from the gay marriage threads

[dnuggett]

Here's a quick one for you... btw I'm not against anyone being gay.. this is just food for thought.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be so, (unless were to discrimnate against certian people) However if everyone is homosexual, then human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only, heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

Therefore we cannot conclude it is ok to be a homosexual only. And if you everyone cannot be completely dedicated to their lifestyle, what good is that?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Here's a quick one for you... btw I'm not against anyone being gay.. this is just food for thought.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be gay. However is everyone is gay, the human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

Therefore we cannot conclude it is ok to be a homosexual only. And if you everyone cannot be completely dedicated to their lifestyle, what good is that?

Wow...you call that logic??

You CANNOT make an assumption that all humans can be gay. That's like saying all humans can be right-handed or can be bald or can tall or can be fat or......

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Here's a quick one for you... btw I'm not against anyone being gay.. this is just food for thought.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be gay. However is everyone is gay, the human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

Therefore we cannot conclude it is ok to be a homosexual only. And if you everyone cannot be completely dedicated to their lifestyle, what good is that?

Wow...you call that logic??

You CANNOT make an assumption that all humans can be gay. That's like saying all humans can be right-handed or can be bald or can tall or can be fat or......

BTW.... So you are saying being gay is genetic?

It illustrates a point you tool. It is not ok for everyone to be homosexual, but it is ok that everyone be heterosexual. There then is an inherent problem with homosexuality, as practicing this lifestyle (solely) leads to extinction.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Here's a quick one for you... btw I'm not against anyone being gay.. this is just food for thought.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be gay. However is everyone is gay, the human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

Therefore we cannot conclude it is ok to be a homosexual only. And if you everyone cannot be completely dedicated to their lifestyle, what good is that?

Wow...you call that logic??

You CANNOT make an assumption that all humans can be gay. That's like saying all humans can be right-handed or can be bald or can tall or can be fat or......

It illustrates a point you tool. It is not ok for everyone to be homosexual, but it is ok that everyone be heterosexual. There then is an inherent problem with homosexuality, as practicing this lifestyle (solely) leads to extinction.

There ya go...resorting to name-calling. Sure sign of someone with a weak argument.

An even weaker one is calling homosexuality an "inherent problem". That's a judgment call on your part. It's no different from any other differing trait among humans.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Here's a quick one for you... btw I'm not against anyone being gay.. this is just food for thought.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be gay. However is everyone is gay, the human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

Therefore we cannot conclude it is ok to be a homosexual only. And if you everyone cannot be completely dedicated to their lifestyle, what good is that?

Wow...you call that logic??

You CANNOT make an assumption that all humans can be gay. That's like saying all humans can be right-handed or can be bald or can tall or can be fat or......

It illustrates a point you tool. It is not ok for everyone to be homosexual, but it is ok that everyone be heterosexual. There then is an inherent problem with homosexuality, as practicing this lifestyle (solely) leads to extinction.

There ya go...resorting to name-calling. Sure sign of someone with a weak argument.

An even weaker one is calling homosexuality an "inherent problem". That's a judgment call on your part. It's no different from any other differing trait among humans.

There is no judgement call here. If you can tell me that all homosexuals can continue life practicing only their homosexual acts then there is no problem. You can't do that. So why is it not ok for everyone to be homosexual only but everyone can be heterosexual only?

I'll give you a clue..... because there is a problem with homosexuality.... you cannot reproduce. That my friend is an inherent problem like it or not.

BTW My apologies about the tool comment, I can be flippant at times.

The logic is there Conjur... it requires you to examine homosexuality at face value.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Here's a quick one for you... btw I'm not against anyone being gay.. this is just food for thought.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be gay. However is everyone is gay, the human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

Therefore we cannot conclude it is ok to be a homosexual only. And if you everyone cannot be completely dedicated to their lifestyle, what good is that?

Wow...you call that logic??

You CANNOT make an assumption that all humans can be gay. That's like saying all humans can be right-handed or can be bald or can tall or can be fat or......

It illustrates a point you tool. It is not ok for everyone to be homosexual, but it is ok that everyone be heterosexual. There then is an inherent problem with homosexuality, as practicing this lifestyle (solely) leads to extinction.

