[necro] Is homosexuality right or wrong?

1146	404857

offline

master565

4,104 posts

Nomad

Posted April 1, '12 11:18pm UTC

your opinion. not a fact.

No, it's a fact. Nature isn't a person.

k, but what did that have to do with what i said.

You said that we shouldn't do something because nature did.

and if nature isn't sentient, then it itself isn't doing anything.

He was just saying why your logic is flawed. You can have a correct argument with incorrect facts, but have neither.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted April 1, '12 11:33pm UTC

your opinion. not a fact

Going by the meaning of the word "sentient" and what we broadly term as "nature" it's a fact.

and if nature isn't sentient, then it itself isn't doing anything.

A rock falls and crushes a deer which was walking by underneath it. The rock didn't intend for this to happen. Does this mean we should crush all deer the walk near rocks? No.

Basically that was what you were arguing with that "Nature doesn't show mercy" and so it's "their own fault."

good. why interject??

Because it's an issue and bigoted, homophobic morons impose on the rights of other human beings for simply having different tastes.

offline

xShiftedHD

61 posts

Nomad

Posted April 2, '12 12:18am UTC

See, in my "opinion" on homosexuality, I don't really mind if homosexuality is allowed. Some people say it's bad. Why? Well, maybe they were taught on that homosexuality is bad. Maybe, people have some sort of opinion saying it's gross or it's righteous. Some people say it's bad because of their religion or worship. It's all opinions on what different people say, and what makes this question hard is that the people has many unique opinions and reasons on this.

offline

zakyman

1,627 posts

Peasant

Posted April 2, '12 12:46am UTC

Here's my view on those who are anti-homosexual...

Being against homosexuality because you're a heterosexual is like being against milk because you're lactose intolerant...

offline

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

Nomad

Posted April 2, '12 12:50am UTC

homosexuality, oh thats what you guys are talking about......

offline

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

Nomad

Posted April 2, '12 1:07am UTC

really need to go check previous posts, i wasn't ever against gays. maybe marriage rights, but thats a whole nother story. i was simply pointing out that nature (not rocks mind you, try to keep up) as a whole (Eg. plants, animals, evolution) is not kind to different, unless of course that "mutation" (adaptation, evolution, what have you) is a positive or beneficial change to the species. if indeed homosexuality is a birth defect, and it indeed could be (not all birth defects are hereditary), it is a short coming, not a benefit. if you look in nature (as i do sometimes to get a little refresher of how thin the thread we are hanging by is) you will notice that most species live by a code. the strongest ( mentally, physically, doesn't seem to matter which) survive. if you were compelled to cut your body in half, whether you die or not (you would) it would be a bad thing. if you were born with an insatiable thirst for liquid mercury (room temperature) you and your genes would die (unless you could curb the thirst somehow). so someone who is, for lack of a better word, compelled to mate with the same sex, may not be physically or mentally disabled, but in a grand scheme sort of view, they are at an evolutionary disadvantage. why? not because of their choices, not because of who they are, not because i think so, because they are not the norm and because it doesn't help them survive. no bigotry no racism, no slander. that is all

nevetsthereaper

really need to go check previous posts, i wasn't ever against gays. maybe marriage rights, but thats a whole nother story. i was simply pointing out that nature (not rocks mind you, try to keep up) as a whole (Eg. plants, animals, evolution) is not kind to different, unless of course that "mutation" (adaptation, evolution, what have you) is a positive or beneficial change to the species. if indeed homosexuality is a birth defect, and it indeed could be (not all birth defects are hereditary), it is a short coming, not a benefit. if you look in nature (as i do sometimes to get a little refresher of how thin the thread we are hanging by is) you will notice that most species live by a code. the strongest ( mentally, physically, doesn't seem to matter which) survive.     if you were compelled to cut your body in half, whether you die or not (you would) it would be a bad thing. if you were born with an insatiable thirst for liquid mercury (room temperature) you and your genes would die (unless you could curb the thirst somehow). so someone who is, for lack of a better word, compelled to mate with the same sex, may not be physically or mentally disabled, but in a grand scheme sort of view, they are at an evolutionary disadvantage. why? not because of their choices, not because of who they are, not because i think so, because they are not the norm and because it doesn't help them survive. no bigotry no racism, no slander. that is all\r\n\r\nnevetsthereaper

offline

dair5

3,371 posts

Shepherd

Posted April 2, '12 2:42am UTC

if indeed homosexuality is a birth defect, and it indeed could be (not all birth defects are hereditary), it is a short coming, not a benefit.

