Originally posted by xmarksthespot
He's saying homosexuality is unnatural. Then using that incorrect premise to justify his assertion of it being wrong.Then when confronted with the fact that it is in fact natural - with no implication of "right" or "wrong," simply that it is natural - he's bringing up unrelated things to say that natural things can still be "wrong" while still maintaining that the reason he's saying homosexuality is wrong is because it's unnatural.
Which basically shows that he's being disingenuous and that he'd consider it "wrong" regardless and that his current stance has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is natural or not.
Xmarksthespot always says things better than I do...
in_love
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.
Homosexuality is both natural and biologically correct, despite not bringing about creation of children.
You're a flaming fool if you think otherwise.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) Homosexuality cannot reproduce itself.
What type of a claim is this? No sexuality can reproduce.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
2.)Homosexuality uses sexual/reproductive organs for purposes that are not their biological functions.
No. All sorts of organs and body parts have been used for sexual plasure throughout human history. Biological function is not clearly defined. If I use my foot to pick up a pen, am I violating some law of nature? NO.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
3.)If there is nothing else to add, then animals participating in homosexual behavior is a poor reason or example of homosexuality being normal or natural...for human beings..
Homosexuality is natural, its observed everywhere in nature. How is that not natural? Did man artificially put it there? Humans have also had homosexual realtions throughout recorded human history, long before any of your 2-year-old define "morals" were anywhere to be seen.
You have no point. You have no argument. You can't even properly argue the points you make. All you have is rhetoric. USELESS rhetoric.
*shakes head* I thought there were 5,239 threads debating gay vs. straight issues.
This proposal is unfair. Not because homosexuality is right or wrong, but because it is trying to prevent couples who cannot produce children from being married. I'm talking about having impotency problems, or whatever it is that is wrong with my stepmom that has not allowed her to ever have children.
It needs to be reworded.
Originally posted by botankusThat's the point they are making I believe.
*shakes head* I thought there were 5,239 threads debating gay vs. straight issues.This proposal is unfair. Not because homosexuality is right or wrong, but because it is trying to prevent couples who cannot produce children from being married. I'm talking about having impotency problems, or whatever it is that is wrong with my stepmom that has not allowed her to ever have children.
It needs to be reworded.
That sterile couples just like homosexual ones can not produce children, yet one of them is allowed to marry the partner they want.
Originally posted by botankus
A few posts ago, when I said "it doesn't sound like they can get married," the 'they' I was referring to was heterosexual couples who are sterile.
Yes.
But they can marry. As it is.
And that is basically the point that is made, isn't it.
Sterile couples can, homosexuals can't. Unfair double standard.
Right?
Originally posted by botankus
I meant the Olympia thing. You know, the thing in the very first post of this thread?And I prefer Pearl Jam to Nirvana, even though I would prefer nail fungii to Pearl Jam.
Oh right...good thing I connect Seattle with Washington and don't think that any news article that says Washington must mean Washington D.C. ... that would be ignorant and stupid.
I personally don't know nail fungii, so I can not comment on that.
Let's assume you live in Frankfurt for simplicity's sake. I'm sorry; I never asked.
So if a news story broke out between your bed sheets, would the article be structured like this?
(Reuters) Bardock's Bunk Bed, Frankfurt - There was an atrocity found underneath the covers in Bardock's bed......etc.....
Originally posted by botankus
Let's assume you live in Frankfurt for simplicity's sake. I'm sorry; I never asked.So if a news story broke out between your bed sheets, would the article be structured like this?
(Reuters) [b]Bardock's Bunk Bed, Frankfurt
- There was an atrocity found underneath the covers in Bardock's bed......etc..... [/B]
Similarly.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes.But they can marry. As it is.
And that is basically the point that is made, isn't it.
Sterile couples can, homosexuals can't. Unfair double standard.
Right?
Wrong.
Homosexuality isn't what people are intended to do.
Many still do, and they are welcomed to do as they please.
However, that does not mean that society as a whole has to promote or advocate their behaviors as normal.
It's like smoking.
Unnatural, and unhealthy for you.
People still can do it if they wish, whether they should or not is a different matter.
But pointing to the crowd and saying: "Look, plenty of people smoke, it occurs everyday in human populations, so it's natural for them to do so." would be incorrect.
They were not born a smoker. It's not natural just because they do it now.
Through whatever influences, experiences, and developmental factors in young childhood through adolescence..... they became smokers.
So they smoke. It's a behavior, a mindset, and even a lifestyle to be a smoker.
And we (society as a whole) understand and accept that it's who they are and what they do.
But we don't teach people that it's NORMAL to inhale dangerous chemicals that the body wasn't designed to have in it's lungs.
As with homosexuality, people smoke if they wish, but it's not what the body is designed for and serves no purpose other than a sort of pleasure that is destructive in the end.
Smokers don't ask us to teach smoking as "an acceptable alternative" to a normal smoke-free life in our schools, do they?
They don't ask us to go back through our history books and find and include any person who smoked, used to smoke, or used chewing tobacco and remove any historical fact about a person who did if it paints the person who practices one of those behaviors in a negative light.
And they certainly don't ask for any special marriage licence for people who participate in that behavior. (true, smokers can marry now if straight, but you get the point.)
And as with smoking, people can give up homosexuality and live a healthier life.
It's not easy, it takes time and effort to change your mindset (just as with smoking), and compassion and help from others... but it happens to thousands of people.