Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

thats a stupid proposal, i hope it dies in firey flames of death

Originally posted by Mr. Zet
thats a stupid proposal, i hope it dies in firey flames of death

"The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its website that the initiative was "absurd," but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage."

I don't think it was ever intended to get anywhere, but it does make a logical point (in terms of popular arguments against same-sex marriage - the "oh, think of the children, society would collapse if gays could marry because then no marriage would produce kids blah blah blah"

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't think it was ever intended to get anywhere, but it does make a logical point (in terms of popular arguments against same-sex marriage - the "oh, think of the children, society would collapse if gays could marry because then no marriage would produce kids blah blah blah"



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.

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.

Although it is the truth?

yes, we cant have children who accept people for who they are rather than endlessly harass and persecute others based on their own scewed and hypocritical sense of morality

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 think society would be more screwed up by the fact that there are bigots in it who seek to impose their subjective morality on everyone else.

Saying you must be physically able to have kids to be married is about as fair as saying you must have at least a six-inch schlong to be in a gay relationship. (ooh, where is Lord droolio Urizen when you need him???? Oh, that's right - banned )

Originally posted by Bardock42
Although it is the truth?

No no, because it isn't true.

(At least that's what me and 85% of Americans think, but what do we know?)Originally posted by PVS
yes, we cant have children who accept people for who they are rather than endlessly harass and persecute others based on their own scewed and hypocritical sense of morality Nobody said anything about harrasment and persecution.

You can accept a person for who they are and not stop them in their own pursuits, but it doesn't mean that you have to tell children that such pursuits are normal.


There is a difference, and a line there.... one that isn't getting crossed.

Tolerance and acceptance don't always mean validation and promotion.

(think alcoholics, we don't persecute them and we accept them as people, but I'm not teaching kids that a destructive behavior is normal, healthy, and good for them and should be considered as such.)Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think society would be more screwed up by the fact that there are bigots in it who seek to impose their subjective morality on everyone else. Some things are certain and not subjective.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No no, because it isn't true.

(At least that's what me and 85% of Americans think, but what do we know?) Nobody said anything about harrasment and persecution

Nothing much if you think that, since homosexually is, factually, natural.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nothing much if you think that, since homosexually is, factually, natural.

Then using the thread title as a talking point:

Why doesn't it have the ability to reproduce itself?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Then using the thread title as a talking point:

Why doesn't it have the ability to reproduce itself?

I dunno, why doesn't a stone in the prairie have the ability to reproduce itself? Are you saying it's not natural just because it can't create offspring? Besides occuring not only in humans (which are animals) but many other species as well?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Some things are certain and not subjective.

Maybe, but we can't be certain about them not being subjective, can we? No we can't.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


Can they adopt, or do they have to have biological children?

------------

Bardock, seriously, what the hell is up with your avatar and sig?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Can they adopt, or do they have to have biological children?

------------

Bardock, seriously, what the hell is up with your avatar and sig?

Sanctuary and I traded sigs. But I got the better deal, I gave her my soul on top of it.

Anyways, I don't think that is the point, it's just that one of the arguments often brought by Nazis...I beg your pardon, right wing fundamentalists is that gays can't reproduce...which is correct, but of no matter in a civilized society, such as....one without the likes of sithsaber.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, I don't think that is the point, it's just that one of the arguments often brought by Nazis...I beg your pardon, right wing fundamentalists is that gays can't reproduce...which is correct, but of no matter in a civilized society, such as....one without the likes of sithsaber.

But still, whether or not a straight couple can adopt to avoid anullment will come up and is unavoidable.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sanctuary and I traded sigs. But I got the better deal, I gave her my soul on top of it.

Anyways, I don't think that is the point, it's just that one of the arguments often brought by Nazis...I beg your pardon, right wing fundamentalists is that gays can't reproduce...which is correct, but of no matter in a civilized society, such as....one without the likes of sithsaber.


Gays can reproduce, however they may choose not to though.

Originally posted by Soleran
Gays can reproduce, however they may choose not to though.

Yes. I was refering to the couple as an entity. Though phrased it ..unwell.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I dunno

This is your true answer. The rest is a sidetrack attempt at philosophy. We are discussing sexual activity in human beings, not the natural-ness of stones.Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you saying it's not natural just because it can't create offspring? Yes.Originally posted by Bardock42
Besides occuring not only in humans but many other species as well?



And animals also eat their own children and feces. Some kill their partners after sex.

Surely that isn't your logic to defend a person's lifestyle.... is it?

It is, isn't it?

How juvenile.

"Well the dogs sniff each others butts and lick their own a$$holes, so it's normal if we do it too!"





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


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

Originally posted by sithsaber408

"Well the dogs sniff each others butts and lick their own a$$holes, so it's normal if we do it too!"


Good one!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
This is your true answer. The rest is a sidetrack attempt at philosophy. We are discussing sexual activity in human beings, not the natural-ness of stones. Yes. And animals also eat their own children and feces. Some kill their partners after sex.

Surely that isn't your logic to defend a person's lifestyle.... is it?

It is, isn't it?

How juvenile.

"Well the dogs sniff each others butts and lick their own a$$holes, so it's normal if we do it too!"





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


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

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.

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.


You're grasping at nothing here.

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".....

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/7_16/images/aids_africa4.jpg



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 look rather foolish trying to berate me when it's you who's acting the 4th grader.




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.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well bacteria have no gender, since theyre unicellular.


Bacteria can change genders....



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

They don't have sex. They just shun the company of the opposite sex and couple up with other of the same sex....