There ya go...resorting to name-calling. Sure sign of someone with a weak argument.

An even weaker one is calling homosexuality an "inherent problem". That's a judgment call on your part. It's no different from any other differing trait among humans.

There is no judgement call here. If you can tell me that all homosexuals can continue life practicing only their homosexual acts then there is no problem. You can't do that. So why is it not ok for everyone to be homosexual only but everyone can be heterosexual only?

I'll give you a clue..... because there is a problem with homosexuality.... you cannot reproduce. That my friend is an inherent problem like it or not.

I seriously hope YOU don't reproduce.



There is NO problem with homosexuality . . . unless you think their lifestyle is that attractive so as to tempt everyone.

Have you ever heard of OVERpopulation? Well, homos aren't contributing to it. There will ALWAYS be hetros couples that will continue the human race (and that is the LEAST of the human family's worries).

Get a clue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

There is no judgement call here. If you can tell me that all homosexuals can continue life practicing only their homosexual acts then there is no problem. You can't do that. So why is it not ok for everyone to be homosexual only but everyone can be heterosexual only?

I'll give you a clue..... because there is a problem with homosexuality.... you cannot reproduce. That my friend is an inherent problem like it or not.

BTW My apologies about the tool comment, I can be flippant at times.

The logic is there Conjur... it requires you to examine homosexuality at face value.

Evolution has enabled a large majority of the human population with a proclivity toward heterosexual behavior and, thus, the abililty to reproduce. Homosexuals are a small percentage (a vocal one, at times, yes but still small) and will not adversely affect future human birth rates. To say or assume that 100% of humans could be homosexual is just plain ludicrous!

 

[whaleskinrug]

Originally posted by: damiano
I thought a different thread was apropriate to discuss this matter.

I think that the problem is not gay marriage.
In New York there is an act called domestic partnership that lets gay recognize in front of the state that they are together and let them have the same rights as married people (for health inssurance etc...). That' way enough !!!

What I find wrong is for gays to adopt children...and it is the next step after gay marriage.
there is no way this can be healthy for a child...

that's bs. I personally know several gay/lesbian couples who have adopted and they take better care of their kids than most of the "normal" parents. I spend time with the kids, so I know they are happy and well-adjusted.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Here's a quick one for you... btw I'm not against anyone being gay.. this is just food for thought.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be gay. However is everyone is gay, the human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

Therefore we cannot conclude it is ok to be a homosexual only. And if you everyone cannot be completely dedicated to their lifestyle, what good is that?

Wow...you call that logic??

You CANNOT make an assumption that all humans can be gay. That's like saying all humans can be right-handed or can be bald or can tall or can be fat or......

It illustrates a point you tool. It is not ok for everyone to be homosexual, but it is ok that everyone be heterosexual. There then is an inherent problem with homosexuality, as practicing this lifestyle (solely) leads to extinction.

There ya go...resorting to name-calling. Sure sign of someone with a weak argument.

An even weaker one is calling homosexuality an "inherent problem". That's a judgment call on your part. It's no different from any other differing trait among humans.

There is no judgement call here. If you can tell me that all homosexuals can continue life practicing only their homosexual acts then there is no problem. You can't do that. So why is it not ok for everyone to be homosexual only but everyone can be heterosexual only?

I'll give you a clue..... because there is a problem with homosexuality.... you cannot reproduce. That my friend is an inherent problem like it or not.

I seriously hope YOU don't reproduce.

There is NO problem with homosexuality . . . unless you think their lifestyle is that attractive so as to tempt everyone.

Have you ever heard of OVERpopulation? Well, homos aren't contributing to it. There will ALWAYS be hetros couples that will continue the human race (and that is the LEAST of the human family's worries).

Get a clue.

There is no clue to get ,I realize this Conjur. Anyone knows that you have just stated the obvious. However there is a problem with homosexuality in and of itself. That's the point I was trying to make in my "food for thought"post until you wanted to dismantle the logic. Like I said before.. the logic is there, it requires you to examine homosexuality at face value. Stop being so dense and look at just the act itself, and tell me that by people being homosexual only they can continue to exist.


