I, as the king of an undisclosed planet, hereby grant wolf1991 the power over all definitions by the power granted in my by the Giant Spaghetti Monster and the state, making him the official master of definitions. He also gets a ride in the interplanetary tea pot, if he wishes.
I, wolf1991, hereby accept all respsonsibilities and charges that come with this office.
But back on topic. I didn't change the definition I just used the one that is applicable. You see since religion is nothing but a load of "Kill the gays" I decided to use something from an unbiased source. I suggest you check the dictionary. Also, can you start providing evidence and taking what people say into account?
But back on topic. I didn't change the definition I just used the one that is applicable. You see since religion is nothing but a load of "Kill the gays" I decided to use something from an unbiased source.
To be fair not all religions or even religious denomination within Christianity take issue with homosexuality or their desire to marry. For instance the Quakers are perfectly fine with it.
A fair number of Methodists seem to be OK with it too. Of course, you'll always get fundamentalists of any major religion that take exception to Homosexuality and feel the need to proclaim that it's sinful'n'squicky.
ptomes- I will not argue for or against a biological source for homosexuality, but I will say if indeed it is biological then natural selection is playing a cruel joke on those folks, don't you think. From a strictly darwinian standpoint, same sex coupling = the end of the species in exactly one generation. In a world governed by the principals of "the fittest survive" how can a solid argument be made for homosexuality being a biological benefit. If anything it seems like a "weeding out" process.
You know that many animal species have well-documented cases of homosexual couples? Also, you forget that no species on this Earth would ever be 100% Homosexual - because it wouldn't last very long. Sexual orientation shouldn't really matter at all. As for benefits, it can help keep population down a bit (meaning less competition for resources) plus the homosexual animals are able to bring up kids if any of the other animals are killed or unable to look after it. Seems quite useful.
so you are agreeing atleast thet it would weed them out of the gene pool quite effectively? again, im not saying they cant love each other, and all that good stuff. just saying, there should be a difference between a heterosexual marriage, and a gay marriage.
I'm just saying that you don't get many Homosexual partnerships that end up with children.
Anyway, why should there be a distinction? For hundreds of years a marriage simply required the groom giving the father of the bride a couple of pigs and a sheep and promising the daughter a good dowry. The modern idea of a wedding and marriage has only been put together within the last few hundred years and slowly at that.
Why distinguish between couple A and couple B just because couple A happens to be 2 dudes or two women?
If you want to throw the Bible into this then I'd like to mention that the Bible considers thousands of things to be sins and yet people still do them - like eating pork.
The thing is - I can call you a bigot, close-minded and a myriad of other insults and the worst you can say about me is I'm open-minded.
Oh - I didn't realize English wasn't your native language. Perhaps I can give you a few lessons as we go along. Anyway, We have established now that it's Christianity in English so you're already improving and I believe the term you're looking for is discrimination, not racism.
you cant be open minded if you say im wrong. thats called a contradictory statement. and you are on one side, not both. therefore, theoretically, you are being a biggot towards me, and others that agree with me.
Not really - you're infringing upon the rights of a group of people that are doing no harm to anyone and I am simply sticking up for them. You are close-minded to the rights of gays. I am well aware of your right to be a bigot.
so you are agreeing atleast thet it would weed them out of the gene pool quite effectively?
No, because there will always be homosexual behaviour, so it weeds nothing out.
you cant be open minded if you say im wrong. thats called a contradictory statement. and you are on one side, not both. therefore, theoretically, you are being a biggot towards me, and others that agree with me.
Eh! Avorne believes people should be open minded so you basicly say he is being close minded about people being close minded?!?
Cut the crap and make a real argument because your clutching at straws there. Its worse than a childs argument because you have sense enough to know the manipulation your using. Dont try that again please.
um, there are two different kinds of sex's here. and wtf. i shouldn't expect to have a meaningful debate with a bunch of 12 year olds who don't even know what real life , or being gay is, beyond what the media and wikipedia tells you.
