Pretty self explanatory, it's the typical case of spare the rod, spoil the child, if you let your child watch Adventure Time or some other fruity show like that instead of letting him/her watch let's say Dragon Ball Z there will be more chances of him/her being gay considering how kids look up to the protag of the series, it's obvious that it's up to the parents if your kid turns into a homo.
So you think it's okay to promote sexual relations with other species (sayan, or whatever it's called in this example)? It makes just as much sense, when you think about it.
Homosexuality injures the fabric of society, especially children.
No, actually, it doesn't. See; I can make baseless claims, too.
A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy.
And a societal rejection of it gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are bad, immoral, and unhealthy.
Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior...
Doesn't the Bible also condemn contraception? Who uses that, anyway? Was it gay people? I can't remember...
... but medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy.
No, actually, they haven't. Baseless claim #2 successfully countered.
A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality.
Hey. I think I found the kernel of truth!
Homosexuality is anti procreation.
No, actually, it isn't. #3.
Logically speaking, if everyoneâs sexuality was expressed heterosexually, then humanity will survive and perpetuate our own kind for generations to come. But simply put, if everyoneâs sexuality was expressed homosexually, we would go extinct. Therefore homosexuality is counter productive to the survival of the human race.
That's a nifty bit of pseudo-reasoning. Let me try:
If everyone's diet was 0% pure sugar, then people would live off of meat and starch and we wouldn't have any obesity. But simply put, If everyone's diet was 100% pure sugar, then everyone would be dying from diabetic ketoacidosis. Therefore, sugar is counter productive to the survival of the human race. Neat!
Homosexuals have a higher incidence of infidelity.
No, actually, they don't. #4, for those of you counting at home.
Defining a Homosexual relationship as loving and monogamous ignores the reality of same sex relationships. Many say that the premise on which we should accept same sex unions is that some of them are âloving, monogamous relationships.â Same sex unions may be loving and monogamous from a worldly viewpoint, but if they had âreal godly loveâ they would not subject each other to unnatural sexual activity that leads each other into sin. When we lead others into sin, we are no longer walking in love.
Sorry, I had to reread this a few times. From the context, I could have sworn this part was about
Heterosexuality.
In regards to homosexual monogamy, homosexuals remain faithful to one partner about 25% of the time. This is a much lower fidelity rate, than their heterosexual counterparts, which is 80%. It is not unusual for homosexuals to have hundreds of sexual partners in a life time.
According to recent reports, 76% of those statistics are entirely fabricated.
Homosexuality does not offer the stability of a traditional family.
No, actually, it does. I don't even need to believe this; it's still an equally sound argument (#5).
Children need the stability of a traditional family. Children need a real male Father and a female Mother for proper and healthy development. Naturally speaking, there is the necessity of each of the male and female contributions to a childâs life.
No, actually, they don't, and there isn't. #6 , #7, and #8.
(It has already been proven that boys without fathers end up in jail and practice destructive behaviors a great deal more than those who have fathers.)
And how many of these fathers were also homosexual? If the father is homosexual
and in jail, do they cancel each other out? Are you suggesting that the link between domestic violence and crime is actually through crime prevention? What are you trying to say here?
The vast majority of the public knows instinctively that it would be better if both parents are present in a childâs life.
No, actually, it doesn't. Hence the progression of this discussion past the very first post. #9.
Once concealed research shows that a child who is brought up in a homosexual home may be more likely to engage in homosexuality.
Researchers only conceal their work when they make grievous error, if even then.
But is it loving to expose children to the predominantly damaging lifestyle of homosexuality?
Is it loving to expose them to the dangers of the outside world, like high-density sidewalk traffic, choking hazards, and errant softballs? That's what I want to know.
If homosexuality can be learned, what does that say about the argument that people are born that way?
It can't, which is why it doesn't say anything.
tl;dr: 2 homosexual parents don't offer the stabilty of a traditional family, homosexuality can stop procreation, homosexual relations are less healthy.
A summary of baselessness, bias, and bald-faced lies. I can see that you're trying to make a reasonable argument, but what you've come up with is only fit for ridicule.