You can't be a homosexual unless you have a mammalian penis....?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
My argument is that homosexuality is unnatural. (for us)

your loading of the question just piles on yet more horseshit and renders it all mindless garbage. now you want to invent this new "man nature" in which blowjobs and kissing are natural yet being gay isnt natural. where watching monday night football falls within the realm of earthly creation, yet homosexuality is an unnatural anomoly. all because you said so...because you just made it up now, on the spot, out the rectum, to win the thread. that and flood flood flood with parroting and strawman tactics.

unless your goal is to look like the babbling village idiot, you really are wasting your time as well as everyone elses. at least sing a song and juggle some bowling pins and chainsaws while your at it, so we might be slightly amused

Originally posted by Adam_PoE



Oh, those clever gays, always thinking of funny ways of making a point.

I like how they think two wrongs make a right.

Originally posted by BackFire
I like how they think two wrongs make a right.

yes, i like it to. however i think the solution is that all homophobes should be anally raped.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
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)




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. You look rather foolish trying to berate me when it's you who's acting the 4th grader.




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.

I remember reading somewhere once that homosexuality is like a trigger gene in species. When a species reaches a certain "limit" the gene is produced to help control that species population.

And you.

Originally posted by PVS
yes, i like it to. however i think the solution is that all homophobes should be anally raped. Originally posted by BackFire
And you.

There you go.

Originally posted by PVS
your loading of the question just piles on yet more horseshit and renders it all mindless garbage. now you want to invent this new "man nature" in which blowjobs and kissing are natural yet being gay isnt natural. where watching monday night football falls within the realm of earthly creation, yet homosexuality is an unnatural anomoly. all because you said so...because you just made it up now, on the spot, out the rectum, to win the thread. that and flood flood flood with parroting and strawman tactics.

unless your goal is to look like the babbling village idiot, you really are wasting your time as well as everyone elses. at least sing a song and juggle some bowling pins and chainsaws while your at it, so we might be slightly amused To clarify I think he's using the definition of "unnatural" from Webster's Bullshit Made-Up Dictionary - where it's an adjective that means "things that my fictional god and I think are icky and bad and don't approve of because of aforementioned ickiness and badness."

Originally posted by LethalFemme
There you go.

that was only mildly funny...well actually it wasnt funny at all, but my mind tricked me into thinking it was mildly funny because i want to have intercourse with you....naturally of course (for us) which involves a threesome with silver tears....naturally






:edit: i sense the presense of whob. get ready

Originally posted by PVS
that was only mildly funny...well actually it wasnt funny at all, but my mind tricked me into thinking it was mildly funny because i want to have intercourse with you....naturally of course (for us) which involves a threesome with silver tears....naturally






:edit: i sense the presense of whob. get ready

I can't because a threesome is infact unatrual in every aspect. See my god believes that only one penis should ever enter the body at once. Although seeing as Irene has a vagina and not a penis we might be able to get around that rule.

edit:Is he invited to the orgy?

Originally posted by PVS
that was only mildly funny...well actually it wasnt funny at all, but my mind tricked me into thinking it was mildly funny because i want to have intercourse with you....naturally of course (for us) which involves a threesome with BackFire....naturally






:edit: i sense the presense of whob. get ready

Fixed this for you, since there was an obvious typo.

Sounds like a good proposal to me. Just make it so teh "straights" and teh "gays" have to compete against each other to see who can make a baby quicker. Oh yeah, and no artificial means of pregnancy can be used by either group, and they both have to only have sex with their partners. Who do you guys think will win teh race?

Originally posted by BackFire
Fixed this for you, since there was an obvious typo.

As I said my religion prohibits double penetration. So unless one for you guys is willing to take one for the team it isn't gonna happen.

end yourself whob

Originally posted by LethalFemme
As I said my religion prohibits double penetration. So unless one for you guys is willing to take one for the team it isn't gonna happen.

Not only is PVS willing, he's hopeful, that he's going to get penetrated by the entity known only as "The Sledge".

Originally posted by Thundar
Sounds like a good proposal to me. Just make it so teh "straights" and teh "gays" have to compete against each other to see who can make a baby quicker. Oh yeah, and no artificial means of pregnancy can be used by either group, and they both have to only have sex with their partners. Who do you guys think will win teh race?


Hey guess what, I found a thread that kind of adresses the above issue.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=394582& amp;highlight=the+great+evolutionary+race+forumid%
3A11

Pretty good read.

Originally posted by Thundar
Hey guess what, I found a thread that kind of adresses the above issue.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=394582& amp;highlight=the+great+evolutionary+race+forumid%
3A11

Pretty good read.

Except for that idiot who started the thread.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not only is PVS willing, he's hopeful, that he's going to get penetrated by the entity known only as "The Sledge".

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?

Originally posted by LethalFemme
As I said my religion prohibits double penetration. So unless one for you guys is willing to take one for the team it isn't gonna happen.

ive had enough of backfire plowing my ass. not only that but his ass is busted. its like screwing a tractor tire.

anyway, lets get back to discussing me penetrating you

Why do I get slammed for OT-ness..........hmmmmmmmmm

Originally posted by sithsaber408



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

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

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?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Amazon.parrot.arp.jpg/200px-Amazon.parrot.arp.jpg




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? Nah, I always recover...... 2 years ago, they tried to make me evaporate.........hahahahahaha...........guess what?

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? 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

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.......



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

Originally posted by PVS
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Amazon.parrot.arp.jpg/200px-Amazon.parrot.arp.jpg




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
"******* 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? Man, you really need to get over it........It's like I'm going anywhere.......

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
"******* 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 "******* should not be able to vote!"

