pat you are far more eloquent than I am and IF you ever spoke in way that I was not intending, I would not take offense and I would clarify my position.
Have you ever wondered why a woman does the things she does? Does a woman ever wonder why a man does the things he does? The opposite sex does not always make sense to the other one. A gay relationship does not have these questions arise. Procreation is not a requirement, yet the biology IS!
No fantasy world needed. My cousin never married his wife, they simply went to the Justice of the Peace and they are in a union. No marriage necessary, as you claim.
How many species of mammals have sex without procreation being the end result? Humans, dolphins and one more that I cannot recall. If sex is not for procreation, what is it for? Oral sex is another topic but I will be happy to go there is you would like. Why leave out anal sex of you want to go for the oral topic?
Did I not tell you it would be a challenge? Yes I did. A gay couple CANNOT understand the attraction a straight child has. Even if gay fathers raised a daughter, they cannot understand the attraction to a young boy, at least not in the same manner.
As for taking down a comment, I never intended to and I still stand behind that assertion. Why did the Roman empire fall? How about the Greeks? I know that I can be wrong, everyone is wrong at times. All you need it proof. For example, prove to me that abortion is a GOOD thing. Prove to me that a child is not killed every single time. It cannot be done because abortion slaughters a child every single time. Even your abortifacient birth control slaughters a child.
You talk about my poor children. The saddest part, I never insult you or your family. Grow up and a civil conversation is possible. Your immature behavior makes that very challenging but you are by far not the dumbest poster on these boards.
I use reason, science and logic to argue my positions in life. Then my faith simply confirms my position. Why do you suppose that is? Can you even guess?
[quote=âDrew1411, post:39, topic:213400â] Iâll comment on pat below, but his approach is of reasoning and not speaking in absolutes. Can a single mom not raise a boy because she has no idea what it is like to be a male? No, again with flawed logic.
I also see you took down the âall societies that have allowed homosexuality have failedâ which was the biggest blunder. There is no point in debating this further with you, as you lack any sound reasoning behind your firmly held beliefs. I feel sorry for your child if they do not fit into your narrow world view.
[/quote]
I assume you are referring to me. You understand what you want, you do not ask clarifying questions, I sometimes do it also. That phrase was something I have never said and I will never say it in the future. Now the acts they partake in, that is a whole other discussion. Gay sex is without a doubt, an evil act.
What are you talking about? I asked if a heterosexual couple is not capable of having kids if they should be able to be married. It is a simple question. Yes is the correct answer. Procreation is not a marriage requirement.
anal, oral, masterbation⊠literally ANYTHING sexual. Some people do weird stuff, does it matter? If someone wants to do it I donât care. It is not evil to pleasure someone you love. Sex CAN procreate, but that is not all it can do. I honestly donât know where youâre going with this one, but there is no point. Sex CAN do other things than procreate. How do you not know this?
Your argument is that the Roman empire fell because of homosexuality. And EVERY country that accepts homosexuality, or at least doesnât condem it, will also fail. How did you come to that conclusion? Iâm no historian, but thatâs a bit of a stretch. There are some historians who say Christianity played a roll in the Roman empire falling, but there is no purpose in getting into that. If you think homosexuality is the ONLY cause of society failings, wake up, youâre talking about the entire western world. Youâre quite the doomsdayer if you think Europe, South America, Australia, and the USA will fall because of homosexuality. As Pat said, there are evil things happening all over the world all the time, no more time or effort needs to be spent on this.
Absolutely false. You speak in absolutes that have huge flaws in logic with no sound reasoning behind them other than some book told you to think that way. This has been proven in previous threads, where people much more intellectual than me used logic and reason to counter every biased statement you made. If they couldnât help you see your flaws in logic, I sure canât.
Human nature is generally self-centred, self-interested, and self-serving. Whether the actions of a person acting in their own self interest is âgoodâ or âevilâ depends entirely upon whether this action furthers or hinders the interests of the person judging the action.
