Proposal Requires Straights to Have Kids or Marriages Will Be Voided

Originally posted by sithsaber408

My argument is that homosexuality is unnatural. (for us)[/B][/QUOTE]

Fine. Why? Because it doesn't make babies...?

I want an actual, logic argument why....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Your whole point, the "entire foundation of your opinion" is that fungi, birds, reptiles, and fish among other animals do it.

Um. NO.

Jesus Christ.

That's not my point at all.

I'm not arguing that "just because animals do it, so can we". Please! That was a point I raised to show how invalid your claims of "natural" and "unnatural" makes it wrong or right was....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I fail to see how that makes it a natural behavior for humans.

You fail to see much...

If it's in animals, it isn't a lifestyle. It's not a choice. That's the ONLY point I made.

I never said because monkeys do too that it's morally justifiable....

Which is the case you painfully failing at making. You attempt to use logic and science in a morality debate that no here is even raising up....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.

We define cannbalism as wrong because it hurts another person. We define murder as wrong because it hurts another person.

If you want to get into morals, fine. What in your mind makes homosexuality wrong?

What makes it comparable to a crime like murder? A crime by our laws is something that harms another person.

Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody. It's the sexual attraction to a person of one's own gender. That's it.

Where's the crime? Where's the violence? Where's the pain?

Does homosexuality harm the individual who is genetically predispositioned? No.

Does it harm another person? No.

Does it harm society? To some people, yes. Apparently 5% that homosexuals represent in the world will somehow dramatically decrease a population of six billion. Other than that, no.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Ditto for murdering my spouse after sex. You look rather foolish trying to berate me when it's you who's acting the 4th grader.

Honey, you equate a guy having a date with another guy to be on par with murder.

You're beyond stupidity....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You have [b]NO other proof of homosexuality being "natural" other than to point to animals and reptiles and such. [/B]

Besides it being discovered daily again and again as biologically predetermined by genetics and whatnot...

Your definition of natural is confusing. You're definition of natural is clearly whatever you're comfortable with and you think is morally "good".

If that's the case, this debate is futile since I can't convince you what right and wrong is.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That is folly!

Like everything you say....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Animals are not human beings sir, whether your own personal belief is in evolution or not.

Fine. Here we go again with the circular logic. Homosexuality is bad because it's not "natural".

Why don't you just say "right" or "moral" or "good" and be done with it?

You think homosexuality is wrong. Period. You don't have any logic behind. You just have a personal belief about it.

I on the other hand was attempting to show how thinking homosexuality is unnatural by ecological/biological terms and thus wrong was faulty to begin with....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
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."

What are you talking about? Of course they wouldn't. And I'm not either. You're the only who thinks this what we are arguing....

😐

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Even in animals it produces no offspring and they continue to mate with the opposite sex to naturally continue the species.

Biologically, they would likely die out...

Anyhoo, taking a page from your tattered book of lies:

Just because animals do, doesn't mean we should.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So you fail again.

You fail in life. When the moderator calls you an idiot, you know you've hit a new low...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
But they are not the standard nor example that human beings hold themselves up to.

Says who? You? Why?

What are the "standards" you speak of?

Oh please....

I have a gay friend who's not only a surgeon but also a volunteer firefighter. Guess he's not a role model for kids being a humanitarian and all....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You would'nt try to pass a law or teach in shcools that eating your own sh!t is natural would you?

No. But I would say it's okay to be gay because A) they're born that way B) they love differently C) they're not hurting anybody...

Originally posted by sithsaber408
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?

No. I would say they're born that way just like one has black skin. I'm not gonna scramble their brains with genetic theory and whatnot.

You're prejudiced bigot. End of story....

Well, two good pages of sex jokes.

Bet you all feel better now, huh?

Still I ask:

Has anybody got an answer as to why animals having sex with the same gender means that we ought to do it too?

Can anybody prove that animal behavior is good reasoning for validating an unnatural behavior... for humans?

Heck yeah, I'll "load the question" since it's people we're talking about.

I've read every post, every word and have seen nothing other than "it's present in nature, so when humans do it it's natural."

Again, that is folly!

You CANNOT argue homosexuality is normal or natural behavior for human beings based on that.

PVS and Xmarks would say that I'm making my definition of "natural" different from the dictionaries by saying... "for human beings."

Very well, using the dictionary's defintion of natural it means that eating our own crap, and killing a mate after sex, and eating our children is also completly natural.

Yet we do none of those things, and we teach children that if a person does engage in such behavior that they are doing so of their own accord and not "naturally."

Why is that?

(and no copping out by saying that it's moraly wrong or unhealthy, since apparently those things are subjective.)

No. I would say they're born that way just like one has black skin.

Ahh...

Clearer now.

You believe the unproven theory that gay people are born that way.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why do I get slammed for OT-ness..........hmmmmmmmmm

They slammed you? Did it hurt?

i love your warp in logic. it goes something like this:

idiot: the sky is beautiful because its green
non idiot: no, you are wrong. the sky is blue
idiot: so you're telling me that the sky is ugly because you think its blue? thats so stupid.