You can't do that. Therefore there is a flaw with being homosexual. It's really not hard to wrap your noodle around Conjur.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: apoppin
I seriously hope YOU don't reproduce.

There is NO problem with homosexuality . . . unless you think their lifestyle is that attractive so as to tempt everyone.

Have you ever heard of OVERpopulation? Well, homos aren't contributing to it. There will ALWAYS be hetros couples that will continue the human race (and that is the LEAST of the human family's worries).

Get a clue.

There is no clue to get ,I realize this Conjur. Anyone knows that you have just stated the obvious. However there is a problem with homosexuality in and of itself. That's the point I was trying to make in my "food for thought post" until you wanted to dismantle the logic. Like I said before.. the logic is there, it requires you to examine homosexuality at face value.

That wasn't me!

 

[Nocturnal]

Can't homosexual females just go to a clinic and get artificially impregnated via some scientist? That solves the problem of reproducing

 

[PatboyX]

depending on how homoseuxality manifests itself as a genetic trait it is still possible for it to exist if only hetrosexuals reproduce. the gene that produces a homosexual person may not actually be in said homosexual person.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Can't homosexual females just go to a clinic and get artificially impregnated via some scientist? That solves the problem of reproducing

And people think that we have problems now....

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dnuggett

There is no judgement call here. If you can tell me that all homosexuals can continue life practicing only their homosexual acts then there is no problem. You can't do that. So why is it not ok for everyone to be homosexual only but everyone can be heterosexual only?

I'll give you a clue..... because there is a problem with homosexuality.... you cannot reproduce. That my friend is an inherent problem like it or not.

BTW My apologies about the tool comment, I can be flippant at times.

The logic is there Conjur... it requires you to examine homosexuality at face value.

Evolution has enabled a large majority of the human population with a proclivity toward heterosexual behavior and, thus, the abililty to reproduce. Homosexuals are a small percentage (a vocal one, at times, yes but still small) and will not adversely affect future human birth rates. To say or assume that 100% of humans could be homosexual is just plain ludicrous!

Who said that? I said there is a flaw being homosexual becasue they themselves if practicing only that act cannot reproduce.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Can't homosexual females just go to a clinic and get artificially impregnated via some scientist? That solves the problem of reproducing

And people think that we have problems now....

Wow. I wouldn't make such a huge leap to call homosexuality an "inherent problem". I see where you're trying to go, but imho, you don't make a convincing argument or, at the very least, I can't fathom what the hell you're trying to say.

What I'm hearing is:

If all humans were homosexual, we would die out. That is indeed possible, though, there is always the possibility that we would somehow develop an asexual trait as can be found in a handful (I believe) of other species.

I suppose it would be more accurate to say that homosexuality is an "inherent difference", imho, just as much as physical traits might be. Whether this is "good" or "bad", I suppose, is up to the individual to decide. If everyone were bald, would we no longer have hair growth on our head? (Hmm, that was a miserable attempt... Heh. I'd withdraw it if not for the self-deprecation it provides to me, the wee-weenied wonder.)

 

[phonemonkey]

dnuggett did.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be so, (unless were to discrimnate against certian people) However if everyone is homosexual, then human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only, heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

 

[dnuggett]

As an added side note I do not feel any negative thoughts towards homosexuals. I choose not to partake in the same belief system they hold, but I am not against them. I believe as a human being they have all the rights and worth that any other human has. My point was to show that there is a flaw in choosing that preference only, in that reproduction would cease if this group existed soley. That flaw does not exist in the opposite heterosexual preference.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: damiano

Originally posted by: Jzero

You blindly subscribe to the scientifically tenuous belief that homosexuality is a choice, not a natural inclination. It has not been proven either way.

Q]

so why do having gay parents makes that you have more chances to be gay yourself?

One thing I think you're assuming that "engaging in a same sex relationship" means that the child is gay. They could be Bisexual, or were just experimenting. None of them said they were homosexual.

