prove that homosexuality is wrong.
Elohimsokie

Ringold, OK

#25670 Feb 1, 2013
Why was the queer fired from the sperm bank, he got caught drink'en on the job. hehehehe
feklhr

Dearborn, MI

#25671 Feb 1, 2013
Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you got one thing right. You're definitely no expert. But how could you be, I mean after all you are a pagan and a gay one on top of that.
PS I'm not worried about you, as I've mentioned before I couldn't possibly care less if and when you go to Hell. Your suffering won't affect me in the slightest.
Ya know, it is completely insane that people are STILL using this threat of eternal torture in a made up place that does not exist. If I told you that the easter bunny was going to break into your house and rape your mother would you take it seriously? Don't you think that you need to first prove that there even is a god first? I mean we have proven to death that the bible is made up, it really is ridiculus to STILL be rehasing the same ignorance over and over again.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#25672 Feb 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that evolution or defects are morally wrong? I in fact said the opposite just in my previous post!
Now to your questions;
1. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. It is outlawed in many countries and was here until recently. Abusing someone or allowing yourself to be abused is morally wrong and against design.
2. Why does it matter? You approve of abuse? You want to equate sex that goes against design with natural sex?
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-conc ...
<quoted text>
1. I always wondered with lesbians, what fits?
2.'Sit on it' expresses a common perception that it is demeaning. Have you ever said 'sit on it'?
3. Did you read the WebMed reference? The vast majority of anal sex partners don't practice 'safe' sex. And, as one doctor said, "Too much lub is almost enough and an anal condom is essential".
4. The anus is not designed (by evolution) for intercourse. No offense, but you show your ignorance of basic human physiology by even taking this track. In fact, it begs the question, how does an intelligent person confuse a septic system with a playground???
5. You are right,'nature' does get 'freaky'. Lots of species practice incest. Do you practice 'natural' incest with your dad? Wait, I'm sorry, your mom? Any siblings?'Nature' has no age limits either. How young were you the first time?
Why would cultures OUTLAW something so 'natural'. Please, help me understand your 'logic'.
Just a heads up,'natural' incest causes retardation among other issues.
Snicker.
1. I'll leave that to your imagination, little as you have.
2. No I've never hear that expression, whether it's demeaning or not is irrelvant. And how demeaning a word is heavily depends on the context and use. Fag for example can be demeaning or not depending on usage. Either way, irrelvant,
3. The vast majority not using safe sax includes heterosexuals. I don't agree with those practices, and I could see how unsafe sex could be considered morally wrong because of risk to partners but that does not make homosexuality or homosexual sex inherently wrong.
4. You're right I have not read up as extensively on anuses as you have. I realize there are some risks involved but as long as those practicing are aware and take measures I don't see the moral issue. Your views on how gross it is are your own and are as usual irrelevant.
5. You people love to bring this point up. There is a huge difference between informed consensual sex between adults that has no identifiable harm and those you like to compare to. Having sex with a minor or animal is wrong because there is limited to no capacity for informed consent. Incest is wrong because it IS harmful because of genetic defects, though I have questionable opinions about the more distantly related. No not everything that is natural is morally right, but saying something is morally wrong because it's "unnatural" is just as stupid.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#25673 Feb 1, 2013
@Kimare part 1

"Every social study seriously degrades a child's social health outside their natural parents. This includes foster, step, adoptive and single parents. Simply a fact.
A gay couple always deprives a child of one gender and at least one parent."
And yet foster, step, adoptive and single parents are still allowed to have children. If every social study claims it seriously degrades a child's social health then it should not be difficult for you to find relevant links to include in your little rants. Fyi, my mother and her sister were adopted, I would love for you to explain to them how their adoptive parents were unhealthy for them. I'll be sure to tell them that they were better off with their natural mother and natural alcoholic father who were too broke and had too many kids already to care for them.

" A gay couple always deprives a child of one gender and at least one parent." again why do we allow single mothers to adopt if this is so damaging as you make it out?
"The latest, largest and most scientific study of seven family types rated lesbian couples (male couples didn't even register), LAST, behind single parents." Great! Then you must have a link you can show me since it's the latest and largest and all that.

"You also might want to research the 'Cinderella Effect', regarding your assertion of wanted children and accidents." Wait, what assertion did I make about wanted and unwanted children? Anyways I have researched it because you've brought this same bullshit up before. It has to do stepparents treating their biological offspring better than their stepchildren. This has no bearing on gay couples who btw don't have accidents, when they have kids it's because they want them. This would only apply to gay stepparents as with heterosexual stepparents, not just any gay couples with kids.

" Words matter. Labeling arsenic 'sugar' is criminal." ya because it's deadly, mislabeling marriage has yet to kill anyone.
 
