Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Nightsword]

 

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

A man don't actually make the off spring they just add one of the important ingredients to it. But still you can have sperm donors can't you?

 

 

 

Our point on Earth is to reproduce. Two guys can't reproduce. It is a choice to be homo.

So the same applies to women then?

 

 

 

Are you dumb or just arrogant? It takes ONE man and ONE woman to make offspring. not TWO men or TWO women.

 

 

 

Do you get it now?

 

 

 

And sperm donors? I think thats about as dumb as you can get also, since it ISNT your genetic kid.(atleast to one of the couple)

[Yourinator]

Our point on Earth is to reproduce. Two guys can't reproduce. It is a choice to be homo.

So the same applies to women then?

 

Yes. I oppose women getting married too. Although I don't hate les girls. It is different then being homo. Les girls don't act any different. They don't act like guys. Homos act like girls and are gross. Male to male is gross. Female to female is not.

[Zierro]

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

 

 

Animals have gay sex too just for pleasure. Are they doing something wrong too?

 

 

 

The thought of homosexuality turns me off... completely, but I still don't see how it harms you when other people do it.

[Nightsword]

 

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

 

 

You do realize that 2 men having intercourse can cause internal problems(health) and have no outcome of it besides pleasure. So I fail to see how being gay is genetic, yet the whole principal behind a man and woman is to create offspring.

 

 

 

Maybe being homosexual is gods way of darwins theory working? You know since 2 men or 2 woman cant produce off-spring, their genetics arent re curculated back into the population.

 

 

 

P.S I have no hate towards homosexuals at all, my dad decided he was homosexual when I was in 7th grade and has been with the same man since. I visit him reguarly and have a good relationship. Do I think he was born gay? nope. Do I think he should be allowed to marry? Nope.

 

I know plenty of homosexual men and none of them proclaim to have chosen to be gay. It just happens. Whether it is triggered later in life, or it happens at birth, it is not a choice. I have never known a gay person to EVER say it was just an offhand choice. Why would anyone want to choose to be something that ignorant societies shun and limit rights to?

 

 

 

I never said it was a choice. I just said it isnt genetic. You say being homosexual isnt a choice, but what exactly is homosexuality? Its being ATTRACTED to the other sex, thats it. I would rather live a life by myself, then have sexual relations with the same sex even if i was attracted to them. I guess other people dissagree.

[Nightsword]

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

 

 

Animals have gay sex too just for pleasure. Are they doing something wrong too?

 

 

 

The thought of homosexuality turns me off... completely, but I still don't see how it harms you when other people do it.

 

 

 

WOW thank you. I just pointed out my dad is homosexual and me and him still have a great relationship. I just dont think something people do for PLEASURE(as you so kindly pointed it out and worded it like i was trying to)

 

 

 

Being homo is basically for PLEASURE, since thats all it really means. If thats what people want to do thats fine with me, you shouldnt get the benefits heterosexual couples get, though.

[Quoi_Tu]

I never said it was a choice. I just said it isnt genetic. You say being homosexual isnt a choice, but what exactly is homosexuality? Its being ATTRACTED to the other sex, thats it. I would rather live a life by myself, then have sexual relations with the same sex even if i was attracted to them. I guess other people dissagree.

 

 

 

If it's not a choice and it's not natural (genetic), what is it? Your point of view is wrong in the bolded sentence. If you were homosexual, then you would feel the same feelings you have now (I'm assuming heterosexual) except they would be towards the same gender. Either that or you don't want to ever have sexual relations as a heterosexual either.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Being homo is basically for PLEASURE, since thats all it really means. If thats what people want to do thats fine with me, you shouldnt get the benefits heterosexual couples get, though.

 

 

 

I could see where you were going if we lived in a completely utilitarian world with no emotion, but the fact is homosexual couples love each other in the same way heterosexual couples do. Homosexual couples have more than sexual relationships, the same as heterosexuals.

[Nightsword]

I never said it was a choice. I just said it isnt genetic. You say being homosexual isnt a choice, but what exactly is homosexuality? Its being ATTRACTED to the other sex, thats it. I would rather live a life by myself, then have sexual relations with the same sex even if i was attracted to them. I guess other people dissagree.

