackFire
4. In short there is no logically sound or argumentatively valid reasons to oppose gay marriage, and almost all pseudo arguments people make are in truth simply masks to try and hide their prejudice.
This is the definition of Whob's brand of "debate", "religion", "logic" and the very nature of his existance.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This is the definition of Whob's brand of "debate", "religion", "logic" and the very nature of his existance.
Whob is not alone check it.... (did I sound gangsta)
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Whob is not alone check it.... (did I sound gangsta)
Oh, I know he's not alone. But, my post was meant to illustrate that Backfire's comment is the very definition of Whob's personality. Not only in regards to homosexuality, but to issues in general.
As for James Dobson, the man is a nut!
No, you didn't sound gangsta. You sounded like a white guy trying to sound gangsta. I do the same thing. But it was more "gangsta" than I would have been, because I would have used a comma. Since you did not, it was very inner-city, public school thug of you.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As for James Dobson, the man is a nut!No, you didn't sound gangsta. You sounded like a white guy trying to sound gangsta. I do the same thing. But it was more "gangsta" than I would have been, because I would have used a comma. Since you did not, it was very inner-city, public school thug of you.
Word 🙂
Originally posted by PVS
funny, since in nature many animals engage in homosexual intercoarse and then go on to be the alpha male once they establish dominace in a pack/herd/pride etc.
Depends on how you categorize "homosexual" behavior in animals. Moot point none the less. Animal behavior can't be equated with human behavior.
Originally posted by PVS
doubt you would listen to reason
Only when someone presents a reasonable argument..
Originally posted by PVS
they are not capable together, but (most) their genetalia are ideally equipped to take part in the conception of a child. they just dont want to because that would mean intercoarse with the opposite sex..........wow i cant believe im explaining this. are you really THAT frikin stupid? [/B]
2 individuals of the same gender can not reproduce. I can't put it in any simpler terms for you all. This is elementary level biology fellas. Regardless of their ability to "reproduce" with the opposite gender, their sexual preference and behavior is not conducive to producing offspring.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
2 individuals of the same gender can not reproduce. I can't put it in any simpler terms for you all. This is elementary level biology fellas. Regardless of their ability to "reproduce" with the opposite gender, their sexual preference and behavior is not conducive to producing offspring.
So, you're telling PVS that you ARE that fricking stupid?
As I pointed out to you, being gay does not make a man sterile. If that gay man were to have sex with a woman during her fertile period, she could become pregnant. This is also the case with a heterosexual man. I then pointed out to you that heterosexual males are not "more evolved" than a homosexual male, because of ability to reproduce. Again, you show that you don't understand the theory of evolution.
More evolved = superior in your mindset. However, that is not really what the theory of evolution is all about! You seem to think that evolution implies that one day humanity will evolve into beings of pure energy, existing as a thought! That isn't the case.
Originally posted by BackFire
The comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is broken, the analogy is logically flawed.
Nonsense. There are many comparisons that can be made between the two. Below is a list of the main ones.
1) The main purpose of both sexual acts is recreation as opposed to reproduction.
2) Neither sexual union can produce fertile offspring.
3) Both acts generally involve penetration of the anus for the purpose of sexual stimulation.
Originally posted by BackFire
Since when is marriage about anything other then love? Procreation has nothing to do with it.
What foolishness. Of course marriage has to do with procreation, and the ability to procreate has everything to do with love. It's the most intimate and tangible way two individuals can express their love for one another.
Originally posted by BackFire
Two straight people who don't have the ability to procreate can get married, so why can't homosexuals? What's the difference?
You're attempting to equate two types of situations that are vastly different. The bottom line is that heterosexual unions have the ability to produce fertile offspring. Same sex unions do not. One can't make simple comparisons between the two behaviors, because the end results for each of the behavoirs..are vastly different.
The only clear results observed from same sex unions are the following:
a) hemmoroids
b) Creating big messes of fecal matter/saliva/and sexually reproductive fluids..over body parts meant for excretion of waste and ingestion of food.
c) Spreading STD's
Originally posted by BackFire
3. Gay marriage doesn't effect straight people, who it's stupid to oppose it if you are straight, just more evidence that simple bigotry is the real reason people oppose it, rather than the other "reasons" people often list.4. In short there is no logically sound or argumentatively valid reasons to oppose gay marriage, and almost all pseudo arguments people make are in truth simply masks to try and hide their prejudice.
Not bigotry. People oppose degenaritive behavior, and those who attempt to pass off degenerative behavior as logical and rewarding. History has shown that such behavior has led to the ultimate destruction of many once great societies.(ie Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc)
There is nothing rewarding or honorable about two men engaging in sexual acts involving the anus, mouth, and touching of each others genitalia. Me stating this is not bigotry. It is truth and simply put..common sense.
I have no problem with an individual doing what they want to do with their bodies in private. I just don't like it when they try to force this "acceptance" of such degenerative and unnatural behaviors on others.
Fin