"Mislabeling the most essential cultural relationship, marriage, is not just denial, it is incredibly foolish." Why? Who decided it's lable and meaning to begin with? What makes it foolish?

"Out of all relationships, if you want to equate a gay couple with marriage, you must equate that relationship from all others, and establish it's identity with marriage." I don't even know wtf gibberish your spouting here.

"-At it's most basic identity, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. I'm sorry, but gay couples are a defective failure of that very identity." We've been over this again and again mating behavior, evolution, defects...all IRRELEVANT. I'm sorry if you're incapable of understanding why that is.

"-If you note, there are two basic arguments that still ignore that failure at the most basic essence, but dumb down marriage;
1. Marriage is only a contract.
Hardly. But if that is all you want, get a lawyer.
2. Marriage is two committed people.
That's a friendship. I have that with numerous people, including extended family. Hardly 'marriage'."
That's because that so called failure is irrelvant. Marriages are not bound by our evolutionary needs.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#25674 Feb 1, 2013
@KiMare part 2

"Just as distinguishing, the designed reunion of a male and female joins the two most diverse expressions of humanity into a unique oneness. It is equated with the union of Mars and Venus! Gay couples are simply duplication of one gender." And this matters because...?

"Do you realize that in 8000 years of recorded human history, EVERY SINGLE CULTURE has practiced marriage from start to finish?
Not one single culture has called or accepted gay couples 'marriage' from start to finish. In all that time, even though gay couples appeared extremely briefly and rarely, NEVER did the relationship establish itself and spread." Besides being historically inaccurate it is once again IRRELVANT. Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

"The current 30 year push to do so is far too short to validate an exception. In fact, the message of history is, it won't last, especially the culture it is practiced in." We'll see.

"Finally, you are making an assertion about 'harm' that cannot be validated either way. However, the likelihood that such a radical change would have 'no effect' is immensely irrational." If it cannot be validated then it cannot be used as a reason to not allow something. To say no you can't do this you require valid reasons backed with evidence. I never claimed it would have no effect, but if it can't be proven to be a negative one then there's nothing to do about it

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#25676 Feb 1, 2013
"Marriage is a cross-cultural constraint on mating behavior."

Please explain how it's a constraint on mating behavior. Seriously.
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#25677 Feb 1, 2013
As you have heard before, God tells what is right and wrong, not man.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25678 Feb 1, 2013
Rageoholic wrote:
"Marriage is a cross-cultural constraint on mating behavior."
Please explain how it's a constraint on mating behavior. Seriously.
You're only encouraging their insanity.

Marriage was created. in part, to curb the heterosexual male instinct to mate with as many females as possible by encouraging them to take some responsibility for the little byproducts of their matings. Humans are not monogamous by nature, for us it is a learned behavior.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25679 Feb 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that evolution or defects are morally wrong? I in fact said the opposite just in my previous post!
Now to your questions;
1. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. It is outlawed in many countries and was here until recently. Abusing someone or allowing yourself to be abused is morally wrong and against design.
2. Why does it matter? You approve of abuse? You want to equate sex that goes against design with natural sex?
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-conc ...
<quoted text>
1. I always wondered with lesbians, what fits?
2.'Sit on it' expresses a common perception that it is demeaning. Have you ever said 'sit on it'?
3. Did you read the WebMed reference? The vast majority of anal sex partners don't practice 'safe' sex. And, as one doctor said, "Too much lub is almost enough and an anal condom is essential".
4. The anus is not designed (by evolution) for intercourse. No offense, but you show your ignorance of basic human physiology by even taking this track. In fact, it begs the question, how does an intelligent person confuse a septic system with a playground???
5. You are right,'nature' does get 'freaky'. Lots of species practice incest. Do you practice 'natural' incest with your dad? Wait, I'm sorry, your mom? Any siblings?'Nature' has no age limits either. How young were you the first time?
Why would cultures OUTLAW something so 'natural'. Please, help me understand your 'logic'.
Just a heads up,'natural' incest causes retardation among other issues.
Snicker.
Rageoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'll leave that to your imagination, little as you have.
Not true. The truth is you have no rational answer because I gave verified truth.
Rageoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
2. No I've never hear that expression, whether it's demeaning or not is irrelvant. And how demeaning a word is heavily depends on the context and use. Fag for example can be demeaning or not depending on usage. Either way, irrelvant,
BS, you lie. Guess what? A little demeaning and a lot demeaning is still demeaning. Every time you say irrelevant, you simply expose you have no rational answer.
Rageoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
3. The vast majority not using safe sax includes heterosexuals. I don't agree with those practices, and I could see how unsafe sex could be considered morally wrong because of risk to partners but that does not make homosexuality or homosexual sex inherently wrong.
I didn't distinguish orientation. Anal sex is harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. You imply that if others do something harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, that makes it okay. How old are you? A violation of design, especially one that is the primary expression of an orientation simply and clearly exposes a defect. Acting on that abuse is the moral wrong.
Rageoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
4. You're right I have not read up as extensively on anuses as you have. I realize there are some risks involved but as long as those practicing are aware and take measures I don't see the moral issue. Your views on how gross it is are your own and are as usual irrelevant.
Denial ad homoan attacks and gay twirl. All you can do is make anal sex less dangerous. It still is a violation of design.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25680 Feb 1, 2013
Rageoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
5. You people love to bring this point up. There is a huge difference between informed consensual sex between adults that has no identifiable harm and those you like to compare to. Having sex with a minor or animal is wrong because there is limited to no capacity for informed consent. Incest is wrong because it IS harmful because of genetic defects, though I have questionable opinions about the more distantly related. No not everything that is natural is morally right, but saying something is morally wrong because it's "unnatural" is just as stupid.
I didn't bring this you,'you people' brought it up. You declared natural always acceptable. I called you on it.

