from the gay marriage threads

[Fausto]

*sigh* This is like playing whack-a-mole with retards.

 

[slackerinabox]

Without getting into a flame war I'll just say that some gay guys are amongst the kindest, most caring people I know (not all of course).. I think that they'd make great moms

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Without getting into a flame war I'll just say that some gay guys are amongst the kindest, most caring people I know (not all of course).. I think that they'd make great moms

I am one of the most bitter, angry @ssholes you'll ever meet, and I'm gay. I couldn't imagine being entrusted with a kid. I would tell them crazy stuff just to see what they'd do. I'm not saying I'm representative of all gay men, and conversely, there are straight guys just like me.

 

[psydancerqt]

research studies have proven freud's theory to be false... find a new theory

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

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

http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/genehistory.html

 

[EXman]

why cant it BE healthy for the child?

Cause a kid does not need to be brought up by Soddomites.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman

why cant it BE healthy for the child?

Cause a kid does not need to be brought up by Soddomites.

Thank you, Mr. Dark Ages.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: EXman

why cant it BE healthy for the child?

Cause a kid does not need to be brought up by Soddomites.

Oh please. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of heterosexuals that fail at parenting. Not only that, but there are surely many that engage in sodomy. Simply because someone engages in homosexual acts has next to zero relevance on the relative well-being of the child. Likewise, there is no way we should exclude the possibility for same-sex couples to raise children when there are many, many couples that would do a much, much better job than so many heterosexual couples.

 

[EXman]

not dark ages bub.

Thank you, Mr. Dark Ages.

Soddom was not in the dark ages bub.

 

[DWW]

LOCK
I'm not arguing one way or another. This thread is plain out of hand and flamebait.

 

[Wuffsunie]

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 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?

Right... because a) artifical means to reproduce don't exist and b) even if they didn't, human beings are too damned stupid to figure out sex with the opposite gender perpetuates the species. Joe Haldeman did a very nice section in his book The Forever War that deals with the notion of the world going queer and the next generation being decanted from bottles.

Though, quite frankly considering some of the population issues in the world today, we could use less people. Might even get rid of the likes of you.

Really, it's an old argument and flawed for the above reasons. Yes, an animal species that practices homosexuality exclusively will die out within a generation. We're not dumb animals, too bad for your argument.

-- Jack

I'd rather be black than gay because when you're black you don't have to tell your mother.
-- Charles Pierce

 

[dnuggett]

Yes, an animal species that practices homosexuality exclusively will die out within a generation. We're not dumb animals, too bad for your argument.

You obviously have not paid atenton to a word I typed other than the first comment. Read below, this was right in front of your face:




apoppiun:
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.


dnuggett:
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.




BTW if you want to talk about me dying out... seems to me you have a probem paying attention to what is right in front of you. Do me a favor, go outside and walk down the street.
But thanks for agreeing with the only point I was trying to make.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

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?

This exact same logic can be used as an argument against masturbation and oral sex. The problem is that biological bases are not (and should not be) the sole basis for social policy.

 

[Jzero]

This exact same logic can be used as an argument against masturbation and oral sex. The problem is that biological bases are not (and should not be) the sole basis for social policy.

Nor theoretical extremes that would never actually occur.

 

[EXman]

This exact same logic can be used as an argument against masturbation and oral sex. The problem is that biological bases are not (and should not be) the sole basis for social policy.

Quote to me where it says no oral sex. you can't

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: EXman

This exact same logic can be used as an argument against masturbation and oral sex. The problem is that biological bases are not (and should not be) the sole basis for social policy.

Quote to me where it says no oral sex. you can't

Hate to break it to you, but oral sex falls under the classification of sodomy too.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DWW
LOCK
I'm not arguing one way or another. This thread is plain out of hand and flamebait.

Actually although I haven't gone through all of the posts looks like the PT folk have done pretty well debating this contentious issue. Many of the folk here especially the younger ones may become Policy makers and Politicians of the future and deciding the very Laws governing this issue.

As pointed out over in P&N where such lively debates are the norm, that the U.S. is a basis of Moral Laws (Terpitude as they call it) that shifts over time.

 

Quote

Originally posted by: Magnum375

Quote

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Quote

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Quote

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.....

There are quite a few articles out there now dealing with this topic. I suppose I could search my history to find them, but I don't think I'll waste my time on that.

Your stance on homosexuals is clear. It's a whole load of bigotry masked by a thin veil of "acceptance of the choice of homosexual lifestyle".
The way you worded your statement could also lead me to ask if homosexuals should accept the choice made by heterosexuals.

 

[EXman]

I didn't think you could point out the verse...

There is nothing in the bible that says oral sex in a marriage (man and woman) is prohibited.

Go grab the Bible and look.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: EXman
I didn't think you could point out the verse...

There is nothing in the bible that says oral sex in a marriage (man and woman) is prohibited.

Go grab the Bible and look.

Show me where it matters one way or another. The bible is a book. There are others like it that may or may not conflict with the contents of the bible. What if the Buddhists have been right all along? You're coming back in the next life as a dung beetle.

Cheers!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Please enlighten us as to how it is not a choice if this was a stupid comment.....

There are quite a few articles out there now dealing with this topic. I suppose I could search my history to find them, but I don't think I'll waste my time on that.

Your stance on homosexuals is clear. It's a whole load of bigotry masked by a thin veil of "acceptance of the choice of homosexual lifestyle".
The way you worded your statement could also lead me to ask if homosexuals should accept the choice made by heterosexuals.

As I posted above:

http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/genehistory.html

is a good start.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: DWW
LOCK
I'm not arguing one way or another. This thread is plain out of hand and flamebait.

Doesn't need a lock . . . the people arguing against gays adopting are so clueless and making such stupid "arguments" that this topic will likely die of its own accord.

Homophobes makes themselves look so stupid it isn't necessary to answer them any longer.

Hate to break it to you, but oral sex falls under the classification of sodomy too.

Uh, huh - next up, please . . .

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Hate to break it to you, but oral sex falls under the classification of sodomy too.

Uh, huh - next up, please . . .

You might want to read the context of the remainder of that conversation before breaking out the roll emoticon. My point is that if reproductive viability is the benchmark for determining whether society needs to accept a particular behavior, there are plenty of things heterosexuals do that don't meet that litmus test.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Yes, an animal species that practices homosexuality exclusively will die out within a generation. We're not dumb animals, too bad for your argument.

You obviously have not paid atenton to a word I typed other than the first comment. Read below, this was right in front of your face:

Oh, I read it. I just chose not to edit my post to reflect the rest of your babbling bullsh!t. And, quite frankly, I've see that argument attempt to be made with legitimate concerns.

Pisses me off that of all the things I've said in that thread, THAT useless comment was the one people chose to pick apart :|

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Quote

Originally posted by: Magnum375

Quote

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Quote

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Quote

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.....

There are quite a few articles out there now dealing with this topic. I suppose I could search my history to find them, but I don't think I'll waste my time on that.

Your stance on homosexuals is clear. It's a whole load of bigotry masked by a thin veil of "acceptance of the choice of homosexual lifestyle".
The way you worded your statement could also lead me to ask if homosexuals should accept the choice made by heterosexuals.

You have absolutely no idea what bigotry means. I am not intolerant of homosexuals. I think it's funny how you must resort to putting me in a shameful light when all I asked was for you to explain yourself and you couldn't even do that.

Get a friggin clue.