 

 

 

If it's not a choice and it's not natural (genetic), what is it? Your point of view is wrong in the bolded sentence. If you were homosexual, then you would feel the same feelings you have now (I'm assuming heterosexual) except they would be towards the same gender. Either that or you don't want to ever have sexual relations as a heterosexual either.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Being homo is basically for PLEASURE, since thats all it really means. If thats what people want to do thats fine with me, you shouldnt get the benefits heterosexual couples get, though.

 

 

 

I could see where you were going if we lived in a completely utilitarian world with no emotion, but the fact is homosexual couples love each other in the same way heterosexual couples do. Homosexual couples have more than sexual relationships, the same as heterosexuals.

 

 

 

Im guessing its something that happens in a persons life, or slowly over time inner feelings change.

 

 

 

No, that isnt what homosexuality is. I can have a relationship with a man as close or better then one I have with my wife and not have any kind of sexual feeling for him. Being homo is being attracted to the same sex, period. Love is love is love is love. You can have love without being attracted to someone. The only thing that makes someone homosexual is being attracted to the same sex. Anyway you look at it, thats what it boils down to.

[Howlin0001]

 

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

A man don't actually make the off spring they just add one of the important ingredients to it. But still you can have sperm donors can't you?

 

 

 

Our point on Earth is to reproduce. Two guys can't reproduce. It is a choice to be homo.

So the same applies to women then?

 

 

 

Are you dumb or just arrogant? It takes ONE man and ONE woman to make offspring. not TWO men or TWO women.

 

 

 

Do you get it now?

 

I never said I didn't. I was asking because Yourinator ONLY SAID that for men and nothing about women. I was just asking to see if yourinator was one of those anti gay people but not anti lesbo.

 

(OH and YES I do know the facts of life thanks).

 

 

 

 

 

And sperm donors? I think thats about as dumb as you can get also, since it ISNT your genetic kid.(atleast to one of the couple)

 

 

 

You asked for one way and I gave it didn't I? Only AFTER I answered your question you put in clauses.The next time can you please say it all in the same question(including what you would and wouldn't like in the answer so I'll do my best to take that into consideration) not adding extra clauses after a person answers your question.

 

 

 

I take it your against adopting children and a person who has a child from a previous relationship trying to get another partner?

 

 

 

It takes ONE man and ONE woman to make offspring

 

Well not really. I heard a while ago that scientists can make a woman pregnant w/o a any help from a man. But all the children would be female(that's still reproduction isn't it?). (Sorry I can't find any place where I can show you this as in hard evidence but I'll try.)

[Nightsword]

 

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

A man don't actually make the off spring they just add one of the important ingredients to it. But still you can have sperm donors can't you?

 

 

 

Our point on Earth is to reproduce. Two guys can't reproduce. It is a choice to be homo.

So the same applies to women then?

 

 

 

Are you dumb or just arrogant? It takes ONE man and ONE woman to make offspring. not TWO men or TWO women.

 

 

 

Do you get it now?

 

I never said I didn't. I was asking because Yourinator ONLY SAID that for men and nothing about women. I was just asking to see if yourinator was one of those anti gay people but not anti lesbo.

 

(OH and YES I do know the facts of life thanks).

 

 

 

 

 

And sperm donors? I think thats about as dumb as you can get also, since it ISNT your genetic kid.(atleast to one of the couple)

 

 

 

You asked for one way and I gave it didn't I? Only AFTER I answered your question you put in clauses.The next time can you please say it all in the same question(including what you would and wouldn't like in the answer so I'll do my best to take that into consideration) not adding extra clauses after a person answers your question.

 

 

 

I take it your against adopting children and a person who has a child from a previous relationship trying to get another partner?

 

 

 

It takes ONE man and ONE woman to make offspring

 

Well not really. I heard a while ago that scientists can make a woman pregnant w/o a any help from a man. But all the children would be female(that's still reproduction isn't it?). (Sorry I can't find any place where I can show you this as in hard evidence but I'll try.)

 

 

 

Ok I guess you need everyting spoon fed to you. Am I against a couple(man and woman) adopting a child because they cant produce their own off-spring naturally? Nope. and somone with a child trying to find another partner....did you pull this one out of left field? Lets stay on topic please.

 

 

 

^^ I guess you missed Ive been talking about how to naturally produce off-spring.

