Proposal Requires Straights to Have Kids or Marriages Will Be Voided

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I think the idea is more that society would be screwed up by teaching children that un-natural, biologically incorrect sexual activities and lifestyles are normal.

By telling them that if they are born with or without a penis and they want or don't want one, that they can be something that they weren't born as, and that a doctor will do it for them as young as the age of 12.

I think the idea is that telling kids that bees polinate flowers, the rain moves in a cycle, and male and females create more people is thrown out of wack when you tell them in the next breath that homosexuality or transexuality is also normal and natural.

I've always wanted a penis.weep

Originally posted by Bardock42
No that's not my logic. Lets review how this one went, I will use fake names as to not embarrass either of us.

Stupid fundamentalist bigot: Gay sex is unnatural.
Enlightened intelligent person that happens to be right: It is actually natural, as can be seen by other animals besides humans doing it.
Stupid fundamentalist bigot: So what? Eating your children is also natural, doesn't make it right.
Enlightened intelligent person that happens to be right: **** you, go die.

Anyways. Homosexuality is natural. End of that topic.

He acknowledges and realizes that gayness occurs in the natural world. But what he is saying is that "Just like there are animals in which two males **** eachother in the ass, there are also animals in which one kills and eats the other after mating. So you're saying humans should do that to, just because it 'natural'? "

^ That's what you failed to respond to ,ey.

Originally posted by LethalFemme
I've always wanted a penis.weep

You can always borrow mine, I do come attached though. 😉

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He acknowledges and realizes that gayness occurs in the natural world. But what he is saying is that "Just like there are animals in which two males **** eachother in the ass, there are also animals in which one kills and eats the other after mating. So you're saying humans should do that to, just because it 'natural'? "

^ That's what you failed to respond to ,ey.

No, that is not what I failed to respond to. There was no need to respond to it as it is an entirely different thing. He stated it is unnatural to claim it to be bad. It is not unnatural. That should basically end that.

Don't you see that he changed the topic? If you want to I can respond to this new (totally unrelated) argument, but at least aknowledge that that was not what he said to begin with, it was not what I responded to.

Originally posted by Soleran
You can always borrow mine, I do come attached though. 😉

There are ways around that.ermm

Anyway this proposal in completely stupid but, I get the point. More power to that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trannys.

Originally posted by sithsaber408

And I'll not have that taught to my children as some lame half-cooked attempt at validating an un-natural, destructive behavior.

No. But you would teach your children bigotry, ignorance and sheer stupidity as a result.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

It is not anymore "destructive" than heterosexuality.

And it's not anymore "unnatural" than the computer you sitting at.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
(actually, the 4th and 5th graders that I work with now would see through such logic on their own.)

Nice to see you take the opinion of children so academically.

This is your arguement in a nutshell:

Homosexuality is unnatural because homosexuals do not reproduce like heterosexual organisms do in nature.

Homosexuality is a choice like alcoholism

The typical bigot's skewed logic of two polar opposites.

Bardock stated that homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom. You typically responded that animals also "eat feces" or "kill their spouses" and it doesn't make it "right". You FIRST stated and implied that homosexuality is "invalid" because it doesn't follow nature's laws. Homosexuality in animals is part of nature whether you like or not. You attempt deflect this simple fact by stating we are superior to animals yet you just previously stated we must follow nature's laws concerning reproduction as do animals.

You then go the "homosexuality is a destructive choice" route. You acknowledge that homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom...and yet you say it is a choice. I had no idea that animals were capable of rational, logical thought to make a destructive choice in their "lifestyle." If homosexuality is a choice, why is it found in the animal kingdom? You typically responded that we're "morally" better than animals in attempt to deflect that question that threatens the paltry foundation of your bigoted views.

You flip-flop. Homosexuality is unnatural biological behavior found in animals but we are better than animals so that doesn't mean it's okay...yet it is also a "lifestyle" pursuit and choice despite that fact that animals don't have the ability to make conscious choices.

