Satenza

Eyes are the killer.

I don't understand this really, just because a country is better than another doesn't mean it has no faults and that doesn't mean you should allow injustice to occur. I'm sure the founding fathers would agree with me in that to be patriotic to your country you must fight for what your country stands for - freedom, liberty, justice ect. Not sit back with your head in the sand and allow injustice to occur because Americans have it better than anywhere in the world (which is probably not the case either).

America has most of the top colleges in the world.. Their private.

Perhaps because this topic is about homosexuality. mm but your arguments not against homosexuality it's against promiscuity in all people.

But a law against pre-marital sex would prevent promiscuity and lower the STD frequence. It's the same thing i think it's strange that you're singling out homosexuality when heterosexuality creates the exact same problem (or an even worse one).

There's nothing wrong with being born homosexual. It's the sex I'm arguing against. But your arguments still only identify to promiscuous people, homo or hetero because they apply in the same way. Which is why I am saying that you only seem to have reason to object to pre-marital and promiscuous sex. I can't see an argument singling out why 2 consenting gay adults who are married or have a civil union or whatever shouldn't have sex. It just seems like you're saying homosexual sex is inherently bad and then only justifying why some of it is.

I still don't see how these bad things outweigh the good. If those promiscuous homosexuals were not homosexual they'd still be promiscuous and the chances of spreading infection would be the same. I don't know whether you think it inherently leads to bad things - because "homosexual" doesn't entail promiscuity. Or if you are basing why it's bad soley on culture/enviroment and diversity in people which would be present with or without it.

No because you're attributing that only to homosexual people when the amount of people spreading these diseases much more to do with hetereosexual sex and population growth. Sure it's contributed some you cant deny that but to make something immoral because of how some people operate isn't right nor is it fair and again only refers to promiscuous gay people. Because you can argue the exact same again for pre-marital sex. And we can apply your argument for anything really, i mean cars can be immoral because of it. Are more people killed each year because of cars? Yes. Are we therefore right to condem them as immoral since they're existance doesn't give us new life?

If I put it like this then. Would the world be a better place without homosexual sex? I fail to see how it improves anything really. However, I see some problems caused by it. No i don't see how. I think your trouble is again with pre-marital sex, because nothing bad comes from two non-promiscuous gay people having sex. The trouble comes from both hetero and homosexual people being promiscuous. Both can spread disease ect. Promiscious heterosexual sex is probably worse actually because it could lead to the involvement of a third non-consenting party - a child.

It's not really that they encourage others. It's just that if there are millions of homosexuals having sex, chances are almost 100% that some of them are promiscuous. My only reason why married homosexuals shouldn't have sex is that the Bible says that homosexuality (the act) is wrong and a marriage should be between a woman and a man. Yeah, but you're blaming non promiscuous homosexuals for something which they havn't done (be promiscuous). Which is like blaming a married couple (who cant have children) for encouraging promiscious behaviour - it doesn't make sense. So your only justification lies within what the Bible tells you is wrong. Which is okay i mean thats your faith, you always try to think up reasons why you think the Bible says that and i respect that. Just in this case, i don't think there is an answer.

I don't understand. Homosexual A has sex with homosexual B, they stay together for the rest of their life only having sex with each other. How is those two having sex encouraging promiscuous behaviour in others? You're argument are still against only pre-marital sex, i want to hear arguments as to why two 'married' gay people shouldnt have sex. Not some statement like "The more homosexuals that have sex, the more promiscuous homosexuals" which is firstly grouping all homosexuals as promiscuous (slightly insulting) because two non-promiscuous gay people having sex doesn't encourage others to be promiscuous (probably the opposite if you have faith in marriage). So your first premise really doesn't make sense to me.

To me promiscuity is everything but marital-sex. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are guilty of it, I don't deny that. I suppose it's perfectly possible for two homosexuals to enjoy a life together without spreading diseases or anything. However, by saying it's okay and normal, you will be encouraging more homosexuals to act out their homosexuality. This will lead to more diseases among humans. It's the same with promiscuous heterosexuals, you shouldn't encourage that either. If God (the Bible) says it's immoral I'll accept that and therefore say it's immoral. But as I believe it's immoral for a reason, I try to think of reasons why God doesn't want homosexuals to act out their homosexuality. If it would only spread among homosexual, it would still be terrible since homosexuals were diseased. Or is not a bad thing just because it only spreads among homosexuals? And you seem to be ignoring bisexuals. If there are bisexuals, they could possibly have sexual relationships with both men and women, resulting in spreading disease among all humans. So, it seems like your argument works only against promiscuous homosexuals. Now I do respect you for attempting to find out the reasons as to why homosexuality is bad, but you only identify it to the reasons why pre-marital sex is bad. Which brings about the question as to why you have a problem with homosexuality when you may as well just group it all together with pre-marital sex. The only difference being that gay people cant get married in all countrys (yet). I don't know, but if the only reason you can think of to class gay as immoral is through promiscity then the only reason why you think of it as immoral is down to semantics and what you perceive marriage is defined as.

mm psychedelic

Catch The Wind - Donovan

What would the human race be like if marriage had never been invented? It would be different to you or me. But thinking about it, you or me in a different word would think these different practices to be normal. The point I was making was not whether it's a correct concept; it was that it's just a concept whose normailty is solely dependant on the fact it's familiar and not alien. If homosexual unions were accepted and thier normal occurance recognised throughout the ages, no one would be debating an issue such as the acceptability of homosexual unions. If i rememeber correctly it has been practised throughout the ages. In places like China i think it was even more respected. In places like Greece it was common occurance, pedestary and all that. I think it was mainly the interferance of the church which then stopped most of these practises in one way or another.

Wow, thanks for clearing that one up.

Wikipedia it, not all homosexuals are born that way, a lot of them develop through upbringing and psychological experiences. But there are theories that some people are simply born that way as well. Note environmental/cultural as a combining factor. Still doesn't make it a choice however does it. Things affecting you subconciously cant be down to your own fault. So I fail to see why if it's not genetic or partically it makes any difference. And Korskin, i don't see how heterosexual sex is inherentley good. Look at all the bad in the world - 800 million people go hungry each day, 6 million children die a year through malnutrition before they are 4. Surley the suffering of these children outweighs the risk of contracting sexual diseases. Infact i'd go as far to say that homosexual sex is better in as much as it affects only the parties involved, whereas heterosexual sex affects a possible third party. Speaking only in terms of possible suffering that is.

Pop, lock and drop it... oh wait, thats a dance move.

Whatever it is, it's an unconcious choice or you're born with it.

in the rules

Living in Liverpool brings the house price down a little :P Just joking.

I agree, he wasnt likable he was annoying and he was a good character and a change from the regular protaganists.

Have fun, experience 'things' then switch back because i love being male to much.

I don't think there is any argument that justifies any prejudice or discrimination against it which can't be shown to be wrong.

How nice.