Originally posted by sithsaber408
When the burden of proof is on you.

this is basic human interaction 101

you made a positive statement, that being gay is wrong because its unnatural.
people shot down your little lie by pointing out that homosexuallity occurs in nature and thus-----> your statement is wrong. nothing more

nobody said that because its natural that means its right and good and moral. many have pointed that out and you made a decision to ignore them. thus YOU LIE.


so all you can do now is lie and put words in peoples mouths. how sad.
i dont know whether to point and laugh or just spit at you for all the time you wasted. your time...my time...their time....or time...gone. just so you can consciously lie and manipulate a discussion in order to not look flatout wrong, which you are.

You said "homosexuality is not natural."

That is wrong.

You said "it doesn't mean that you have to tell children that such pursuits are normal"

Which is insulting to homosexuals for which that pursuit is normal, also ignorant as children should rather be told that acceptance is more important than what you personally think has to be considered as "normal"

You compared homosexuality to alcoholism. Again most offensive and insulting.



Also, Quiero, what about you stop cheerleading, it is kinda embarrassing. especially seeing as SS (funny....cause true) is wrong and used a lot of dishonest methods to discredit my logical explanations...including to change the topic afterwards and outright lying. Of course that is standard behaviour for Christian bigots, but that doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

They're tolerant, benevolent, and advancing human rights. Those against same-sex marriage are hateful ****ers who want to murder gays in their sleep.



And, yes, I read the whole thing. It's stupid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, Quiero, what about you stop cheerleading, it is kinda embarrassing. especially seeing as SS (funny....cause true) is wrong and used a lot of dishonest methods to discredit my logical explanations...including to change the topic afterwards and outright lying. Of course that is standard behaviour for Christian bigots, but that doesn't make it right.

I'm not cheerleading, ese.

I agree with his assertion that:

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

The topic at hand just happens to be homosexuality.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not cheerleading, ese.

I agree with his assertion that:



The topic at hand just happens to be homosexuality.

That we can all agree with. But to be correct, that was his adjusted argument though.

The original was. Homosexuality is unnatural.

That's all I called out. And he still didn't accept his fault.

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.

Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs outside of humanity--thus, not an invention of man--and may be explained by genetic/hormonal...errors--thus, part of the body/mind.

Originally posted by PVS
this is basic human interaction 101

you made a positive statement, that being gay is wrong because its unnatural.
people shot down your little lie by pointing out that homosexuallity occurs in nature and thus-----> your statement is wrong. nothing more

nobody said that because its natural that means its right and good and moral. many have pointed that out and you made a decision to ignore them. thus YOU LIE.


so all you can do now is lie and put words in peoples mouths. how sad.
i dont know whether to point and laugh or just spit at you for all the time you wasted. your time...my time...their time....or time...gone. just so you can consciously lie and manipulate a discussion in order to not look flatout wrong, which you are.

Again, projecting.

Never did I say being gay was "wrong" because it's unnatural, only that it's unnatural for human beings.

And shouldn't be taught as such, nor advocated for.


And it's absurd to say that people have proven that wrong, have proven that it is natural for human beings because "homosexuality occurs in nature".

Very well, it does.

Along with many other behaviors that we don't teach or advocate as natural for human beings.


Nobody said that it's right and good and moral.

I agree, nobody did.

All that they said (as you do now) is that is natural for human beings, without any real logic other than to compare animal behavior to humans.


Guess, that makes me an evil bigot, one without an answer to his question:

If homosexuals cannot reproduce and use their sexual organs for purposes other than the inherent biological design...... how is homosexuality natural for human beings?

^^^(without pointing to animals, answer that question)

I never said that homosexuals were evil or bad, just not natural.

In my first post I said that they shouldn't be persecuted or punished for pursuing what they pursue, but also that there is a line between not hating them and letting them do as they want, and telling people that the lifestyle and behaviors are normal, natural, and should be promoted.


And all that I get from you people is that asking such questions, challenging such incomplete logic makes me a : bigot, prejudiced, stupid, Jesus-freak, invisible god follower, etc.....



Name-calling is a pretty lousy defense and not much help in terms of credibility to people who promote a behavior that cannot reproduce itself, doesn't use its reproductive organs for their biological functions, and bases it's validity on the behavior of lower life forms in the animal kingdom.

Originally posted by Bardock42



Also, Quiero, what about you stop cheerleading, it is kinda embarrassing. especially seeing as SS (funny....cause true) is wrong and used a lot of dishonest methods to discredit my logical explanations...including to change the topic afterwards and outright lying. Of course that is standard behaviour for Christian bigots, but that doesn't make it right. QM can say whatever the hell he wants.

He's a grown man.

Don't get pissed because he points out the hypocrisy of calling a person who questions your logic a bigot, when you yourself are bigoted against said person for his religion.


Orale guey Mota!

Gracias por tu compacion! Tu llevas un corazon muy bueno, carnal!

im not going to copy and paste everyone's factually correct rebuttal to your arguing of imaginary points. you've wasted enough time. if repeating the same lie over and over really does create a new truth, then you win the thread.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
QM can say whatever the hell he wants.

He's a grown man.

Don't get pissed because he points out the hypocrisy of calling a person who questions your logic a bigot, when you yourself are bigoted against said person for his religion.


Orale guey Mota!

Gracias por tu compacion! Tu llevas un corazon muy bueno, carnal!

I never denied that. I told him I'd find it a good idea to stop supporting you, seeing as you talked nonsense.

I am not against you for your religion, if at all I am against your religion because of people like you. I dislike you because you are part of the problem why homosexuals are still not treated equally and have to face prejudice...

Originally posted by PVS
im not going to copy and paste everyone's factually correct rebuttal to your arguing of imaginary points. you've wasted enough time. if repeating the same lie over and over really does create a new truth, then you win the thread.