Bigotry never makes sense. As always.

So which is it? Is homosexuality natural? Who cares if it's "disgusting" or "immoral" in that sappy brain of yours. If it's found in nearly species of nearly every animal, than that means it's as natural as blue eyes. Than if it's found in animals it CAN'T be a choice. Right? If you think it's a choice, than you would have to explain why and how animals choose a destructive lifestyle that threatens the welfare of their babies.

God, I'm probably arguing with an elementary school teacher. How asinine....

Originally posted by Bardock42
He stated it is unnatural to claim it to be bad. It is not unnatural. That should basically end that.

I stated that it's unnatural because it is.

You're response was that it is natural, and the support for that opinion was provided by way of saying.. "look at nature".

To which I made the reply that animals eat their own feces, young, lovers, etc.... and that it's rather juvenile and foolish to point to behaviors of the animal kingdom to try to justify a person's lifestyle.

You can choose to respond or not, and say that it wasn't the original point, but it's the new point and one that you should try and answer if you'd like to back up your position.

As for you claim that my first post didn't deal with homosexuality's relationship to nature, ... you are wrong.

Again.

Here it is:

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I think the idea is more that society would be screwed up by teaching children that un-natural, biologically incorrect sexual activities and lifestyles are normal.

By telling them that if they are born with or without a penis and they want or don't want one, that they can be something that they weren't born as, and that a doctor will do it for them as young as the age of 12.

I think the idea is that telling kids that bees polinate flowers, the rain moves in a cycle, and male and females create more people is thrown out of wack when you tell them in the next breath that homosexuality or transexuality is also normal and natural.

Two strikes friend, will you go for the third?

Give homosexuals "domestic partnership" or whatever.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He acknowledges and realizes that gayness occurs in the natural world. But what he is saying is that "Just like there are animals in which two males **** eachother in the ass, there are also animals in which one kills and eats the other after mating. So you're saying humans should do that to, just because it 'natural'? "

^ That's what you failed to respond to ,ey.

But he also says homosexuality is an active conscious choice that somehow animals are capable of making too....

It's absolutely paltry to say "homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural" than do a 180 and say just because it's natural doesn't make it right.

His entire arguement rests on the case that homosexuality is destructive, immoral and bad because it does not follow nature's laws and it's not natural.

But it does.

This is the skewed logic:

Homophobe: Homosexuality is unnatural because they don't make babies and it's against nature!

Intelligent Person: Homosexuality is found in nature amongst animals.

Homophobe: But it doesn't make it right! Animals hump trees in nature but that doesn't mean we should too!

Intelligent Person: Waitaminute. You just said homosexuality is bad because it's against nature.

Homophobe: Yep.

Intelligent Person: But we just agreed that is found in nature.

Homophobe: So? It's still wrong. We don't lick each other.

Intelligent Person: That's an entirely different subject of morality. You said that homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural.

Homophobe: Yep.

Intellligent Person: So...because it's found in nature, it must be natural and so forth good...

Homophobe: Uh...

Bigots can't think properly....

Originally posted by Draco69
If it's found in nearly species of nearly every animal

Nearly every animal??

I thought its was only a handful of species. Specifiaclly, only in mammal species.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
it's rather juvenile and foolish to point to behaviors of the animal kingdom to try to justify a person's lifestyle.