(repeat over and over until opponent gets frustrated and leaves, and then laugh like this: "duhuhuhuhuh" and feel proud that you destroyed a discussion on a valid topic once again through logical fallacy and squawking the same lie over and over and over and over)

Originally posted by LethalFemme
They slammed you? Did it hurt?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Nah, I always recover...... 😂 2 years ago, they tried to make me evaporate.........hahahahahaha...........guess what? 😱

What?😱

Originally posted by LethalFemme
What?😱

All because they're stupid and left brained.........ahh..ohh,...j/k....their moms love them anyways.........

Anyway I wouldn't go and here I am today..............hahahahaha 😂 😱

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

I'll just grab a bag of sugar, paint a happy face, then dress it up in kids clothes, and claim it as my own.

WD: 1
Gay Proponents of Measure: 0

Originally posted by Draco69
Bacteria can change genders....

Don't they reproduce asexually?

Originally posted by Draco69
I have a gay friend who's not only a surgeon but also a volunteer firefighter.

We all know the only reason why he's a volunteer firefighter. 😂

Originally posted by LethalFemme
So you're saying you're willing to have a threesome and are are going to be the one to penetrate him and have him do me?

I heard women have more openings for just that case you are talking about. Natrually.

PVS kept asking for sex........and I wouldn't do it..........

teehee

Originally posted by debbiejo
PVS wanted me to go away along with Bardock....cry

All because they're stupid and left brained.........ahh..ohh,...j/k....their moms love them anyways.........

Anyway I wouldn't go and here I am today..............hahahahaha 😂 😱

They did?No way!oh

Originally posted by debbiejo
PVS kept asking for sex........and I wouldn't do it..........

teehee

i would never solicit sex from someone of no mental compitence...i mean...from a legal standpoint thats rape, isnt it?

Sad but true........fortunately I could care less.......

i would never solicit sex from someone of no mental compitence...i mean...from a legal standpoint thats rape, isnt it?

See how he likes to cover up..........hahahahaha

Originally posted by PVS

i love your warp in logic. it goes something like this:

idiot: the sky is beautiful because its green
non idiot: no, you are wrong. the sky is blue
idiot: so you're telling me that the sky is ugly because you think its blue? thats so stupid.

(repeat over and over until opponent gets frustrated and leaves, and then laugh like this: "duhuhuhuhuh" and feel proud that you destroyed a discussion on a valid topic once again through logical fallacy and squawking the same lie over and over and over and over)

The only lie here is that you all seem to believe a behavior which cannot reproduce itself, a behavior that goes against our sex organs biological functions, is normal.

And when pressed on those two facts (does not reproduce, not used as biologicaly intended) I get the same answer the majority of the time:

"The animals do it and it doesn't reproduce or use their organs intended functions. It's natural."

Notice that not once was I derogatory to any gay person, nor did I bring religion into anything.

Yet all I hear from this crowd is bigot, prejuiced, Jesus, fake god, etc......

When the burden of proof is on you.

If it was so obviously normal, and proven to be genetic then why does 85% of this country still oppose it?

Repulican and Deomocrat, Christian and non alike?

Because they know it's not normal. They know it's not a natural behavior for human beings.

No matter how good it feels for them, or how many animals do it, there has been nothing of substance to show that people were born gay.

i reported debs for destroying a hot debate while she was on one of her benders we all know of and hate. she thinks it makes me uncomfortable when she brings it up. as with her assumption that she's funny, she is also incorrect on this one.

debs, i would say "lets take it to the PM" but i really cant understand gibberish, so why not put me on ignore?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Notice that not once was I derogatory to any gay person, nor did I bring religion into anything.

Yet all I hear from this crowd is bigot, prejuiced, Jesus, fake god, etc......

True.

Why do people keep dissing him, when he's only to trying to construct an arguement, and hasn't insulted anyone?

you dont have to call names to be a bigot.
all you have to do is attempt to prove that a group of people are evil and dont deserve basic rights based on junk science and convoluted logic. whats difficult about that?

whats the difference between:

"homosexuals are unnatural and should not be allowed basic human rights"
and
"faggots are unnatural and should not be allowed basic human rights"

Originally posted by PVS
i reported debs for destroying a hot debate while she was on one of her benders we all know of and hate. she thinks it makes me uncomfortable when she brings it up. as with her assumption that she's funny, she is also incorrect on this one.

debs, i would say "lets take it to the PM" but i really cant understand gibberish, so why not put me on ignore?

Besides WHO, WHO WHO was talking to you........must you now.

Originally posted by PVS
you dont have to call names to be a bigot.
all you have to do is attempt to prove that a group of people are evil and dont deserve basic rights based on junk science and convoluted logic. whats difficult about that?

whats the difference between:

"homosexuals are unnatural and should not be allowed basic human rights"
and
"faggots are unnatural and should not be allowed basic human rights"

When did sithsaber say that anyone should be denied rights?

His argument is simply: Just because a certain action occurs in the animal world, doesnt mean it should apply to humans.

He's not saying "Faggots should not be able to vote!"