[quote]orion wrote:
The very fact that there are still homosexuals around proves that their existence is natural and serves a purpose. [/quote]
I’m interested in your take on that. Even with my cynic’s thinking cap, all I could come up with is that they’re a blessing for STDs, make the rest of us feel good about ourselves, and the turn-on that is girl-on-girl action.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
The very fact that there are still homosexuals around proves that their existence is natural and serves a purpose.
I’m interested in your take on that. Even with my cynic’s thinking cap, all I could come up with is that they’re a blessing for STDs, make the rest of us feel good about ourselves, and the turn-on that is girl-on-girl action.[/quote]
The thing is that I do not really have a reason.
If nature makes them in sufficient quantities the obviously serve a purpose.
Just because I can only speculate what it is does not make something occurring in nature unnatural.
The fear of homosexuality might be a genetic adaption to the increased risk of spreading stds.
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
The very fact that there are still homosexuals around proves that their existence is natural and serves a purpose.
I’m interested in your take on that. Even with my cynic’s thinking cap, all I could come up with is that they’re a blessing for STDs, make the rest of us feel good about ourselves, and the turn-on that is girl-on-girl action.
The thing is that I do not really have a reason.
If nature makes them in sufficient quantities the obviously serve a purpose.
Just because I can only speculate what it is does not make something occurring in nature unnatural.
The fear of homosexuality might be a genetic adaption to the increased risk of spreading stds.
[/quote]
Does nature make them or is it a Zionist plot? That would explain lixy’s hatred.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
Bees. All but one female do NOT procreate. Well I guess that just ain´t natural right? But, duh, it is.
I can’t wait to see what he has to say about snails, clams and whiptail lizards.[/quote]
And seahorses!
[quote]orion wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Im curious
yea i bet you are.
are you trying to argue its perfectly normal to be gay? you dont need a PhD in biology to understand that it is living organisms strongest drive to reproduce.
Is this fact, or your opinion?
If it is fact, substantiate it. If it isn’t, stop trying to pass it off as such.
I doubt you will be able to substantiate it, though, because it simply isn’t true. Think this through: altruistic behavior does not (by definition) increase the altruistic individual’s reproductive success, but increases the population’s chances for survival. Therefore, there may be a macro-level evolutionary advantage for a species to have certain members not concerned about their own reproductive success. There’s actually quite a developed literature on this topic. You may want to familiarize yourself with it, instead of taking huge logical leaps and passing them off as fact.
a gay person can not reproduce, not out of incapability, not out of saying, nah i dont want kids, out of being attracted to the same sex. there is clearly something wrong with homosexuals.
Do you mean human homosexuals, or homosexuals of other species as well (since it has been documented in many, many species)? If you mean homosexuals of all species, see above. If you mean humans in particular, why do you care? How does another person’s sexual preference affect you (or society in general)? Are you afraid that if homosexuality is no longer persecuted, that everyone will start having gay sex, and our species will be wiped out? This might come as a surprise to you, but most people don’t need an external motivator to enjoy heterosexual sex.
And you feel that sex with no possibility of reproduction is “wrong”; how about anal sex with a woman? How about oral sex? What about the use of contraceptives? What about “pulling out”, or the rhythm method? All of these are sex with no possibility of procreation. By your argument, anyone that enjoys any of these forms of sex “clearly has something wrong” with them, and should not be allowed to raise children.
sex for pleasure isnt wrong. sex with your gender is wrong. is it wrong for the sake of intentionally not having a child? no. is it wrong for the fact that a man and another man serve no purpose to be fucking each other because man and man are not sexually compatible and men shouldnt be attracted to other men in the first place? yes.
i suppose by your logic its not only okay to have sex with members of the same sex its also alright to have sex with animals…even of the same sex? cause i mean an assholes just an asshole right? doesnt matter if it belongs to a woman, a man, a goat?
there are certain desires and actions which are not condoned. youre isolating the action itself and negating whatever reason it be for the action. is having sex without intent to procreat wrong? yes on a level that im not willing to defend because i practice it and dont see harm enough in it. is it wrong for a man and a man to have sex? yes.
i dont personally care if they do or not but it should be universally understood that it serves no purpose and could never serve a purpose for two members of the same sex to be together. i dont care if other animals do it, other animals are fucked up too. pigs eat their own shit…wow so i guess that means you can do it too!