No way. Not so fast.

Nobody pasted any factually correct rebuttals to anything, other than to show that homosexuality does occur in animals, and so in one sense is "natural."


My other points stand:

1.) Homosexuality cannot reproduce itself.

2.)Homosexuality uses sexual/reproductive organs for purposes that are not their biological functions.

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.



Feel free to cut and paste where those three points were somehow proven false.

Yeah, I agree someone answer if Homosexuality is reproductive or not....

*flashbacks*

Homosexuality Chosen or Genetic

Oh, Hell NO! Not again.

Nevermind.

1.) Homosexuality cannot reproduce itself.

- Homosexual animals cannot reproduce (given that they have sex with someone of the same sex....of course they can. As much as sithsaber...maybe even more)

2.)Homosexuality uses sexual/reproductive organs for purposes that are not their biological functions.

Hmm, one might claim that it is not the primary function, but it can be used to create great pleasure and that is certainly one biological function and they do use it according to that.


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.

Well, but we can see that it occurs naturally in other species. And we can see that it does naturally occur in human beings...whether that is wrong or right is of no matter, but it does occur. And how can it be unnatural? How can anything really be unnatural anyways?

q.e.d.


Now go away, I beg you, your stupidity hurts.

back to topic

Originally posted by LethalFemme
...Although seeing as Irene has a vagina...

continue...

Originally posted by Bardock42
How can anything really be unnatural anyways? Marriage is unnatural. It's an artificial societal construct with no real intrinsic value of its own.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Marriage is unnatural. It's an artificial societal construct with no real intrinsic value of its own.

Still it is something that was thought up by natural beings.

I don't get the whole unnatural business. The idea of something being unnatural seems to me ultimately to come from our arrogance to believe that we are outside nature. Which is kinda ridiculous.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Yeah, I agree someone answer if Homosexuality is reproductive or not....

*flashbacks*

Homosexuality Chosen or Genetic

Oh, Hell NO! Not again.

Nevermind.

One sec, we don't need 900 pages, because this is nearly finished.Originally posted by Bardock42
1.) Homosexuality cannot reproduce itself.

- Homosexual animals cannot reproduce (given that they have sex with someone of the same sex....of course they can. As much as sithsaber...maybe even more)

2.)Homosexuality uses sexual/reproductive organs for purposes that are not their biological functions.

Hmm, one might claim that it is not the primary function, but it can be used to create great pleasure and that is certainly one biological function and they do use it according to that.


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.

Well, but we can see that it occurs naturally in other species. And we can see that it does naturally occur in human beings...whether that is wrong or right is of no matter, but it does occur. And how can it be unnatural? How can anything really be unnatural anyways?

q.e.d.


Now go away, I beg you, your stupidity hurts.

1.)You didn't answer the point. Of course homosexual people are capabable of reproduction (providing that they have no disfunctions) but only when having relations with the opposite sex.

Not when engaging in homosexual activity.

Such behaviors, do not reproduce more people of the same kind.


You fail.

2.) I AM claiming that reproductive organs aren't used for the primary biological function. You haven't disproved me. Pleasure is an effect, a reaction to the primary function being carried out.

You fail.

3.)You didn't answer the point. You said that it occurs naturally in animals, then that it occurs naturally in human beings. You gave no proof, evidence, or reason to support that statement. Again, I never mentioned right and wrong, and didn't ask you to elaborate on that topic. I asked you to show me how either:

A) homosexual behavior in animals gives legitamcy to homosexual behavior in human beings. (it doesn't because of various other behaviors that animals participate in that we don't validate)

B) something else gives validity to the claim that it's natural for people to engage in sexual behavior that doesn't lead to reproduction and/or uses the reproductive organs in ways that are contradictory to their biological functions.



You have done none of that.

You've just argued that it's normal... "cuz it just is that's why." and some mumbled attempt to say that it feels good.


You fail.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
One sec, we don't need 900 pages, because this is nearly finished.

1.)You didn't answer the point. Of course homosexual people are capabable of reproduction (providing that they have no disfunctions) but only when having relations with the opposite sex.

Not when engaging in homosexual activity.

Such behaviors, do not reproduce more people of the same kind.


You fail.

Yes, they don't. I don't need to disprove that. It is true. What does it matter?


Originally posted by sithsaber408
2.) I AM claiming that reproductive organs aren't used for the primary biological function. You haven't disproved me. Pleasure is an effect, a reaction to the primary function being carried out.

You fail.

No, you said that they are not used for their "biological functions", nothing about primary and what biological function (seeing as they certainly are used to urinate)...they just use it for their pleasure (like heterosexual couples that have safe sex, anal sex, oral sex, masturbate etc, ... never did any of that, sinner?) and choose not to use it to reproduce (like catholic priests, Couples that decide against children, etc.)

And no, it is not a reaction to that "primary function" carried out. You talk bullshit. Like that book you like.


Originally posted by sithsaber408
3.)You didn't answer the point. You said that it occurs naturally in animals, then that it occurs naturally in human beings. You gave no proof, evidence, or reason to support that statement. Again, I never mentioned right and wrong, and didn't ask you to elaborate on that topic. I asked you to show me how either:

It occurs naturally as can be seen by it...occurring at all. How can it be unnatural? Even if the human chose to be gay (and all evidence seems to suggest otherwise) it would still be as natural as you choosing to eat a burrito.


Originally posted by sithsaber408
A) homosexual behavior in animals gives legitamcy to homosexual behavior in human beings. (it doesn't because of various other behaviors that animals participate in that we don't validate)
Moral legitimacy? No, nothing can give moral legitimacy. It just hints that homosexuality is occurs in the animal kingdom.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
B) something else gives validity to the claim that it's natural for people to engage in sexual behavior that doesn't lead to reproduction and/or uses the reproductive organs in ways that are contradictory to their biological functions.