Good point.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
YTo which I made the reply that animals eat their own feces, young, lovers, etc.... and that it's rather juvenile and foolish to point to behaviors of the animal kingdom to try to justify a person's lifestyle.

actually, you're the one using using nature as a means of proving others to be not worthy of basic human rights like live liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
the point of the occurance of homosexuallity via nature and hormones in people and animals was to counter your baseless blanket statement that its wrong because its "unnatural". you then try as we see to spin the counter point as the point of the opposition in itself. this is a weak tactic and really exposes your unhealthy and unnatural obsession with proving other humans who are different than you to be beneath you.

this is what evil people do, and the start of persecution. real persecution, mind you---> the stripping of basic human rights from a group of people, as opposed to bible beaters who's feelings are hurt because people infringe on their belief that everyone whom they dont like should be persecuted.

you do alot of dancing SS. alot of baiting and switching, and a shit load of parroting. perhaps you're so good at it that your constant looping and contorting of dialogue has become sensible and believable in your own mind...as opposed to the truth of the topic, and the very conversations in this thread.

so lets recap, shall we?

you say its unnatural and thus wrong. you are factually wrong based on already posted evidence of biologically based (at least partially) homosexuality in both humans and other animals, particularly other mammals. spin it how you wish, thats how it played out.

Originally posted by Draco69

This is your arguement in a nutshell:

Homosexuality is unnatural because homosexuals do not reproduce like heterosexual organisms do in nature.

Homosexuality is a choice like alcoholism

Yes, that's the point.

(also that penises and vaginas are biologically designed to work with one another, evidence of which is the combined function of conception. It therefore negates that men and women who use their sexual organs for sex with the same gender, while physically possible, is not the intended biological design since the result of joining them is ... nothing.)

No, I said that homosexuality is a destructive behavior like alcoholism.

Never said it was a choice.

Obviously animals don't choose it, nor did I say once in any post that they do.

You projected that on there.

(so there goes your "flip-flop" on that.)

My point, still unanswered... is that animals do many other things naturally, and we don't follow their behaviors do we?

Why the exception for homosexuality?

Because it feels good?

You'll need a better reason than that to teach people that it's normal and natural and your reason for saying so is based on the behaviors of the animal kingdom.

Originally posted by PVS
actually, you're the one using using nature as a means of proving others to be not worthy of basic human rights like live liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
the point of the occurance of homosexuallity via nature and hormones in people and animals was to counter your baseless blanket statement that its wrong because its "unnatural". you then try as we see to spin the counter point as the point of the opposition in itself. this is a weak tactic and really exposes your unhealthy and unnatural obsession with proving other humans who are different than you to be beneath you.

this is what evil people do, and the start of persecution. real persecution, mind you---> the stripping of basic human rights from a group of people, as opposed to bible beaters who's feelings are hurt because people infringe on their belief that everyone whom they dont like should be persecuted.

you do alot of dancing SS. alot of baiting and switching, and a shit load of parroting. perhaps you're so good at it that your constant looping and contorting of dialogue has become sensible and believable in your own mind...as opposed to the truth of the topic, and the very conversations in this thread.

so lets recap, shall we?

you say its unnatural and thus wrong. you are factually wrong based on already posted evidence of biologically based (at least partially) homosexuality in both humans and other animals, particularly other mammals. spin it how you wish, thats how it played out.

But he's saying that pointing at animal behavior as a way of saying something is ok for humans to do is a kinda dumb, and I agree.

For example: my dog licks his balls, ass.hole and plays with dead birds and roadkill he finds. I sure as hell ain't gonna do any of that just because somebody tells me "See look! It's happening in the animal kingdom, so it's ok, go do that."

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You're grasping at nothing here.

Dude, please. A bigot like you has nothing grasped in the first place.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I stated that it's unnatural because it is.

"Unnatural" would be defined as something that is not found in the natural world barring humankind and sentinency.

Homosexuality is.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You're response was that it is natural, and the support for that opinion was provided by way of saying.. "look at nature".

To which I made the reply that animals eat their own feces, young, lovers, etc.... and that it's rather juvenile and foolish to point to behaviors of the animal kingdom to try to justify a person's lifestyle.

The only thing juvenile here is you.

Your entire arguement is this: homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural.

It IS natural and found in the animal kingdom.

You attempt INjustify homosexuality by saying that just because it's natural doesn't make it right.

So if it IS natural what makes it wrong?

We just confirmed it's naturally found in animals, bacteria, fungi, etc.

Who cares what the activity is?