So by your own reasoning, in an already overpopulated world homosexuality is good?
What if homosexuality was natures way of population control?
Would it then serve a purpose?
Plus, when it comes to possible genetic reasons you are so horribly uninformed, it is not even funny.
Just for fun:
Bees. All but one female do NOT procreate. Well I guess that just ain´t natural right? But, duh, it is.
The same is true for a myriad of other species that procreate in ways that you do not approve of.
The very fact that there are still homosexuals around proves that their existence is natural and serves a purpose.
Since nature just is and makes quite a lot of them, the burden of proof for their unnaturalness is on you.
Which won´t stop nature from building even more.
[/quote]
im not here to argue population control. im arguing gays shouldnt raise kids, stay on focus. bees…bees,wtf? thats not even a mammal man. they lay a shitload of eggs at a time.
theres plently of serial killers around, theres plent of mentally and physically handicapped people around would you say that is normal too?
in the case of homosexuals i think its divided that theres homosexuals who are truly gay and have some sort of chemical imbalance or disorder and then theres the one who seem to be doing it as a form of finding identity, a social network, and attention. my reason for this is that if you were a man who was truly attracted to other men why would that stop you from behaving as a “man” would? i think becoming interested in decorating, talking with a lisp, and trying to personify the stereotypical women are “forced” traits. its like when wiggers say “its just who i am” no, its not, you look like a doofus, no one believes you, stop it.
are you here to play around with semantics or do you actually have an opinion as to whether or not gays should raise children because right now it seems you just want to argue bullshit or else youd be somewhat releveant. im sure youll answer this with yet another bullshit semantic
[quote]orion wrote:
If nature makes them in sufficient quantities the obviously serve a purpose. [/quote]
Where’s free will in all of this?
I think it could work, if the gays were good parents. It would be better then being in foster care. However if there were a choice between gay parents and non gay parents, then non gay would be a better situation.
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
The very fact that there are still homosexuals around proves that their existence is natural and serves a purpose.
I’m interested in your take on that. Even with my cynic’s thinking cap, all I could come up with is that they’re a blessing for STDs, make the rest of us feel good about ourselves, and the turn-on that is girl-on-girl action.
The thing is that I do not really have a reason.
If nature makes them in sufficient quantities the obviously serve a purpose.
Just because I can only speculate what it is does not make something occurring in nature unnatural.
The fear of homosexuality might be a genetic adaption to the increased risk of spreading stds.
[/quote]
The modern STD’s weren’t a huge issue before we had large populations engaged in substantial intercomunication/course.
If there were any further basis for it, I would expect that the fear would be greater in smaller, poorer and generally more marginal social/kin groups which faced extinction if any survivors of childhood failed to breed.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
When was the last time you were around kids? They are experts at finding the slightest deviation from the norm, and making fun of it.
Just like…being fat.
[/quote]
Sorry. That one no longer falls in the “get the shit kicked out of you for it” category. Most of them are too fat and exhausted to make fun of anyone about it now.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
So the reason homosexuals shouldn’t raise children…
is because the children of homophobes are going to cause adjustment problems for the kids…
but you think the answer is barring homosexuals from raising children, and NOT dealing with the homophobes and their kids?
Also, have you considered that not every neighbourhood is ass-backwards? In some places, people actually don’t hate gays (it’s true!)
I don’t think being the child of a homophobe has anything to do with it.
When was the last time you were around kids? They are experts at finding the slightest deviation from the norm, and making fun of it.
Having two moms, or two dads is fodder. Just like having a funny last name, being fat, stuttering, or any plethora of things will cause kids to tease relentlessly.
[/quote]
This is true. Kids are just plain, fucking mean. But I tend to believe if homosexuality wasn’t such an issue, which in turn would mean it wasn’t an issue for gays to raise kids, then it wouldn’t be such a tease-able item for other kids.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
If nature makes them in sufficient quantities the obviously serve a purpose.