Again, it is not contradictory to their biological functions.

But let me ask you a question to make it possible for me to answer yours. What do you consider natural and for what specific reasons?


Originally posted by sithsaber408
You have done none of that.

You've just argued that it's normal... "cuz it just is that's why." and some mumbled attempt to say that it feels good.


You fail.

Man. I wish I could laugh at you when you are dead and realize that you have been an ignorant bigot that believed in a fictional hate book and some stupid ****ing ******* invisible dude that wants you to behave a certain way. But sadly you will never realize...for you will just be gone. Forever. Then again, nice thought as well.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A bit unorthodox, but whatever.Originally posted by FeceMan
And, yes, I read the whole thing. It's stupid. SS is wrong. End of story sleepy

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.

Dear me, moved beyond just homosexuality, and now God doesn't like sex changes either?

In their case, when they are real, sex change is justified. They feel wrong, and thus an avenue exists to correct it - heaven forbid humanity sit on science that is capable of making people happy and correcting their problems. Now in the case you are talking about the age is of great concern, but the science, and psychology behind sex-changes is real and sound. And has nothing to do with homosexuality.



I don't think so, because despite what you might think kids aren't nearly that stupid. I am yet to see a child with an open mind throw their hands up and go "the world makes no sense! Gays and transsexuals! Gaahhhh!"

What I have seen is kids who go "But mommy and daddy say it is wrong and unnatural." Because I don't see why anything is "thrown out of whack."





Because opinionated masses are down with science and couldn't possibly be just venting their own spleens like this"Bwooooorh! This is my opinion which is as good as fact! God doesn't like gays so neither do I! Bwoooorh!" What was the percentage of people who believe Saddam was involved with 9/11 when they aren't believing it is all some conspiracy involving US missiles and what have you?



Ummmm - you do know that the vast majority of sexual activity that occurs in the world on a daily bases does not result in reproduction, and nor is it intended to? That means the majority of the time the reproductive organs aren't being used for their primary biological function. In fact some people never want kids, and so their entire sexual lives involves the pill and condom.

Humanity has moved beyond "this organ makes babies and nothing more." Pleasure is a valid purpose for them for many people. That is why they can be used to make babies, but they can also be used just for a lot of fun. And there is nothing really wrong with that.

We'll I guess I don't have to post my rebuttal to that sorry excuse for a bigot.

Everyone else kinda gangbanged him....

pile

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.

Originally posted by Alliance
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. My life's goal is be as articulate as you

Originally posted by Alliance
You're a flaming fool if you think otherwise.


"flaming"

Nice pun!

*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 botankus
*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's the point they are making I believe.

That sterile couples just like homosexual ones can not produce children, yet one of them is allowed to marry the partner they want.

According to the wording it doesn't sound like they can get married.

Originally posted by botankus
According to the wording it doesn't sound like they can get married.

...that is the point?

That sterile couples just like homosexual ones can not produce children, yet one of them is allowed to marry the partner they want

I'm confused. Maybe everyone is talking about real legal conditions in the world, and I'm talking about the legal conditions in this world if this Seattle legislature thing was passed.

Originally posted by botankus
I'm confused. Maybe everyone is talking about real legal conditions in the world, and I'm talking about the legal conditions in this world if this Seattle legislature thing was passed.

Yes.

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.

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?

That's correct.

I just thought the Seattle thing was dumb, that's all.

Originally posted by botankus
That's correct.

I just thought the Seattle thing was dumb, that's all.

What Seattle thing? Don't use your weird American mind tricks...

I prefer Pearl jam to Nirvana.

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.

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) Bardock's Bunk Bed, Frankfurt - There was an atrocity found underneath the covers in Bardock's bed......etc.....

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.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.

no offense intended, but are you clinically retarded?

You fool.

Homosexulity is not comparable to Smoking.

It is not destructive. It certainly does not harm anyone else.

You are the wrongdoer with your opinion, not they with their behaviour.

You take away freedoms from homosexuals because you don't like their behaviour, but in fact it does not harm you in any way.

You don't have to support homosexuality. Schools are there to teach facts. Fact is that smoking harms you, fact is that there are homosexuals. Both should be taught in the according classes...biology in that case.

I had no idea that homosexuality, the predispostioned sexual attraction to one's own gender, can cause lung cancer...

Originally posted by PVS
no offense intended, but are you clinically retarded?


He could just have bad teeth.....

This discussion could be better handle without name calling and posting pointless pictures.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Wrong.

Homosexuality isn't what people are intended to do.





How do you know ? By what standards are you applying this claim ?









Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.



Normal is a social construct, there is no such thing as normal. It is simply an adjective we created to describe what the majority, or most powerful people, feel should be.


"Normal" does not exist in nature. It is a human invention. Your argument is entirely subjective and mute.






Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's like smoking.

Unnatural, and unhealthy for you.



Explain to me how homosexuality is unhealthy for me.


Then explain how it is "unnatural"









Originally posted by sithsaber408
People still can do it if they wish, whether they should or not is a different matter.


It's not up to you to decide what I "should" or "shouldn't" do in my sex life. AS long as I am not hurting anybody, then you have no right to make a comment or judgement on my personal life and actions.


Oh wait...I forgot....you're the master of reality....my bad






Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.



No intelligent person ever said Smoking was natural. Smoking is a habit caused by the addiction resulted from human contact with the drug.

Cigerettes were created by human beings. Therefore, yes, Smoking is unnatural, as it does not occur in nature, and it is very harmful.