So what makes it wrong? You lost the entire foundation of your opinion.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You can choose to respond or not, and say that it wasn't the original point, but it's the new point and one that you should try and answer if you'd like to back up your position.

You have no idea what you're talking about....

You're trapped in circular logic: It's wrong because it's not natural but if it is natural it's not necessarily right.

So what make's it wrong? It's natural. You say it's wrong because it's unnatural. It is. So what makes it wrong?

Next up from the bigot: Bible quotes....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
As for you claim that my first post didn't deal with homosexuality's relationship to nature, ... you are wrong.

Your first post dealed with the circular logic posted above. It's all rather connected in a hapzard fashion that bigots like you regularly display..

Originally posted by sithsaber408

Two strikes friend, will you go for the third?

Keep teaching children, sir. You're clearly not intelligent enough think beyond 4th and 5th grade literacy....

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Nearly every animal??

I thought its was only a handful of species. Specifiaclly, only in mammal species.

No. Reptiles. Fungi. Birds. Fish. Even friggin' bacteria....

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Good point.

No it isn't.

😐

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But he's saying that pointing at animal behavior as a way of saying something is ok is a kinda dumb, and I agree.

he's saying that. you're saying that. but the fact is nobody used it as a means to justify homosexuallity. nobody. nada. zilch. zero. empty room. crickets chirping. tumbleweeds blowing. not a soul.

he said its wrong because its unnatural. thats the positive statement.
this statement was proven wrong because it factually exists in nature.
thus the question then turns back to the one who made the statement:
"homosexuality is wrong because ________________", since he was the one who made the failed point.

now, perhaps im mistaken and somebody said "homosexuality is right and good because the animals do it"? no, im not.

Originally posted by Draco69
No. Reptiles. Fungi. Birds. Fish. Even friggin' bacteria....

Well bacteria have no gender, since theyre unicellular.

And how do fungus have gay sex if they lack penises and vaginas (which are animal organs)?

Sithsaber, you are making yourself look incredibly dumb. If you yourself are going to claim that homosexuality is unnatural, and then when it is pointed out that it occurs in nature to then say that that which is natural is not necessarily laudable, you look like a ttoal ass wasting everyone's time for talking about whether it is natural or not in the first place. By your own argument, the fact that it is unnatural (or otherwise) is totally irrelevant to the issue about whether it should be propogated as 'normal' in education or not. You've shot yourself in the foot, and really should try a more logical approach to things.

And of course, yes,. it IS totally irrelevant whether homosexuality is natural or not. Natural does not mean moral or right or acceptable nor unnatural the reverse. Nature does much that is horrendous, and Man does much that is right but unnatural.

To this particular debate, it is also rather irrelevant whether homosexuality is chosen or not. The origins do not matter; this is a legal issue dealing specifically with an existing phenomenon, regardless of how it comes to be.

What the children are going to be told is that homosexuality is fine. it is nothing to be ashamed of, is nothing wrong, and is not in any way ethically inferior to heterosexuality. If you have an issue with that you are indeed a prejudiced bigot.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, that's the point.

You have no point....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
(also that penises and vaginas are biologically designed to work with one another, evidence of which is the combined function of conception. It therefore negates that men and women who use their sexual organs for sex with the same gender, while physically possible, is not the intended biological design since the result of joining them is ... nothing.)

And we have oral sex. And we have frottage. And we kiss. None of which are "natural".

I suppose these are wrong as well.

The function of homosexuality in nature is hotly debated but the most popular being:

A) uncle theroem

B) population theorem

C) fertility theorem

These are the three most popular theorems for homosexuality in nature. Since you obviously don't have much education in biology or anything else for that matter, you wouldn't know that the function of sexual behavior extends far beyond simple "the tallywacker doesn't go in there!" rhetoric. It's far more complex than that. Specifically when you consider neuro-biology, population biology, ecologic genetics, etc.