Where’s free will in all of this?[/quote]
You can act it out or don´t- As far as your desires are concerned there is none.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
orion wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Im curious
yea i bet you are.
are you trying to argue its perfectly normal to be gay? you dont need a PhD in biology to understand that it is living organisms strongest drive to reproduce.
Is this fact, or your opinion?
If it is fact, substantiate it. If it isn’t, stop trying to pass it off as such.
I doubt you will be able to substantiate it, though, because it simply isn’t true. Think this through: altruistic behavior does not (by definition) increase the altruistic individual’s reproductive success, but increases the population’s chances for survival. Therefore, there may be a macro-level evolutionary advantage for a species to have certain members not concerned about their own reproductive success. There’s actually quite a developed literature on this topic. You may want to familiarize yourself with it, instead of taking huge logical leaps and passing them off as fact.
a gay person can not reproduce, not out of incapability, not out of saying, nah i dont want kids, out of being attracted to the same sex. there is clearly something wrong with homosexuals.
Do you mean human homosexuals, or homosexuals of other species as well (since it has been documented in many, many species)? If you mean homosexuals of all species, see above. If you mean humans in particular, why do you care? How does another person’s sexual preference affect you (or society in general)? Are you afraid that if homosexuality is no longer persecuted, that everyone will start having gay sex, and our species will be wiped out? This might come as a surprise to you, but most people don’t need an external motivator to enjoy heterosexual sex.
And you feel that sex with no possibility of reproduction is “wrong”; how about anal sex with a woman? How about oral sex? What about the use of contraceptives? What about “pulling out”, or the rhythm method? All of these are sex with no possibility of procreation. By your argument, anyone that enjoys any of these forms of sex “clearly has something wrong” with them, and should not be allowed to raise children.
sex for pleasure isnt wrong. sex with your gender is wrong. is it wrong for the sake of intentionally not having a child? no. is it wrong for the fact that a man and another man serve no purpose to be fucking each other because man and man are not sexually compatible and men shouldnt be attracted to other men in the first place? yes.
i suppose by your logic its not only okay to have sex with members of the same sex its also alright to have sex with animals…even of the same sex? cause i mean an assholes just an asshole right? doesnt matter if it belongs to a woman, a man, a goat?
there are certain desires and actions which are not condoned. youre isolating the action itself and negating whatever reason it be for the action. is having sex without intent to procreat wrong? yes on a level that im not willing to defend because i practice it and dont see harm enough in it. is it wrong for a man and a man to have sex? yes.
i dont personally care if they do or not but it should be universally understood that it serves no purpose and could never serve a purpose for two members of the same sex to be together. i dont care if other animals do it, other animals are fucked up too. pigs eat their own shit…wow so i guess that means you can do it too!
So by your own reasoning, in an already overpopulated world homosexuality is good?
What if homosexuality was natures way of population control?
Would it then serve a purpose?
Plus, when it comes to possible genetic reasons you are so horribly uninformed, it is not even funny.
Just for fun:
Bees. All but one female do NOT procreate. Well I guess that just ain´t natural right? But, duh, it is.
The same is true for a myriad of other species that procreate in ways that you do not approve of.
The very fact that there are still homosexuals around proves that their existence is natural and serves a purpose.
Since nature just is and makes quite a lot of them, the burden of proof for their unnaturalness is on you.
Which won´t stop nature from building even more.
im not here to argue population control. im arguing gays shouldnt raise kids, stay on focus. bees…bees,wtf? thats not even a mammal man. they lay a shitload of eggs at a time.
theres plently of serial killers around, theres plent of mentally and physically handicapped people around would you say that is normal too?
in the case of homosexuals i think its divided that theres homosexuals who are truly gay and have some sort of chemical imbalance or disorder and then theres the one who seem to be doing it as a form of finding identity, a social network, and attention. my reason for this is that if you were a man who was truly attracted to other men why would that stop you from behaving as a “man” would? i think becoming interested in decorating, talking with a lisp, and trying to personify the stereotypical women are “forced” traits. its like when wiggers say “its just who i am” no, its not, you look like a doofus, no one believes you, stop it.
are you here to play around with semantics or do you actually have an opinion as to whether or not gays should raise children because right now it seems you just want to argue bullshit or else youd be somewhat releveant. im sure youll answer this with yet another bullshit semantic[/quote]
I am arguing against your premises, that are questionable, and the conclusions you draw from them that would be false even if your premises were true.