Homosexuality, however, is not comparible to smoking. No one invented homosexuality, homosexuality is not a choice, sexual attractions are as natural as our taste in food.

Your attraction to women is just as natural as my attraction to men. Neither of us chose our attractions, they are part of our psyches are part of who we are.

We can both control what we DO, but we cannot control what we WANT or lust after






Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.



Ofcourse no one is born a smoker....we know the direct cause of smoking....taking that first cigerette.


No one knows the cause of homosexual desire....there are Virgins who are Gay...how do you explain that ? Especially when there is massive evidense that Homosexuality is biological and genetic....



When doctors try to alter one's sexual orientation (for those idiot homosexuals who feel they should be heterosexual), they usually mess around with thier hormones, emotions, etc. in effort to alter thier sexual turn ons.


Success rate.....0 %






Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.



Again, Normal is an irrelevant term, as there is no such thing as "normal". It is a subjective adjective, and has no real meaning.



Inhaling dangerous substances, and men being attracted to other men are two entirely different things...why are you comparing them?









Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.


How is homosexuality destructive ?


It's not just about pleasure....Homosexual men also fall in love with other men. How is your love for your girlfreind any more valid or real than my love for my boyfreind ?






Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.


That is because smokers WANT TO QUIT smoking, they know it is harmful, and will cause thier early deaths.


Homosexuality does not cause death....HIV and AIDS can occur in anyone, not just homosexuals, in fact, more heterosexuals contain those diseases than Homosexuals...


If you are going to make the argument that HIV and AIDS is a really a "gay disease" than you might as well argue that is is ALSO a "black disease" since it is rampant in Africa.






Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.)



Oh, God, are you really this dumb ?





Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.




How is heterosexuality healthier than homosexuality ?


What standards, what facts are you using ???


It happens to thousands of people ? Please give me records of the "thousands" of homosexuals who successfully became 100% heterosexual ?

There should be a 'Britney Spears' clause: no getting married for only a few hours cuz you were drunk out of your skull and thought it was a joke.

Originally posted by Bardock42


Man. I wish I could laugh at you when you are dead and realize that you have been an ignorant bigot that believed in a fictional hate book and some stupid ****ing ******* invisible dude that wants you to behave a certain way. But sadly you will never realize...for you will just be gone. Forever. Then again, nice thought as well.

I can admit being swayed to both sides of the argument , but Bardock , your making yourself look like a sore loser. When your post starts going awry you end it by bashing the guy . It's unnecessary and kinda juvenile.

Originally posted by grey fox
I can admit being swayed to both sides of the argument , but Bardock , your making yourself look like a sore loser. When your post starts going awry you end it by bashing the guy . It's unnecessary and kinda juvenile.

You are kidding, right?

Originally posted by grey fox
I can admit being swayed to both sides of the argument , but Bardock , your making yourself look like a sore loser. When your post starts going awry you end it by bashing the guy . It's unnecessary and kinda juvenile. Being a sore loser would require Bardock to be losing. Which he isn't. SS has got it all wrong.

I don't think that your posts went awry nor were you losing the battle, but personal attacks are pretty counter-productive. I'm just as guilty as the next guy of doing it and I've yet to find complete satisfaction afterwards......except for noobs who start threads, who deserve it.

Originally posted by botankus
I don't think that your posts went awry nor were you losing the battle, but personal attacks are pretty counter-productive. I'm just as guilty as the next guy of doing it and I've yet to find complete satisfaction afterwards......except for noobs who start threads, who deserve it.

Well, to tell sithsaber what I actually think of him, gives me great satisfaction.

the use of disinformation, lies through repetition, comparing being born a certain way to having a cancer/death inducing habit, putting words in peoples mouths, and destroying a topic utterly by focusing it all on the previously stated is an insult and an offense to all. i'd rather someone give me a clearly reasoned and informed point punctuated with "...you assh0le", than page after page of the same exact spammed rants and lies punctuated with "have a nice day, good sir"

Most people get angry when incorrect beliefs/ideas are challanged and shown that the defense for them is folly.

To the point that all they can say is : "It just IS natural! Damn you, you bigot, Jesus-freak, fool, etc..."

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Most people get angry when incorrect beliefs/ideas are challanged and shown that the defense for them is folly.

To the point that all they can say is : "It just IS natural! Damn you, you bigot, Jesus-freak, fool, etc..."

I think you just don't understand what is said because you are an indoctrinated fool.

Read all arguments again, I mean, it is obvious to everyone that you are just wrong.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Most people get angry when incorrect beliefs/ideas are challanged and shown that the defense for them is folly.

To the point that all they can say is : "It just IS natural! Damn you, you bigot, Jesus-freak, fool, etc..." You are ludicrously wrong.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Most people get angry when incorrect beliefs/ideas are challanged and shown that the defense for them is folly.

To the point that all they can say is : "It just IS natural! Damn you, you bigot, Jesus-freak, fool, etc..."

Honey, you think homosexuality is as addictive, learned and potentially dangerous to one's health as cigarette smoking....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you just don't understand what is said because you are an indoctrinated fool.

Read all arguments again, I mean, it is obvious to everyone that you are just wrong.

That's EXACTLY the truth about this subject.

Except it's the other way around.

You've been lead to believe that because a thing feels good, and is present in other forms of nature, that it is therefore normal and good.


Despite obvious facts to the contrary, such as it being against a sexual organs designed functions.

Or not self-sustaining. (homosexual people are created every generation through circumstance, not genetics.)

How exactly would a homosexual pass on the gene?

Even if it were dormant in a straight family and passed on, eventually somebody would end up gay, and not pro-create. The gay gene in that family dies.

And we all well know that there have been gay people for thousands of years. If they didn't pro-create, then the gene would have died with them.