Moreover, I never said anything was morally wrong just because it is unnatural. I give specific reasons why anything is morally wrong, and you have no answer for it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25681 Feb 1, 2013
Rageoholic wrote:
@Kimare part 1
"Every social study seriously degrades a child's social health outside their natural parents. This includes foster, step, adoptive and single parents. Simply a fact.
A gay couple always deprives a child of one gender and at least one parent."
And yet foster, step, adoptive and single parents are still allowed to have children. If every social study claims it seriously degrades a child's social health then it should not be difficult for you to find relevant links to include in your little rants. Fyi, my mother and her sister were adopted, I would love for you to explain to them how their adoptive parents were unhealthy for them. I'll be sure to tell them that they were better off with their natural mother and natural alcoholic father who were too broke and had too many kids already to care for them.
" A gay couple always deprives a child of one gender and at least one parent." again why do we allow single mothers to adopt if this is so damaging as you make it out?
"The latest, largest and most scientific study of seven family types rated lesbian couples (male couples didn't even register), LAST, behind single parents." Great! Then you must have a link you can show me since it's the latest and largest and all that.
"You also might want to research the 'Cinderella Effect', regarding your assertion of wanted children and accidents." Wait, what assertion did I make about wanted and unwanted children? Anyways I have researched it because you've brought this same bullshit up before. It has to do stepparents treating their biological offspring better than their stepchildren. This has no bearing on gay couples who btw don't have accidents, when they have kids it's because they want them. This would only apply to gay stepparents as with heterosexual stepparents, not just any gay couples with kids.
" Words matter. Labeling arsenic 'sugar' is criminal." ya because it's deadly, mislabeling marriage has yet to kill anyone.
 
"Mislabeling the most essential cultural relationship, marriage, is not just denial, it is incredibly foolish." Why? Who decided it's lable and meaning to begin with? What makes it foolish?
"Out of all relationships, if you want to equate a gay couple with marriage, you must equate that relationship from all others, and establish it's identity with marriage." I don't even know wtf gibberish your spouting here.
"-At it's most basic identity, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. I'm sorry, but gay couples are a defective failure of that very identity." We've been over this again and again mating behavior, evolution, defects...all IRRELEVANT. I'm sorry if you're incapable of understanding why that is.
"-If you note, there are two basic arguments that still ignore that failure at the most basic essence, but dumb down marriage;
1. Marriage is only a contract.
Hardly. But if that is all you want, get a lawyer.
2. Marriage is two committed people.
That's a friendship. I have that with numerous people, including extended family. Hardly 'marriage'."
That's because that so called failure is irrelvant. Marriages are not bound by our evolutionary needs.
1. Links;

The New Family Structures Study

http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/

Cinderella Effect

http://www.edmontonsun.com/comment/columnists...

2. Many sociologists argue against single parents adopting. Many states do not allow it.

3. Gay couples with children always involve unrelated children for at least one partner. That often will involve the Cinderella effect.

4. It's still false labeling, and some consequences are worse than dying.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25682 Feb 1, 2013
5. If you don't understand the basic purpose and meaning of words, you are not capable of engaging on a debate site. Marriage is normally the 'birthplace' of every other relationship. That distinguishes it from all other relationships. Gays want to equate their partnerships with marriage. On what basis? How is their relationship so different from all others? This is not a hard question.

6. Again, saying something is irrelevant is simply an opinion until you give a reason. Otherwise, you simply are indicating you have no rational response.

7. I didn't say marriage is bound by our evolutionary needs. I said evolutionary demands are restrained by marriage. You have a serious comprehension problem...