 

 

 

edit: Im not even against 2 gay people adopting a child. Im just proving a point that homosexuality isnt natural and I dont think they should get to marry either. THATS IT.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

Im guessing its something that happens in a persons life, or slowly over time inner feelings change.

 

 

 

No, that isnt what homosexuality is. I can have a relationship with a man as close or better then one I have with my wife and not have any kind of sexual feeling for him. Being homo is being attracted to the same sex, period. Love is love is love is love. You can have love without being attracted to someone. The only thing that makes someone homosexual is being attracted to the same sex. Anyway you look at it, thats what it boils down to.

 

 

 

Then what of homosexuals who are really young? You might say it is just a "phase" or they want attention, but when that individual continues to be homosexual for the rest of their life, then thats not a slow change. This would suggest they were either born that way or they chose to be that way. For individuals who become homosexual later on in life, one would think that they had been supressing those feelings or they all of sudden realized they had an attraction to the same gender. Again, genetic or choice.

 

 

 

You kind of proved the first part of my point. You're looking at a couple and judging them based solely on their ability to reproduce. If they can't reproduce, then they are not a couple. So then, one should naturally think that marriage is in place inorder for us to reproduce. Forget emotion, that is irrelevant at this point, and marriage becomes defined as a couple's ability to create offspring. There are people who get married and never have children. And besides the tax advantages of such a marriage, those couples get married because they love each other. Homosexual couples feel the same way and it seems wrong to not recognize them as couples or, on a seperate issue, to allow them to get married.

[Nightsword]

 

Im guessing its something that happens in a persons life, or slowly over time inner feelings change.

 

 

 

No, that isnt what homosexuality is. I can have a relationship with a man as close or better then one I have with my wife and not have any kind of sexual feeling for him. Being homo is being attracted to the same sex, period. Love is love is love is love. You can have love without being attracted to someone. The only thing that makes someone homosexual is being attracted to the same sex. Anyway you look at it, thats what it boils down to.

 

 

 

Then what of homosexuals who are really young? You might say it is just a "phase" or they want attention, but when that individual continues to be homosexual for the rest of their life, then thats not a slow change. This would suggest they were either born that way or they chose to be that way. For individuals who become homosexual later on in life, one would think that they had been supressing those feelings or they all of sudden realized they had an attraction to the same gender. Again, genetic or choice.

 

 

 

You kind of proved the first part of my point. You're looking at a couple and judging them based solely on their ability to reproduce. If they can't reproduce, then they are not a couple. So then, one should naturally think that marriage is in place inorder for us to reproduce. Forget emotion, that is irrelevant at this point, and marriage becomes defined as a couple's ability to create offspring. There are people who get married and never have children. And besides the tax advantages of such a marriage, those couples get married because they love each other. Homosexual couples feel the same way and it seems wrong to not recognize them as couples or, on a seperate issue, to allow them to get married.

 

 

 

No, you misunderstood me entirely. My point is, lets say im single and have a best guy friend and a best girl friend. and I wanted to date one of them. The determining factor would be who was I attracted to? If i was homo, then I would be attracted to my best guy friend, if not then i would be attracted to my best girl friend. Because I loved them both the same, and had the same kind of relationship with them.

 

 

 

I have a guy friend im closer with and consider my best friend compaired to wife. Does that make me homo cause I love him too? No it doesnt, the only way that would make me homosexual is if i was sexually attracted to him.

[jackattack]

Wow. You want to get rid of the Church because they won't marry gays? I've never even heard a gay person say that.

 

Yes... I mean that's exactly what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

Well that is just completely ridiculous.

 

I was being sarcastic. I'm saying you're putting words into my mouth.

 

 

 

At no point in this thread have I said "OMG, the Church hates gays so Church should be abolished".

 

 

 

Allow to make my position absolutely crystal clear (although it will be no doubt muddied again by people pathetically playing semantics) - if the Church chooses not to accept religious homosexual marriages, then I would support the concept of a secular, state marriage being provided as well as religious marriages as a suitable alternative for gays to achieve equality to their heterosexual counterparts.

 

 

 

It's really not a hard argument to understand.