My point is that it takes opposite people to raise healthy children. A man will never be able to act like a woman would in the raising of children and vice versa is true.
My purpose is what is the purpose biologically for sex? Sure it is enjoyable, no question there. However the purpose of sex in the natural mammalian world is procreation, save three species. If gay marriage is supposedly alright in the mammalian world, how many species practice gay sex? Please provide sources.
First off, can you predict the future? Neither can I. However looking to the past gives the best prediction for the future. The acceptance and celebration of the homosexual act being a GOOD is the problem. Gay people account for what percentage of the population? Yet their acts are supposed to be celebrated in comparison to a natural act? I understand where the thinking comes from, not from a book two thousand years old. My opinion is that most people remember the days of rampant racism and today most people want to appear like they are politically correct. The problem is now people celebrate acts that are intrinsically disordered. Please do not think I am surprised, abortion is the killing of a completely innocent person and that destructive act is celebrated and funded by most countries of the world. Am I mistaken in using your logic to regard abortion as a good because of the wide acceptance and practice around the world? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with the people who suffer from homosexual attraction. My personal problem is the act of what they do with each other behind closed doors being brought to attention. Suddenly the act of gay sex needs to be celebrated as a unique good. Nothing good can come from the act, NOTHING!
Saying I have flaws in my logic does nothing to prove you or the side you argue for. Biology in the mammalian world dictates that a male and female are necessary to create and raise offspring to replace the dead portions of a given population. Arguing for homosexual âmarriageâ can only use emotion. Where is the logic or reason in a changeable emotion? If proven in other threads then surely you can copy and paste.
I would argue the opposite as far as which political party embraces which option.
First of all, I think itâs erroneous, short-sighted, and outright dismissive of the human condition to reduce us down to one of two choices. Regardless, I think those who view humanity as generally GOOD are the conservatives. Conservatives, or at least what used to pass for one prior to this election cycle, generally believe that if people are left alone and so forth that things generally will be alright. This concept manifests itself most directly in conservativesâ protection of individual rights. The govât doesnât need to enforce all this bullshit through legislation because of the belief that people are âgoodâ enough to not need the govât to tell us how to act.
Itâs liberals who inherently feel that people are generally evil. It explains their stance on things such as the Supreme Court. They are perfectly fine with the oligarchy of 5 determining for the entire country issues such as liberty as so forth because they generally believe that people are too stupid and/or evil to enact through legislation anything that expands the definition of liberty within a state. Instead, they feel that the Court should enforce such morality or whatever because the people themselves are too evil to do so on their own.
Youâre misunderstanding the definition of human nature. If itâs in our nature, technically speaking it must be the case with ALL humans. An analogy I like to use a lot is to compare human nature to the nature of a triangle. The nature of a triangle is simply the totality of all qualities that are found in ALL triangles. Itâs really not a whole lot different than the concept of genus and species. All species within a particular genus share the same traits. All balls have the same basic traits on a genus level, but they may all be different in various ways as well.
The same concept applies to humans. The only things Iâm aware of that hold true for literally ALL humans, aside from some basic physiological requirements, is that all humans have a life, liberty/free will, and the ability to apply reason in order to pursue things that bring them happiness.
We donât all have the same faculties, we donât all have the same ability to apply reason and so forth, but we all have these things to some degree. Not all triangles have the same length to their hypotenuses, some triangles donât even have hypotenuses, they donât all have internal angles divided the same way, and so forth. But they still all have these basic qualities.
I also think the fact that liberals generally feel humanity is evil pond scum is further evidenced by their support of abortion ârights.â After all, if humanity is generally evil and incapable of self-govât, why not thin the herd a little?
Sorry for the delay in replying, the life of another baby take precedence over the internet ; )
Have you talked to a cloned life in the animal world? Nope and all existing theories is a guess at what a cloned human will be like. Cloning and birthing another human is many, many years/decades away. By the way, I have not denied "them the right to life just because [I] think its unnatural," the NATURAL world around you has already done that.