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25683 Feb 1, 2013
Rageoholic wrote:
@KiMare part 2
"Just as distinguishing, the designed reunion of a male and female joins the two most diverse expressions of humanity into a unique oneness. It is equated with the union of Mars and Venus! Gay couples are simply duplication of one gender." And this matters because...?
Most sensible people would know... You are blonde, aren't you.
Rageoholic wrote:
"Do you realize that in 8000 years of recorded human history, EVERY SINGLE CULTURE has practiced marriage from start to finish?
Not one single culture has called or accepted gay couples 'marriage' from start to finish. In all that time, even though gay couples appeared extremely briefly and rarely, NEVER did the relationship establish itself and spread." Besides being historically inaccurate it is once again IRRELVANT. Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.
I didn't appeal to tradition. Is that what you call history? No wonder you have a problem with the definition of marriage...

But please, tell me how my 'tradition' is inaccurate.
Rageoholic wrote:
"The current 30 year push to do so is far too short to validate an exception. In fact, the message of history is, it won't last, especially the culture it is practiced in." We'll see.
Maybe.
Rageoholic wrote:
"Finally, you are making an assertion about 'harm' that cannot be validated either way. However, the likelihood that such a radical change would have 'no effect' is immensely irrational." If it cannot be validated then it cannot be used as a reason to not allow something. To say no you can't do this you require valid reasons backed with evidence. I never claimed it would have no effect, but if it can't be proven to be a negative one then there's nothing to do about it
I didn't use it to make any assertion. You did.

I simply showed in several indisputable ways how distinct marriage is from gay couples.

But you are right, it is an invalid assertion, but still far more likely to have negative implications because it goes against evolution's primary purpose.

Smile.
HumanSpirit

High Springs, FL

#25684 Feb 1, 2013
Whole sale selling of homosexuality is the product of altered brain chemistry from pharmaceutical mind drugs that began under the Bush Sr presidency. The Support of the Mental Health Industry which was contained in the USA and other European countries since WWII because of crimes and atrocities and violations of human rights by Nazi Germany was well known and became a Republican movement for a coup detat.
Elohimsokie

Ringold, OK

#25685 Feb 1, 2013
SS marriage is part of population controll.
PaperPerson

Akron, OH

#25687 Feb 1, 2013
I feel that homosexuality is ok because it means more women for me. And im not worried about the lesbians because most are big butch looking chicks, however it pains the heck out of me to see a super fine lesbian check. It has always been dream to turn a hot lesbian straight, because i was just that good. Oh and the only reason i would be like pissed about homosexuality is if i had a son and he was gay. I wouldn't like hate them, but i would be distant.
HumanSpirit

High Springs, FL

#25688 Feb 1, 2013
PaperPerson wrote:
I feel that homosexuality is ok because it means more women for me. And im not worried about the lesbians because most are big butch looking chicks, however it pains the heck out of me to see a super fine lesbian check. It has always been dream to turn a hot lesbian straight, because i was just that good. Oh and the only reason i would be like pissed about homosexuality is if i had a son and he was gay. I wouldn't like hate them, but i would be distant.
Republican Mind control by psychiatry with no science, no medical model and no evidence based medicine is dangerous and should be met with political opposition and disgust in the medical professions.
Rosa Winkel

East Maitland, Australia

#25690 Feb 2, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You're only encouraging their insanity.
Marriage was created. in part, to curb the heterosexual male instinct to mate with as many females as possible by encouraging them to take some responsibility for the little byproducts of their matings. Humans are not monogamous by nature, for us it is a learned behavior.
It may have been something like that, way back in ancient times.
Because early marriages were not monogamous. Polygamy was practiced by the ancient Hebrews, Egyptians and other cultures. It still is in parts of the Middle East.
Men were not expected 2 b monogamous back then, but she'd better be! Otherwise he wouldn't know if the child was his.
Rosa Winkel

East Maitland, Australia

#25691 Feb 2, 2013
Rageoholic wrote:
"Marriage is a cross-cultural constraint on mating behavior."
Please explain how it's a constraint on mating behavior. Seriously.
All you'll get from that one is a load of waffle.
Seriously.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25692 Feb 2, 2013
Rageoholic wrote:
"Marriage is a cross-cultural constraint on mating behavior."
Please explain how it's a constraint on mating behavior. Seriously.
Rosa Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
All you'll get from that one is a load of waffle.
Seriously.
I'm curious, what do YOU think that sentence means?

Smile.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 min lil whispers 3,679
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 2 min Voyeur 38,752
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Buck Crick 48,581
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Anthony MN 646,582
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 16 min Toby 105,582
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 20 min The Hangman 971,635
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 54 min ChristineM 445,721
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 hr Steve III 44,682
More from around the web