Your argument is somewhere along the lines of 2+2=5, therefore I want a pink pony.
I do not really care if you thin gays should raise children or not, but you should at least be able to make a decent argument.
would it be ok for a straight couple where the father allows porn into his house to raises kids?..or if said straight couple leads by example showing that drinking to excess is ok…or if said couple leads by example that racism is ok…or ignoring any moral principle.
Of course not.
Gay couples will raise their children to accept something I too believe is personally irresponsible.
In these examples, the children may or may not come out unscathed or cynical or corrupted. But that’s the rub…it’s a crap shoot unless there is one moral standard that can be followed.
[quote]orion wrote:
Your argument is somewhere along the lines of 2+2=5, therefore I want a pink pony. [/quote]
He must be a physicist.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
So the reason homosexuals shouldn’t raise children…
is because the children of homophobes are going to cause adjustment problems for the kids…
but you think the answer is barring homosexuals from raising children, and NOT dealing with the homophobes and their kids?
Also, have you considered that not every neighbourhood is ass-backwards? In some places, people actually don’t hate gays (it’s true!)
I don’t think being the child of a homophobe has anything to do with it.
When was the last time you were around kids? They are experts at finding the slightest deviation from the norm, and making fun of it.
Having two moms, or two dads is fodder. Just like having a funny last name, being fat, stuttering, or any plethora of things will cause kids to tease relentlessly.
This is true. Kids are just plain, fucking mean. But I tend to believe if homosexuality wasn’t such an issue, which in turn would mean it wasn’t an issue for gays to raise kids, then it wouldn’t be such a tease-able item for other kids.[/quote]
Hell - kids used to make fun of me because my dad was tall. I don’t think the kids are old enough to comprehend the whole gay thing, and they would just make fun of the kid because he has 2 mom’s, or 2 dad’s.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When was the last time you were around kids? They are experts at finding the slightest deviation from the norm, and making fun of it.
Just like…being fat.
Sorry. That one no longer falls in the “get the shit kicked out of you for it” category. Most of them are too fat and exhausted to make fun of anyone about it now.[/quote]
Oh yeah it does. Had an incident this year at our little elementary school of 100 kids where a fat girl left school because of all the teasing she received over her weight.
Granted, the farm and ranch kids are rarely as fat as the city-born latch key kids.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I bet more people than we realize are borderline retarded.
I personally was SHOCKED when I learned that Peter from family Guy was just under the line of retardation…and he got to keep his kids. [/quote]
LOL at the Family Guy thing.
But honestly, who cares about the fucking sexual orientation of a couple. A much bigger problem is when you have kids raising kids (teen pregnancy). I wouldn’t trust a teenager with a goddamn hamster, much less a child.
Ok, but they have to promise not to “rear” them…
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
definately not. should mentally retarded people be allowed to adopt children too?
I bet more people than we realize are borderline retarded.
I personally was SHOCKED when I learned that Peter from family Guy was just under the line of retardation…and he got to keep his kids.
gays raising kids doesnt make sense to me. im all for peoples rights but why compromise the rights of children for the rights of gays…people who CHOOSE not to have children. yes there are plenty of people who are not fit for raising kids, ill totally agree and thats why we have DSS. the difference is that these parents actually created their children. if you make the personal choice to not have children via being with your own sex then why the hell should you be allowed to raise them? [/quote]
Er… so you’re against adoption in general? SO people who marry barren women/men… they can’t raise children either can they.
Though luck for all those guys who had there nads blown off for whatever reason =(
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
Bees. All but one female do NOT procreate. Well I guess that just ain´t natural right? But, duh, it is.
I can’t wait to see what he has to say about snails, clams and whiptail lizards.
And seahorses!
[/quote]
I actually wrote seahorses, but changed it to whiptail lizards because I figured a couple of lesbian female lizards writhing around impregnating each other sounded more salacious than a pregnant male seahorse.