If you took the time to actually study it rather than going by elementary school knowledge of biology than you would know better...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, I said that homosexuality is a destructive behavior like alcoholism.

Proof? And doesn't say "AIDS".....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Never said it was a choice.

Good lord, you're something else...

Yet it's like alcoholism...

Yet you say it's a lifestyle....

I pity your vocabulary....

Yep, homosexuality isn't a choice.

Just like alcoholism. We don't choose to drink copious amounts of alcohol right?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Obviously animals don't choose it, nor did I say once in any post that they do.

Of course you didn't. You were too trapped in your own circular logic to make any sense of what you're saying....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You projected that on there.

It was already there in fine print....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
(so there goes your "flip-flop" on that.)

Dude, it's gone far beyond simple flip-floping....

It's now in the realm of sheer stupidity.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
My point, still unanswered... is that animals do many other things naturally, and we don't follow their behaviors do we?

And MY point is what makes you the judge to decide what makes homosexuality a natural behavior yet immorally wrong? You say it's wrong because it don't make no babies.

By the logic, any couple having sex with protection is also immoral because they block the natural flow of semen into the vagina....

What makes it wrong? You still haven't answered that beyond simple bigoted circular logic....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Why the exception for homosexuality?

Because it feels good?

Why the INCLUSION of homosexuality? Animals kill their own children. We has humans think that's wrong to do so. We have no real logic behind besides our moral compass and conscience.

Why is homosexuality wrong to you?

Because it's somehow destructive? Prove it.

Prove that homosexuality is just as socially aborhable as murder....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You'll need a better reason than that to teach people that it's normal and natural and your reason for saying so is based on the behaviors of the animal kingdom.

Dude, you're missing the point. You're missing EVERY point.

I'm not arguing that homosexuality is alright because animals do it. I'm arguing that your logic doesn't make a lick of sense.

You think it's unnatural thus bad. It is natural thus good by your logic.

That's just retarded thinking...

Originally posted by Draco69

"Unnatural" would be defined as something that is not found in the natural world barring humankind and sentinency.

Homosexuality is.

Maybe, but for the sake of discussing human sexuality, I'd think that what has a natural process and function and produces offspring falls under natural, and what produces nothing would fall under "other." (like a bj)

Originally posted by Draco69

Your entire arguement is this: homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural.

It IS natural and found in the animal kingdom.

We just confirmed it's naturally found in animals, bacteria, fungi, etc.

Who cares what the activity is?

So what makes it wrong? You lost the entire foundation of your opinion.

My argument is that homosexuality is unnatural. (for us)

Your whole point, the "entire foundation of your opinion" is that fungi, birds, reptiles, and fish among other animals do it.

I fail to see how that makes it a natural behavior for humans.

Were I to abdicate child canibalism, and state that I like it, it feels good, and animals do it naturally.... I would be given the death sentence.

Ditto for murdering my spouse after sex.

Originally posted by Draco69

Keep teaching children, sir. You're clearly not intelligent enough think beyond 4th and 5th grade literacy....

You have NO other proof of homosexuality being "natural" other than to point to animals and reptiles and such.

That is folly!

Animals are not human beings sir, whether your own personal belief is in evolution or not.

No evolutionist or anybody else with a sound mind would lobby for the legitimization of any activity or behavior based on the argument that "the behavior is present in the animal kingdom."

Even in animals it produces no offspring and they continue to mate with the opposite sex to naturally continue the species.

So you fail again.

But they are not the standard nor example that human beings hold themselves up to.

You would'nt try to pass a law or teach in shcools that eating your own sh!t is natural would you?

When the kids ask why, you wouldn't have the adacity to tell them it's because Rover does it, and they can too, would you?

My point, still unanswered... is that animals do many other things naturally, and we don't follow their behaviors do we?

Why the exception for homosexuality?

Because it feels good?

You'll need a better reason than that to teach people that it's normal and natural and your reason for saying so is based on the behaviors of the animal kingdom.