What does that have to do with marriage. Not saying whether I agree or disagree with you. I just don't see what that has to do with feeling homosexuals shouldn't marry.

I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If they want to be able to marry someone I don't see why not. Who does it hurt?

because they are not the norm and because it doesn't help them survive.

What does your attraction to a gender have to do with survival? It isn't bad for our society either considering we still have more people than we can handle.

I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If they want to be able to marry someone I don't see why not. Who does it hurt?

offline

master565

4,104 posts

Nomad

Posted April 2, '12 3:42am UTC

i wasn't ever against gays. maybe marriage rights, but thats a whole nother story.

Not really. If gays aren't entitled to the same privileges as everyone else, than you are discriminating against them.

if you look in nature (as i do sometimes to get a little refresher of how thin the thread we are hanging by is) you will notice that most species live by a code. the strongest ( mentally, physically, doesn't seem to matter which) survive

So the mentally challenged human doesn't survive? The weak kids don't survive? The people with diseases that cripple them don't survive?

See, you used the word "most". This doesn't even slightly relate to humans at this point. We don't need every single person of our species to reproduce, and in the current state of the world, it's better they don't.

If we had too many homosexuals, enough that it caused a problem with population, would it be a problem? Yes.

Want to know what else would be a problem? If we had no more food. If the earth was inhabitable. If half the world just disappeared.

None of these situations exist, including the homosexual one. Key word "if". You can imagine any situation and say it would be terrible IF this was the case, but it isn't the case, and it's ridiculous to take precautions of this nature to prevent it. "Gays shouldn't exist because they don't reproduce and therefor are going to screw over the human population, so we shouldn't have gays". There is nothing that tells us that this situation would arise, so why should we prepare for it?

[quote] i wasn't ever against gays. maybe marriage rights, but thats a whole nother story.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot really. If gays aren't entitled to the same privileges as everyone else, than you are discriminating against them. \r\n\r\n[quote] if you look in nature (as i do sometimes to get a little refresher of how thin the thread we are hanging by is) you will notice that most species live by a code. the strongest ( mentally, physically, doesn't seem to matter which) survive[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo the mentally challenged human doesn't survive? The weak kids don't survive? The people with diseases that cripple them don't survive? \r\n\r\nSee, you used the word "most". This doesn't even slightly relate to humans at this point. We don't need every single person of our species to reproduce, and in the current state of the world, it's better they don't. \r\n\r\nIf we had too many homosexuals, enough that it caused a problem with population, would it be a problem? Yes.\r\n\r\nWant to know what else would be a problem? If we had no more food. If the earth was inhabitable. If half the world just disappeared. \r\n\r\nNone of these situations exist, including the homosexual one. Key word "if". You can imagine any situation and say it would be terrible IF this was the case, but it isn't the case, and it's ridiculous to take precautions of this nature to prevent it. "Gays shouldn't exist because they don't reproduce and therefor are going to screw over the human population, so we shouldn't have gays". There is nothing that tells us that this situation would arise, so why should we prepare for it?

offline

jets99

599 posts

Nomad

Posted April 2, '12 3:58am UTC

the sex-obsessed Bonobos easily the easiest example. How can it be unnatural if animals do it?

last time I checked we werent sex-obsessed Bonobos

we are humans

and in the bible it clearly says that homosexuality is wrong

offline

thebluerabbit

5,340 posts

Farmer

Posted April 2, '12 4:16am UTC

[/quote]See, in my "opinion" on homosexuality, I don't really mind if homosexuality is allowed. Some people say it's bad. Why? Well, maybe they were taught on that homosexuality is bad. Maybe, people have some sort of opinion saying it's gross or it's righteous. Some people say it's bad because of their religion or worship. It's all opinions on what different people say, and what makes this question hard is that the people has many unique opinions and reasons on this.

not to be mean but actually there arent many opinions about it. you might think different things but when its the actual opinion there are 3 groups. those who fight for them (whos reason is equality), those who dont care and those who are against them (who are either religious or homophobic. and the religious usually cause the homophobia).

homosexuality, oh thats what you guys are talking about......