I think that you missed this important paragraph in the link:

"It?s true that the people raised by lesbian parents were not more likely to be gay in the sense of identifying themselves as homosexuals in adulthood. That was the question the original studies asked. But their sexual identities do seem more open-ended. And the new study does seem to show that, as Barnard women?s-studies professor Ann Pelligrini says, "queer families are going to produce queer kids. By ?queer,? I mean kids who can resist thinking in cultural norms. Kids with a sense of difference who have the capacity to be critical of ?common-sense notions? of what families should be."

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
As an added side note I do not feel any negative thoughts towards homosexuals. I choose not to partake in the same belief system they hold, but I am not against them. I believe as a human being they have all the rights and worth that any other human has. My point was to show that there is a flaw in choosing that preference only, in that reproduction would cease if this group existed soley. That flaw does not exist in the opposite heterosexual preference.

*cough* choosing?

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: jester79
dnuggett did.

If we say it is ok to be homosexual, then we would also conclude that anyone and everyone can be so, (unless were to discrimnate against certian people) However if everyone is homosexual, then human life will end as there will be no reproduction. Homosexual acts cannot reproduce. So it is clearly not ok for everyone to be engaged homosexual acts only, heterosexual acts are required for us to exist.

I could see how you would think that based on what I typed. When I said can, I am saying that it would be ok for anyone and everyone to be this way. This is not the case. Not everyone can be this way.. even if it were ok for them do be so, because they themselves could not continue the species, whereas their opposite a heterosexual can.

 

[UnatcoAgent]

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: damiano
I thought a different thread was apropriate to discuss this matter.

I think that the problem is not gay marriage.
In New York there is an act called domestic partnership that lets gay recognize in front of the state that they are together and let them have the same rights as married people (for health inssurance etc...). That' way enough !!!

What I find wrong is for gays to adopt children...and it is the next step after gay marriage.
there is no way this can be healthy for a child...

you are a moron.

agreed - you are a real moron

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: dnuggett
As an added side note I do not feel any negative thoughts towards homosexuals. I choose not to partake in the same belief system they hold, but I am not against them. I believe as a human being they have all the rights and worth that any other human has. My point was to show that there is a flaw in choosing that preference only, in that reproduction would cease if this group existed soley. That flaw does not exist in the opposite heterosexual preference.

*cough* choosing?

Yes choosing. I could choose to be homosexual for the rest of my life. I however choose to be heterosexual. Do not start this never ending loop of "it's not a choice"..... "is too". There is no conclusive proof either way at least that I have heard. Unless you care to enlighten us all....

 

[UnatcoAgent]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: dnuggett
As an added side note I do not feel any negative thoughts towards homosexuals. I choose not to partake in the same belief system they hold, but I am not against them. I believe as a human being they have all the rights and worth that any other human has. My point was to show that there is a flaw in choosing that preference only, in that reproduction would cease if this group existed soley. That flaw does not exist in the opposite heterosexual preference.

*cough* choosing?

Yes choosing. I could choose to be homosexual for the rest of my life. I however choose to be heterosexual. Do not start this never ending loop of "it's not a choice"..... "is too". There is no conclusive proof either way at least that I have heard. Unless you care to enlighten us all....

Oh wow this is even more of a stupid comment than the first post in this thread

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Rias

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

explain baldness, color blindness, and left handedness? shoulda been weeded out long ago.

Except none of those mentioned attributes interferes with the ability to get pregnant. Could be cool though if you could only get pregnant if you were bald! :Q

being homosexual doesn't either. homosexuals have had children throughout history

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Magnum375

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: dnuggett
As an added side note I do not feel any negative thoughts towards homosexuals. I choose not to partake in the same belief system they hold, but I am not against them. I believe as a human being they have all the rights and worth that any other human has. My point was to show that there is a flaw in choosing that preference only, in that reproduction would cease if this group existed soley. That flaw does not exist in the opposite heterosexual preference.

*cough* choosing?

Yes choosing. I could choose to be homosexual for the rest of my life. I however choose to be heterosexual. Do not start this never ending loop of "it's not a choice"..... "is too". There is no conclusive proof either way at least that I have heard. Unless you care to enlighten us all....

Oh wow this is even more of a stupid comment than the first post in this thread

Please enlighten us as to how it is not a choice if this was a stupid comment.....