Unless, as I maintain, it's not really genetics at all, but rather developmental changes/influences at a certain time in a certain way that leads to such feelings and subsequent behaviors.

The gene would always die, unless it's a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history.


In which case you are arguing that gays are a whole new sub-species, but this would be curable in the near future, as we can even now change the sex of a child through genetic manipulation.


*open to everybody*


Is that the consensus then?

Homosexuality is a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history?



(I'll wait until I see 4 or 5 "yes" answers, then address that.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That's EXACTLY the truth about this subject.

Except it's the other way around.

You've been lead to believe that because a thing feels good, and is present in other forms of nature, that it is therefore normal and good.


Despite obvious facts to the contrary, such as it being against a sexual organs designed functions.

Or not self-sustaining. (homosexual people are created every generation through circumstance, not genetics.)

How exactly would a homosexual pass on the gene?

Even if it were dormant in a straight family and passed on, eventually somebody would end up gay, and not pro-create. The gay gene in that family dies.

And we all well know that there have been gay people for thousands of years. If they didn't pro-create, then the gene would have died with them.




Unless, as I maintain, it's not really genetics at all, but rather developmental changes/influences at a certain time in a certain way that leads to such feelings and subsequent behaviors.

The gene would always die, unless it's a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history.


In which case you are arguing that gays are a whole new sub-species, but this would be curable in the near future, as we can even now change the sex of a child through genetic manipulation.


*open to everybody*


Is that the consensus then?

Homosexuality is a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history?



(I'll wait until I see 4 or 5 "yes" answers, then address that.)

No. I have decided to believe that no one has the right to tell me what to do. I have decided that I have no right to tell others what they should do. And I found that freedom is the greatest ideal of all (your God agrees as much as even granting it in the first place).


Whether it is genetic, due to upbringing factors or just a choice, does not matter.

It does not harm you. it does not harm then. Why do you have the right to condemn them? Why do you have the right to judge them? Why do you have the right to limit their happiness? Why do you have the right that, if you are a true believer, only God has.

Believe in Jesus if you want to. I won't stop you. If you are right, you will go to Heaven. Good for you. What right do you have to limit my freedoms if I do not harm anyone?

Tell me, what made you above us others? What put you on the same level as God?

Why is it your decision who marries? What does it harm you if homosexual couples do so? Does God's will mean anything? He granted us free will. Some seem to want to pursue homosexual relationships.

Keep your religion to yourself. And I will keep mine to myself. And we can co-exist in peace.


Also, your view of genetics is limited. It could very well be a recessive trait and survive. It could also be a mutation. What does it matter?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
*open to everybody*


Is that the consensus then?

Homosexuality is a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history?



(I'll wait until I see 4 or 5 "yes" answers, then address that.) What's the point in answering? Your 'assessment' of the issue will be more quasi-scientific religious psycho-babble than any real analysis

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I have decided to believe that no one has the right to tell me what to do. I have decided that I have no right to tell others what they should do. And I found that freedom is the greatest ideal of all (your God agrees as much as even granting it in the first place).


Whether it is genetic, due to upbringing factors or just a choice, does not matter.

It does not harm you. it does not harm then. Why do you have the right to condemn them? Why do you have the right to judge them? Why do you have the right to limit their happiness? Why do you have the right that, if you are a true believer, only God has.

Believe in Jesus if you want to. I won't stop you. If you are right, you will go to Heaven. Good for you. What right do you have to limit my freedoms if I do not harm anyone?

Tell me, what made you above us others? What put you on the same level as God?

Why is it your decision who marries? What does it harm you if homosexual couples do so? Does God's will mean anything? He granted us free will. Some seem to want to pursue homosexual relationships.

Keep your religion to yourself. And I will keep mine to myself. And we can co-exist in peace.


Also, your view of genetics is limited. It could very well be a recessive trait and survive. It could also be a mutation. What does it matter? Originally posted by Strangelove
What's the point in answering? Your 'assessment' of the issue will be more quasi-scientific religious psycho-babble than any real analysis

Again, just for reminders sake: I've not mentioned religion once in this debate. Nor have I put down a gay person. I don't agree that the behavior is normal and natural, but I don't hate them. They are welcome to act in any way that they wish.

The issue at hand is: do we give validation to such actions and promote them in schools as normal and natural or is there an explanation for why the homosexuals of the world are what they are?



I'm attempting to answer that question with the one that I posed above.

Please give an answer:




Is it the consensus that homosexuality is a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, just for reminders sake: I've not mentioned religion once in this debate. Nor have I put down a gay person. I don't agree that the behavior is normal and natural, but I don't hate them. They are welcome to act in any way that they wish.

The issue at hand is: do we give validation to such actions and promote them in schools as normal and natural or is there an explanation for why the homosexuals of the world are what they are?



I'm attempting to answer that question with the one that I posed above.

Please give an answer:




Is it the consensus that homosexuality is a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history? No. I have decided to believe that no one has the right to tell me what to do. I have decided that I have no right to tell others what they should do. And I found that freedom is the greatest ideal of all (your God agrees as much as even granting it in the first place).


Whether it is genetic, due to upbringing factors or just a choice, does not matter.

It does not harm you. it does not harm then. Why do you have the right to condemn them? Why do you have the right to judge them? Why do you have the right to limit their happiness? Why do you have the right that, if you are a true believer, only God has.

Believe in Jesus if you want to. I won't stop you. If you are right, you will go to Heaven. Good for you. What right do you have to limit my freedoms if I do not harm anyone?

Tell me, what made you above us others? What put you on the same level as God?