 

 

 

 

 

Well I think the idea of state marriages at all is not a very good one. You can't really legislate love. The only point to them is to give tax breaks to married couples to make it easier to raise their children and I don't think that two gay men really need that. Gays do have their own church. I don't know if they conduct marriages, but I know they have commitment ceremonies. If they want civil partnerships because all they want is the tax breaks than I say go for it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well I think the idea of state marriages at all is not a very good one. You can't really legislate love. The only point to them is to give tax breaks to married couples to make it easier to raise their children and I don't think that two gay men really need that. Gays do have their own church. I don't know if they conduct marriages, but I know they have commitment ceremonies. If they want civil partnerships because all they want is the tax breaks than I say go for it.

 

I don't know about social security in America but in the UK child benefits are treat as separate to their parental situation and any other benefits being given. The rationale is that the money is being given for the child, not the child's parents to do whatever they like with, but also the child has the same basic needs be they born into aristocracy, or in some run-down suburb of Birmingham (with respect to people from Birmingham :P).

 

 

 

Really, if you're saying only married couples, or those in civil partnerships, should receive benefits from the state, you're going back 50 years into the past. Marriage isn't the only indicator of a strong relationship, and most certainly isn't a measure of a person's ability as a parent.

 

 

 

I have no idea whether married couples receive tax breaks for the sake of being married (I don't think they do since the very nature of being in a secure relationship improves your financial stability in general), but I would say tax breaks are given to married couples, those in civil partnerships and those who have been living together for a certain amount of time (but can't or won't enter an official union) in order to promote the rather vague term of "social cohesion". It's common sense to promote strong relationships, however, that doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage.

 

 

 

Moreover, what about a gay couple who decide to adopt? You surely cannot deny them to adopt on the grounds they're gay, but you're only providing benefits to married couples, and gays cannot be married.

 

 

 

Finally, the first line in that post - are you saying somehow that religion can decide what is and isn't a loving bond, but the state can't? I'd say neither is any more qualified than the other, both from an ideological and legislative point of view.

[Nightsword]

Why was my post ignored? Prove my point/post wrong then ill agree gay couples should be allowed to be married.

[Lateralus]

Why was my post ignored? Prove my point/post wrong then ill agree gay couples should be allowed to be married.

 

 

 

Your post has been addressed several times. You're linking marriage with having kids, which is not a necessary part of it. Why should being attracted to your own sex exclude you from the benefits of marriage? I can see why it might exclude you from a religious ceremony, and I can't understand why any gay person would want to be married by a religion that condemns them; so a secular or state alternative to allow the same benefits seems only fair.

[Quoi_Tu]

Nightsword, basically what I've been arguing is steming from this statement, so I will readdress it before the other argument goes off in some other unintended direction. Although, we can continue on the other arguement, if you so desire.

 

 

 

Being homo is basically for PLEASURE, since thats all it really means. If thats what people want to do thats fine with me, you shouldnt get the benefits heterosexual couples get, though.

 

 

 

So, heterosexual pleasure is acceptable?

[saif]

support homosexuality. If somebody is happy to live with somebody else of the same sex it is fine by me.

[ladycai]

Religiously, I don't accept it, but I find nothing wrong about it..

[Howlin0001]

Religiously, I don't accept it, but I find nothing wrong about it..

 

What do you mean by that?

[jackattack]

Well I think the idea of state marriages at all is not a very good one. You can't really legislate love. The only point to them is to give tax breaks to married couples to make it easier to raise their children and I don't think that two gay men really need that. Gays do have their own church. I don't know if they conduct marriages, but I know they have commitment ceremonies. If they want civil partnerships because all they want is the tax breaks than I say go for it.

 

I don't know about social security in America but in the UK child benefits are treat as separate to their parental situation and any other benefits being given. The rationale is that the money is being given for the child, not the child's parents to do whatever they like with, but also the child has the same basic needs be they born into aristocracy, or in some run-down suburb of Birmingham (with respect to people from Birmingham :P).

 

 

 

Really, if you're saying only married couples, or those in civil partnerships, should receive benefits from the state, you're going back 50 years into the past. Marriage isn't the only indicator of a strong relationship, and most certainly isn't a measure of a person's ability as a parent.

 

 

 

I have no idea whether married couples receive tax breaks for the sake of being married (I don't think they do since the very nature of being in a secure relationship improves your financial stability in general), but I would say tax breaks are given to married couples, those in civil partnerships and those who have been living together for a certain amount of time (but can't or won't enter an official union) in order to promote the rather vague term of "social cohesion". It's common sense to promote strong relationships, however, that doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage.