lol you clicked the thread without reading its title? XD

really need to go check previous posts, i wasn't ever against gays. maybe marriage rights, but thats a whole nother story. i was simply pointing out that nature (not rocks mind you, try to keep up) as a whole (Eg. plants, animals, evolution) is not kind to different, unless of course that "mutation" (adaptation, evolution, what have you) is a positive or beneficial change to the species. if indeed homosexuality is a birth defect, and it indeed could be (not all birth defects are hereditary), it is a short coming, not a benefit. if you look in nature (as i do sometimes to get a little refresher of how thin the thread we are hanging by is) you will notice that most species live by a code. the strongest ( mentally, physically, doesn't seem to matter which) survive. if you were compelled to cut your body in half, whether you die or not (you would) it would be a bad thing. if you were born with an insatiable thirst for liquid mercury (room temperature) you and your genes would die (unless you could curb the thirst somehow). so someone who is, for lack of a better word, compelled to mate with the same sex, may not be physically or mentally disabled, but in a grand scheme sort of view, they are at an evolutionary disadvantage. why? not because of their choices, not because of who they are, not because i think so, because they are not the norm and because it doesn't help them survive. no bigotry no racism, no slander. that is all

i keep losing your point over and over. if your not against them what are you trying to say?

last time I checked we werent sex-obsessed Bonobos

we are humans

and in the bible it clearly says that homosexuality is wrong[quote]

once again, hostory repeats itself. someone who thinkhe is right because of his book comes once every 10 pages, doesnt read any comments at all and just states "his" opinion with no expllanation

[/quote]See, in my "opinion" on homosexuality, I don't really mind if homosexuality is allowed. Some people say it's bad. Why? Well, maybe they were taught on that homosexuality is bad. Maybe, people have some sort of opinion saying it's gross or it's righteous. Some people say it's bad because of their religion or worship. It's all opinions on what different people say, and what makes this question hard is that the people has many unique opinions and reasons on this.[quote]\r\n\r\nnot to be mean but actually there arent many opinions about it. you might think different things but when its the actual opinion there are 3 groups. those who fight for them (whos reason is equality), those who dont care and those who are against them (who are either religious or homophobic. and the religious usually cause the homophobia).\r\n\r\n[/quote]homosexuality, oh thats what you guys are talking about......\r\n[quote]\r\n\r\nlol you clicked the thread without reading its title? XD\r\n\r\n[/quote]really need to go check previous posts, i wasn't ever against gays. maybe marriage rights, but thats a whole nother story. i was simply pointing out that nature (not rocks mind you, try to keep up) as a whole (Eg. plants, animals, evolution) is not kind to different, unless of course that "mutation" (adaptation, evolution, what have you) is a positive or beneficial change to the species. if indeed homosexuality is a birth defect, and it indeed could be (not all birth defects are hereditary), it is a short coming, not a benefit. if you look in nature (as i do sometimes to get a little refresher of how thin the thread we are hanging by is) you will notice that most species live by a code. the strongest ( mentally, physically, doesn't seem to matter which) survive.     if you were compelled to cut your body in half, whether you die or not (you would) it would be a bad thing. if you were born with an insatiable thirst for liquid mercury (room temperature) you and your genes would die (unless you could curb the thirst somehow). so someone who is, for lack of a better word, compelled to mate with the same sex, may not be physically or mentally disabled, but in a grand scheme sort of view, they are at an evolutionary disadvantage. why? not because of their choices, not because of who they are, not because i think so, because they are not the norm and because it doesn't help them survive. no bigotry no racism, no slander. that is all[quote]\r\n\r\ni keep losing your point over and over. if your not against them what are you trying to say?\r\n\r\n[/quote]last time I checked we werent sex-obsessed Bonobos\r\n\r\nwe are humans\r\n\r\nand in the bible it clearly says that homosexuality is wrong[quote]\r\n\r\nonce again, hostory repeats itself. someone who thinkhe is right because of his book comes once every 10 pages, doesnt read any comments at all and just states "his" opinion with no expllanation

offline

master565

4,104 posts

Nomad

Posted April 2, '12 4:18am UTC

last time I checked we werent sex-obsessed Bonobos

Good thing you didn't read his argument, because then your counter argument would have made sense.

and in the bible it clearly says that homosexuality is wrong

Who cares?

offline

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

Nomad

Posted April 2, '12 4:47am UTC

Not really. If gays aren't entitled to the same privileges as everyone else, than you are discriminating against them.

no, it is a different story, and no im not discriminating against them, im saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, not to say that they couldn't get legally bonded to each other, but it cant be marriage. they can just have something else. thats like trying to say that girls can have babies, so i get to have babies. we are different, gay couple's are different from not gay couples, so how could they do the same thing?

So the mentally challenged human doesn't survive? The weak kids don't survive? The people with diseases that cripple them don't survive?

exactly, except for the kids, which the strong parents protect until they can do so themselves. taking care of every hurt or disabled person is a serious issue and it needs to be stopped.

See, you used the word "most". This doesn't even slightly relate to humans at this point. We don't need every single person of our species to reproduce, and in the current state of the world, it's better they don't.

agreed, however, are you so short sighted that you don't think this planet is heading for a major catastrophe? are you willing to roll the dice? if nuclear war happened tomorrow, would we be in a ****storm of trouble? and who would be there to take care of the weak then? like i was trying to say, with the thin thread comment, it would not take much to put us right back in a dog eat dog world. this whole empathy thing has weakened everyone.

I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If they want to be able to marry someone I don't see why not. Who does it hurt?

wrong forum, i think there is one of those, though it may have [necro]'d

None of these situations exist

one hundred years ago, over population wasn't a huge issue. no one prepared, no one (with exception to china) did anything about it, and here we are, paying for it. where will we be in another 100 years? you are thinking about your tomorrow friend, im thinking about my children's tomorrow.

not to be mean but actually there arent many opinions about it. you might think different things but when its the actual opinion there are 3 groups. those who fight for them (whos reason is equality), those who dont care and those who are against them (who are either religious or homophobic. and the religious usually cause the homophobia).

i think your generalizing a bit too much there. there are many people that think its trendy to be pro gay, and many who are against it for no reason at all except some guy said so. you dont have to be bigoted or religious to disagree with someone else's views mate.

lol you clicked the thread without reading its title? XD

sorry, forgot to put /sarcasm

Good thing you didn't read his argument, because then your counter argument would have made sense.

actually, you already sort of agreed with jets99 when you said,

This doesn't even slightly relate to humans at this point.

Who cares?

christians???

[quote]Not really. If gays aren't entitled to the same privileges as everyone else, than you are discriminating against them.[/quote]\r\n\r\nno, it is a different story, and no im not discriminating against them, im saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, not to say that they couldn't get legally bonded to each other, but it cant be marriage. they can just have something else. thats like trying to say that girls can have babies, so i get to have babies. we are different, gay couple's are different from not gay couples, so how could they do the same thing?\r\n\r\n[quote]So the mentally challenged human doesn't survive? The weak kids don't survive? The people with diseases that cripple them don't survive?[/quote]\r\n\r\nexactly, except for the kids, which the strong parents protect until they can do so themselves. taking care of every hurt or disabled person is a serious issue and it needs to be stopped.\r\n\r\n[quote]See, you used the word "most". This doesn't even slightly relate to humans at this point. We don't need every single person of our species to reproduce, and in the current state of the world, it's better they don't.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nagreed, however, are you so short sighted that you don't think this planet is heading for a major catastrophe? are you willing to roll the dice? if nuclear war happened tomorrow, would we be in a ****storm of trouble? and who would be there to take care of the weak then? like i was trying to say, with the thin thread comment, it would not take much to put us right back in a dog eat dog world. this whole empathy thing has weakened everyone. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If they want to be able to marry someone I don't see why not. Who does it hurt?\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nwrong forum, i think there is one of those, though it may have [necro]'d\r\n\r\n[quote]None of these situations exist[/quote]\r\n\r\none hundred years ago, over population wasn't a huge issue. no one prepared, no one (with exception to china) did anything about it, and here we are, paying for it. where will we be in another 100 years? you are thinking about your tomorrow friend, im thinking about my children's tomorrow.\r\n\r\n[quote]not to be mean but actually there arent many opinions about it. you might think different things but when its the actual opinion there are 3 groups. those who fight for them (whos reason is equality), those who dont care and those who are against them (who are either religious or homophobic. and the religious usually cause the homophobia).[/quote]\r\n\r\ni think your generalizing a bit too much there. there are many people that think its trendy to be pro gay, and many who are against it for no reason at all except some guy said so. you dont have to be bigoted or religious to disagree with someone else's views mate.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]lol you clicked the thread without reading its title? XD\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nsorry, forgot to put /sarcasm\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Good thing you didn't read his argument, because then your counter argument would have made sense.[/quote]\r\n\r\nactually, you already sort of agreed with jets99 when you said,\r\n\r\n[quote] This doesn't even slightly relate to humans at this point. [/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]Who cares?[/quote]\r\n\r\nchristians???

offline

dair5

3,371 posts

Shepherd

Posted April 2, '12 4:59am UTC

agreed, however, are you so short sighted that you don't think this planet is heading for a major catastrophe? are you willing to roll the dice? if nuclear war happened tomorrow, would we be in a ****storm of trouble? and who would be there to take care of the weak then? like i was trying to say, with the thin thread comment, it would not take much to put us right back in a dog eat dog world. this whole empathy thing has weakened everyone.

(If we had empathy there would be no worry for a nuclear war.) And what are you trying to say with "who will take care of the weak?" I'm fairly sure a homosexual can take care of a weak person just as well as a heterosexual.

christians???

And? Since when should christians decide what is wrong for everyone else?

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted April 2, '12 5:32am UTC

im saying that marriage is between a man and a woman,

I'm getting pretty tired of this trite argument. What constitutes a marriage has changed definitions in the past and will continue to evolve. The church does not get to have authority over how this is defined.
Getting into the argument on the marriage being a religious institution, this is only something hijacked and formalized by religion, Marriage took place without religion before and in today's society where religion and the state has to but out of each others business, so long as legal privileges are granted as a result of marriage religion doesn't get to lay sole claim.

not to say that they couldn't get legally bonded to each other, but it cant be marriage. they can just have something else. thats like trying to say that girls can have babies, so i get to have babies. we are different, gay couple's are different from not gay couples, so how could they do the same thing?

If it's preforms all the functions of a marriage, then it's a marriage. This requirement of being able to have kids is non existent bull. There are plenty of heterosexual couples completely unable to have children as well and I do mean 0% chance of it happening through them copulating. These couple as with gay couple could and should have poisons of artificial insemination or adaption, if so desired.

exactly, except for the kids, which the strong parents protect until they can do so themselves. taking care of every hurt or disabled person is a serious issue and it needs to be stopped.

Being homosexual is not at all comparable. It doesn't impair your physical or mental capabilities in the least. Homosexual couples are just as capable of raising a healthy normal child as anyone else.

agreed, however, are you so short sighted that you don't think this planet is heading for a major catastrophe? are you willing to roll the dice? if nuclear war happened tomorrow, would we be in a ****storm of trouble? and who would be there to take care of the weak then? like i was trying to say, with the thin thread comment, it would not take much to put us right back in a dog eat dog world. this whole empathy thing has weakened everyone.

Really wouldn't matter worth a ****. Being homosexual doesn't make one weak. Also we have observed that in nature social animals with a percentage that do display homosexuality, that in turn has been of a benefit to that species, as it can help provide surrogate parents in the event of a hard birth just to name one example of how it can help.

you dont have to be bigoted or religious to disagree with someone else's views mate.

I fail to see how one could be against equality and not be bigoted.

[quote]im saying that marriage is between a man and a woman,[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm getting pretty tired of this trite argument. What constitutes a marriage has changed definitions in the past and will continue to evolve. The church does not get to have authority over how this is defined. \r\nGetting into the argument on the marriage being a religious institution, this is only something hijacked and formalized by religion, Marriage took place without religion before and in today's society where religion and the state has to but out of each others business, so long as legal privileges are granted as a result of marriage religion doesn't get to lay sole claim.\r\n\r\n[quote]not to say that they couldn't get legally bonded to each other, but it cant be marriage. they can just have something else. thats like trying to say that girls can have babies, so i get to have babies. we are different, gay couple's are different from not gay couples, so how could they do the same thing?[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf it's preforms all the functions of a marriage, then it's a marriage. This requirement of being able to have kids is non existent bull. There are plenty of heterosexual couples completely unable to have children as well and I do mean 0% chance of it happening through them copulating. These couple as with gay couple could and should have poisons of artificial insemination or adaption, if so desired.\r\n\r\n[quote]exactly, except for the kids, which the strong parents protect until they can do so themselves. taking care of every hurt or disabled person is a serious issue and it needs to be stopped.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBeing homosexual is not at all comparable. It doesn't impair your physical or mental capabilities in the least. Homosexual couples are just as capable of raising a healthy normal child as anyone else.\r\n\r\n[quote]agreed, however, are you so short sighted that you don't think this planet is heading for a major catastrophe? are you willing to roll the dice? if nuclear war happened tomorrow, would we be in a ****storm of trouble? and who would be there to take care of the weak then? like i was trying to say, with the thin thread comment, it would not take much to put us right back in a dog eat dog world. this whole empathy thing has weakened everyone. [/quote]\r\n\r\nReally wouldn't matter worth a ****. Being homosexual doesn't make one weak. Also we have observed that in nature social animals with a percentage that do display homosexuality, that in turn has been of a benefit to that species, as it can help provide surrogate parents in the event of a hard birth just to name one example of how it can help.\r\n\r\n[quote]you dont have to be bigoted or religious to disagree with someone else's views mate.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI fail to see how one could be against equality and not be bigoted.

offline

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

Nomad

Posted April 2, '12 6:08am UTC

I'm fairly sure a homosexual can take care of a weak person just as well as a heterosexual.

wow, missed the mark entirely on that one.

Getting into the argument on the marriage being a religious institution, this is only something hijacked and formalized by religion, Marriage took place without religion before and in today's society where religion and the state has to but out of each others business, so long as legal privileges are granted as a result of marriage religion doesn't get to lay sole claim.

who said anything about religion and marriage? i didnt.

If it's preforms all the functions of a marriage, then it's a marriage. This requirement of being able to have kids is non existent bull. There are plenty of heterosexual couples completely unable to have children as well and I do mean 0% chance of it happening through them copulating. These couple as with gay couple could and should have poisons of artificial insemination or adaption, if so desired.

and again, WHAT? i said nothing about marriage having to do with having kids.

Being homosexual is not at all comparable. It doesn't impair your physical or mental capabilities in the least. Homosexual couples are just as capable of raising a healthy normal child as anyone else.

except for the fact that they can't even have kids without a member of the opposite sex.

Really wouldn't matter worth a ****. Being homosexual doesn't make one weak. Also we have observed that in nature social animals with a percentage that do display homosexuality, that in turn has been of a benefit to that species, as it can help provide surrogate parents in the event of a hard birth just to name one example of how it can help.

yes, if we were all coyotes, i'm sure that would apply, back to humans however. myself and my wife would be sickened if a homosexual was to teach our kids in our stead. and it was because of us that a homosexual was fired from a teaching position at an elementary school here, not for being gay, but for teaching that it is normal. absolutely rediculous.

I fail to see how one could be against equality and not be bigoted.

whos against equality?? there can't be equality if we aren't equal, hince, we all get treated differently.

[quote]I'm fairly sure a homosexual can take care of a weak person just as well as a heterosexual.[/quote]\r\n\r\nwow, missed the mark entirely on that one.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Getting into the argument on the marriage being a religious institution, this is only something hijacked and formalized by religion, Marriage took place without religion before and in today's society where religion and the state has to but out of each others business, so long as legal privileges are granted as a result of marriage religion doesn't get to lay sole claim.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nwho said anything about religion and marriage? i didnt.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]If it's preforms all the functions of a marriage, then it's a marriage. This requirement of being able to have kids is non existent bull. There are plenty of heterosexual couples completely unable to have children as well and I do mean 0% chance of it happening through them copulating. These couple as with gay couple could and should have poisons of artificial insemination or adaption, if so desired.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nand again, WHAT? i said nothing about marriage having to do with having kids.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Being homosexual is not at all comparable. It doesn't impair your physical or mental capabilities in the least. Homosexual couples are just as capable of raising a healthy normal child as anyone else.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nexcept for the fact that they can't even have kids without a member of the opposite sex.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Really wouldn't matter worth a ****. Being homosexual doesn't make one weak. Also we have observed that in nature social animals with a percentage that do display homosexuality, that in turn has been of a benefit to that species, as it can help provide surrogate parents in the event of a hard birth just to name one example of how it can help.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nyes, if we were all coyotes, i'm sure that would apply, back to humans however. myself and my wife would be sickened if a homosexual was to teach our kids in our stead. and it was because of us that a homosexual was fired from a teaching position at an elementary school here, not for being gay, but for teaching that it is normal. absolutely rediculous. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]I fail to see how one could be against equality and not be bigoted.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nwhos against equality?? there can't be equality if we aren't equal, hince, we all get treated differently.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → [necro] Is homosexuality right or wrong?