Why is it your decision who marries? What does it harm you if homosexual couples do so? Does God's will mean anything? He granted us free will. Some seem to want to pursue homosexual relationships.

Keep your religion to yourself. And I will keep mine to myself. And we can co-exist in peace.


Also, your view of genetics is limited. It could very well be a recessive trait and survive. It could also be a mutation. What does it matter?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Is it the consensus that homosexuality is a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history? Not being a scientist or geneticist of any kind, I can't truthfully answer. Do you think yourself qualified to 'address' the issue?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Being a sore loser would require Bardock to be losing. Which he isn't. SS has got it all wrong.

Ok then i think he's being a douche. Same thing , different flavour.

Instead of arguing logically he's dropping to a juvenile level and ending an good come-back with a bunch of unnecessary insults. Ot to put it in a more blatant way .

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This discussion could be better handled without name calling and posting pointless pictures.

Originally posted by grey fox
Ok then i think he's being a douche. Same thing , different flavour.

Instead of arguing logically he's dropping to a juvenile level and ending an good come-back with a bunch of unnecessary insults. Ot to put it in a more blatant way .

Your problem then. I, for one, can't stand his stupidity.

But good thing we talked about it, so now you can shut up and I can continue arguing the way I please.

Originally posted by sithsaber408

You've been lead to believe that because a thing feels good, and is present in other forms of nature, that it is therefore normal and good.

No. We haven't. You're the only one saying that.....



Stop pulling things out of your ass....


Originally posted by sithsaber408


Even if it were dormant in a straight family and passed on

You clearly possess the knowledge of a two-year old regarding biology....

You obviously never took anything beyond middle school regarding science.....

That's not how genetics work. It takes more than the "if mommy has blue eyes, the baby will get blue eyes" shtick for genetics to either be created or passed on.

Your knowledge of genetics is not only laughable but also disheartening.

I've never met a person who's knowledge of biology was so damn paltry...

Originally posted by sithsaber408

And we all well know that there have been gay people for thousands of years. If they didn't pro-create, then the gene would have died with them.

You're a complete imbecile.

First off, as stated before homosexuality in terms of genetics is shown NOT to be inheritable. Certain genetic traits in conjunction with certain protopic traits are shown to lead to homosexuality. But this is still theory since the DNA Human chain is literally billions of codes long.

Second, you REALLY think a homosexual in 1540 in England where the crime for homosexuality is death WOULDN'T get married and have kids?

Are you really that stupid to believe that ALL homosexuals in the past didn't reproduce?

It's not inheritable by familial traits. It's far more complicated than that....


Originally posted by sithsaber408
Unless, as I maintain, it's not really genetics at all, but rather developmental changes/influences at a certain time in a certain way that leads to such feelings and subsequent behaviors.

What "certain" way? What "certain" time? What "certain" influences? You're just pulling things out of your ass. You have no idea what you're talking about.

What are these "developmental changes" you speak of?

And it has to be inclusionary to ALL cultures, countries and social sects.

So saying, since the boy didn't play football, he turned gay is bullshit since many countries don't have football or even sports and yet they're not all gay.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
The gene would always die, unless it's a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history.

No. No. NO. Do yourself a favor. Drive to a nearby high school. Audit a basic biology course. Jesus Christ. This isn't a Disney movie.....


Originally posted by sithsaber408
In which case you are arguing that gays are a whole new sub-species, but this would be curable in the near future, as we can even now change the sex of a child through genetic manipulation.

You're right about ONE thing. Despite it's "cure" phrase. EVERYTHING will be changeable in the future with genetic manipulation. Race included.

No black people since being black means you're more likely to be a criminal, drug addict and low-waged...






Originally posted by sithsaber408
Homosexuality is a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history?

It has to do with BOTH.

THINK!

You REALLY think it would stoop scientists for DECADES as to the origins of homosexuality if it was as simple you state?

You REALLY think you were the original creator of such an outdated (like 1947 outdated...) theory?

God, you're just unbelievably simple...




Originally posted by sithsaber408
(I'll wait until I see 4 or 5 "yes" answers, then address that.)

Please don't.

Or do.

Everytime a homophobe makes an ass out himself and gets curbstomped by a logical argument, the less homophobes in the future....

Originally posted by grey fox
Ok then i think he's being a douche. Same thing , different flavour.

Instead of arguing logically he's dropping to a juvenile level and ending an good come-back with a bunch of unnecessary insults. Ot to put it in a more blatant way .

are you just being silly or did you really mean for that not to be ironic?

Originally posted by PVS
are you just being silly or did you really mean for that not to be ironic?

Not ironic , it can be substituted for anything that identifies him as not being 'level'.

Originally posted by grey fox
Not ironic , it can be substituted for anything that identifies him as not being 'level'.

Dude, what is your problem.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, just for reminders sake: I've not mentioned religion once in this debate. Nor have I put down a gay person. I don't agree that the behavior is normal and natural, but I don't hate them. They are welcome to act in any way that they wish.

Honey, that's same thing as me saying:

I don't hate the Negroes. I just think Negroes are an inferior species of man and that they don't belong with regular white folk like us.

They're welcome to commit as many crimes as they want but I don't agree with them...




Originally posted by sithsaber408
The issue at hand is: do we give validation to such actions and promote them in schools as normal and natural or is there an explanation for why the homosexuals of the world are what they are?

That's YOUR issue. Noone else frankly cares. It shouldn't come up unless it's during a sex education class...

You have no validation to promote homosexuality as immoral or wrong...



Originally posted by sithsaber408
Is it the consensus that homosexuality is a random genetic mutation that just "appears" in people and has nothing to do with family history?

It's a factor of BOTH. Again, you clearly possess the scientific knowledge of a child....