 

 

 

Moreover, what about a gay couple who decide to adopt? You surely cannot deny them to adopt on the grounds they're gay, but you're only providing benefits to married couples, and gays cannot be married.

 

 

 

Finally, the first line in that post - are you saying somehow that religion can decide what is and isn't a loving bond, but the state can't? I'd say neither is any more qualified than the other, both from an ideological and legislative point of view.

 

 

 

 

 

Well yes. I'd hazard a guess that you aren't religious. And about adoption, I think that when you adopt or take a kid from foster care you get a monthly check to care for the kid. I'm not sure if it is when you adopt a kid, but I'm pretty sure that foster parents get money. If they adopt a kid they should be in a civil partnership or whatever and should get the same benefits married people get.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well yes. I'd hazard a guess that you aren't religious. And about adoption, I think that when you adopt or take a kid from foster care you get a monthly check to care for the kid. I'm not sure if it is when you adopt a kid, but I'm pretty sure that foster parents get money. If they adopt a kid they should be in a civil partnership or whatever and should get the same benefits married people get.

 

Why?

 

 

 

There are already standards in place that have to be checked before someone can adopt. The Length of the parents' relationship is one such standard. If those standards are met, why do they also have to be in a union?

[mmmcannibalism]

Well yes. I'd hazard a guess that you aren't religious. And about adoption, I think that when you adopt or take a kid from foster care you get a monthly check to care for the kid. I'm not sure if it is when you adopt a kid, but I'm pretty sure that foster parents get money. If they adopt a kid they should be in a civil partnership or whatever and should get the same benefits married people get.

 

Why?

 

 

 

There are already standards in place that have to be checked before someone can adopt. The Length of the parents' relationship is one such standard. If those standards are met, why do they also have to be in a union?

 

 

 

Lets be realistic, anyone looking to adopt kids should be in stable union of some kind. If anything just because it ensures both parents will at least have to pay child support if they break up. If the couple was just together and breaks up the kid is left with one parent and not other support

 

 

 

edit--not sure about U.K. law so if that is innaccurate for britain and they go after delinquent parents, but requiring marriage/union of some kind for adoption is needed in the USA

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well yes. I'd hazard a guess that you aren't religious. And about adoption, I think that when you adopt or take a kid from foster care you get a monthly check to care for the kid. I'm not sure if it is when you adopt a kid, but I'm pretty sure that foster parents get money. If they adopt a kid they should be in a civil partnership or whatever and should get the same benefits married people get.

 

Why?

 

 

 

There are already standards in place that have to be checked before someone can adopt. The Length of the parents' relationship is one such standard. If those standards are met, why do they also have to be in a union?

 

 

 

Lets be realistic, anyone looking to adopt kids should be in stable union of some kind. If anything just because it ensures both parents will at least have to pay child support if they break up. If the couple was just together and breaks up the kid is left with one parent and not other support

 

 

 

edit--not sure about U.K. law so if that is innaccurate for britain and they go after delinquent parents, but requiring marriage/union of some kind for adoption is needed in the USA

 

Relationships end. Marriage doesn't change that. Relationships can fall apart at any moment, it doesn't matter how long the relationship has lasted. Not least because one of the parents may die.

 

 

 

Is it really logical to put a married couple who've been together only two years over a homosexual couple who have opted not to enter a union, but have been together for five? I accept that a union is perhaps an indicator of how close two people are, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all and it certainly doesn't mean relationships without a union are in a status of permanent crisis.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

Relationships end. Marriage doesn't change that. Relationships can fall apart at any moment, it doesn't matter how long the relationship has lasted. Not least because one of the parents may die.

 

 

 

Is it really logical to put a married couple who've been together only two years over a homosexual couple who have opted not to enter a union, but have been together for five? I accept that a union is perhaps an indicator of how close two people are, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all and it certainly doesn't mean relationships without a union are in a status of permanent crisis.

 

 

 

It might not be fair, but marriages or unions represent (atleast, they used to) a commitment to stay together. That offers an adoption agency more reassurance that the child will grow up in a stable home. Those who aren't married have nothing to vouch for their commitment to remain together.

[baalboy5]

Who are we to change what someone is? so in a way, it's right because they were borned into it(least I believe), it's only 'wrong' because we don't behave like they do.

 

Did that make sense? :oops: